Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Vail Village Filing 1 Block 5E Lot L Sonnenalp 1990 to 1991 Legal.pdf
MINUTES VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 8, 1991 7:30 P.M. A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, January 8, 1991, at 7:30 P.M. , in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building. MEMBERS PRESENT: Kent Rose, Mayor Tom Steinberg, Mayor Pro-Tem Jim Gibson Mery Lapin Robert LeVine Peggy Osterfoss MEMBERS ABSENT: Lynn Fritzlen TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Ron Phillips, Town Manager Larry Eskwith, Town Attorney Pam Brandmeyer, Town Clerk The first item on the agenda was approval of the minutes of the December 4, 18, and 19, 1990, meetings, with a corrected spelling of Edward Mayne' s name in the December 19, 1990, minutes. Tom Steinberg moved the approval of the three sets of minutes, seconded by Mery Lapin. The motion passed unanimously, 6-0. The second item on the agenda was Citizen Participation, of which there was none. -4 Item No. 3 on the agenda was Ordinance No. 44, Series of 1990, first reading, an ordinance requesting a Special Development District for the Sonnenalp redevelopment, located at 20 Vail Road; a part of Lot L, Block 5-E, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Sonnenalp Properties, Inc. - Johannes Faessler. Mayor Rose read the full title of the ordinance. Johannes Faessler stated that a letter had been written requesting the Town Council table this ordinance indefinitely. Mayor Rose stated the proposal was close to something the Council could approve, but the applicant should be willing to enter into negotiations with the Town to determine just what changes would meet a consensus of the Council . Instead of tabling this ordinance indefinitely, Mery Lapin suggested it be tabled until July 2, 1991, while the present council members are still on the board. Mery Lapin made a motion to table this ordinance until that time, which Tom Steinberg seconded. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 6-0. The fourth item on the agenda was Ordinance No. 36, Series of 1990, second reading, an ordinance repealing and reenacting Section 18.52.160, Parking Exemptions and repealing Section 18.52.180, variances of the Town of Vail Municipal Code and setting forth the details in regard thereto. Mayor Rose read the full title of the ordinance. Kristan Pritz asked to withdraw this ordinance and go back to the task force. There was no discussion by Council . Tom Steinberg made a motion to this effect, including a review on February 12, 1991, which motion was seconded by Rob LeVine. A vote was taken, and the motion passed unanimously, 6-0. The next item to be discussed was Ordinance No. 42, Series of 1990, second reading, an ordinance repealing and reenacting Chapter 8.28 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail to expand, strengthen, and clarify code provisions relating to air pollution control , Applicant: Town of Vail , which title was read in full by Mayor Rose. Kristan Pritz proposed that a public discussion be held at the evening session on January 15, 1991, and that this ordinance be brought back for the next evening session on February 5, 1991. Rob LeVine moved to table this ordinance until the February 5th Meeting, with public discussion on January 15. Item 6 on the agenda, Ordinance No. 45, Series of 1990, second reading, an ordinance requesting a major amendment to SDD #4, commonly known as Cascade Village, Section 18.46 - Area D, to adjust the phasing in order to allow for an office addition to the Glen Lyon Office Building, 1000 South Frontage Road West, Lot 45, Block K, Glen Lyon Subdivision. Applicant: Glen Lyon Office Building Partnership. The mayor read the full title of Ordinance No. 45. Shelly Mello said there was no change from the original . A motion to approve was made by Tom Steinberg and seconded by Peggy Osterfoss. The motion was unanimously passed, 6-0. The next item for consideration was Ordinance No. 46, Series of 1990, second reading, an ordinance amending Sections 18.54.020 E of the Vail Municipal Code to provide for Design Review Board Meetings on the First and Third Wednesdays of each month only; amending Section 18.54.050 A.6 to provide that asphalt and fiberglass shingles may be permitted on structures within the Town of Vail under certain circumstances; deleting Section 18.54.050 B.13 of the Vail Municipal Code; and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Town of Vail . Mayor Rose read the title in full . A motion for approval was made by Mery Lapin and seconded by Tom Steinberg. The motion passed unanimously, 6-0. 4._ The final item on the agenda was Resolution No. 25, Series of 1990, a resolution declaring the need for a housing authority to function in the Town of Vail , Colorado. Kristan Pritz asked that a public discussion be held on January 15, 1991, with consideration of this Resolution set for that evening. The council said this was acceptable, and a motion to table this resolution was made by Peggy Osterfoss and seconded by Rob LeVine and was unanimously approved, 6-0. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:22 p.m. Respectfully submitted, X07Nig(-<) Kent R. Rose, Mayor ATTEST: em it u A.4-tmettritt4 Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk Minutes taken by Janet Cassady -2- VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, JANUARY 8, 1991 7:30 P.M. EXPANDED AGENDA 7:30 1. Approval of Minutes of the December 4, 18, and 19, 1990 Meetings 7:35 2. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION 7:40 3. Ordinance No. 44, Series of 1990, first reading, an Andy Knudtsen ordinance requesting a special development district for the Sonnenalp redevelopment, located at 20 Vail Road; a part of Lot L, Block 5-E, Vail Village 1st Filing (Applicant: Sonnenalp Properties - Johannes Faessler) Action Requested of Council : The applicant has requested that the item be tabled indefinitely. Background/Rationale: At the December 19th, 1990 Council meeting, the Council voted to table the Sonnenalp SDD proposal to January 8, 1991. Council did this in order to vote on the project at a regular meeting, which would require only four positive votes for project approval . Later in the meeting, after Council discussion, the applicant requested to withdraw the proposal . Because it had already been tabled to January 8, some action at this meeting must be taken. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends tabling the item indefinitely. 7:50 4. Ordinance No. 36, Series of 1990, second reading, an Kristan Pritz ordinance repealing and reenacting Section 18.52.160, Parking Exemptions and repealing Section 18.52.180, variances of the Town of Vail Municipal Code and setting forth the details in regard thereto. STAFF WILL REQUEST THIS ORDINANCE BE WITHDRAWN. 7:55 5. Ordinance No. 42, Series of 1990, second reading, an Kristan Pritz ordinance repealing and reenacting Chapter 8.28 of the Susan Scanlan Municipal Code of the Town of Vail to expand, strengthen, and clarify code provisions relating to air pollution control . Applicant: Town of Vail . STAFF WILL REQUEST THIS ORDINANCE BE TABLED TO JANUARY 15, 1991 EVENING MEETING. 8:00 6. Ordinance No. 45, Series of 1990, second reading, an Shelly Mello ordinance requesting a major amendment to SDD #4, commonly known as Cascade Village, Section 18.46 - Area D, in order to adjust the phasing in order to allow for an office addition to the Glen Lyon Office Building, 1000 South Frontage Road West, Lot 45, Block K, Glen Lyon Subdivision. Applicant: Glen Lyon Office Building Partnership. Action Requested of Council : Approve/deny Ordinance No. 45, Series of 1990, on second reading. Background/Rationale: The applicant is requesting to amend SDD #4 in order to allow for the enclosure of an existing deck without meeting all of the conditions of approval related to the SDD. The proposed deck enclosure is part of the 2800 sq. ft. office expansion approved by PEC and Council in March, 1990. The PEC voted unanimously to approve the amendment. Staff Recommendation: The staff recommends approval of the request. The staff feels it is unreasonable to require the applicant to meet all of the conditions set out in the approved SDD #4 in order to complete this 400 sq. ft. addition. 8:25 7. Ordinance 46, Series of 1990, second reading, an ordinance Shelly Mello amending Sections 18.54.020 E of the Vail Municipal Code to provide for Design Review Board Meetings on the First and Third Wednesdays of each month only; amending Section 18.54.050 A.6 to provide that asphalt and fiberglass shingles may be permitted on structures within the Town of Vail under certain circumstances; deleting Section 18.54.050 B. 13 of the Vail Municipal Code; and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Town of Vail . Action Requested: Approve/deny Ordinance No. 46 on second reading. Background/Rationale: The PEC voted unanimously to recommend approval of the Staff' s & DRB's request to amend the DRB Guidelines. Staff Recommendation: The PEC, DRB, and Staff recommend approval of Ordinance No. 46. The changes are minor modifications of the guidelines. They will not have any effect on GRFA site, site coverage, or any other development standards. 8:55 8. Resolution No. 25, Series of 1990, a resolution declaring Larry Eskwith the need for a housing authority to function in the Town of Vail , Colorado. STAFF WILL REQUEST THIS RESOLUTION BE TABLED TO THE JANUARY 15, 1991 EVENING MEETING. 9:05 9. Adjournment -2- MINUTES VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 19, 1990 7 : 30 P.M. A special meeting of the Town Council was held on Wednesday, December 19 ,' 1990, at 7: 30 P.M. , in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building. MEMBERS PRESENT: Kent Rose, Mayor Tom Steinberg, Mayor Pro-Tem Lynn Fritzlen Jim Gibson Robert LeVine Peggy Osterfoss MEMBERS ABSENT: Mery Lapin TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Ron Phillips, Town Manager Larry Eskwith, Town Attorney Pam Brandmeyer, Town Clerk This was a special meeting to consider Ordinance 44 , Series of 1990, first reading, an ordinance requesting a Special Development District for the Sonnenalp redevelopment, located at 20 Vail Road; a part of Lot L, Block 5- E, Vail Village 1st Filing. The applicant was Sonnenalp Properties, Inc. Kristan Pritz outlined the presentation process, beginning with the staff presentation by Mike Mollica and Andy Knudtsen. Mike Mollica reviewed the staff memo beginning with the 6 variations for the existing Public Accommodation Zone District being requested. They included variances to height, density, setbacks, size of loading berths, amount of accessory and common area. Mike described the request which included establishing an SDD with existing underlying Public Accommodation zoning, increasing the accommodation units from 72 to 126 units and eliminating 10 existing dwelling units, maintaining all units as lodge units, installing gas burning fireplaces in all units, adding approximately 4000 square feet of conference space for a total of 7930 square feet, and c6.. tructing a new building to heights of 51 to 81 feet on the west side, 49 •to 59 feet on the north side, 52 feet on the east and 24 feet on the south. Site improvements included a pedestrian walkway attached to the east side of the existing Vail Road Bridge, over Gore Creek, removing the existing surface parking, constructing a pocket park northeast of the Swiss Chalet and adjacent to Willow Bridge Road, constructing a sidewalk along the east side of Vail Road, constructing improvements such as planters and sidewalks along East Meadow Drive, and installing landscaping along the north and west elevations. An underground parking garage would be constructed, removing the existing surface parking lot, and a total of three loading berths would be added. Retail commercial space of 5, 713 square feet would be included and the restaurant and lounge area would be expanded to a total of 6, 657 square feet. Mike then reviewed the zoning analysis, describing the departures from the PA Zone District. Andy Knudtsen reviewed the nine SDD criteria. Regarding Criteria A, concerning design compatibility sensitivity to the immediate environment relative to design, scale, bulk, height, buffer zones, character, etc. , Andy stated the staff objected to the maximum height of 77 feet for the Vail Road building elevation and 81 feet for the elevator tower: Andy pointed out that the tower was 4 times more massive than the Vail Village Inn tower along Meadow Drive (Phase IV) . He showed a sun/shade study which indicated the amount of shade cast upon East Meadow Drive and also onto the Vail Village Inn. Regarding character, the staff felt that there was a significant deviation 1 from the existing character of the Village in the formal, unbroken facade ^f the building along East Meadow Drive. The staff suggested design changes which included material variety to emphasize the change in the plane of the building, bringing landscaping up to the base of the building, changing the shape of the first floor archway openings, and adding plazas. to tie both sides of the street together. Andy then addressed Criteria B, concerning density, GRFA and uses. The staff supported the plan to have lodge rooms only, but was concerned that the density, in conjunction with the height, was too much for the site. The accessory uses exceeded the allowable by 13% and the common area exceeded the allowable by 65%, resulting in an additional floor area of 55, 000 square feet. The result was a mass of the project that was much larger than what the underlying zoning allowed. Criteria C, compliance with parking and loading, was the next SDD criteria. Andy explained that a very positive aspect of the proposal was that all surface parking (except in the auto court) would be eliminated, and in place of the 13 spaces next to the Swiss Chalet, there would be a pocket park. With regard to loading, the applicant proposed 3 loading berths. Two of these, on the northwest corner of the project, did not meet the minimum width of 12 feet, but were proposed to be 8 '-10 ' feet wide. Andy then explained that Criteria E, the identification of hazards, pertained only to floodplain in this instance, and that no construction was proposed in the 100 year floodplain. Criteria F included the site plan, building `design and location, and open space provisions designed to be responsive and sensitive to natural features, vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community. Andy stated that the staff was concerned about the ten areas of setback encroachment. He presented site plans which showed the encroachments and explained that the encroachment which concerned the staff the most was the one proposed for the kitchen expansion and compactor area on the southwest corner of the property, where the compactor area encroached 15' -6" and the kitchen expansion and Bully Pub encroached 18 feet into the Vail Road setback. Another encroachment of major concern was the swimming pool/patio area. Staff believed that the Gore Creek corridor should be maintained as natural as possible to preserve its aesthetic appeal. The staff had no problems with the two tower encroachments along Meadow Drive, feeling that allowing the towers to come out closer to the street gave more definition to the public spaces and was a benefit. However, the staff did feel that there was not enough undulation and variety to the Meadow Drive facade. With regard to natural features, Andy stated the staff felt adding a streamwalk along the creek would allow more guests in Vail to enjoy this natural feature. A streamwalk had not been proposed. Regarding circulation, Criteria G, . the Fire Department gave their conceptual approval of the Talisman and Sonnenalp emergency vehicle access. The applicant would construct a pedestrian bridge over Gore Creek and a sidewalk along Vail Road from the corner of Meadow Drive to Gore Creek. Staff felt that there should be a stronger interface between the pedestrian street of East Meadow Drive and the commercial store fronts. Criteria H concerning landscaping was next, and Andy pointed out that the building was designed to be located close to Vail Road and Meadow Drive. By not providing adequate open space west or north of the building, the public would not benefit from the open space on site. However, the applicant had offered to build a pedestrian plaza between the VVI and the Sonnenalp. Mike Mollica then reviewed the project as it related to the Vail Village Master Plan. He stated that the staff believed that one of the most important parts of the Master Plan was the conceptual b?:' ''fir, h^4-;ht diagram, and felt that the project severely uevl4Lea stutu ; he riaster Plan with regard to height. Sub-area #1-2, the Vail Road/Meadow Drive 2 intersection, was shown on a site plan. Mike explained that the sub-area called for visual barriers to discourage vehicular traffic from heading south on Vail Road from the 4-way stop, and for the pedestrian connection, both north and south along Vail road, to be improved. The proposal included a six foot wide sidewalk along the full length of the west side of the property. Because the Sonnenalp redevelopment required the widening of Vail Road, the staff was recommending mitigation to discourage vehicular traffic. This would include constructing 3 planted medians: 2 near the 4- way stop, and one next to the Sonnenalp. The staff felt that the proposal did not meet the concept of Sub-area #1-2. Sub-area #1-3 stated in part, " . . . .Mass of building should not create a shadow pattern on Meadow Drive. " The staff response was that Meadow Drive would be completely shaded at times in the winter due to the proposed structure. This sub-area concept was not met. The applicant did meet the purpose of Sub-area #1-5, the Willow Bridge Road walkway, by moving the surface parking spaces into the garage and constructing a pocket park in this area. Sub-area #1-4 included two items: a plaza with greenspace near the Swiss Chalet in conjunction with the adjacent plaza at the Vail Village Inn, and fire access in the same general area. The fire access was proposed and conceptually approved by the Fire Department. The proposal did not include a plaza, and so this sub-area concept was not entirely met. Sub-area #1-9 - Study area: Village Streamwalk states: "Study of a walking-only path along Gore Creek between the Covered Bridge and Vail Road, connecting to existing streamwalk, further enhancing the pedestrian network throughout the Village and providing public access to the creek. " Objective 3 .4 of the Master Plan is to develop " . . . accessible green space areas, including pocket parks and stream access. " The staff felt strongly that a streamwalk was in the best interests of the Town, and believed that it could be designed in a way that was sensitive to the needs of the hotel proposal. This sub-area concept was not met. Mike reviewed the Illustrative Plans beginning with the Land Use Plan. With regard to the Open Space Plan, open space along the entire stream corridor is called for. The Parking and Circulation Plan stated that "East Meadow Drive is designated as a pedestrian street with plazas, limited or no autos and a bus route. The Gore Creek corridor is designated as a study area for a walking path. " The staff response was that East Meadow will continue to be a pedestrian corridor; however, the proposal does not include a streamwalk. The Building Height Plan recommends that the area along East Meadow Drive be a maximum of 2 to 3 stories or 18 to 27 feet high. Three to four stories (27 feet to 36 feet) is designated on the southern three quarters of the property. The staff response was that this was one of the most important components of the Master Plan and had been previously discussed. Overall , the staff felt that the applicant's proposal was not in compliance with the Master Plan. Andy then reviewed the EIR Analysis. Mike gave the staff conclusion from the memo, stating the staff recommended denial of the project for many reasons. Using the SDD criteria, staff found severe noncompliance with height, setbacks, shadow, open space plan with plazas, and streamwalk and asked that the applicant address the Town's issues more thoroughly. Jeff Winston, Town of Vail urban design consultant, stated that some of the issues were very complex and pointed out that the Town Council was being asked to make a decision on an issue that was difficult to visualize. He stressed that the building, if approved, would be in place for a long time and the challenge was to do it right. Jeff stated that it was important to maintain Vail 's character, as that was important to Vail ' s economic survival. It was important to balance the needs of the hotel with the needs of the Town and find the fine line between the two. He pointed out the positive aspects which included the fact that hotel rooms would hp added, surface parking was being removed, the operation of the hotel would be done with quality, parking near the Swiss Chalet would be converted to a 3 pocket park, and the project would add vitality to Vail. iieyative side, Jeff pointed out that some of the setback encroachments were acceptable, but that the encroachment on the stream side and Vail Road side had more significant impacts, and that there would be increased traffic on Vail Road. He was concerned with the overall scale of the proposed building and its impact on East Meadow Drive as well as Vail Road. The building would cast shadows and block views, and the portion of the roof that was proposed to be flat would establish a precedent for flat roofs. Jeff showed the areas of encroachment on a site plan. He pointed out that the VVI buildings being turned at an angle added to the interest of the streetscape and took away the unwanted lineal feeling of the street. Jeff suggested rotating part of the proposed building on Meadow Drive. He reminded the Council that the Urban Design Guide Plan suggested connected plazas from the Sonnenalp to the VVI. Jeff suggested that perhaps a variety of roof heights, and modifying the roof where the mechanical areas were proposed, would help. Jeff echoed the staff's desire to have the project succeed with the best possible proposal. He asked the applicant to take another look at the specific ideas proposed which would improve the project. Kristan Pritz then used charts to show the list of PEC concerns and the issues that staff felt were important. The PEC concerns included the following: 1. Pool location in stream setback 2. Building too high 3 . Need for architectural relief on Meadow Drive 4 . Need for mitigation of the widening of Vail Road 5. Need for pocket park by Gore Creek and Willow Bridge 6. Need for 11 employee housing units 7 . Construction noise limits, on-site construction staging 8 . Pedestrian bridge on Vail Road Bridge 9. Solution of Talisman access easement 10. Restrict lodge rooms as lodge rooms permanently 11. Loading bays must meet Town standards 12. Public access needed to creek 13 . Setbacks on Meadow Drive must be met Kristan that the PEC motion to approve the project was denied by a 3-3 vote. Three members felt strongly enough about the concerns to vote to deny the project, and the other three felt the concerns were important, but that they could be passed along to the Town Council with a vote of approval. The motion included the following findings: 1. The project was not in compliance with Criteria A, regarding design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment, neighborhood and adjacent properties. 2. SDD Criteria C, requiring that the proposal meet the loading standards of the Town, is not met. 3 . The project fails to meet SDD Criteria D regarding conformity with the applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, Urban Design Plans, and specifically the Vail Village Master Plan. 4. The project does not meet SDD Criteria F regarding the site plan, in that the site plan lacks quality public spaces. 5. SDD Criteria H is not met, as there is not adequate open space on the site. 6. SDD Criteria I is not met regarding the phasing plan, as there may be a conflict with the construction of the project and the weekend activities at the Vail Interfaith Chapel. Kristan summarized the staff direction and spoke to the big picture issues. " They included the following: 1. The building was too high relative to Vail Road and Meadow Drive and resulted in a canyon effect as well as shading on Meadow Drive. 2. The building did not have enough articulation-horizontally and vertically. 3. Lack of public spaces on Meadow Drive. 4 4 . Lack of public access to the creek. 5. The project should co'*-►ly.'='ith the Vail Village Master Plan sub-areas 1-3 and 1-4 and the Village streamwalk. 6. "Catch-all issues" included affordable housing, final design of Vail Road, the Talisman access easement issue, the location of the construction road, and setback along Vail Road. Kristan encouraged the Council to think back to the workshop that was recently held on mountain resort design. Those same design principles needed to be considered when reviewing this project. The building has the potential to have. a great impact on the community. The staff's job and PEC/Council roles are to insure that the impact is positive and a quality design results for the community. She stated that the project could comply with the Vail Village Master Plan more closely and that the SDD process was well suited to this type of project. The Vail Village Master Plan anticipated development on the site. She encouraged the Council to take the time to review the project thoroughly as a project, especially one of this magnitude, because of the incredible impact it would have on the character of the area. She concluded that a project that took into consideration the staff and PEC direction would result in a fine project for both the owner and community. Kristan stated that this was not a matter of no development vs. development, but rather that the staff supported the concept of the lodge and mixed use development on the site. The issue was design and how the proposal related to the design documents. A break was taken at this point. Jay Peterson, representing the applicant, stated there was much more difficulty in building a hotel than a building with condos. He believed that the applicant and the staff were not that far apart. Jay showed a massing model of a building that would conform 100% with the underlying zoning, and felt that it was not a good building. Gordon Pierce, architect of the building, showed slides of different buildings, including Vail Road and Meadow Drive with a model of the proposed building in place. He stated that he had worked with consultants, engineers, Public Works Department, etc. , and had designed the building in the best possible way. Gordon reminded the Council that 9 feet was no longer used as the height of one floor, rather 10 feet was used for hotel rooms and 12-13 feet was used for commercial areas. With regard to the VVI building setbacks, Gordon stated they varied from 5 feet to 25 feet from the property line. He added there would be more landscaping on the Sonnenalp side of the road than existed on the VVI side. Gordon reviewed the site plan regarding landscaping, parking, and setbacks. He pointed out that in some areas, the building was pulled back. He also stated that 61% of the back-of-house facilities were underground, and the loading docks were 10 feet wide. Gordon said that the eave line of the building was low, which was where pedestrians would read the building. He pointed out that the narrowness of East Gore Creek Drive worked well for Vail Village and added that the narrow alley next to the Hill Building was pleasing. Jay then mentioned that in a hotel , common areas were important. He explained that if height is removed from Meadow Drive, it would have to be added in another building near. the creek which would include a mix of condominiums and accommodation units. Public comment was invited next. Robert O'Malley, Jim Wear, Craig Snowdon, Hans Von Barby, Rod Slifer, Eric Affeldt, Will Miller, Larry Litchliter, Jack Curtin, and John Mills spoke in favor of the project. Rick Rosen, Paul Rondeau, Edward Mayne and Art Abplanalp spoke against the project. Johannes Faessler, applicant, thanked the Council for calling a special meeting. He said that he cared about Vail, had worked to make his building a positive force in the community and felt that the current proposal would be a continuation of that effort. He wondered if perhaps his proposal was -= :ot right for Vail, but if this building were not constructed, something else would be constructed oh the property. He felt that Vail must continue improving--"to stand still was to move back. " Not much hat happened in 5 the past 5 years in the Village. He asked that the Council consider the message they would be sending .t if they did not approve the project as it was proposed. - ° _. Jay Peterson asked that the project be tabled to January 8th and that the. Council give their comments. The motion to table was made by Peggy Osterfoss, with Tom Steinberg seconding. The vote was 6-0 in favor of tabling. Kent Rose began the comments with the statement that he was leaning toward approval of the project and that there was a need for a quality hotel in Vail. The increase in density and common space did not bother him. He was concerned about pedestrian access along Meadow Drive, pedestrian access to the stream on the south, agreed that the pool should not encroach next to public land, that sunlight must reach Meadow Drive, that the southwest corner of the building needed to be pulled back, that there should be mitigation of the widening of'Vail Road, and felt the need for restricted employee units. Kent felt the Sonnenalp access was positive and that the pedestrian bridge was not necessary, as the entire bridge would soon be replaced by the Town. Johannes and Karl Faessler and Jay Peterson had left the room. They were asked to return for the rest of the Council 's comments. Rob Levine said he echoed Kent's concerns. This project would be a plus for Vail. He pointed out, however, that all of the development was on the edges of the property with the open space in the middle for the hotel guests. He wanted the streamwalk and suggested that the building either be pulled back or lowered a little to make it better for the community. Rob said that he was close to supporting the project, but felt it needed more work. Tom Steinberg felt that overall this was a beautiful building and that Vail obviously needed more hotel rooms. He stated one could not ask for a better group of people to construct a hotel. He felt it should be "faded back in height. " Tom would have liked to have seen the total site, including the Talisman, included in the project and the original building that contained restaurants and kitchens be torn down and rebuilt. He was against any road along the stream tract and felt that the streamwalk would, in the long term, be one of the Sonnenalp's assets. Tom asked that the height and bulk be reduced and that there be more open space along the streets. If it were his project, he would build the streamwalk himself so that it would be constructed where he wanted it. Tom felt this was a beautiful building but it was too much, in too small a space. He felt the traffic study was superficial and that another study should be done during busy times. Tom felt the restaurant and loading dock needed to be pulled back and the 3 existing woodburning fireplaces should be converted to gas. He felt the need for 3 lanes along Vail Road with planted medians. Peggy Osterfoss stated this was not a question of development or no development, but that the Council had an opportunity to work toward a positive solution. Advantage could be taken of the flexibility of the SDD process of give-and-take which allowed for variations, but should not allow ' for increases in all parameters. She had concerns with the project's compliance with the SDD criteria. Peggy felt the pool and patio should be pulled back from the stream tract. Peggy was not concerned about the additional GRFA. She felt that additional restaurant area, for additional lodging, made sense. With regard to SDD Criteria A, height was Peggy' s greatest concern. Character could be improved by height variations as well as ins and outs in the building. Criteria D, regarding conformity with the applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, the height plan was not met. Sub-area 1-2 , the Vail Road and Meadow Drive intersection, providing a visual barrier to discourage vehicular traffic, could be met with planted medians. Sub-area concept 1-3 regarding shade had not been met. Sub-area 1-5 had been met with a pocket park. Sub-area 1-4 , a plaza in conjunction with the VVI, could be strengthened. Sub-area 1-9, the streamwalk, had not been met. Peggy pointed out that the objective in the Master Plan was ,aublic a ,:ess to the creek. She felt some sort of access was important and that the pool and patio should be pulled back from the creek. Regarding the EIR analysis, the atmospheric improvements were positive. With regard 6 I ' o to visual conditions, the height of the building affected the views. Off- site employee units would be acceptablc to Pc.ggy. With regard to construction access to the f_ .m the south, Peggy felt this would have a negative impact on Gore Creek. Peggy stated that by pulling the height and mass back onto the site, the building could be a good compromise. Jim Gibson stated that in isolation, the project was outstanding. The detailing, the quality, etc. , were excellent, but the project was not in isolation in the Town of Vail. He felt that the encroachments did a disservice to the project and magnified the bulk and mass. He felt the height variance did not work to enhance the building. The shadow on Meadow Drive and the canyon effectcould be mitigated by lowering the building. He felt that the building would block pedestrian views from both Vail Road and Meadow Drive. Jim felt that the proposal could conform to the Vail Village Master Plan and most of the proposed project could still remain intact. Jim felt that the SDD concept was a proper way to develop certain areas in Town, but when allowed to be used without control, the project could end up like..Lionshead, which was not a credit to the Town. He felt that compromise was necessary and that the Council wanted what the applicant wanted and wished to see the project succeed. Lynn Fritzlen felt that she had nothing to add to the previous comments. Her feelings toward the building were ambivalent. She felt frustration as she watched increases in density in major projects. She reminded the board and applicant that the Town would be faced with a second impact of improvements that must be made to the infrastructure with increased growth. Johannes then stated that the suggested improvements must be paid by someone, and he would like to withdraw the application. There being no further business, the meeting` was adjourned at 11: 50 P.M. Respectfully Submitted, Kent R. Rose, Ma r ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk Minutes taken by Betsy Rosolack 7 60-A-A C&L TO: Town Council =40 "'ZS FROM: Department of Community Development � w��f� �� P' Jw/XP DATE: December 19, 1990 crop P•/ i. SUBJ: PEC Recommendation - Sonnenalp Redevelopment tD:bD Ail ?' JD �� P -61,e- (n/4 JI; ID I.C. disco slot The Planning and Environmental Commission, at their December 10, 1990 Public Hearing, made a motion to deny the Sonnenalp project based on the following findings: 1. The project is not in compliance with Criteria A regarding design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment, neighborhood and adjacent properties. 2 . SDD Criteria C, requiring that the proposal meet the loading standards of the Town, is not met. 3 . The project fails to meet SDD Criteria D regarding conformity with the applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, Urban Design Plans, and specifically the Vail Village Master Plan. 4 . The project does not meet SDD Criteria F regarding the site plan, in that the site plan lacks quality public spaces. 5. SDD Criteria H is not met, as there is not adequate open space on the site. 6. SDD Criteria I is not met regarding the phasing plan, as there may be a conflict with the construction of the project and the weekend activities at the Vail Interfaith Chapel . The PEC, after making the above findings of the SDD criteria, summarized their specific concerns about the project, which are listed below: 1. The swimming pool should be moved out of the rear (south) setback. The patio adjacent to the pool should be allowed to encroach only 10 feet into the rear setback. 2. The building is too high. 3 . More relief on Meadow Drive is needed. 4 . Ideally, Vail Road should bend at the intersection of Meadow Drive and Vail Road. Because the traffic generated by this project will require widening Vail Road, there should be some mitigation to reduce the "thoroughfare" appearance of Vail Road. This bend in the road should be done in conjunction with moving the Ski Museum. Sub-area concept 1- 2 of the Vail Village Master Plan needs to be addressed. 5. The land VA owns by the Swiss Chalet should be turned into a pocket park. The improvements to this parcel should be very informal. The natural character of the site should be maintained. 6. The applicant should permanently restrict 11 employee housing units. 7. The noise and construction activity should be limited so that it does not impact the chapel activities on Saturdays, Sundays or holidays. 8. All construction should occur on-site. The construction activity should not affect Gore Creek, particularly with erosion or sediment disturbance because of construction. 9. The applicant should construct the proposed pedestrian bridge across Gore Creek at the existing Vail Road Bridge. This work should be coordinated with Public Works. 10. The applicant should ensure that the Talisman access easement onto East Meadow Drive is vacated. This paperwork needs to be finalized. 11. The applicant should build a planted median in the center of Vail Road south of Meadow Drive per the traffic study. 12. The accommodation units the applicant will be building should all be restricted permanently as lodge rooms so that no conversions to condominiums will be allowed in the future. 13 . The loading bays should be expanded in size to meet the Town' s minimum size requirement. 14 . The applicant should provide public access to Gore Creek through green space or pocket parks. 15. The required setbacks along Meadow Drive should be met. The motion was made by Kathy Warren and seconded by Connie Knight. The vote was 3-3 (one member was absent) . The PEC agreed that all members shared the concerns listed above. They differed in that the individual board members weighted these common concerns differently. The weighting difference resulted in the 3-3 tie. Diana Donovan, Kathy Warren and Connie Knight voted in favor of the motion to deny. Dalton Williams, Jim Shearer and Chuck Crist voted against the motion. The following information is included in the Sonnenalp packet: 1. Cover memo, December 19, 1990 2. PEC memo, December 10, 1990 - with attached letters from Art Abplanalp and Rev. Ricks and Rev. Stitt and traffic study. 3 . PEC comments - staff and applicant responses to PEC issues raised at November 26th PEC meeting. 4 . Ordinance No. 44 for the SDD , TO: Planning nd Environmental Commissia, FROM: Community Development Department DATE: December 10, 1990 RE: A request for a Special Development District for the Sonnenalp redevelopment, located at 20 Vail Road; A part of Lot L, Block 5-E, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Sonnenalp Properties, Inc. I. INTRODUCTION Changes to the November 26, 1990 PEC memo are indicated in bold print. Johannes Faessler, of Sonnenalp Properties, Inc. has filed a request to apply a Special Development District to his property located at 20 Vail Road. The applicant proposes a mixed use hotel complex. The reason the applicant is applying for an SDD is that variations from the Public Accommodation (PA) underlying zoning are needed for: a 26 percent density increase, a height variance allowing 81 feet where 48 feet is the maximum height, ` setbacks (on all four sides) , ` the proposed loading berths do not meet the Town' s required minimum size of 12 , x 26 , an increase in the amount of accessory hotel floor area (23% of the GRFA where 10% is allowed) , and an increase in the amount of common area (85% of the GRFA where 20% is allowed) . Section III of this memo (Zoning Analysis) has a detailed comparison of the proposed SDD to the Public Accommodation zone district requirements. II. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Listed below is a summary outline of the proposed redevelopment request: A. Bavaria Haus Hotel (immediately east of First Bank) ` Establish SDD with existing, underlying Public Accommodation zoning for the hotel redevelopment. Increase accommodation units from 72 to 126 units. Eliminate 10 existing dwelling units. Maintain all units as lodge units. ` Install gas burning fireplaces. No additional wood- burning fireplaces are requested. There are currently . four wood-burning fireplaces in the building, one in the lobby and three in hotel rooms at the mezzanine level of the existing structure. Add 4000 square feet of conference space for a total of 7930 square feet. ` Construct the redevelopment to the following heights: West side: 51 - 81 ft. North side: 49 - 59 ft. East side: 52 ft. South side: 24 ft. B. Landscaping ` Construct a pedestrian walkway, attached to the east side of the existing Vail Road bridge, over Gore Creek. Remove the existing surface parking and construct a pocket park northeast of the Swiss Chalet and adjacent to Willow Bridge Road. ` Construct a sidewalk along the east side of Vail Road, and construct improvements such as planters and sidewalks along E. Meadow Drive. Install landscaping along the north and west elevations. C. Parking and Loading Construct a parking garage with 210 spaces regular spaces: 127 compact spaces: 25 valet spaces: 58 ` Remove the existing exterior surface parking lot. ` Locate all parking underground. The primary access to the parking structure will be from Vail Road, adjacent to the First Bank Building. The primary surface loading/delivery will remain at the southwest corner of the property, however, an additional loading berth is proposed to be added in the auto court. D. Other " Construct retail commercial space of 5,713 square feet. ` Expand the existing restaurant and lounge area for a total of 6,657 square feet. 2 • ' III. SONNENALP ZONING ANALYSIS - The project's departures from the PA zone district standards are highlighted in bold type. UNDERLYING ZONING: EXISTING PROPOSED PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION PROJECT SDD >ite Area: 2. 024 acres or Same Same 88, 165 sq. ft. Setbacks: 20 feet all sides N=Meadow Dr: 20 ft. N = 10 ft. W=Vail Road: 13 ft. W = 2 ft. S=Gore Creek: 4 ft. S = 0 ft. E=Talisman: 0 ft. E = 5 ft. [eight: 45 ft. flat roof 42 . 0 ' - ridge 81. 0 ' - ridge 48 ft. sloping roof 23 . 5 ' - eave (maximum) ;RFA: 70, 532 sq. ft. 30, 122 sq. ft. 69 , 989 sq. ft. Jnits: 25 units per acre, or 46 units 63 units 50 units for the site. (72 a.u. & 10 d.u. ) (126 a.u. ) Site Coverage: 48 ,491 sq. ft. 17 ,984 sq. ft. 44 , 378 sq. ft. or 55 % or 20 % or 50. 3 % ,andscaping: 30% of site or 29,926 sq. ft. 40, 363 sq. ft. 26, 450 sq. ft. or 33 . 9 % or 45. 8 % Parking: Per Town of Vail Required: 105 Required: 194* parking standards Provided: 101 Proposed: 127 spaces 25 compact 58 valet 210 Total goading: Per Town of Vail Required: 3 berths loading standards Proposed: 3 berths** kccessory Uses: 10% of the 18% or 23% or ;ommercial, constructed GRFA 5, 396 sq. ft. 15,819 sq ft. testaurant, or 7, 053 sq. ft. *Jounge: ;ommon Area: 20% of Allowed GRFA 20% or 85% or or 14, 106 sq. ft. 13,862 sq. ft. 59,271 sq. ft. ;ross Floor Area: N/A 49, 380 sq. ft. 145 , 079 sq. ft. ' (does not include structured parking) *Required parking includes a 5% credit for multiple use parking facilities per Town of Vail parking code, Section 18 . 52 . 120. Also allows for non-conforming parking credit (see exhibits for breakdown) . **Does not meet the minimum size requirements per the Town code. 3 '' IV. SDD CRITERIA In order to avoid too much repetition of Staff comments, we have tried to list our comments under the most appropriate criteria heading. This is not to imply that many of the comments do not relate to several headings or planning documents. Upon completion of the submittal requirements, the following review criteria will be used to assess the merits of the Sonnenalp redevelopment: A. Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment, neighborhood and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, identity, character, visual integrity and orientation. Height: Staff strongly objects to the maximum height of 77 feet for the Vail Road building elevation and 81 feet for the elevator tower given the Vail Village context. The heights of the surrounding buildings are 47 . 5 for the Vail Village Inn (VVI) ridge, 70 for the VVI tower, and 20 for the ridge of the chapel . Though the VVI tower is tall , it is an architectural accent to the rest of the building. Its slender proportions are such that it is a tower. The •/ ),- "tower" above the auto court is designed with proportions of vvi which make it appear quite massive (i. e. "a building") and haw ef- should not be labeled as a tower. Staff acknowledges that a certain number of rooms must be obtained in order to construct a project of this magnitude. However, the Vail Village Master Plan calls out for a range of heights between 27 ' and 36 ' , plus a roof, on the southern portion of the site. The mass above the auto court and the elevator tower are proposed in this same area, at 45 to 50 feet above the limit recommended in the Master Plan. 3/ The applicant did respond to the height issue by lowering the ridge between the Vail Road corner tower and the building above the auto court. The ridge was lowered 6 ' by removing a hallway, reconfiguring the staircases and relocating one accommodation unit to the mezzanine level. At the request of the staff, the applicant also raised the roof of the tower at the Vail Road intersection by 2 ' . The intent of this increase was to accentuate the tower. By lowering the ridge line and raising the tower peak, the proportions of the building work much better. Along East Meadow Drive, the Village Plan recommends heights of 18-27 feet plus a roof. Proposed heights in this area range from 49.5 ' to 59' . The PA zone district allows for a maximum height of 48 ft. for sloping roofs. Staff believes that the Sonnenalp proposal needs to come more into compliance with these recommended heights. It is positive that the height of the building along Vail Road has 4 been reduced i_om the originally proposed _:eight of 102 feet, down to 77 feet. As mentioned in the two previous work session memos, height should terrace down to Vail Road and East Meadow Drive to respect pedestrian areas as well as 0(----- views from public areas. Character S uyts In staff' s analysis, a significant deviation from the � / character of the Village is the formal, unbroken facade of G P erN13 the building along East Meadow Drive. The arcade extends -, , 165 feet with little relief, though there are a variety of S ,s dormer treatments in the north facing roof. Over the past two weeks, staff has worked on the Meadow Drive problems with the applicant, trying to break up the linear appearance fi of the arcade and roof line. The Town suggested that the applicant accentuate the existing large dormers to break up /2/zi the mass of the elevation. The applicant responded by "grounding" these dormers; bringing the mass all the way to 3/z/ the ground. As a result, the arcade bends in and out from rim-Y1 building where the dormers have been brought down. 4-0s ;/- b/e In staff's opinion there are several design changes which al- 4;e70 , 7 the applicant should include in the facade design to further break up the facade along Meadow Drive. Staff requested that materials, such as rock and stone be used to emphasize the changes in the plane of the building. Secondly, it was recommended that the applicant bring landscaping up to the base of the elements to accentuate the differences from the surrounding arcade and walkway. Thirdly, it was suggested that the applicant change the shape of the first floor archway openings. Instead of the triple radius arches used along the entire length of the 165 foot arcade, different openings, similar to the balconies above, were suggested. This would have made the element tie in with the forms above instead of the arches on either side. Although staff realized this would add slightly to the mass and bulk, the benefit of breaking up the long, symmetrical arcade and creating vitality and interest along Meadow Drive would have compensated for the increased mass. The overall intent of the staff's recommended changes was to make some visually interesting breaks in the arcade. Plazas would also help accomplish this. The Village Master Plan calls for two "plazas with green space" along this section of Meadow Drive. Tying both sides of the street together will be accomplished with a plaza area, which the applicant has added to the plans over the past two weeks. nu,,v-e- The design of this plaza area will be refined during the Village Btreetscape Improvement Plan. The overall 0- '' architectural style generally is of high quality. However, n the mass of the building is too large in relation to thelvA site and surrounding properties; the building does not fit the scale of the Village. More relief from the formal architectural style is still needed on Meadow Drive. 5 B. Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, '. efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. Density, GRFA and Uses: The proposal, though all lodge rooms, will have a density 26% greater than the allowable. Staff supports the plan to have lodge rooms only, but is concerned that the density, in conjunction with the height, is too much for the site. The applicant does comply with the GRFA limitation for the site; however, the GRFA calculation only counts the residential areas. The accessory uses exceed the allowable by 13% and the common area exceeds the allowable by 65% . As a result, the mass of the project is much larger than what the zoning code allows. (The specific breakdown of the accessory area and common area can be found in Section III. Briefly, what PA zoning allows is 10% of GRFA for accessory and 20% for 5S1 common. What is proposed is 23% and 85%, respectively. ) It has been common for the staff to support increases in common area above the allowable. In this case, the common area, in conjunction with the accessory use increase, is causing the building mass to become excessive. Concerning uses, the mix of lodging, commercial and conference space is appropriate and supports the goals of the Vail Village Master Plan. C. Compliance with parking and loading requirements as outlined in Chapter 18. 52 . Parking: All parking will be provided on site. 58 spaces (28%) will be valet. 25 spaces (12%) will be compact. A positive aspect of this proposal is that all the existing surface parking will be placed underground. There will be no surface parking except for five spaces in the auto court. ��� The •Town's parking •analysis •indicates that the redevelopment \�' ct' G would provide a surplus of 16 parking spaces. The staff has 1, strongly recommended that the 13 existing surface parking spaces for the Swiss Chalet (adjacent to Willow Bridge Road) 0 be incorporated into the new underground parking structure and that the surface spaces be removed. The applicant has agreed to this recommendation and the 13 surface parking e/(/ spaces have been incorporated into the parking structure. A 5? pocket park has been designed for this area. As this is a specific goal of the Vail Village Master Plan, staff provides more details on this issue in that section. Loading: The Zoning Code requires three berths. Staff has been concerned that if loading spaces within the auto court were not specifically designated for loading, the delivery trucks would try to use Meadow Drive or the area adjacent to the southwest corner of Crossroads for loading. 6 The applicant has modified the loading bay area and is now proposing a total of three loading berths. Two berths would be located at the southwest corner of the property and one berth would be located in the auto court. However, the proposed loading berths do not meet the minimum size requirements of the Town' s municipal code. The code requires a minimum size of 12 ' wide by 25' in length. The proposed berths are approximately 8 ' wide by 25' in length. D. Conformity with applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, Town policies and Urban Design Plans. Because of the many different goals, policies, and illustrative plans that pertain to this proposal , a separate section of the memo discusses the compliance of the project with the Vail Village Master Plan. The intention to maintain all of the units as accommodation units fits well with the Town policies. Any conversion of these lodge rooms to condominium units in the future should be prohibited. E. Identification and mitigation of natural and/or geologic hazards that affect the property on which the special development district is proposed. The floodplain is the only hazard which could affect the site. The applicant is not proposing any construction in the 50 foot Gore Creek stream setback or the floodplain. F. Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions designed to produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural features, vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community. Site plan/Setbacks The building will encroach into all setbacks. PA zoning requires 20 foot setbacks on all sides of the property. The applicant has relocated the building to meet the setback line in many cases, which is an improvement over previous proposals but still has ten areas of encroachment. The specific points of encroachment in each setback, starting with the compactor area on the southwest corner of the site are: • West 1. The compactor area encroaches 15'-6" into the Vail Road setback; 2. The new kitchen expansion and Bully P encroach 18 '-0" into the Vail Road setback; z' 3 . The rooms above the auto court entry ncroach 12 '- 0" into the Vail Road setback; 4. The tower on the corner of Meadow Drive and Vail Road encroaches 9 '-0" into the Vail Road setback and 8 '-0" into the East Meadow Drive setback; 7 North The roof over the commercial arcade encroaches into the Meadow Drive setback 10 '-0"; 6. The tower on the east end of the project encroaches 13 '-0" into the east side setback; East 7 . The eastern most corner of the new hotel wing encroaches 18 '-0" into a setback abutting the Talisman site; South 8. The swimming pool/whirlpool encroaches 7 '-0" into the rear setback. The patio around the swimming pool area encroaches 19'-0" into the setback; 9. The King Ludwig deck (above) and the conference room area (below) encroach 4 ' -0" into the rear setback; and 10. The loading/delivery area encroaches 20 ' 0" into the rear setback, creating a zero rear setback situation. The encroachment which concerns staff the most is the one required for the kitchen expansion and compactor area on the southwest corner of the property. Staff has worked with the applicant in reducing the mass and bulk of the building on this corner as much as possible, but believes that it still has the most impact of all the encroachments. Another encroachment of major concern is the swimming pool/patio area. The Zoning Code allows recreational amenities to encroach into the setback if the Design Review Board determines that the location is not detrimental environmentally or aesthetically. Staff believes that in this case, the Gore Creek corridor should be maintained as natural as possible to preserve its aesthetic appeal . Staff does not support the pool/patio in this location and would recommend that the pool/patio be pulled back out of the setback. The two tower encroachments on either end of the building along Meadow Drive are not problems in staff's opinion. Staff believes that undulating the building along Meadow Drive and allowing the towers to come out closer to the eS- vk'\ street gives more definition to the public space and is a benefit. The Village Master Plan calls for plazas in two locations on either side of the tower locations. Though the appliant is providing a plaza, there is not enough undulation and variety to the Meadow Drive facade. Natural Features The site is generally flat with Gore Creek running along the south side of the' property. Significant landscaping also exists along East Meadow Drive, in the center of the parking area, and adjacent to the Bully III deck. The applicant has taken advantage of the beauty of Gore Creek and has located the spa and garden along the creek. Staff believes that adding a streamwalk along the creek would allow more guests in Vail to enjoy this natural feature. 8 G. ,A circulation _,stem designed for both ve—cles and pedestrians addressing on and off-site traffic circulation. Talisman/Sonnenalp Coordination: Coordination between the proposed Sonnenalp SDD and the existing Talisman Condominiums is necessary. Staff As).' encourages the two owners to work together on access, landscaping, and parking for the two projects in a comprehensive manner. The Town Fire Department has now s./2 approved the design of the Sonnenalp redevelopment, with V specific reference to emergency vehicle access to both the Bonnenalp and the Talisman properties. Traffic: This will be discussed in the section of the memo dealing with the Environmental Impact Report. Pedestrians: • The design of the project has provided some improvements for pedestrians. The applicants will provide a sidewalk along `� Vail road from the corner of Meadow Drive to Gore Creek. At ,�°� that point, they will construct a pedestrian bridge over the creek so that pedestrians can continue to walk south of the creek. Staff supports the idea of the pedestrian bridge; however, at this time, we do not have specific design drawings of the proposal. Along East Meadow Drive, the design could be improved for pedestrians by providing a stronger interface between the pedestrian street and the store fronts. What is also missing from the project is the streamwalk. H. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and functions. The proposal has provided an optimal garden area in the center and south side of the site. Though this is good preservation of open space, it is limited to the hotel guests. The hotel has been designed so that the building is located close to Vail Road and Meadow Drive. By not 5geatide providing open space west or north of the building, the public does not benefit from the open space on-site. vy jSS Staff recommends that the applicant create a plaza/planting area across from VVI, to provide some public open space. This has been discussed during the review process since it is called out for in the open space plan of the Vail Village Master Plan. Not only would it provide some open space on the site which the public would benefit from, it would break up the hard line of the Meadow Drive facade. It would also allow for a concentration of landscaping, and would create a space where the VVI, the Sonnenalp, and the pedestrian way are brought together. The applicant has redesigned this area and has included a pedestrian connection/plaza as 9 recommended by the staff. Final detains of this plaza will • be coordinated with the on-going Village Streetscape r Improvement Plan. Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional and efficient relationship throughout the development of the special development district. See discussion under the EIR analysis. J. Outstanding concerns from other departments: 1. Fire Department: The applicant has received conceptual approval of the Fire Department, however, some landscaping will be lost (at the northeast corner of the site) due to the Fire Department's required access. The proposed landscape plan must be amended to reflect this change. 2 . Public Works: A minimum sidewalk width of 6 feet, on Vail Road, will be required for the full length of the project. Drainage improvements along Vail Road and East Meadow Drive will be needed. 3 . Landscape Architect: The stream walk should be shown on the site plan. The applicant will need to submit a revised landscaping plan if proposed changes to Vail Road are approved. Maintenance of landscaped areas and sidewalks shall be the owner's responsibility. The conceptual landscape plan appears to be acceptable. A detailed planting and irrigation plan should be submitted for review. 10 V. VAIL VILLAGE MASTER PLAN In general, the staff believes that the Sonnenalp project should be much more responsive to the Vail Village Master Plan. The previous two work session memos listed many areas where the project could comply more closely with the Village Plan. In most cases, the previous staff comments apply to the revised proposal since the applicant has failed to address the concepts of the plan. Staff believes that one of the most important parts of the Master Plan is the conceptual building height diagram. The portion of that plan which includes the Sonnenalp project is shown below. The corner treatment for Vail Road and Meadow Drive should be 2-3 stories. The rest of the site is called out at 3-4 stories. The project severely deviates from the Master Plan as it is 4 stories on the corner and rises up to 6 stories above the auto court. ■ urritoilrair 40.;* • a sip. .:'l ';:• ,1 _ . L'n,4 T- ale'i ' r. '. -BUILDING o �:1T \HEIGHT PLAN - *k\ '-ter` - During the review, it has been mentioned that the master plan is not applicable to a demo/rebuild such as this. The master plan, by definition, cannot address the aspects of every construction project. But the policies and objectives of the plan do apply to all projects. When the plan was developed, the appropriate scale for redevelopment was established with consideration of surrounding properties and the overall streetscape. The principle design concepts are relevant and applicable even if a demo-rebuild is proposed. The specific goals, objectives, and sub-area plans which pertain to this project are listed below. Important points of the Master Plan text are underlined. Staff comments are below the Master Plan excerpts. 11 A. Sub-Area #1-2 - Vail Road Intersection - " Well �wr• 1 RM/A . I r''''' 1.' 40 Ulf t C 1-2 i_�►ilGi. - • --jj -73, 7.4?-5777 : 41:1V"7› . 7.7 k. Sub-Area #1-2 states: "Possible realignment of intersection in conjunction with relocation of the Ski Museum. Focus of redesign should be to establish a small park and pedestrian entry for the west end of the Village and to provide a visual barrier to discourage vehicular traffic from heading south on Vail Road from the 4-wav stop. Specific design of Ski Museum site to be included in West Meadow Drive pedestrian improvement project. The pedestrian connection both north and south along Vail Road should also be improved. " Staff Response: The project does provide a six foot wide sidewalk along the full length of the west side of the property. The sidewalk will be made out of pavers and will extend from the northwest corner of the site to the pedestrian bridge that the applicant will install over Gore Creek. These improvements serve to implement this concept. Because the Sonnenalp redevelopment will require additional widening of Vail Road, we belive that mitigation will be necessary to discourage vehicular traffic from heading south on Vail Road. The staff is recommending that three planted medians be installed along Vail Road. Two medians would be located near the Vail Road/South Frontage Road intersection (4-way stop) , and one median would be located on Vail Road, immediately south of Meadow Drive. Final designs would need to allow for fire access and public works needs for snow removal. 12 B. ,Sub-Area #1-3 - Sonnenalp (Bavaria Haus) Infill �- ,a Viii Sub-Area #1-3 states: "Commercial infill development with second floor residential/lodging to enclose Meadow Drive and improve the quality of the pedestrian experience. Designated walkways and plazas with green space should interface with those of the Vail Village Inn. A pedestrian walkway (possibly arcade) should be provided to encourage pedestrian circulation physically removed from Meadow Drive. Mass of building should not create a shadow pattern on Meadow Drive. Development will require coordination and/or involvement with adjacent property owners. Existing and new parking demand to be provided on site. " Staff Response: Meadow Drive will be completely shaded in the winter. The ridge along Meadow Drive will cast a shadow which will extend 67.3 feet from the north wall of the building at noon on December 21st. This shadow will completely cover Meadow Drive. Even on the equinox dates (March 21 and September 21) , the shadow cast will be 27.5 feet from the northern wall of the building. Staff understands that some shadow will be cast by any' redevelopment that occurs along Meadow Drive; however, the mass of this proposal and the way the roof line is designed makes the shadow impact worse than alternative designs that were discussed in the review process. In the EIR, the applicant claims that the building will shade the street for only a short period of time without specifying the length. Staff believes that this statement is misleading and more information is needed on this impact. Staff is also very concerned about the possible icing of East Meadow Drive, given the location and height of the new building. Please 13 see comments on project design, parking, circulation, and landscaping under SDD criteria. Staff recalculated the shadow lenths and drew them in both plan and section. These drawings will be presented at the hearing on December 10. The shadows were calculated from several points in the roof to determine which ridge caused the worst impact. All shadows were calculated for both the equinox (March 21/September 21) and the winter soltice (December 21) . C. Sub-Area 41-5 - Willow Bridge Road Walkway I d„, • . /. Y(•D0+ ten ' A to....kr s ` ', M • Sub-Area #1-5 states: "A decorative paver pedestrian walkway, separated from the street and accented by a strong landscaped area to encourage pedestrian circulation along Meadow Drive. Loss of parking will need to be relocated on site. " Staff Response: The diagrams in the Master Plan show the area discussed in the paragraph above and the area along Willow Bridge Road blending into one another. The applicant has expressed an interest in removing the parking that exists there now and converting the space into a pedestrian area. The parking garage that will be built in this proposal has 16 extra spaces. There are 13 spaces in front of the Swiss Chalet. Because the applicant is proposing to consolidate the front desks for these two buildings, the parking can be located in the garage of the main building. Staff had recommended that the applicant redesign the space and convert it into a pedestrian area according to the Master Plan. The applicant has now redesigned this 14 area and has removed the 13 surface parking spaces. A pocket park is now proposed for this section of the property, as previously discussed in Section IV,H of this memo. The applicant studied the pedestrian routes through this area and designed a combination of planters and walkways that accomodates the existing pedestrian traffic patterns. D. Sub-Area #1-4 - Sonnenalp East (Swiss Chaletl Infill Sub-Area #1-4 states: t / :„.4.,..eAP vNI-1' .;1111t, ., i-! .41(\e„i0 • 1t' "Commercial infill of north facing alcove of existing structure to provide shops and pedestrian activity. A plaza with greenspace shall be developed in conjunction with the ad-lacent plaza at the Vail Village Inn. Fire access and on- site parking are two issues to be addressed in the design and development of this project. " Staff Response: Two issues in this sub-area recommendation pertain to the proposal. One is to develop a plaza for pedestrian activity outside the Swiss Chalet. This area is intended to relate to the VVI as well as Willow Bridge Road. This improvement relates directly to the recommendation for the Willow Bridge Road walkway, which is discussed in the paragraph above. The second issue involves fire access. The Town's Fire Department has given conceptual approval of the fire access to the Sonnenalp/Talisman. 15 E. Sub-Area #1-9 - Study Area: Village Streamwalk Sub-Area #1-9 states: • r ,, ,• • :pi 2' • • ‘\ • 19/ 4* " • ( 7-- • j/+• "Study of a walking only path along Gore Creek between the Covered Bridge and Vail Road, connecting to existing streamwalk, further enhancing the pedestrian network throughout the Village and providing public access to the creek. Specific design and location of walkway shall be sensitive to adjacent uses and the creek environment. " Staff Response: Staff believes that a streamwalk is in the best interests of the Town. Expanding the existing popular recreational amenity is worthwhile, especially since staff believes it can be designed in a way that is sensitive to the hotel proposal. Benching a walkway down near the stream appears to be feasible. Additional landscaping is another way to buffer the walk from the hotel 's garden area. Developing pedestrian-only walkways and stream access fulfills Objective 3.4 of the Master Plan, which reinforces the goal of this sub-area. Because a streamwalk is an effective way to provide a natural experience within the Village, and because it could be built sensitively to the hotel, staff believes the applicant should incorporate it into the site plan. F. Emphasized Goals & Policies Below is a list of the specific objectives of the Master Plan. With the exceptions of the objectives dealing with employee housing and the streamwalk, the proposal generally meets the list below. Staff believes that the project's primary positive aspects include its provision of accommodation units, the parking plan, the pedestrian bridge and the fact that this is a good site for a mixed use redevelopment. 16 • 1.2 Objective: Encourage.the upgrading and redevelopment of residential and commercial facilities. 1.3 Objective: Enhance new development and redevelopment through public improvements done by private developers working in cooperation with the Town. 2 .3 Objective: Increase the number of residential units available for short term overnight accommodations. 2.4 Objective: Encourage the development of a variety of new commercial activity where compatible with existing land uses. 2. 5 Objective_ Encourage the continued upgrading, renovation and maintenance of existing lodging and commercial facilities to better serve the needs of our guests. 2 . 6 Objective: Encourage the development of affordable housing units through the efforts of the private sector. 3. 1 Objective: Physically improve the existing pedestrian ways by landscaping and other improvements. 3.4 Objective: Develop additional sidewalks, pedestrian-only walkways and accessible green space areas, including pocket parks and stream access. 4 . 1 Objective: Improve existing open space areas and create new plazas with green space and pocket parks. Recognize the different roles of each type of open space in forming the overall fabric of the Village. 5. 1 Objective: Meet parking demands with public and private parking facilities. 6. 1 Objective: Provide service and delivery facilities for existing and new development. 17 H. Illustrative Plans. 1. Land Use Plan: a. North side of Sonnenalp site, "Mixed Use. " This category includes the "historic" Village core and properties near the pedestrianized streets of the Village. Lodging, retail and a limited amount of office use are found in this category. With nearly 270, 000 square feet of retail space and approximately 320 residential units, the mixed use character of these areas is a major factor in the appeal of Vail Village. Staff Response: Since the proposal is mixed use, it fits well with this Master Plan illustration. b. South side of Sonnenalp site, "Medium/High Density Residential and Mixed Use. " Medium/High Density The overwhelming majority of the Village' s lodge rooms and condominium units are located in this land use category. Approximately 1, 100 units have been developed on the 27 acres of private land in this category. In addition, another 110 units are approved but unbuilt. It is a goal of this Plan to maintain these areas as predominantly lodging oriented with retail development limited to small amounts of "accessory retail. " Mixed Use (along Meadow Drive and Willow Road) This category includes the "historic" Village core and properties near the pedestrianized streets of the Village. Lodging, retail and limited amount of office use are found in this category. With nearly 270, 000 square feet of retail space and approximately 320 residential units, the mixed use character of these areas is a major factor in the appeal of Vail Village. Staff Response: The project complies with the types of uses called for in the Illustrative Land Use Plan. An all lodge room redevelopment, with support commercial, is a very positive land use type for this site. 18 2 . Open Space Plan: a. "Planted Buffer" is designated on north and west side of site. b. "Plaza with green space" is designated on north side of property connecting to the Vail Village Inn and on eastern property adjacent to Swiss Chalet and VVI sculpture plaza. c. "Open Space" is designated along entire stream corridor. Staff Response: The proposal does not provide a "Plaza with green space" . Though a plaza at this location would benefit the area by: Tying in with the VVI buildings, reducing the shadow cast by the structure, and providing some public open space. At this time, these goals are not addressed in a comprehensive way. 3 . Parking and Circulation Plan: a. East Meadow Drive is designated as a pedestrian street with plazas, limited or no autos and a bus route. The Gore Creek corridor is designated as a study area for a walking path. Staff Response: East Meadow will continue to be a pedestrian corridor; however, the proposal does not include a stream walk. 4 . Building Height Plan: a. The area along East Meadow Drive is recommended to be a maximum of two to three stories or 18 to 27 ft. high. Three to four stories (27 ft to 36 ft. ) is designated on the southern three quarters of the property. All heights exclude roof forms. Staff Response: As this is one of the most important components of the Master Plan, staff discussed this item in the first section of the memo on page four. 19 VI. EIR ANALYSIS A. Hydrologic Conditions The applicant will be altering the existing drainage along Vail Road significantly. Currently there is a rock lined ditch that conveys the water to Gore Creek. Curb and gutter will be installed. All drainage improvements must meet Town of Vail standards and will be reviewed for compliance at time of building permit. Drainage from the parking structure will be drained to the sanitary sewer. Details for the parking structure drainage have not been put together at this time. Staff recommends that the best possible pollution control devices, including grease traps and sediment traps, should be installed in the drainage system. The one area of concern that the Town has regarding drainage is how it will be handled during construction of the project. Dewatering any excavation pits into Gore Creek could negatively impact the creek unless the sediment is removed. The Environmental Impact Report completed by the applicant commits the applicant to undertake erosion and dewatering control measures according to the best available practices to ensure that the creek impacts are minimized. B. Atmospheric Conditions The three ways this project will impact air quality are through fireplaces, dust control, and automobile trips to the site. Concerning fireplaces, all units in the hotel are proposed to have gas burning fireplaces. The air emissions from these gas burning appliances will be negligible. There are four existing wood burning fireplaces in the hotel which will remain. Dust is an impact that is generated from the construction process and through the sanding of the existing parking lot. During construction, the applicant (in the EIR) commits to undertake efforts to control the dust. By locating the parking underground and eliminating the need for sanding, air quality will be improved. The last possible impact is from automobile trips. With 54 additional accommodation units, less 10 20 • dwelling units, there will be additional trips to the site. Staff believes that this is a reasonable increase and that further documentation is not needed. The hotel 's mini-van service combines trips that some guests might otherwise make individually in their own cars. Given the benefit of gas appliance fireplaces, eliminating the sanding in the winter from the parking lot, the negative impact of the additional trips is offset. C. Geologic and Biotic Conditions The proposal does not change the impacts relating to geologic and biotic conditions. D. Visual Conditions The applicant has used seven photographs taken of the Village to show how the proposal will relate 4 to surrounding structures. The building outline `'(14 has been shown in tape. 1 Concerning the view looking east on West Meadow Drive (#1) , the EIR consultant claims that few people will view the Sonnenalp from this point since foot traffic is minimal in the area. Staff strongly disagrees with this analysis. Since Meadow Drive is a bus and pedestrian route linking the Village to Lionshead, staff believes this view will be highly noticeable. All of the views of the building from points in the Village show that the ski slopes, the mountain, and the sky will be blocked. (3, 5, 6 and 7) The view east from the First Bank and chapel area will be completely blocked. (#5) The views from the four way stop (#2 and 4) show that the building will not exceed the highest ridge of Vail Mountain, as it will from the vantage points in the Village. This is because the elevation of the four way stop is higher than the site of the project. Staff realizes that some view impacts are inevitable if the project is redeveloped. However, we believe the building as proposed has severe view impacts which are not supportable given the scale of the surrounding areas. 21 E. Land Use Conditions The uses proposed are compatible with those around the site. This issue has been analyzed in the SDD and Vail Village Master Plan sections of the memo. F. Circulation and Transportation conditions The traffic study, done by Leigh, Scott and Cleary, Inc. , concluded that the capacity of the surrounding road network can generally handle the traffic generated by the project. The only street improvement recommended was to provide three lanes in Vail Road's existing alignment. The new lane is for a left turn lane into the project. The original study recommended that the three lanes be provided with substandard lane widths so that the street would not have to be widened. Other significant findings from the study include: At full occupancy, the proposed project can be expected to add approximately 175 entering and 175 exiting weekday vehicle trips to the surrounding roadway system. Of these, 14 will enter and 12 will exit during the evening peak-hour. The greatest concentration of project- generated traffic is expected along Vail Road to and from the north. Ninety-three percent of the additional traffic will pass though the four way stop. The traffic impact of the proposed project on existing and future peak season traffic will be minimal. The first traffic study, dated October 4 , 1990, was completed based on national averages of trip generation and staff believes does not accurately reflect Vail traffic patterns. (See attached report. ) The applicant and the Town did independent studies of the parking demand for the existing hotel which showed that the supply exceeds the demand. Because of this information and the general agreement on this issue between the staff and the applicant, a revised traffic study was submitted. The issue which needed clarification was the requirement for a center lane to allow left turns 22 into the auto court. The first study, based on national standards, determined that it was needed, but that substandard lanes would suffice. Since it is not reasonable for the Town to accept substandard lanes on one of the busiest roads in the Town, the second study dated November 15, 1990, based on local standards, was intended to clarify the issue and determine what the new project would require. A major flaw of the second study is found in the conclusion. The consultants state that "if roadway widening is required in order to [provide three lanes] , the resultant expenditures are not justified, and we would recommend that the operation of Vail Road remain as a two-lane design. " Staff discussed the study with the engineer who prepared it and found that he had no documentation of the cost which "is not justified. " Staff does not concur that the cost/benefit analysis referred to in the conclusion is an appropriate means to determine what improvements the applicant is responsible for. This is especially true when the cost, at the time the report was written, was unknown to the consultants. More importantly is the fact that a requirement to build the middle lane must be determined by the amount of demand generated by the new project. If the Sonnenalp generates the demand, they must mitigate the impact. Cost should not be a factor in this decision. The applicant has committed to place curb and gutter at the edge of the street for the full length of Vail Road. The Town' s traffic engineering consultant, Arnie Ullevig, reviewed the traffic studies and concluded that three lanes is the better alternative because of the high number of left turn movements at peak demand (45 turns per hour at 4: 00 P.M. ) and the potential for traffic congestion to worsen without the left turn lane. In his review, he a� also said that the left turn lane should extend 1 J only to the auto court and that a median south of rI ur' Meadow Drive would be helpful for traffic flow. A related issue to this is the need for accurate survey information. Setting the edge of pavement ,p(�^'. must be based on accurate information. The V architectural drawings submitted by the applicant show the proposed curb eight feet from where it should have been, according to Town records. The 23 applicant's solution was to merely shift all of Vail Road approximately eight feet to the west. This shift must be verified with survey information showing both sides of Vail Road prior to any improvements being approved so that staff can verify that there are no impacts to the First Bank Building. G. Population Characteristics The Sonnenalp currently employs approximately 270 employees during the winter season. The proposed q9 redevelopment would add approximately 26 new _I�� employees per the EIR. Ten of these employees 5/ �-�i will be needed for housekeeping, a houseman, ;, �k;s laundry service, and general hotel staffing. The 1,414 consultants preparing the EIR assumed that 16 employees are enough to staff the additional commercial area. The applicant is assuming that no additional employees will be needed for the 4000 square feet of new conference area or for the 4700 square feet of new restaurant area. The applicant claims that the conference area requires the same staffing, regardless of size. Concerning the restaurant, the applicant has stated that he will use the existing Sonnenalp Austria House restaurant staff to serve the expanded Bavaria House area. (The Austria House is by the Covered Bridge, the Bavaria House is the one under consideration. ) The Austria House restaurant will shut down when the Bavaria House restaurants are open. The additional 26 employees will increase the total number to 296. Of the total, the applicant states that 94 employees work at the Bavaria Haus. The Sonnenalp currently provides housing for approximately 145 employees. 33 units are owned by the Sonnenalp, housing 67 employees and 20 units are rented by the Sonnenalp, housing 78 employees. This assumes that each bedroom houses two Sonnenalp employees. No additional employee housing is proposed by the Sonnenalp for the redevelopment, though statements in the EIR acknowledge that the housing goals of the Sonnenalp are not being met. However, staff believes that a redevelopment of this magnitude should have some permanent employee housing. The material in the EIR states that "housing is of potential concern to both the Sonnenalp and the 24 Town. " Staff needs to clarify this point and state that significant resources have already been invested by the Town to address this issue. With the adoption of the Town of Vail Affordable Housing Study on November 20, 1990, it is no longer a potential concern but is an issue that must be addressed formally. At this time, the report has been adopted and provides guideline for new development. At a later date, the report 's recommendations will be incorporated into the Zoning Code. In addition, the Land Use Plan calls for employee housing by stating: 5. 3 - "Affordable employee housing should be made available through private efforts, assisted by limited incentives, provided by the Town of Vail, with appropriate restrictions. " It should also be mentioned that most SDD's in the past have provided some number of employee housing units within the proposal. Using the recommendations from the Affordable 41 Housing Study, staff determined the amount of housing which should be deed restricted using two _CQLVJ1 calculations. For "by-right" projects, housing for 15% of the employees should be provided. For those projects with density increases, 16% - 30% of the employees should have housing provided by the employer. For example, the redevelopment will require an additional 26 employees. Since a density increase is needed for the expansion, the 30% multiplier is used: Z Lc z i 26 employees x .30 = 7 . 8 Assuming that two employees will share a dwelling unit, the 7 . 8 is divided by 2 , resulting a requirement for 4 dwelling units. Or, 26 employees x . 16 = 4 . 16 or 2 dwelling units. Staff believes that it is also appropriate to review the over all demand on housing that the project will generate. Given that the existing operation requires 94 employees, and meets density limits, staff believes that housing should 25 be provided for these employees by using the 15% multiplier. 94 employees x .15 = 14 .1 14.1 divided by 2 equals 7 .05 By combining the "by-right" demand with that generated by the density increase, a minimum of 7 of the Sonnenalp's existing employee units should be permanently deed restricted and at least four new employee units should be required for the density and retail above the allowable. This results in a total of 11 employee restricted units. Staff's calculations do not include any additional employees for the 4700 square feet of new restaurant area. Because this does not seem plausible, staff needs more information about this area before an accurate housing demand can be done. H. Phasing The construction will take place in three phases. Phase I includes the parking structure and elevator core. Mass excavation and shoring is planned to begin May 1, 1991. The parking garage is planned to be completed by September 13 , 1991. The kitchen addition will be completed October 15, 1991. Phase II activity includes the new hotel tower and the north wing with planned occupancy for December 10, 1992 . Phase III work includes the spa building, meeting rooms and the remodel to the existing hotel which will begin May 1, 1992 . The existing east wing of the hotel will be demolished between May 1, 1992 and June 5, 1992 . At this time, the applicant proposes to build a paved road around the existing loading dock (southwest corner of site) for trucks to use during the demolition of the existing east wing. Staff is concerned about the impacts to the creek, and believes that another route can be found to haul the debris away from the site. The second concern of staff is the parking for the construction workers. As the Town has seen with the construction of the parking structure and 26 Gateway, major projects require many employees and vehicles. We would like to see a plan explaining where the construction workers will park. The applicant, in the EIR, has said that partial closures of Vail Road will be needed. The Town understands that the road will never be completely closed. In addition, the Town understands that all deliveries to the site will occur from the Talisman access road or Vail Road but will not take place via Meadow Drive. VII. LAND USE PLAN The Land Use Plan refers to the Vail Village Master Plan for reviewing any requests for redevelopment in this area. VIII . CONCLUSION Although the project has positive aspects such as the lodge use, underground parking, sidewalks, and a pedestrian bridge, staff recommends denial of the project for many reasons. Using the SDD criteria, staff finds severe noncompliance with Criteria A: design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment. The height, at 81 feet, exceeds the 48 foot limit beyond what is compatible with the surrounding area. The mass of the building, exceeds the allowed accessory area and common area by 53,931 square feet. This square footage as indicated by the height, setbacks, minimal public spaces and shadow patterns, is too much for the site. Criteria D, conformity with applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, Town policies and urban design plans, has not been met. Several plans and illustrations from the Vail Village Master Plan have not been addressed. Specifically, the open space plan with plazas, the building height plan, the shade and shadow issues, and the streamwalk have not been addressed adequately. Criteria F, regarding the site plan, has not been met in that the concepts for the site plan results in a building layout that lacks quality public spaces. Staff does not agree that the resulting site plan, reserving most of the open space on the site for hotel guests, is the best design for the community. 27 Criteria G, regarding a circulation system designed for pedestrians and automobiles, has not been met, either. Additional survey information is needed to fully address and to accurately locate the proposed improvements. The two issues discussed first are the fundamental problems with the project; however, there are numerous others which must be resolved prior to approval, as identified in the main body of the memorandum. The applicant has been aware of the Town' s concerns, in most cases, since the original PEC work session. Staff believes that until all outstanding issues are resolved, the project should not be approved. Staff asks that the applicant address the Town' s issues more thoroughly. We believe the project has merit but additional design changes are necessary before the staff could support and recommend approval of the project. 28 : . PROPOSED IPARKI NG : :. Sheet # Regular Spaces. Compact Spaces : : :;;Valet .:- P3/P4 :.; :: 63 .. ::< ••:::::: ,.1.:1 :: 1 .. P1/P2 :: . :59 14 ::27 1 Lobby Level : 5 ::::1:::::::P :: : 0 Total ::::127 :. 25 :..: :.. :.58 Grand Total: 210 (includes 12% compact and 28% valet) • .. ... REQUIRED PARKING : : `: . . . :.. . . . . ..... ..... .... .• AREA`: ><:; '::PARKING USE • (Sq. Ft.) CALCULATION REQUIREMENT_ Retail .• •:. . . . . ::...5,713 ::5713/300 . : 19 Accommodation Units • • 69,989 0.955x126 121 (555 sq. ft. average room size) . Conference/Meeting Areal ::::7,930 ::,.......:::7930/15/8/2):::•.,-•••.:•...:.;.......: .33 _ Restaurant/Lounge I :. :•4,163 4163/15/8 . •. • • ••35 Total 208 _ Parking Required = 208 spaces Mutiple Use Credit (5%) = (10) Non-conforming Credit = (4) (6 . _...._r ------ Total 194 (S :: : :. RE Q UIRED.:LOADING AREA .::::`::: ` : USE (Sq •Ft.}' ` REQUIREMENT Lodge • :; ;: ., :.:::::;5::139,366 '• :: :4•berths •:: >:: Retail := :5,71.3 1 berth Subtotal :• : , ?5.;berths` :,.: Less: Multiple Use Credit .. - 2 berths Total •: . .3.berths Sonnenalp Exhibit A e• _ r HEIGHT ANALYSIS PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT Ridge Gable Eave (ft) ` (ft) (ft) Tower Above Auto Court: 77 70 60.5 Elevator Tower: 81 N/A 66.5 Tower at Corner of East Meadow and Vail Road: 59 N/A 42 Ridge along East Meadow Drive 49.5 N/A 26.5 Tower on East End: 52 N/A 30.5 Ridge along Vail Road: 51 .5 N/A `>35 Portion of Existing Building to Remain: 42 N/A 23.5 WI COMPARISON Ridge Gable Eave (ft) (ft) (ft) Tower: 70 N/A: 50 Ridge Along Meadow: 47.5 N/A 21 Corner at Vail Road and Meadow Drive: 31 N/A 18.5 Sonnenalp Exhibit B A' AEA t3KLAKUUVVN SITE COVERAGE Sheet A2 = Existing hoteVconference area = 19,611 sq. ft. Sheet A9 = New hotel = 20,194 sq. ft. Sheet A00 = Spa building/covered walkway = 4,518 sq. ft. Total 44,378 sq. ft. COMMON AREA Sheet A2 = Registration lobby/loading&delivery = 4,244 sq. ft. Sheet A3 = Library/offices etc. = 3,818 sq. ft. Sheet A4 = Corridors, stairs-2nd level = 1,074 sq. ft. Sheet AS = Corridors, stairs-3rd level = 1,087 sq. ft. Sheet A6 = Display/restroom 565 sq. ft. Sheet A6.1 = Conference area/offices/laundry, etc. = 31,201 sq. ft. Sheet A7 = Elevator/lobby/stairs = 366 sq. ft. Sheet A8 = New wing- corridor = 2,435 sq. ft. Sheet A9 = Corridor-2nd level = 2,654 sq. ft. Sheet Al 0 = Corridor- 3rd level = 2,642 sq. ft. Sheet Al 1 = Corridor-4th level = 3,230 sq. ft. Sheet Al 2 = Corridor- 5th level = 1437 sq. ft. Sheet A00 = Spa building/covered walkway = 4,518 sq. ft. Total 59,271 sq. ft. GRFA Sheet A3 = Mezzanine = 5,830 sq. ft. - 15 Rooms Sheet A4 = 2nd level = 6,120 sq. ft. - 12 Rooms Sheet AS = 3rd level = 6,029 sq. ft. - 12 Rooms Sheet A8 = New building 1st level = 4,205 sq. ft. - 7 Rooms Sheet A9 = New building 2nd level = 16,909 sq. ft. - 28 Rooms Sheet Al 0 = New building 3rd level = 16,910 sq. ft. - 28 Rooms Sheet Al 1 = New building 4th level = 10,774 sq. ft. - 18 Rooms Sheet Al 2 = New building 5th level = 3,212 sq. ft. - 6 Rooms Total 69,989 sq. ft. - 126 Rooms COMMERCIAL Sheet A8 = 1st Level = 5,713 sq. ft. Total 5,713 sq. ft. RESTAURANT/KITCHEN/LOBBY LOUNGE Sheet A2 = Restaurant/Kitchen/Lobby Lounge = 10,106 sq. ft. Total 10,106 sq. ft. Sonnenalp Exhibit C DEC 7 '90 15:51 PAGE.002 FELSBURG HOLT & U L L E V I GI December 7, 1990 Mr. Andy Knutsen Town of Vail Community Development 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 RE: Vail Transportation Plan FEU Reference No. 89-091 Dear Mr. Knutsen: This letter is in response to your request to review the Sonnenalp site redevelopment. Specifically addressed are the following: o Review of trip generation and traffic assignments for reasonableness. o The need for left turn lanes along Vail Road. o General design characteristics of Vail Road. These items are discussed in the subsequent sections of this review. Trip Generation and Traffic Aslicmment A traffic impact analysis addressing this redevelopment spe- cifically evaluated the number of trips generated by the site, their distribution onto the roadway network, and the traffic impact on the 4-way stop intersection. The analysis was done assuming the site would contain 40 additional hotel rooms beyond that which currently exists, and the analytical process that was documented appears to be reasonable. Mmommigmlmilmmon rand MI Engineering 5299 DTC Bouleueird•Suite 400 Englewood,Colorado 80111 (303)721-A 440 DEG 7 '90 15:51 PAGE.003 December 7, 1990 Mr. Andy Knutson Page 2 However, the Environmental Impact Report for this project indicates that in addition to 40 additional hotel rooms, the redevelopment will also contain an additional 7,155 square feat of meeting space and approximately 5,800 square feet of new commercial space. If these areas are indeed expansions and are open to general public use, it would be advisable to include them in the analysis. Left Turn Lane Alone Vail Road The traffic impact study indicates 45 inbound trips during the P.M. peak hour in which 93 percent (42 trips) would be left turning vehicles from the north. ' Given the amount of south- bound through traffic (estimated to be 250 to 300 vehicles per hour during the P.M. peak) , a left turn lane should be provid- ed. In addition, if the meeting space and commercial space are included the projected number of left turning vehicles into the site will be greater than that indicated, thus making a left turn lane even more necessary. Further, the need for a left turn lane is not solely determined by absolute volume. The provision of an exclusive left turn lane, even for small turning volumes, is often beneficial in terms of safety and the elimination of traffic stoppages. Such stoppages could create queues which might obstruct other nearby access points and intersections which may be critical to overall Town circu- lation. Under either condition, we .suggest that an exclusive left turn lane be implemented. General Desian Characteristics Two basic aspects of the design characteristics are discussed here: the cross-section of Vail Road, and the operating char- acteristics of the center left turn lane. The traffic study illustrated a three lane cross-section in which the two through lanes were each ten and one-half feet, and the center lane was only nine feet in width. These dimensions are less than the standard lane width of 12-feet. Providing 12 feet for all three lanes would be desirable, and at a minimum, eleven feet should be provided. It is recognized, however, that these widths may be difficult to obtain due to existing physical limitations. If these physical limitations are • deemed to be critical, we agree with the conclusion that Vail Road operations might as well remain as a two-lane design rather than attempt to force 3 substandard lanes into 30 feet. • DEC 7 '90 15:52 PAGE.004 December 7, 1990 Mr. Andy Knutsen Page 3 Several center lane operation options exist which include striping it as a two-way left turn lane (to also serve the bank and the chapel on the west side) and striping it to be an exclusive left turn lane for the Sonnenalp. Left turns into the bank and the chapel will be infrequent relative to left turns into the Sonnenalp because much of their inbound traffic will also come from the north. As such, it would probably be desirable to lay out a striping plan which utilizes the center lane for left turning vehicles into the Sonnenalp, and have left turning vehicles into the bank and chapel make their movement from the northbound through lane. Left turn lanes would probably not be needed at the Meadow Drive intersection. If you have questions concerning this information, please call. Sincerely, 'ELSSURG BOLT Co DLLLVXG • • 11.4!)(04h, F°441). Arnold J Ullevig, P. . Christopher /leaching Principe, Transportation Engineer CF/co ** E.004 ** r • i ��, iC •- ��� - . :4_ 11 • amole - The doll Religious Foundation 4 December 1990 Ms. Kristan Pritz Town of Vail Department of Community Development Vail, Colorado 81657 HAND DELIVERED RE: Application for Special Development District Designation of Sonnenalp Hotel Dear Kristan: The Vail Religious Foundation has requested that I communicate to the Town of Vail the concern of the Foundation in association with the Vail Interfaith Chapel, regarding the rezoning of the Sonnenalp Hotel. The Vail Religious Foundation is strongly opposed to the rezoning request which is before the Town of Vail and to the redevelopment plan which is associated with that rezoning request. The application has no relationship to present zoning, the Town Master Plan or the guidelines which affect the property in question. It is apparent that the owners of the Sonnenalp Hotel purchased a property which was half the size they wanted, but the lack of planning on the part of the property owners serves as a justification neither for the rezoning which they request or for the wholesale waiver of zoning limitations which is the crux of the request now before the Town of Vail. The Foundation begins with the premise that the zoning which applies to the Sonnenalp Hotel and the surrounding properties was applied for a reason. In the opinion of the Foundation, that reason was to provide some degree of certainty regarding what would be developed on the land, and, when redevelopment was necessary, a reasonable degree of assurance regarding what would be developed when existing structures became obsolete or, for any reason, required demolition and replacement. Unfortunately, the Special Development Districts 19 1611 Rood• Wll,Colorado 81657 . permitted under the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail can be used to frustrate and to circumvent the purposes and protections created by good zoning practice. That is exactly what is occurring in the case of the Sonnenalp application. The present owners of the Sonnenalp Hotel knew what they were receiving when they purchased the property. There existed at the time of their purchase, and there now exist, limitations on that property which insure that its use will be, to some extent, consistent with the surrounding properties. The purposes of Special Development Districts are clearly listed in Section 18 .40. 10, and need not be repeated verbatim in this letter. It is sufficient to note that the goals of promoting the appropriate use of land, improving the design character and quality of new development, facilitating the adequate and economical provision of streets and utilities, preserving open space areas, and furthering the overall goals of the community may all be accomplished within the framework of the Public Accommodations Zone District in which the Sonnenalp hotel is presently located. What cannot be accomplished within that zone district are increases in building height, density, and accessory and common area GRFA, and the elimination of setbacks which are being requested by the present owners of the Sonnenalp Hotel. The request might generously be interpreted as an attempt to obtain blanket variances where no basis exists to obtain any variances whatsoever. As to the merits of the application, it is inconceivable that an eighty-foot residential structure sticking up in the middle • of Vail could do anything to enhance the attractiveness of the Town of Vail. The Town of Vail has been able to preserve, to some extent, the atmosphere of an alpine village through the zoning which is fundamental to its land use planning. It should be the 1 goal, if there is such a goal, to remind the visitor of Interlaken or Garmish, not Zurich or Munich. To permit the intensity of development which is requested by the Sonnenalp would be inconsistent with the goals which the Vail Religious Foundation believes to be those of the Town of Vail and the residents of the Town. Those goals may not necessarily be those of developers who purchase property governed by reasonable and appropriate limitations and then attempt to create appreciation of their investment by requesting special rights which violate the expectations if not the rights of the residents and the guests who are impacted by the proposed development. With regularity, and particularly during the winter season, the Interfaith Chapel is troubled by the use of its limited parking facilities by the employees of the Sonnenalp Hotel and those individuals using the Sonnenalp restaurant facilities. Despite requests made of Sonnenalp management and the positioning of the signage required by the Town of Vail to limit unauthorized parking, that use continues on a daily basis. If the development proposed by the Sonnenalp were to be permitted, that unauthorized use of the Chapel 's parking facilities would be aggravated by that fact that the Sonnenalp parking which now is reasonably visible would be less visible and less accessible, and a greater number of individuals who use the Sonnenalp facilities would use the Chapel 's limited parking. The visual impact of the Sonnenalp project on the Interfaith Chapel and its environs would be dramatic and -undesirable. Where the Town of Vail now has a focal point which, for many years, has been identifiable to the Town's residents and visitors, the visibility of the Chapel would be dramatically decreased. The Foundation suggests that the many postcards of the Chapel indicate its importance to the image of the Town of Vail. The Sonnenalp Hotel, currently an attractive facility consistent with the Town's image, would be no greater asset to the Town's image were the redevelopment plan approved. In fact, because of the mass and impact of the proposed redevelopment, it would almost certainly be an edifice to avoid, and a blight on the views of the Gore Range and Vail Mountain which people identify with the Town of Vail. Even the existing loading dock operated by the Sonnenalp Hotel creates problems in the operation of the Interfaith Chapel. That facility, across Vail Road from the Chapel, is far from an attractive feature of one of Vail's central streets, and the one which bears the Town's name. A proposal which doubles the number of rooms in the facility must bring with it the recognition that the use of the loading bay(s) will increase dramatically. That use will further disrupt the services and functions conducted at the Chapel and will detract from the appearance, not only of the Chapel, but of the street as a whole. Even under present circumstances, delivery vehicles must deal with the pedestrian and vehicular traffic on Vail Road in a manner which is inconsistent with safe practice. An aggravation of this problem should not be permitted. Beyond the deficiencies in the proposed project on its merits, there are also operational problems with the construction of the project. If the set-backs are to be waived, as requested, or significantly reduced, the work on the project must be conducted in the public right-of-way. This project is not one which would be accomplished during a single construction season. Not only the Chapel, but the Town as a whole would suffer for several construction seasons with traffic disruption, noise and a scar on the village. The functions of the Chapel, which occur on every day of the week, would be disrupted by the noise and the construction activity, including but not limited to vehicular traffic. The Vail Religious Foundation appreciates the existence and the quality of services offered by the Sonnenalp Hotel. This letter is written only after considerable discussion regarding the merits and demerits of the proposed redevelopment plan. It is, however, written upon the unanimous vote and authority of the ten members of the Vail Religious Foundation who considered the question. It is also written with the conviction that the approval of the plan would be a serious problem for the Vail Interfaith e Chapel, to those who use the facility, and to the thousands of people to have seen, and expect in the future to see, an environment in Vail which reflects some regard for the visual and psychological experience of those who seek relief, recreation and renewal during their visits in our community. The development of the Town of Vail into islands of concentrated density and mass rivaling the cities from which our visitors escape will do no more for those visitors than to send them elsewhere, seeking the experience which they formerly identified to be that of Vail. Respectfully, VAIL IGIOUS • ' D• ON onorPAI 111.1114°/ President • I PET UEC 1 01990 MICHAEL E. RICKS, P.C. a,�° -1:co fr-. CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT 0100 W. BEAVER CREEK BLVD. SUITE 226 POST OFFICE BOX 863 AVON,COLORADO 81620 MICHAEL E. RICKS.G.P.A. (303)949-5364 December 10, 1990 Ms. Kristan Pritz Town of Vail Department of Community Development Vail , CO 81657 Hand Delivered Re : Application for Special Development District Designation of Sonnenalp Hotel Dear Kristan: I have just received a copy of the letter which was written and delivered to you by Art Abplanalp on behalf of the Vail Religious Foundation . David Stitt and myself are members of the Board of Directors of the Foundation and were two of the ten members that were present when the Board took action to register with the Town certain concerns that we had regarding this impending project . Fr. Stitt and I discussed our recollections to this meeting and he requested that I prepare this letter to express that we do not agree that the letter submitted by Mr. Abplanalp clearly indicates the action taken by the Board as we understood it . I have taken the additional action of calling several of the other Board members who were available this morning to ask their recollection of our discussion and action, and they have generally concurred with my understanding which follows. At the December meeting of the Board of Directors of the Vail Religious Foundation, it was brought to our attention that the Sonnenalp project was proceeding through the approval process and that our Board had not previously discussed the possible impacts of such a project on the Vail Interfaith Chapel . A lengthy discussion followed during which we reviewed some of the documentation from the Town of Vail regarding this project . A number of specific concerns were raised regarding the project as it might impact the Chapel . These related to the size of the project in relation to the Chapel and the distance between the two buildings as proposed, possible aggravation of an already , •Ms . kristan Pritz - Page 2 difficult parking situation for the Chapel , traffic and noise concerns related to additional service vehicles using loading docks opposite the Chapel , concerns regarding restriction of the road width during construction and impact of construction noise during the rather extended construction period. I believe that these concerns have been clearly expressed in the letter you previously received. However, Fr. Stitt and I want to make it very clear that we believe that it was never the Board 's intent to cast any personal aspersions on the owners' of the Sonnenalp, nor did the Board make any decisions regarding any prior motivation that the owners ' might have had as they purchased this property. In fact , it was noted by the Board that the owners have usually been very sensitive to the concerns to the Vail Religious Foundation and have maintained a good relationship with them. Further, the Vail Religious Foundation has always been very careful to conduct its actions only in relation to its purpose , that primarily being the ownership and operation of the Vail Interfaith Chapel . Therefore, the Board has always been careful to never presume to take any action which might be interpreted as an attempt to speak on behalf of either the member churches which relate to the Chapel or on behalf of the community as a whole . The Board has expressed in the past that we do not believe that this is our role. I do realize that Mr . Abplanalp, as President of the Board , was attempting to relate the Board's concerns as I have discussed. Due to time constraints the Board members did not have opportunity to review the final draft of the letter the Mr. Abplanalp submitted . Therefore, I want to make it clear that Mr . Abplanalp did not have the benefit of any response from the Board members regarding the letter in its final form, and I am sure that he did his best to carryout his duties on behalf of the Board. It is because of this close time constraint that I have written this letter on behalf of Fr. Stitt and myself , rather that seeking to have Mr. Abplanalp revise the original letter. Both Fr. David Stitt and myself would be happy to answer any questions regarding this letter. Sincerely, /2".))//044441 Rev. Michael E. Ricks Rev. David W. Stitt Associate Pastor Pastor, Episcopal Church Vail Baptist Church of the Transfiguration LAW OFFICES RECI COSGRIFF, DUNN & ABPLANALP A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION VAIL NATIONAL BANK BUILDING PETER COSGRIFF IN LEADVILLE SUITE 300 JOHN W.DUNN 108 SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD WEST COSGRIFF, DUNN & BERRY ARTHUR A.ABPLANALP,JR. P.O.BOX I I VAIL, COLORADO 91 657 TIMOTHY H.BERRY LEADVILLE,COLORADO 80461 ALLEN C.CHRISTENSEN LAWRENCE P.HARTLAUB TELEPHONE: (303) 476-7552 (718)486-1885 TELECOPIER: (303) 476-4765 11 December 1990 Kristan Pritz Town of Vail Planning Department 75 S. Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 Re: Sonnenalp Special Development District Dear Kristan: One of the principle assets of an attorney practicing before either a court or a municipality is the attorney's credibility. It is my perception that I have some credibility with the Town of Vail . Because of that fact, I feel that the letter directed to you by Michael Ricks and David Stitt and dated the 10th of December, which questions the accuracy of the representations relating to the Sonnenalp project contained in my letter of the 4th of December and my authority to make those representations, requires some response on my part. I will let you decide whether this letter should become a part of the record relating to the Sonnenalp, but if the Ricks/Stitt letter is given any weight, then it is my feeling that this letter should also be included. The Sonnenalp project was first brought to the attention of the Vail Religious Foundation several months ago. At that time, members of the Foundation were invited over to the Sonnenalp to view the model which existed at that time. Several of the members of the Foundation, including me, accepted that invitation. At that time, although those members viewing the model expressed concern regarding its size, there appeared to be no consensus within the Foundation regarding what, if any, position should be taken by the Foundation. After the consideration of the Sonnenalp project by the Planning and Environmental Commission in November, a member of the community asked the Vail Religious Foundation to reconsider the question of the impact of the Sonnenalp property on the Interfaith Chapel. At that time, I obtained a copy of your staff report circulated in association with the November meeting. Based upon previous comments of members of the Foundation regarding the Sonnenalp project, I also prepared a draft letter and copied the THE PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION IS DUNN &ABPLANALP, P.C. IN VAIL. • page of your report comparing the authorized, actual and proposed uses for circulation to the members of the foundation. At the VRF meeting on the 4th of December, the members of the Foundation reviewed your summary analysis of uses authorized in the zone district, the actual uses, the proposed uses under the SDD which was before the Town, and the probable impact of the Sonnenalp project on the Interfaith Chapel. The comments of the members of the Foundation were virtually identical to those which I had discussed in my draft letter, although some additional problems were identified. Subsequent to the initial discussion, I circulated my draft letter among the members. The letter was approved with several modifications, and I was directed to deliver a modified letter to you. The modifications discussed and directed by the members of the Foundation, including Mr. Ricks and Rev. Stitt, were incorporated into the letter, and it was delivered to your office. Early on the morning of the 10th of December, I received a telephone call from Mr. Ricks asking that I fax to him a copy of the letter sent to the Town of Vail . He indicated at that time that he was receiving pressure from a member of his congregation that the Vail Religious Foundation should back off from its opposition to the Sonnenalp project. According to Mr. Ricks, that concerned constitutent was Gordon Pierce, the architect of the Sonnenalp project. Although Mr. Ricks and Rev. Stitt both signed the letter to the Town of Vail dated the 10th of December, I am uncertain whether Rev. Stitt was aware that the motivating force for Mr. Ricks ' concern was the architect for the applicant. I faxed to Mr. Ricks a copy of the letter previously directed to the Town of Vail, and the next word which I had from him was his letter of the 10th of December signed by himself and by Mr. Stitt, when you handed it to me during the Planning and Environmental Commission meeting Monday afternoon. Although Mr. Ricks ' letter did not clearly allege that I had no authority to take the position communicated to the Planning and Environmental Commission on behalf of the Vail Religious Foundation, it is clear that their letter is an attempt to create some uncertainty on the part of the Town of Vail regarding the position of the Vail Religious Foundation at the least, and, if totally successful, to render that position ineffective. By this letter, I unequivocally state that my letter of the 4th of December was an accurate statement of the position of the Vail Religious Foundation, and that the position contained in that letter was one which was approved by the ten members present on the meeting of the 4th of December, including Mr. Ricks and Rev. Stitt. I have confirmed this fact with other members of the Vail Religious Foundation who were present at the meeting. It is unfortunate that a member of a congregation with an interest in a proceeding pending before the Town can attempt to render ineffective the position of the Vail Religious Foundation, and I hope that effort, which resulted in the action on the part of Mr. Ricks and Rev. Stitt, is not successful in that regard. Should you have any further questions regarding either the assertions of Mr. Ricks or Rev. Stitt, or regarding the position of the Vail Religious Foundation in association with the Sonnenalp project, you may, of course, contact me. ncerel • COSGRIFF/, ' D • :P • • P la •rthur A. Abplan',�lp, Jr AAAJr: j xc: Mr. Michael Ricks Rev. David Stitt TOVPLNG5 r MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development RE: Sonnenalp Redevelopment DATE: December 10, 1990 SECTION I. INTRODUCTION This memorandum summarizes the Planning and Environmental Commission's major comments from their November 26, 1990 public hearing on the Sonnenalp redevelopment. Listed below are the PEC's comments, the applicant's response to those comments, and the staff 's response. Please note that the attached staff memorandum dated December 10, 1990 , is esentially the same as was reviewed by the PEC at their November 26, 1990 public hearing. There have been some modifications to the development plan and those modifications are addressed and highlighted in bold type within the body of the memorandum. SECTION II. ANALYSIS 1. MEADOW DRIVE A. PEC Concerns - The PEC suggested that more relief is needed along the facade of the proposed building in the Meadow Drive area. They suggested that additional design work focus on the streetscape interface, and the connection with the plazas of the Vail Village Inn to the north. Also, additional public green space should be included in this area. The concern expressed by the most Commissioners regarded a need for a break in the facade. B. Applicant's Response - "Additional relief is indicated and proposed along East Meadow Drive as requested. This was accomplished in a manner similar to suggestions by the staff. See Sheets A0, A8 and A16 for this revision. Also, a connecting plaza to the VVI is being proposed as suggested; see Sheets A0, A00 and A8 . " C. Staff Response - In an attempt to break up the facade 1 of the building along East Meadow Drive, the applicant has carried the cantilevered portion of the building down to the ground at two locations. To accomplish this, it was required that additional columns be placed approximately 6 feet further north and closer to Meadow Drive. This change was as requested by the Planning staff, however we feel that the applicant could have gone even further in the redesign to break up this facade. More relief on this elevation could be achieved by some variation in the use of materials, the arcade design, and landscaping. Each of these components are described in detail in the memo. Additional recommendations by the Planning staff included adding dormers along the flat roof portion of the structure. The applicant was unwilling to include this as a part of the project. The applicant has proposed a pedestrian connection between their project and the VVI to the north. We do have some concerns with regard to the design of the paver connection between the two properties, however, the applicant has indicated a willingness to redesign this area, in conjunction with the on-going Village Streetscape Improvement Project. We support the concept for the plaza connection. 2 . SWISS CHALET PARKING A. PEC Concerns - The PEC recommended that this surface parking area be removed and a plan to landscape and redesign this area into a pedestrian plaza should be developed. Reference Vail Village Master Plan Sub-area Concepts. B. Applicant ' s Response - As suggested, the surface parking in this area has been removed and a pocket park is being proposed. See Sheets AO and A00 for this conceptual revision. " C. Staff Response - We believe that it is extremely positive that the applicant has agreed to incorporate the 13 surface parking spaces adjacent to the Swiss Chalet into the proposed new Sonnenalp Hotel parking structure. The staff is very supportive of the applicant's pocket park design, given that this is a conceptual design at this phase of the project only. Additional work would be needed to determine exactly how this pocket park relates to the intersection of East Meadow Drive and Willow Bridge Road. This area will be studied as a portion of the on-going Village Streetscape Improvement Plan. 2 3 . VAIL ROAD TRAFFIC STUDY A. PEC Comments - The issues regarding traffic on Vail Road should be finalized (i.e. , turn lanes, width of lanes, sidewalks, and landscaping) , with the recommendation that the area be restudied at peak periods (Saturdays) . Additional survey information is needed for both sides of Vail Road. In addition, a plan to mitigate the construction traffic and parking on Vail Road needs to be presented. B. Applicant's Response - "As agreed to in our November 29, 1990 meeting with the staff, the Town's consulting engineer will help arrive at a conclusion regarding this issue. If the complexity of the issue exceeds the time Arnie Ullevig can spend on it, additional studies will be provided by the applicant. " C. Staff Response - The traffic study was forwarded to the Town' s consultant, Arnie Ullevig, and Ullevig' s report is included as an attachment to this memo. Generally, he recommended that a center left turn lane be provided by the applicant. He firmly stated that the lanes should not be substandard. His comments are discussed in detail in the memo. As indicated in one of the Sub Area concepts of the Vail Village Master Plan, traffic along Vail Road is to be discouraged. Because the applicant ' s proposal requires additional widening of Vail Road, we feel that mitigation of this widening is necessary. The staff recommends that should the PEC recommend approval of the Sonnenalp redevelopment, that the following condition be placed upon said approval: That the applicant be required to construct two median planters on Vail Road. Said planters would be located adjacent to the Vail Gateway Plaza Building, up near the 4-way stop. The intent of locating the median planters in this area is to discourage unnecessary vehicular traffic from entering onto Vail Road. It should also be required of the applicant that an additional median planter be located immediately south of Meadow Drive, on Vail Road. This planter median would assist in the channelization of traffic as it enters the left turn lane for the Sonnenalp. 4 . FIRE DEPARTMENT CONCERNS A. PEC Concerns - All concerns of the Fire Department need to be addressed. 3 B. Applicant's Response - "We feel that the revised plans, Sheets AO and A00, have addressed this issue. " C. Staff Response - The applicant has net with members of the Fire Department and as of the date of this memorandum the Fire Department has signed off on the conceptual design for the Sonnenalp. Modifications have been made to the Talisman parking and to the northeast corner of the Sonnenalp property which would facilitate fire truck access. 5. SWIMMING POOL A. PEC Concerns - The proposed swimming pool needs to be relocated out of the rear setback area. B. Applicant's Response - "The swimming pool has been revised; see Sheet A00. It has been pulled back, but due to the swim-through location, a very small portion of the pool still encroaches into the setback. Also, the whirlpools have been relocated. " C. Staff Response - We believe that it is positive that the applicant has pulled a portion of the swimming pool out of the setback, however, we feel that the entire pool should be completely out of the rear setback area and that the patio should also be pulled out of the setback. We feel that there is adequate room within the interior courtyard/garden area to accommodate the swimming pool and associated patio. The staff feels that there is no justification for allowing any encroachments into the rear setback for the pool and patio. 6. LOADING AND DELIVERY AREA A. PEC Concerns - This area should be restudied, as it was determined by the PEC that the proposed loading dock was not adequate to handle all loading for the facility. Access from this loading dock to the Meadow Drive commercial shops needs to be shown that it is in fact feasible. B. Applicant's Response - "The loading area has been restudied; see Sheet A2 . For deliveries to the commercial spaces, see Sheets A2 and A8, indicating two loading/delivery spaces. C. Staff Response - The applicant's redesign has included an additional loading berth at the southwest corner of the building, for a total of two loading berths in this 4 area. It should be pointed out that the proposed loading berths do not meet the minimum size requirements as outlined in the Town of Vail Municipal Code. The Town Code requires each loading berth to be a minimum size of 12 feet wide, by 25 feet long. The applicant's loading berths are approximately 8 feet wide, by 25 feet long. One additional loading berth has also been added in the auto court area. The intent of this loading berth is to accommodate UPS-sized vehicles for the retail commercial spaces located along East Meadow Drive. 7. VAIL ROAD/MEADOW DRIVE INTERSECTION A. PEC Comments - Additional green space should be included on the site. The creation of a possible pocket park should also be considered. B. Applicant's Response - "Additional green space has been proposed as per your suggestion; see Sheets AO, AOO and A8 . C. Staff Response - Some additional landscaping has been added along Meadow Drive, specifically in the area of the Vail Road and Meadow Drive intersection. While the staff believes that this is a step in the right direction, we feel strongly that additional work is needed on the landscape plan. A more detailed landscape plan is needed to specifically address the issues of planting along Vail Road and Meadow Drive in conjunction with the commercial space needed for visibility. Screening of the transformer vent needs to be resolved. 8. STREAMWALK A. PEC Comments - The Sonnenalp proposal should include a streamwalk along Gore Creek for the length of the property. B. Applicant's Response - "This issue, as stated many times before, will not be a part of or included in this proposal. Due to the location (i.e. , Town property) this should not be an issue. C. Staff Response - As stated in our original memorandum on this project, the staff firmly believes that a streamwalk would be in the best interests of the Town. Because we believe that the streamwalk could be constructed sensitively to the hotel, the staff strongly feels that the applicant should incorporate 5 44 the streamwalk into their proposed site plan. 9. EMPLOYEE HOUSING A. PEC Comments - The applicant should restudy the employee housing demand and should propose to meet the standards as outlined in the recently adopted "Employee Housing Report" of the Town of Vail. B. Applicant's Response - "This shall be addressed by Sonnenalp Properties, Inc. " C. Staff Response - A revised employee count has been provided by the applicant, showing that 94 employees work at the Bavaria House. Staff has used this number with the same analysis done for the previous hearing. 10. TALISMAN ACCESS EASEMENT A. PEC Comments - The existing access easement from the Talisman parking lot to East Meadow Drive should be vacated and an access agreement finalized with the Sonnenalp/Talisman. B. Applicant's Response - "This issue shall be addressed by Sonnenalp Properties, Inc. and by the Talisman Association. " C. Staff Response - To date, no additional information has been submitted by the applicant with regard to this issue. We believe it is in the community's best interest of insure that Meadow Drive is preserved as a pedestrian mall . It appears that both the Sonnenalp and Talisman have a verbal agreement to allow the Talisman to access their property through the new parking structure as well as through an access point adjacent to the traffic gate on the east end of the mall. We recommend that this verbal agreement be formalized and that it become a part of the proposal . This approach would make it possible to vacate an access easement for the Talisman that bisects the Meadow Drive pedestrian mall. This access easement was granted to the Talisman when the pedestrian mall was established to insure access to the property if acess was no longer allowed through the Sonnenalp property. This is an opportunity to insure that Meadow Drive will remain a pedestrian mall and resolution of this issue is necessary. 11. BUILDING HEIGHT A. PEC Comments - Some of the Commissioners were concerned 6 about the height of the building along Vail Road, while others were concerned about the height of the building along East Meadow Drive, thereby creating shade on the pedestrian area. General height concerns were raised by most Commissioners. B. Applicant's Response - "The roof height along Vail Road has been reduced per your suggestion. The exit access corridor that was in this roof area has been relocated. Due to this relocation, a lockoff on the fifth floor will be eliminated and a unit on the fourth floor will be relocated to the mezzanine level. " C. Staff Response - The applicant has been able to reduce the height of the building by approximately 6 feet for a portion of the building at the northwest elevation along Vail Road. In addition to this, the applicant has raised the height of the tower at the Vail Road/Meadow Drive intersection by approximately 2 feet. By raising the height of this tower and lowering the portion of the building that connects this tower to the main building, we believe that the tower now functions more as a focal point than as previously submitted. Generally, the staff continues to have major concerns with the overall height, mass and bulk of the proposed structure. SONCOVMO 7 HEIGHT ANALYSIS PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT Ridge Gable Eave (ft) (ft) (ft) Tower Above Auto Court: 77 70 60.5 Elevator Tower: 81 N/A 66.5 Tower at Corner of East Meadow and Vail Road: 57.5 N/A 42 1) Ridge along East Meadow Drive 49.5 N/A 26.5 \ Tower on East End: 52 N/A 30.5 Ridge along Vail Road: 51 .5 N/A 35 Portion of Existing Building to Remain: 42 N/A 23.5 WI COMPARISON Ridge Gable Eave (ft) (ft) (ft) Tower: 70 N/A 50 v'7 Ridge Along Meadow: 47.5 N/A 21 Corner at Vail Road and Meadow Drive: 31 N/A 18.5 Sonnenalp Exhibit B PROPOSED PARKING Sheet # Regular Spaces Compact Spaces Valet P3/P4 63 11 25 P1/P2 60 13 7 Lobby Level 4 1 1 Total 127 25 33 Grand Total: 185 (includes 13.5% compact and 17.8% valet) REQUIRED PARKING AREA PARKING USE (Sq. Ft.) CALCULATION REQUIREMENT Retail 5,760 5760/300 20 Accommodation Units 70,113 0.965x124 120 (565 sq. ft. average room size) Conference/Meeting Area 7,930 7930/15/8/2 33 Restaurant/Lounge 4,163 4163/15/8 35 Total 208 Parking Required = 208 spaces Mutiple Use Credit (5%) = (35) Non-conforming Credit = (4) Total 169 REQUIRED LOADING AREA USE (Sq. Ft.) REQUIREMENT Lodge 139,716 4 berths Retail 5,760 1 berth Subtotal 5 berths Less: Multiple Use Credit - 2 berths Total - 3 berths Sonnenalp Exhibit A AF' A BREAKDOWN SITE COVERAGE Sheet A2 = Existing hotel/conference area = 19,611 sq. ft. Sheet A9 = New hotel = 20,194 sq. ft. Sheet A00 = Spa building/covered walkway = 4,518 sq. ft. Total 44,378 sq. ft. COMMON AREA Sheet A2 = Registration lobby/loading &delivery = 4,284 sq. ft. Sheet A3 = Library/offices etc. = 4,367 sq. ft. Sheet A4 = Corridors, stairs-2nd level = 1,074 sq. ft. Sheet A5 = Corridors, stairs-3rd level = 1,087 sq. ft. Sheet A6 = Display/restroom = 565 sq. ft. Sheet A6.1 = Conference area/offices/laundry, etc. = 31,201 sq. ft. Sheet A7 = Elevator/lobby/stairs = 366 sq. ft. Sheet A8 = New wing -corridor = 2,435 sq. ft. Sheet A9 = Corridor- 2nd level = 2,654 sq. ft. Sheet Al 0 = Corridor- 3rd level = 2,642 sq. ft. Sheet All = Corridor-4th level = 2,867 sq. ft. Sheet Al 2 = Corridor- 5th level = 1437 sq. ft. Sheet A00 = Spa building/covered walkway = 4,518 sq. ft. Total 59,497 sq. ft. GRFA Sheet A3 = Mezzanine = 5,281 sq. ft. - 14 Rooms Sheet A4 = 2nd level = 6,120 sq. ft. - 12 Rooms Sheet AS = 3rd level = 6,029 sq. ft. - 12 Rooms Sheet A8 = New building 1st level = 4,205 sq. ft. - 7 Rooms Sheet A9 = New building 2nd level = 16,909 sq. ft. - 28 Rooms Sheet Al 0 = New building 3rd level = 16,910 sq. ft. - 28 Rooms Sheet Al 1 = New building 4th level = 11,137 sq. ft. - 19 Rooms Sheet Al2 = New building 5th level = 3,522 sq. ft. - 4 Rooms Total 70,113 sq. ft. - 124 Rooms COMMERCIAL Sheet A8 = 1st Level = 5,760 sq. ft. Total 5,760 sq. ft. RESTAURANT/KITCHEN/LOBBY LOUNGE Sheet A2 = Restaurant/Kitchen/Lobby Lounge = 10,106 sq. ft. Total 10,106 sq. ft. Sonnenalp Exhibit C • Leigh, Scott 81 Cl try, Inc. 1889 York Street ..�� TRANSPORTATION PLANNING — -- iN a: 0 S`? 'S Denver.Colorado 80206 .1,I/ &TRAFFIC ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS (303)333-1105 Offices in Denver and Colorado Springs Fax: (303)333-1107 October 4, 1990 "' Mr. Ken A. O'Bryan Pierce, Segerberg & Spaeh MIO 1000 South Frontage Road West Vail , CO 80657 RE: Sonnenalp Hotel Expansion LSC # 900710 Dear Ken: We have completed a traffic impact and access analysis for the proposed 3 Sonnenalp Hotel project in Vail , Colorado. The project site is located along the east side of Vail Road between Meadow Drive and Gore Creek. The proposed project is assumed to consist of demolition of 75 of the Hotel 's 84 existing rooms and construction of 115 new hotel units. Thus, the new Sonnenalp 3 facility will contain a total of 124 hotel rooms including 40 more than exist on the site today. Existing Traffic Conditions Figure 1 , enclosed, illustrates the location of the site with respect to the 3 adjacent roadway system. All access to and from the proposed facility is planned for a pair of one-way driveways located along the east side of Vail Road about 120 feet and 180 feet south of Meadow Drive. Vail Road is an important access route through the central part of the Town where it connects residential areas to the south with I-70 and the east/west frontage road system. In the vicinity of the site, Vail Road is about 30 feet wide and it provides for one travel lane in each direction. Four-way Stop 3 signs are posted at the Vail Road intersections with Meadow Drive and the South Frontage Road. Meadow Drive is an important two-lane, east/west route which serves the central area of Vail . West of Vail Road, Meadow is a 1500-foot long cul-de- sac street which serves many important community facilities (fire station, library, hospital , etc. ) . To the east, Meadow is a limited access route which is controlled by a gate arm mounted adjacent to Vail Road. 3 Figure 1 also presents traffic count data for the nearby four-way Stop 3 intersection of Vail Road and the South I-70 Frontage Road. The data shown presents evening peak-hour turning movement counts conducted in March, 1990, and future projections of same by Felsburg, Holt and Ullevig. The future data assumes build out of all proposed development in the vicinity which has 1, already been approved by the Town. Transnoration Systems•Transit•Parking•Vehicular Access•Pedestrian o Bicycle Planning•Traffic Operations&Safety•Signal Design•Traffic Impact Studies • 41 31 Mr. Ken A. O'Bryan 2 October 4, 1990 Estimated Traffic Generation 31 Average weekday and evening peak-hour traffic activity expected to be generated by the Sonnenalp Hotel is shown in the following table: ESTIMATED TRAFFIC GENERATION 31 SONNENALP HOTEL 31 40 Additional 124 Rooms Rooms Only 3 • Average Weekday Traffic (@ 8.704/Rm) 1080 350 a Evening Peak Hour Traffic 31 • Entering Vehicles (@ 0.359/Rm) 45 14 o Exiting Vehicles (@ 0.305/Rm.) 38 12 3 As indicated, full occupancy of the hotel can be expected to generate 540 31 entering and 540 exiting vehicles during an average weekday. Less than a third of this traffic, however, is projected to be new to the area since the 31 net increase in hotel units is only 40. These estimates are based on Category 310 rates published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers as cited in S "Trip Generation", 4th edition. 31 Estimated Traffic Distribution and Assignment 31 The directional distribution of generated vehicular traffic on the roadway system providing access to and from the subject project is one of the most 31 important elements in planning specific access requirements and in determining related traffic impacts . The major factors which influence this traffic 31 distribution include the Hotel 's relative location within the community, the S type of proposed land use, and characteristics of the roadway system providing access. 31 Figure 2 illustrates the percentage distribution of Sonnenalp traffic which is estimated for this analysis. As indicated, the majority (930) of the Hotel traffic is expected to pass through the four-way intersection. Application of these distribution estimates to the previously cited generation estimates for S the project's 40 additional rooms results in the peak-hour and average weekday S turning movement traffic assignment which is also shown on Figure 2. As indicated, traffic to be added by the project is shown at the proposed Sonnenalp driveways as well as at the Meadow Drive and Frontage Road intersections with Vail Road. Traffic Impacts S Figure 3 illustrates the combination of background and site-generated traffic at the Vail Road/Frontage Road intersection for both existing (March, 1990) and future evening peak-hour traffic conditions. A comparative capacity L 3 Mr. Ken A. O'Bryan 3 October 4, 1990 analysis has been prepared for the subject intersection using procedures presented to the Transportation Research Board during the January 1990 annual meeting ( "Estimating the Capacity of an All-Way Stop-Controlled Intersection", Michael Kite) . The results of these analyses (printouts are enclosed) are as follows : 3 10 CAPACITY ANALYSIS COMPARISONS VAIL ROAD & I-70 FRONTAGE ROAD Volume/Capacity Assumed Traffic Ratio Existing 119% 1) Existing + Additional Site 120% Future 1400 Future + Additional Site 1430 1) As indicated, the intersection with existing controls is presently 19 percent over capacity during the peak-hour and in the future, it is projected to be 40 a percent over capacity. The additional traffic to be added by the proposed Sonnenalp project, however, will only increase these peak-hour projections 1% a and 30, respectively. 1) Summary and Conclusions Based on the foregoing analysis, the following summarizes our findings concerning the proposed Hotel expansion. 3) 1 . At full occupancy, the proposed project can be expected to add 3) approximately 175 entering and 175 exiting weekday vehicle trips to the surrounding roadway system. Of these, 14 will enter and 12 will exit 3) during the evening peak-hour. 31 2. The greatest concentration of project-generated traffic is expected along Vail Road to and from the north. Ninety-three percent of the additional 31 traffic will pass through the key Vail Road/I-70 Frontage Road intersection. 3) 3. The traffic impact of the proposed project on existing and future peak 3) season traffic will be minimal . At the key four-way' intersection, peak- hour capacity will be reduced only one to three percent. 3/ 4. In conjunction with this project, consideration should be given to 31 installation of painted left-turn channelization on Vail Road approximately as shown on Figure 4, enclosed. As noted, the existing ditch along the east side of Vail Road should be covered and/or protected by the installation of curb and gutter. 3) a • a • Mr. Ken A. O'Bryan 4 October 4, 1990 We trust that this report will assist with further planning for the Sonnenalp Hotel project. Please call if we can be of additional assistance. 7 Respectfully submitted, LEIGH, SCOTT & CLEARY, INC. a a ,,- by Philip�N. Sc t, III , P.E. PNS/vb 1 W `1 rr 3 l Enclosures. Figures 1-4 ID Capacity Analysis (4) a 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT The Sonnenalp Hotel Bavaria Haus Vail, Colorado November 5, 1990 Prepared For: Sonnenalp Properties, Inc. Prepared By Rosall,Remmen and Cares,Inc. Boulder,Colorado (303)449-6558 Pierce,Segerberg and Spaeh Architects Vail,Colorado (303)476-4433 Leigh,Scott and Cleary,Inc. Denver, Colorado (303)333-1105 Weitz/Cohen Construction Denver,Colorado (303)860-6600 ROSALL REMMEN CARES TABLE OF CONTENTS The Most Significant Impacts of the Project 1 Significant Mitigation Measures Associated with the Project 2 Background 4 Land Use 6 Population and Employment Impacts 7 Parking and Circulation 8 Air Quality 13 Visual Impact 13 Drainage and Improvements Along Gore Creek 15 Construction Phasing and Management 16 Fiscal Impacts 18 Appendices "Reductions of Preliminary Design Plans for The Sonnenalp Hotel" A October, 1990 - Pierce,Segerberg and Spaeh Architects *(Note: Full scale copies of plans submitted under separate cover) "Traffic Impact Study" B October 4, 1990 - Leigh, Scott & Cleary "Sonnenalp Transportation Study" C Van Ridership, Winter/Summer 1990 - Sonnenalp Properties, Inc. "Hotel Occupancies and Parking Lot Occupancies" D Winter/Spring 1989 - Rosall Remmen and Cares, Inc. "View Analysis" E "Shadow and Shade Studies" October 1990 - Pierce, Segerberg and Spaeh Architects "Construction Management and Phasing" F October 9, 1990 - Weitz Cohen SUMMARY THE MOST SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS OF THE PROJECT • Undergrounding of the parking lot will alter the present character of the intersection of East Meadow Drive and Vail Road. This impact will be positive, but the expanded parking facility will have some minor traffic impacts beyond current levels. • There will be a slight increase in bed base (40 units) and an increase in commercial area (5,790 sq. ft.) and meeting rooms (7,155 sq. ft.) as a result of the redevelopment. More important, the service quality will go up and the Town of Vail will have a centrally located deluxe hotel, a resort product not formerly offered. • Traffic associated with the redevelopment will increase slightly. However, through the use of vans, and a clientele that is likely to visit Vail without automobiles, especially during the winter, traffic impacts will be reduced below what a similar facility might generate in other communities or elsewhere in Vail. • The new hotel will have visual impact at the Vail Road/East Meadow Drive intersection and when viewed from several off-site vantage points, especially from the west on East Meadow Drive. The hotel will create some shadowing of East Meadow Drive, although the shadows will not be present during most of the year and will not significantly exceed those created by existing landscaping on the road's edge. • The construction process will generate impacts, both on the site and for directly adjacent properties. These impacts are addressed in the proposal and various measures have been proposed to mitigate anticipated problems and concerns. For example, the Sonnenalp development will undertake erosion control measures to minimize impacts on Gore Creek and surrounding properties. Necessary precautions will be taken and will comply with the rules. Scheduling and sequencing of construction is another important concern that has been addressed. • Drainage impacts associated with the proposed improvements have been carefully considered. The parking structure and proximity to Gore Creek generate some special considerations, but all drainage impacts and dewatering requirements and concerns will be addressed through the drainage systems that will be constructed. All plans will comply with Town of Vail requirements. • The fiscal impacts of the Sonnenalp Project have not been quantified in detail, but the revenue potential of the project to the Town is considerable. Because a significant number of services to occupants of the hotel will be provided privately by the Sonnenalp, rather than by the Town of Vail, the revenue potential for the Town exceeds costs, resulting in a positive economic benefit. SIGNIFICANT MITIGATION MEASURES ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROJECT A variety of mitigation steps are proposed by the applicants. These measures have been considered by the Town of Vail as a part of the Sonnenalp Hotel expansion, and have been suggested by the staff and through meetings with the Planning Commission. Discussions to date have resulted in plan refinements and clarifications and the proposal now before the Town represents an attempt to consider and address those impacts that are regarded as most significant. • The proposal is supportive of the Vail Village Master Plan, although the Master Plan was developed in anticipation of renovating rather than demolishing the existing hotel. In support of the Master Plan, the proposal suggests the addition of commercial/retail space along East Meadow Drive and the addition of short-term housing within this district. • The main objective is to develop a Five-Star Hotel operation in the Vail Village that will have a positive impact on guests as well as pedestrians and the larger community alike. The hotel will attract guests, both national and international, which will benefit the Town both economically and culturally. • The concept of a private area for guests is an important consideration for this type of development and is strongly addressed in this proposal. • The design has been phased to reflect economic factors that must be addressed to make the project feasible. Continuing to operate the existing hotel while construction occurs presents impacts that have been addressed and will be mitigated. • The character reflected in the proposal is in keeping with Vail Village and is modeled after the Sonnenalp Properties developed in Europe. • The Sonnenalp Hotel operates two vans which reduce auto traffic to the site and lower demands on the Vail bus system. • Parking will be increased, and efficiency will improve as a result of not contending with snow in the surface lots. All parking is covered, a significant mitigation element that is of general community benefit. • Pedestrian access will be enhanced through new heated walkways that will be adjacent to shops. New visual interest will be created that will offset the presence of a large new building at the corner of East Meadow Drive and Vail Road. 2 • Employee housing is being provided by Sonnenalp Properties, Inc., and is being addressed in the SDD application. • The height and shading created by the building have been addressed by the applicants and a series of design changes have been made to address concerns identified in the review process. 3 BACKGROUND INTRODUCTION The Sonnenalp Hotel SDD is proposed to obtain flexibility in the planning process that would not otherwise be available in the underlying P.A. Zone District. An Environmental Impact Report (E.I.R.) has been developed by the applicants to summarize the environmental impacts that may be anticipated with the proposal and to summarize some of the key mitigation measures that will be undertaken. This E.I.R. is organized around the requirements of the Town of Vail Zoning Code, Section 18.56.040 and 18.56.050. The order of the discussion has been modified somewhat from the outline contained in the Town Code in order to provide a more logical description of the proposal and its impacts on the Town. Because there is already development on the Sonnenalp site, and because it is located in a developed area, many of the most significant impacts associated with this request are in the areas of traffic and circulation, employment, and the altered visual character of the site as a result of proposed new construction. Although biotic, geologic, and hydrologic impacts are identified as considerations in the Code, they are of relatively minor concern with this particular application and as a result greater discussion and attention is given to the areas where impacts are felt to be greatest. The following discussion provides an overview of the technical reports that comprise the body of the Environmental Impact Report. The technical reports are contained in the Appendix. THE PROPOSAL The Sonnenalp Hotel SDD is located along the east side of Vail Road between Meadow Drive and Gore Creek The proposed redevelopment of the existing Sonnenalp Hotel involves the phased demolition of 75 of the existing hotel's 84 existing rooms, and the construction of 115 new hotel units. The proposed hotel will contain a total of 124 hotel rooms, or 40 more rooms than exist toda . In addition the si - .ill contain a total o a'proximately 9,563 square feet of meetin: rooms and 5,792 square feet of retail space. The Sonnenalp Hotel Bavaria House is one of three Vail Village properties owned by Sonnenalp Properties Inc. The other two properties, the Swiss Chalet (60 units) and the Austria House (37 units), are managed together with the existing Bavaria House as an integrated operation. This management practice will continue with the redevelopment of the Bavaria House to include the addition of 40 rooms plus expanded meeting space. The commercial space is expected to be leased private operators. The efficiency of operations for the entire organization will be improved with the new construction. As a result of the integrated operations of Sonnenalp Properties Inc., and 4 because of the improvements in overall operations, some assumptions about impacts must be made that will carry throughout this Impact Report. A discussion of impacts based on the three properties, rather than the Bavaria House alone, are appropriate at several points. The context for this proposed redevelopment is established by the adjacent properties which are either developed or permanently preserved as open space. In other words, the applicants are proposing to redevelop an existing developed property in an area where the "edges" are established, either by roadways, the open space corridor of Gore Creek, or the existing buildings that make up the Vail Village Inn to the north, and the Chapel and 1st Bank of Vail to the west. (See the Site Plan in the Appendix for locations of the adjacent properties.) The proposal ha •een res•onsive to the setting, and to the existing planning guidelines as esta'fished by the Vail Village Plan, the Actio . • - •a e • - e - : '. - 'nes and policies. THE SONNENALP HOTEL SITE CONTEXT W I Phase v Plaza&radnq U East / _..._______\ Motel Rooms � 1 1 ■ Talisman Co dortihiums \ Somehalp hotel ` ~ ■` SWAN Chalet I_ Sonnehalp hotel N Bavaria to Ha t I \■ m ir \B I // e peek ` \ a I / ` J N // h N \ V A . ---//// / / 1\\- - --------- 7' 0 1 ,i / \shop Park 1 ...______ I' �j 1 _____-- _ \ \ _ \ el r J---1-H 5 LAND USE The proposed land use for the Sonnenalp Hotel is as a hotel with 124 rooms, and additional meeting space and retail shops. The proposed land use is consistent with the Vail Village Plan and with the un•i° • e hotel rooms are proposed to be large by local _standards :en- . over 600 square fee . owever, the rooms are designed for occupancies typical of luxury . - , an. wi strict registration requirements at the hotel, there is a degree of control over land use at the Sonnenalp that is not found at many of the other condominium properties in Vail. This central control is important. It has characterized the Sonnenalp's operations in the past, and will continue in the future, making land uses predictable and quantifiable to an extent not normally possible. Impacts of the proposal are evaluated in relation to existing population figures and established densities and land uses within the Town. At present, there are an estimated 7,326 dwellin• •- own of Vail, of which 828 are accommodation units. In other w ords abo 411 .- . -..a 'I • - ' -ntial development in the Town_of Vail iG duo ed to accommodation .y Because the Town counts each two accommodation units as a residential unit, the proposed addition of 40 units at the Sonnenalp Hotel would add approximately 2.4 percent capacity to the existing base of 1,656 accommodation units in the Town. At completion, this would add a small increment to the Town's hotel room base, and while the additional units would have a minor impact on the total accommodations inventory within Vail, they represent a land use type that is encouraged by both the Town's Land Use Plan and the Action Plan. Further, the luxury aspect of the proposed units and site plan represent an important complement to existing facilities and services offered by Vail. The • • I• onnenal. Hotel also includes 7155 new •uare feet of meetingspace.This wi • ddition • he existing 2,408 square feet on-site, res ting in a total y of 9,563 s•uar- -° . .This relatively small meeting facility is designed to complement hotel operations and to service guests of the Sonnenalp Properties as well as small groups staying elsewhere in the community. The plan for the Hotel also includes the construction of approximately 5,800 square feet of new commercial space adjacent to East Meadow Drive. This retail space would be added to the existing Town of Vail base of slightly more than 500,000 square feet, an increase of approximately 1 percent. The proposed additional retail space would add approximately 2 percent to the total in the smaller Vail Village area. The commercial space is located in accordance with the Vail Village Master Plan, and is designed to improve and reinforce the road corridor in accordance with the Plan. The Sonnenalp Hotel will result in the preservation of significant areas of open space along Gore Creek. Setbacks along the Creek exceed the Town's 50 foot requirement in all areas, and the large area of grass and trees will provide benefits to hotel occupants, adjacent units to the south (Bishop Park and others), and visible open space from pedestrian ways to the west (Vail Road Bridge), and through the Auto Court. 6 An additional land use component of the plan is the pedestrian circulation system that will be created. At present, there is negligible pedestrian activity along the Sonnenalp side of Vail Road and Gore Creek Drive. As described and illustrated further below, sidewalks will be created as a part of this plan that will serve the pedestrian needs of not only hotel occupants, but the larger community. A significant element in the current plan is the underground parking lot that is proposed. At present, there are a total of 112 surface parking spaces on the Sonnenalp site. These spaces will be consolidated and increased through the construction of a two floor underground garage. A total of 188 spaces will be created, of which 3paces are for valet use and 6 spaces are on a auto court. The net change in land use for parking is an increase of 76 spaces, with all but six spaces underground. POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT IMPACTS The changes in land use at the Sonnenalp Hotel will have some impact on local population figures, and will create a slight increase in both on-site and off-site employment. Because no condominium units are proposed on-site there will be no permanent population impacts on the Sonnenalp property as a result of the redevelopment. The employment impacts of the proposal are estimated to be as follows: • During the winter months there are a total of a• •roximatel_ 2y• --s working for Sonnenalp Properties. These employees are spread between the three hotels and while it is difficult to allocate a precise percentage to the Bavarian House, an attempt to analyze employment on the subject property is provided in the Appendix. During the summer months Sonnenalp Properties Inc. has slightly less employees than during the winter, and they are allocated differently with some of the winter work force moving to the Singletree Golf Course, which is also owned by Sonnenalp. • On any given day during the peak Winter season, it is estimated that there will be as many as 120 employees spread between the three Sonnenalp properties. This estimate is based on the assumption that of the total employees typically 28 percent are off (most work five day weeks), and some employees hold multiple positions. Further, the round-the-clock and full- time nature of a hotel operation means that the total employment force are spread throughout a 24 hour period. • An estimate of the emplop ent associated with the expanded hotel, meeting and commercial facilities at the Sonnenal• indicates a total increase of approximate 8 to 10 employees. ,This is based on some increased e iciencies that will come from the new operation resulting in the closing of one of the three front desks (freeing two staff members) and the elimination of a restaurant. The expected new staff include the addition of four to five housekeeping staff to serve the 40 additional rooms, a houseman, and a 7 person for the laundry, and up to four additional persons to augment the overall staff at peak times. • In addition, the new commercial space will generate some additional employment. Based on multipliers established through the Eagle County Employer Survey (RRC, 1990) the 5 800 s•uare feet of commercial s•ace are expected to res t in approximately 16 employees. The issue of housing employees is of potential concern to both Sonnenalp Properties Inc. and local officials. This issue has been discussed as a part of the SDD review process and various documents describing the current status of housing for employees of the corporation have been provided under separate cover. The impact of adding new employees to an already tight market is acknowledged. Sonnenal• Pro•erties is currentl providing housin: for a 5 al of 145 employees. T • • • . •mbination of units owned by_Sonnena p Pro ep roes Inc. (3 units housing b employees) and rented units (19 units housing 78 employees) the corporation is current'°using approximately 53 percent of total employees. The company's stated goal is to maintain housing for approximately 60 to 70 percent of total employees. Because a number of Sonnenalp employees currently own housing, the company is currently providing housing for a high percentage of employees in need. PARKING AND CIRCULATION The Sonnenalp Hotel will be located at one of the significant intersections in Vail, as identified by the Vail Village Master Plan. Bus, vehicular and pedestrian circulation are all excellent to the property, and the special deman of each of these modes were addressed in the p_ fanning vroc? sr- PARKING A significant change in parking will occur as a result of the new Sonnenalp Hotel. The existing parking lot at the corner of Vail Road and East Meadow Drive will be placed underground, with a net increase of 74 spaces. As summarized on the following page, the new parking structure will consist of two floors, with four sub-levels and an auto court. There will be impacts associated with the parking of automobiles at this location but they are generally less than the existing situation where dust (due to winter sanding and snow removal), the visual quality of the intersection, and surface water runoff are all negatively impacted by the open parking lot that exists. 8 SONNENALP HOTEL PARKING SCHEME: A DIAGRAM OF THE PARKING STRUCTURE AND SUMMARY OF PARKING CAPACITY \ Q" \ 9' N, N7g/ AUTO-COURT LEVEL : 6 Parking Spaces + 0 Valet Spaces = 6 Parking Spaces. PARKING LEVEL P-1 : 40 Parking Spaces + 0 Valet Spaces = 4.0 Parking Spaces PARKING LEVELP-2 : 34 Parking Spaces + 7 Valet Spaces - 41 Parking Spaces PARKING LEVEL P-3 : 40 Parking Spaces +I 1 Valet Spaces = 51 Parking Spaces PARKING LEVEL P-4: 34 Parking Spaces +14 Valet Spaces = 48 Parking Spaces TOTAL PARKING ALL LEVELS =*186 (Including valet) *Note: The original parking scheme showed 198 spaces. A total of 12 parking spaces were deleted from the original plan to enhance the landscaping for the new hotel. 9 VEHICULAR TRIPS The number of vehicle trips to the property was originally estimated by a consultant using traditional measures from similar properties. The study, commissioned by Sonnenalp Properties Inc., is contained in the Appendix. It shows that the expansion of the Hotel with its associated im•rovements will increase the •eak hour use at the four way stop by 1 percent at the present time, and up to 3 •- -• a . - ■ a - hen the intersection is further u sed. Key recommendations and findings from the study included: • At full occupancy, the proposed project can be expected to add approximately 175 entering and 175 exiting weekday vehicle trips to the surrounding roadway system. Of these, 14 will enter and 12 will exit during the evening peak-hour. • The greatest concentration of project-generated traffic is expected along Vail Road to and from the north. Ninety-three percent of the additional traffic will pass through the key Vail Road/I-70 Frontage Road intersection. • The traffic impact of the proposed project on existing and future peak season traffic will be minimal. • In conjunction with this •ro'ect consideration hould b- •'ven to installation of painte. e -turn channelization on Vail Road. The existing ditch along the east side of Vail Road should be covered and/or protected by the installation of curb and gutter. In response to the recommendations by the consultant, Sonnenalp Properties Inc. will make changes within the existing right of way of Vail Road. The additional traffic that is enerated by the proposal will be addressed by restrip' exists_paved section of Vai_ oad as a three lane roadway. This would occur between East Meadow Drive and the entrance to the Sonnenal arkourt. However, it should be noted that the traffic impact estimates are felt to represent a "worst case" for several reasons. First, the Sonnenalp has operated two vans for some time (at present a 21 and 15 person vehicle are in operation). Experience has shown that most guests choose to use the vans rather than private vehicles to make winter trips in and around the Valley. Second, extensive :. • • - • • Sonnenalp Properties Inc. indicate that almost half of all guests are visiting Vail without cars. _During the winter months this figurer_e aptiroached' 70 percent, an it has shown signs of continued increase in recent years as pay parking, improved van service, and the emphasis on direct flights have combined to make having an automobile in Vail less attractive. These findings are confirmed by the summary analysis, contained in the Appendix, which shows that (uring the period from Jan. 1, 1990 through Sept. 30, 1990 (which includes the winter, spring and--summer-.seasons approxi aate1y_4,200 out of a total of 8,652 departures and arrivals (48.5 percent) were by van services. 10 An additional indicator of automobile use by Sonnenalp residents is the inventory of the Sonnenalp parking lot that was conducted by the Town of Vail as a part of the 1989 Parking Stu This study involved a series of traffic counts m e onnena p ot, conduct-• at various times of day, on a sampling of days between December 29 and July 1. The average parking lot utilization at the Sonnenal• lot was 55 •ercent, with the highest count recor s owing I of the 112 existing spaces filled, or 91 percent occupancy. (See the Appendix for a summary of the results.) The data show a high level of correlation between the occupancy of the hotel and the use of the parking lot, but even at very low hotel occupancies the lot was being used by approximately 20 cars. These are typically employee vehicles that are present at all times. The inventory showed rather clearly that the Sonnenalp has an excess of parking under all conditions at the present time. This condition will become even more pronounced when the parking lot is expanded by 76 spaces. It should be recognized that the parking at the Sonnenalp Bavaria Hous- • - • - •• - •• •.• • • •a-rkin emand from the other two proper ies`At present, there are a tot f_177 r-o-oms and the parking area showed no —evi ence o eing filled to ca,._pacity__The additional nary n will more than meet the additio _ - - . : • •- -. •- ed to be :enerated b the 40 unit ex.anion, along with the meeting rooms and added commercial space. This finding is significant because there will be a need to trade parking impacts off against other site planning issues. The planning process has resulted in discussions concerning the sizing of the parking lot in relation to the real anticipated parking requirements of the Sonnenalp properties (as opposed to the requirements based on current Town of Vail codes). There is a communit desire as ex• - -d hr• :h e Vail Village Master Plan, to see r••eve opment of the Sonnenalp Swiss Chalet property at the corner of Willowbrook Road and East Meadow Drive, and to remo • tomobiles .resently parked at grade on the corner. - • •. • •ar • automobiles ad'acen • h• •:,. - .' ri:ht of way should be_ evaluated in light of the i••'-• • •. •- • . ' . ..rkin: r-•uirements of the Sonnenalp have proven to •e significantl less than the current town re•uirements. TRANSIT SERVICE NEEDS The expansion at the lodging base at the Sonnenalp Hotel will have some impact on the bus system, both within the Town of Vail and valley-wide. The impacts are expected to be small because Sonnenalp visitors frequently make use of Sonnenalp vans, and proximity to Vail Village means that in all but the worst weather, hotel visitors walk. Nevertheless, the addition of 40 rooms with two pes_ ons_ner room a.__nd full occupancy is erected to contribute additional ridership of up to about 175 tries per day(40 rooms x 2 persons per room x 95% occupancy x 2 trips per person) ± (26 employees x 40% ridership x 2 trips per day). 11 PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION The site plan has addressed the need to provide for pedestrian circulation. Proposed sidewalk improvements will result in a significant enhancement in the current pedestrian flow around the Sonnenalp property. As shown on the diagram below, a walkway system is proposed around the perimeter of the property starting at the bridge and down Meadow Drive, with some variation in sidewalk width and cover to provide interest and variety in the pedestrian experience. Th� e�ublic sidewalks around the perimeter of the property will all be finished with pavers with -sn we m un emeat , resulting in an upgraded pedestrian experience in all seasons. Further, the addition of commercial space along East Meadow Drive will significantly improve the overall experience of both shoppers and casual walkers. THE SONNENALP HOTEL PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION VVI Phase v Plaza Builtlug U Aleadow Drive .,--,2,-"%-=',---,- .,'" 47—*"-•■..............._. --•—--.-______._ \` 1 \ Sonnets*Hotel ` See Chalet tl L. Someoau Hatet \ /\ I Banda Haus > Y . 1 / . \ 1 /II '._ / i Ore Creek / S / IA %, I\ / E 17,/// /\ 7 Public Pedestrian Pathway \ _ i / / /i' i/ / BIB hop Park / / \ litst" 12 AIR QUALITY There are three significant air quality considerations associated with the Sonnenalp Hotel application. The first involves fireplaces and their treatment within the expanded development. All units in the hotel are proposed to have gas burning fireplaces,,constructed according to current Town of Vail standar ' emissions from these gas burning appliances will be negligible. In addition our exis 'n wood burning fireplaces in the Sonnenalp Hotel will be retained. A second important consideration is dust, both during the period of construction and upon completion of the project. Dust suppression efforts will be undertaken during construction, as described further below. The fact that those portions of the Sonnenalp Hotel that are slated for demolition are precast concrete, and will therefore be removed in large pieces, is identified as a benefit in that it will generate minimal dust. The covering of the present open air parking lot on the Sonnenalp site will reduce current winter and spring dust problems significantly. The number of auto trips associated with the hotel is also an air quality consideration. Clearly, there will be some expanded vehicular traffic at the site as a result of the added 40 rooms and the commercial/meeting expansion. However, it is again noted that the combination of use of vans, the central location of the site relative to services and activities in Vail including the bus system, and the international clientele of the hotel that is increasingly coming without cars, will all serve to minimize the use of automobiles in the future. VISUAL IMPACT In order to evaluate the visual impact of the proposal, a series of photographs were taken and then related to the proposed building to indicate roof lines and view blockage that will occur as a result of new construction. Shadow and Shade studies were also performed by the architectural team for the project. The results of these studies are contained in the Appendix, along with the actual photographs that identify the impact of the Sonnenalp Hotel on local views from a number of different locations. THE VIEW ANALYSIS The methods used to develop the View Analysis are simple and easily understood. A total of seven different views were considered in the analysis. As summarized in the diagram below, they include two looking south toward Vail Mountain, three looking east, and two looking west. Clearly, there will be visual impact and chan:e brou:ht about b the cons ction of t new bLilci�_ ink in the pro•os•• oca • • However, the diversity of roof lines, and the attention to views and shadow and shade is felt to reduce the impacts. 13 The impacts on views at the various locations are described briefly below: #1. iew Looking East on East Meadow Dxi_v This view is looking east from near the existing fire station. Although pedestrians will rarely view the Sonnenalp from this perspective because foot traffic is minimal in this area, this •hoto :ives an overall f-eline of the project and the roof shapes when viewed from the west. The impact of the new So nnenalp greater at this location than at any other;_a_-significant portion of the mountain iew will be eliminated. The building height is •eceptive because it will be viewed against the sky rather than the mountain backdrop; however, no major view corridor will be affected. One will sense an entrance way into the village. #2. View Looking South on Vail Road This view represents a location looking south, just north of the existing Ski Museum. This location shall be highly viewed by pedestrians and motorists traveling along ail Road Considerin: the existing structures and other development ossibilities the impact of the Sonnena p • r. view will be ow to moderate. While some of the mountain will be blocked, there w' also be an interesting streetscape created that will enhance the pedestrian experience along Vail Road, and will improve the level of interest and diversity in the Village itself. #3. View Looking East at East Meadow Drive This view is taken from the intersection of Vail Road and East Meadow Drive looking east. The view along East Meadow Drive will not be greatly affected by the building location or setback distances along East Meadow Drive. The view will in fact be made more inviting and the new building will create interest that is presently lacking at this location. The experience that pedestrians will have will citing and will serve to implement the intentions of the Vail • -. - . - " . -. is view will improve the streetscape along Meadow Drive, and will positively enhance both existing and new shoppin facilities b movement and circa #4. View From 4-Way Stop Looking South. This view will have a relatively low impact and will be consistent with the Vail Road streetscape, that provides some diverse building facades with clear views of the mountain. The Sonnenalp will be in scale with the mountain when viewed from this vantage point avoids overpowering the streetscape or the mountain. 14 #5,#6,#7 - All Other Views All other views show little significant visual impact except for photo #5. Clearly, the Sonnenalp will block the entire view from point#5, and will eliminate the existing view. At the same time, the new hotel will emate the view of an at-grade parking lot, and will replace it with a variety of interesting building forms. From this vantage point, the pedestrian/from a vehicle view of the building will extend only to eave line. The full height of roofs will not be perceived from viewpoint #5. SHADOW AND SHADE STUDIES The position of the sun in relation to specific geographic locations, seasons, and times of day can be determined by several different methods. Model measurements, by means of sun machines or shade dials are one method. Tabulative and calculative methods are also employed. The graphic projection method was used in this study because it is easily understood and can be correlated to both radiant energy and shading calculations. (For a more complete description of the methodology used in the sun/shade calculations, see the Appendix.) The shadow and shading studies completed for the Sonnenalp were constructed using a 100 •- -• "shadow mask", meaning a summer study usin: sun at an..,:le..of • -• ees on June 21st, a,,• a winter study using a sun angle of 28 degrees on Recember Both of t ese studies were based on the latitude for the property and represent shadows cast at 8:00 a.m., 12:00 noon and at 4:00 p.m. These studies are all accu. , - •ut the •ortra the worst possible cases at the worst possible times. Because the sun's path of travel will be constantly changing, it will only cast shadows on East Meadow Drive for a short period of time during the winter months. The shadow and shade study indicates that on December 21st and for a •en.---•- :AI- during the winter months, the new Sonnenal• buildin: will cast shadows n er all or a portion of East Meadow Drive. During the summer months, shadowing w' .e n-; i gi•le. In comparison to the existing maturing landscaping, the icing problems on the roadway as a result of the Sonnenalp would be similar. However, given that the new pedestrian walkway will be largely covered, and that the impacts will only occur during a short period of the winter on a relatively short segment of East Meadow Drive, the icing impacts are felt to be relatively minor. DRAINAGE AND IMPROVEMENTS ALONG GORE CREEK The proposed new hotel construction will create some impacts on local drainage. Further, there will be some minor changes and improvements in buildings along Gore Creek that should be considered from an impact standpoint. The applicants will be developing fully engineered drainage plans to meet local building codes. A key consideration in draining the 15 parking garage will be the construction of an internal drainage system that will include explosion proof floors and grease traps with clean-outs. This system will drain to the Vail sanitary sewer as required by code. All surface water will be dealt with through a series of intercept drain lines that will outfall to Gore Creek. This system will be designed in accordance with Vail requirements and will be subject to final review at the time of building permit. The proposed hotel addition occurs near Gore Creek and as . -esult some special site planning considerations apply. The creek bank itself will lar•ely I disturbed, although at the corner of the existin: hotel t e sout 1 west c• I -r o e p •u•a: a-. 1 - .it Road Bridge), a temporary construction road will be built that must beer sited and revegetated with concern for the creek Erosion and dewatering control measures will be undertaken by the applicants in conformance with Town of Vail requirements and best available practices to ensure that creek impacts are minimized. CONSTRUCTION PHASING AND MANAGEMENT A significant concern in terms of impact analysis is the construction phasing and supervision that will apply to the Sonnenalp renovation project. Because of its central location, and the phased scheduling of the improvements, there is a need to anticipate the potential impacts that the redevelopment will have, both for operations within the existing Sonnenalp, and off- site for neighbors and the Town as a whole. Key elements in the construction scheduling and monitoring process include: 1. Phased Construction Schedule The construction schedule is defined by Phase I, II and III parameters. ' includes the parking structure and elevator core. Mass excavation and shoring begins on May 1, 1991 and completes on July 15, 1991. The concrete foundation and precast garage structure will begin June 24, 1991 and be completed September 13, 1991. The mechanical and electrical portion of work will complete September 20, 1991. The adjacent fine grading and preliminary landscaping will be completed by October 15, 1991. This phase will also allow for the kitchen addition to occur between July 1, 1991 and October 15, 1991. arPeludes the new hotel tower and north wing. This work will • .ceed immediately upon completion of the parking structure. The steel frame will be completed on the north wing by December 5, 1991 and the exterior skin will be enclosed by December 20, 1991. The enclosed work will consist of steel studs covered with plaster board, and windows and doors. The roof will be enclosed by December 31, 1991 for this area. With this, the 16 building will be fully enclosed. Interior work will be underway from December 21, 1991 through August 1, 1992. Retail space will be built from January 2, 1991 through April 1, 1992. The hotel suites will be ready for occupancy on December 10, 1992. Phase cludes the Spa Building, Meeting Rooms, and remodel to the existing Hotel. This work will proceed on May 1, 1992. The existing east wing of the Hotel will be demolished and properly disposed of between May 1, 1992 and June 5, 1992. The Spa Building and addition foundations will be complete by September 1, 1992. The exterior and interior work will be complete December 10, 1992. The swimming pool and site amenities will be build from August 1, 1992 through October 1, 1992. Final landscaping and gardens will be built in the Spring of 1993. 2. Access and Egress to Site The construction site will be accessed from the Talisman access road area, and Vail Road through Phase I and II. Most traffic occurring through these phases will be material delivery trucks for the structural work. Phase III will r-.uire a 12' wide tern•ora road from the exsting loading dock area to e Courtyard/Spa Building area. This road will be saved and its final a ignmen w i require coordination with the Town of Vail to ad ress ri ht- of-way permits and future revegetation. This temporary road will be Tc ed and all grades and landscaping rep ac . •y um er o •'• . 3. Construction Traffic The construction traffic will consist primarily of material deliveries for the project. Primary traffic will be from Vail Road and from the Talisman Access Road. Th_e bu raute_an Fast Meadow Drive will not be affected No "w• " •- -+' . < raffic is •lannesl. 4. Short-term Lane Closure Partial and temporary lane closures will be requested and coordinated with the Town of Vail Public Works Department. Partial closures on Vail Road for the utility work, kitchen shoring, and some structural erection are anticipated and will be coordinated. 5. Anticipated Effect on Public Improvements No interruption of public services due to the project is anticipated. Both Public Service and Holy Cross Electric are aware of the project parameters due to initial coordination. The weights of the normal construction traffic should cause no damage to the existing roads in the Town. 17 FISCAL IMPACTS There is no specific requirement in the Town's code that a fiscal analysis of the Sonnenalp renovation be performed. However, it should be noted that the economic impacts to the Town are likely to be extremely positive. The new construction will add a winter and summer luxury hotel dimension that has not previously existed, encouraging international visitors and "rounding out" shoulder period occupancies with meeting space and year-round pool and spa amenities. The hotel will pay substantial fees to the Town as a part of the building permit process, and will also contrive to contribute through property and sales taxes. On the other hand, the demands on Town services are expected to be relatively low because of the location of the hotel and its lack of public streets, low law enforcement demands, lack of school children, etc. In conclusion, the positive economic benefits to the Town, with revenues exceedin tg he cost of municipal services, will be substantial and should be noted as an impact associated with the project. 18 • . s m LH Pr Gordon FL Pierce ' A AMCNITICallil 1 ' Y4_ ct .-_____.....:_ 1111111* 0 - 1 WWI.C,••■..NYIIT "" .:EAST MEADOW DRIVE — �,. A.am . !J . p.e �" 9f ' ifb..4„--frop - 1.40-1 ‘, , ______ Avir. ..-*-) ' 4011)4110-1'44 �► ® �. - .„...„......_.......:_._: _ ,, ... ......,,,.., . , ,f.ff.' I 3'._ - - --$0 --- - r Alik �, � _ �n /��. �` t '� ..,.-.-... - a a ".`. - ._..�: Id0:j ':: Ti4 , 1 T tin m 7 �pp _ 1 `\:: ' ■-r ' , -. 0,.. ,,,, ,,,,A,,,, ludo .,:v __,:),,,, ,..„....„ 0 ii .10':.-rr ":-.•. '-',:- .:-:-.40•_... •- - ,citaleiwpRircxer--v.r:'":"*4.•;411c......-. 110. 3 3- z it &C. tiklbrA'046: --=•.7--r-F• '''''....,A• •:111" t_ .1 1' ° VA ":4! -- /='' ,�. *. '`)›. . -I/ // PUN rt.�- fQ al AMMO C??.'t:c«,•,. /fib'-->=. ; µ:. Vl► • •�::•. .;! — 4 �// _ — ..1 , ' ;�i `' �'_,,,,.....R.4.1....,,, / —=— – - — �socr_sP•Son_ �`"..._;.. �� �/ III' 10 _._ _ ___ . 7.,...../ '': .. ARM 1.11...4 . _—.- . - 4 ,,,;..:14.I. 1.114.-if-4 ..,-4.7,-7----='t--.,..- - ,,, --.__..i4.-11111%-',............-'"-,2....... --........L._- ...tira..-gam,* .---„. . � 7 r''e _ .... /� .l/ �/ 6 ice- - 'ji`i =x xY< 3 ? �� ; /r�� ._. — - --- i�orr�a.Ir krarI i Imam - ,�_ 3 µv' .,v a„ - ,;.� - - ...rr....rw•Ma._ AXON. I+.r..o,m� �..a --'I-... I. ---•---' -- - - /! .- .- - _ .. �„".. - Y..�-.rr rr•e�r..... YaaL� MM.era�r �..+n•w►- WM.it i -- Fo. z�;�.�s • r - - - '- - a�..r w.1.. r - :10e..,.a.....�: MM..___.. • •9 I•■••■IAM 11.am.. . ^ / i t —� %/ u.rm. a...a r.nu...... *Ma al _. __ iifr . ..... ,. —--- :Um.* IMAM COMM.Mart/IMMAIMA1a.m., IDv:9uwY so 7s�.ems■ 7.. I R.R .:13a m I C • } - .`- -La.i • • ... f' ' as ar.v.Y. .S/.L '—..............6.11.. -- -- :r�r.e.. IC?d.1 br' SP •t r {7..L pa.s 7vY.L rr.as rr r/r4 '^'•�L�sO.ri y...L . - ..- - _— - . ...11.r-,, e.r.�.rm� r r So arm M.D. aM.L �— rA00 r r {{{ ` 1 NIMIIIMEMIIMEMIN • - � - E - \ Gordon R Place wu I' iI II F i u -- Th — ± --— _ - �I v�.er f ��. I. \\\mi-.. 1 '_ *- --H II- I t °'°a. il ! ::.7.4-- _ • r ._ 0 ., „. _ _ . i.....\\ __NNW 1;---- _ 7___ __ _J1kLz:zz: — - II 1. 1 . . . . __ 1 ..,..) . . l' , iiiiria lirlE. _________________ f 11-71- : . ---111\tio ____________ , . _____________- _ ....._ .. 1 minim " . _ li .arm 1.....i 4 ,, (7.: _ IR a [ � Q < . _ - _ - ,„„,...,...--..."..# . 40E1 _ , +.4.-- c i _ . .. — \ -.--- 161.— •-i - --_ Apir.--1_ _t,____ 1 ' <. - illi#-1.4"6"41414.4.44%* III17:-71"......-1...-.- ' ./ • t - %- :... ' tuf , :li; 1: X11 14--- -- — F-- Ill V) ii 40 t :7 - -- -: _, w _ 'I I --- ." - I _ \� �•._ •-' 1 ... ._. :.it _-- I' —i � •- R••■• - - - _ -- Ecru .. . �� ..u - - - --- - r-. - -- - 'i" •-. �- >_-- -. _.- -. _. ,_ - - Dort» — - —_ '''1' : ...*_,.e..... _' - 1. __ ._ . PIEDEI-ED ::' ' - -.: - . . .„ ail \1 . .. . . __ ; . -: %,/ ...3/./ . IL 1 _ :..........________iftt . 71 ♦ \• --- '- : kaerwarr�---f . - - -- _ ,-s. -._._ _. ._ - - ..I�.i MAY Iffy ii Ij �j , i►reran V. _. . - - . MEETING ROOM LEVEL • A ` _ - I ! . I Gordon R Pierce . I 1 \ .ENE ca ' R"°A"""` ', ' \1F oavaor,r Dli J. !+ F ji .o��- 2-3 I I - ,I' • -I '; 110 - ( D \�°�._ • - - - _ INI • Mama Gamma.I■1. Isiminiii 1 ‘47;1 'IP) . .-. • :P■ ...4*. . .tee _ el I::Ir;tiM , li ■ 41A111.4111411 .I , y . _ �� it ���t�;a� � ��_J� (���: I 1 1. ire • •• � ,_:: _ _ it i s ' �, i't's= IIIII _ • iI. . r----, \ 2 jor- ethria-----___ - iiii- —cs......t -II- *- ' akanliFINI Or ■ . . sa, _ L----„,,,,....._ --..-___ , _--_ .i: ,,, lig r, - ��� • / _ * 'mt / �_. �► . 1111 t ._ t{wsr.�+oula: �� 'rill p� N*1-1 . -7'•� - ` i _ iii :!! 1 1�1• 7t*Y:• i• � it iii ii 11 • �1'J. " _ _ I !� _- _ _•. - - — . : _-- - 111 r---� _ - _ –::25 JULY ile���/ :%• _ _ _ - - �. .j! 1•. 117.:___=._= .. - _.:411o,. 3 z , �f ' le. � ~"t s� ' "r - _ 1� __� s t.. I 1 �. T ■�.o LflI1T\1. 4 i ' 1 i i ..- Nt.....,`,.0-.-----____:-. .,.- ,,,,'; . I, / $pt4; mL_ . , ... ,,.444k ii_.-..---,..---,__ ._./ .t..4!:--. -----.- ...:, oip, , -7---- . . • , , ___ .___ __ ____ 7.-----__ r."4":_" ....... ..................Ahllmotor Ilk ''''.,_. 1L.'ibir"".fp,' •-,...„-0.111 I!....' - • r _ 4.:_:10.-.4,_ _1-7 77- :-' -- -.Z.-...– ' ''!. - *s"--4P............0" - .' "*"...011k - --• ----..----111111.• - --. --- -- -,. i E — - — = Arse • '172222111 _= _- - = r r-- _ W,� _ _r -®- 4 L Ot 24 . _ LOBBY =- KEY PLAN r�r� -- __ - - _ W I Gordon R Pierce "' / ; i ,,..) \ ... • . ,..._„.,. / pp 4AVi• \\___________./1 (7"---N\ i\s„...:„...) , \ ............/.13 Am 113 Cobwolorama 0 a I .tip II) -,,\ISPI ell I _ . ' Ea• __ NE r 1 \ _ ..._ .... __, . 0 C.ii1313411317/1 • , � � 11111 1 IMO; I W _ _OD= .............. _ _ ..__ ... .... 1,•■■ff I ( • S . Ia.; 115- • J _ . • ,. `Z ='r r. /1Vj�� --,/ .<; - - — I 11-111 . V ' - -�� � I, is _, "/ ' t -I ' ■1 - -.c- -_ „�_ _ 1�2 M { - -w ,– ; r ~ DM / - ' t t t.h b--1-- tr,• - -- - 2- r - - . .- - 1 ._ --- saw m6! __—_. --_ _ n& t• F. . - - - AR _� ` ._ \ _ NE _.- . ''' ' 1 . _ -- In . \ , Isnosa___ / I1L1 1111•4 HIlffill-t- . -- -- `� � -_ . • . .-. _ —r - —.__ = T -- _, . _ E r c Iiiiitiliti-airiz ,•-:. ,,__112,11_. :_ - ,___A - - - _7_ goo or — - di10/411110,' . - _ \ J -- — -- _ i r _ _ diWir_ - - ri—irr-)13[::),, - . ,_ _ __ "-----,---------________ I \ I \ •< .7 / . ..1 NAY 1990 - n.rr� -f 320/ ! • 4 _ /•- -_ _ _ _ ......____ _ _ __ - -- -_ .--- --- -- - - / _--'_'-'ice ---- - IC7dei K .. -- - - - MEZZANINE Q _ D KEY PLAN . - - - - - - ----- 'A3. r ... ..i . . , - .., . ... „.. . . • I . • _ . . ..........c . . . i • ........ 1 • , ......-...-.......... : . ......a.r.m. i . - IIIMIN.0.11 I • ! - - .111■,......4111••• , '• • 1.1i 1Mot..1 ... I ..■••waima.0•Immlia MEI I =Pm... ' . . - , Nlimm.411%. I II Ilm. ...a.......XS • I • 4WD•■•7k. —- ,-- - • . Illimm...l.rts MIMI . . • s Moom.... . .-•' . ' „ . . a . . 1 , - . - . ... . ■. .- .. . • _ - I I -...1 ... ... ..,'_ I - . . . . . . —.- . . 1 . ... . . - I 7.. . . . .... . i . • i • . • _ . , . — ..._ r - - - • - - • . - • • . . 1 , _ ] :.• • 1 .. . . . . - I I ......... . - . - - . 1 _ ..... (..... ..• . _ __ _ . - . • 1 _ .. . . • • • . . . . - . . ----.-...---.• • , ! . . . _ • -_ - -- - -- •- • . , •-. = '-''---.-.........../ /NW . . •- • - - • - Lhi __._. ____ • • . _. .. ._ .._ . .. ... .• .. . - . . . _ -.. . • - . . - - . ._ T''''' •-_,., -. ' - - ._ff.- ., . . - --- . . . . -. ' i i - / • — • • • ------------- 1 0 i . i • -.. -'-' .... ---,-,, .... . . -. E.. „ _ • . . . • . - -- - ••- ■ . 'am . . _____ .all: ig alit' 1.--- 41 . _ . . ..... _._. .._ ___. ..._ • _ • . • __•_•___ _ - . . _ -ec „_... sic_ , 0,411*-774 7 ., — .... _ . _ • .. . . _ ______.___ _ _ . • _ •-.,.. .-,_' -..-.- r-- (---.. -'4:ri---,' . i.'''''. iv-Z . zr......1.-.....tt..- go : •..;r :11!1111 _- _ _• •••__ • ... ..• . _ .._ . ... _ _ __ • . . . . . • ..__ . _ . .. ....... ft... . • , *... /I L• , -.‘ - ''.: 7 221.Zz- • ffil .. Z °C i_ , . •. •-- ...7.---\ • • --- 0 ›, ... ____. .._. AIIP -7-; Allidifill.4,.....,"_-_ _,I.,-------- ill 4$ • ,,__rus,A ._-—___ __. „. .. . . . : --------:-./ I L-4..... -I.; -4' ifiLift --.--'• - i . - • • - - - 1 ..1 .. . > ... _ . . lik - ,.,,,,,,,. . 7- .1212.0:11 • - • 8 . :.• 1 7 --.. . -._ - - • . r-:. "s”, -....i. frillitt044:4S4- — .•"- , • !:'-{i!.1i;sFa -t:i• • . . • . . - _ • . - . ...*:'`'...........(' _ . . . . . : - ., . ,___... •i.;,‘ ._ 14 I - - . _ . • 1 • — , _ , --- --._. -,, 413a 1 i , •• .__-.-:.._ i• i • , , . -- ii: -- . - i.• -..Ir - I _-- 411111M11111 Ea •- - . _ . . . r . _ _ . . 7.7._ •...„, '-- •. ••• i - 7 - , ■ ' i • . . r F- ' --,------ •- — . . JIMMURIlill - . • . . . .' . - •=ALT 118 .:- •'.- ; 11111111111111.. ! - . ' --• ''::. - "-k: 'W..k.T.1. - - ■1:=14.- -__. __7 - . II serriw 1 -r -7...- -_---_-,7!7 4--- '•- J.) --------1-------. : --'•---• •- . -.- . • - - , , : - . -- ,. • _ . ._____. / __ • - - i • . ..._ ,. --- - .-•-• ....=7 le— - • • ... . . ci•••-•-• _... .. • . ._. . . _ _ -- -- • .• • li OM 1/6.' ' _ _... _717.77:7__:._-•7• -_:-7 . I-- - -.-7- - • ' - • 4 .- - __. •- ,_.. ._... _ _ -11111"- 411%. . ''' ' Ill ...194-: • 4 ___ _.__. _ ._ - I - _ ._ ._:__ . _ --- _. __.._ ... ..; .-- •/ .'.. . - Pligai . • .. _ i ' :...• 7 ., : _ ------- .-.c •- • 17----_•• -,..". - --7..-;' , •__,1-.....7:= 'L."""' 1.-1--.: ,-- -;...-.* -7, . •-=..r... ' '7...7 ,'" . . -: - ,_ , - - . .-. •• • _ — 7'''7 -.--- •••• 7 7 . - — ... .. ' - te . . . n liftliritfts,....411LI'v - -,.*.,.. '.. r' 0117!sit 41Ii 77.__. ...., .."-7 .....'-'....,"1....2-1:k_ _ ..-L-,7., . . - . ,:t___: .... r• .--__,..- :--- ---77.--- --7.1-- -- ,71-- - - • - - - _ Ake . . . . i.- ....--. .:. . I — - . ' ... . _, aiit 4/A . - - .._ __, . . . . • • _ _ : .:_-'1-11 ::_L__--.=.----_ •- --:_: -_'77L"-''7 77 -* '-7' .""-- i • - • •• - ---- - -- -- ■ -,S _ a. A-'illaki A •Mii. ..%".. -• - - - .. . .._ • ' • ._ ..-. __ ' . -imi■Thi- oThiv romilini ---•• • •- • • • • • •- _ . . . . .-_ - -7 -- --• . ____ . :.. . ___ - .. . _ : . - --• •••-• •---•-- -- . •-• . t:--- •••- - -'''•. - i .,,,.••. =.-• .------= ..,-----..;. ..•-•_Irt..---,=...----- - .-,--.- • — .. __ . . . ,. __..-__. .___. __. ._._ ... .._ _ . _ .. _ - • .. . . ... . _. ' =-__'.._-___=-- • - . . .... . . ._ . -- " ____ _. ____ r- • . -- . • . . . - - . - - . _ .._ ,..... - 3. -, .- . . . _. ... _ ._. . . _ . • . . ._ . • _---•••__y........__:-.. : , . __ . . _ • •.• . -• , -.__-_-.T„-...-_-.-...2_-_:.. . ;. /I -- - . .• ..... --...-. ISM/IOW&Milt i -..' - IIINEIDIEL - - ---- -- - - -- - - i . . .____ N-L.:-.=::: 7 • * -. .- - .74 - ._ .. .- . ._ . . !lam afinamesommo. a...,.. ,. . .._ • -• — . . . -- - • •-I/ f.4 Oloome*8 ---..- ,•-. .__.._ ._ .... _ . • . • - • • IDate•9 MAY I THIlb I • . _ . , • -•- , .__ . - .1:-.__- •...77.._77. ' _.._.. . - • ,. . _ .. . .. _ . - • .• • - . . . I rnmect op mom" I • .- _. , . _. , . _._ . . . _ . ---- - - • - .. ., .. . •-. .....,.. , • -- - - :7------ I Omni Iry I . . _ . . ... • • . _ • ' . _ - - _ . • . , . .. --- - • . _. . .__-_-_--, --...--i . __ .-__.. - • .e • : . .1 -: • • . I ClemArl . . 1 • ..! 2ND- _ -.LFEt • • _.._ _ ._ . .._... ___ _ _ - -•• - • •- • . _ ... ... ___. .. .,. . . . _ . __ __._ ... . _. -_-_-.- •. _ - _ - . . .-...- • . . ithr-rlfr , Sr A Or 24 4 _. • __.. • ' , .-••--- ----. . _. .______. ____._. .._ _ . _ , _ . __ , ..... ._. _ . . _. . . . . ____. .. .. .... _ . .._,.. .._. • - • A4 _ ___. . .. . .. ._.._ . _ _. _. ... • '- . - . ..___ ., .. . . . . . . . . . , ... .._ ... . . . , . . . _ .. . . .. . , \ 411111•111111 .. ... _____ - . ... . . — -- _____ - _ III Gordon R.Pierce I Asorrscrual . 1 CIIIVILOITILINT ■ V.I.G.r....ear/ 1.30•1.41 1 lImme C...•Ol•mr lio■amok 41■11.mall ......CMw MY=Gm.•Ims.0 QM 17*li■ 12■.,C a■.1 I..SIMI 112.3.113.5 TA . 1 . ,..._X • 11 ..- - . • _ 11111r/ ‘4*/.1*■ " • - ... ■Ii- i • / .. r- - 611 - _ / , ', ===a 1 0 .-........„,...,.... / r _ __ ___ - J 2 IIMI■ X -- ......„..„ aim"I.,../ ...,_--„.„... \ . r . gpr• TN w gr. - iiirli - - Zill "---. \ MI 0 *101 ' 1 - _ • SIP PIIII:ir 11 liabbi _,/,/, _W 71.1.>;;;11-FZ: _ . _ ILI — owl . . A,,,...\\........._. E u I I d . Z 1---WZT—fl 11.1mIL 4E1 _ , _ ).< ■d7 0 ,C . ti Afar ••••-—-2} . - CA Oa > .... .............(...„...------._ I ' I 1.1 11` 11 - 1----- '' orr a Qom_ Mr 111...■•1.■ . __ _ - - .•'''''. N MEM - ....- ' 1 . __ 1L_E3E11.._{ I 1 i . 11111 I II I --- . - -- - _ _ '-'' _ - -• - .. . — _ _ . - 2......— 111_4_"---- — --- ZS JULY le - ... • - _. f „„ / MESA asas.s.•---- .--- - _ , - - - . TraErrAir 7-iill aboisi —_ _ - -- _-- -- _ .__- -4 . li OCT-MD ...._. - -- - - - -- N.... - .- ___ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ .,=== :1 - _ _ _ • - ' _ -• - , . ___ • _ .. il■rosmaaa - .- . —a_ - _ . ... - . _ .... _=_-- ....- .• ■ , -. .. .... — - .. - -.....--....-7 --.----,, _ _ .. - • ...` -. _ _ . -. . - -.. - . . _ .... a • • ' - . -- - --- - — •- • — ---___ _,.. _ _ •••■.- . - — ` it! •N M IA . m6r1e1.m.i..Am1•■ni•ms mob .a./1.,.l.1o..1 s1,--..5.a.1 - S1 = 1r "S" . 1.P11C2 > — -< — .. . •- . . - - . - _ • , ID... 9 MAY MI I 1/ '''' ,,, 4110•01,\ -- - _ - . - ...... - ) 1 322. PIZIPTIT III 1D9 - 32D IEVEL —j _ _ . — _ =WM INCUR II rs....,sr - _ _ _ I Caorluti sr _ —- — \........., ...........:............................../, .. . . SIT. 7 Ot 197 • • - ^",'S KEY PLAN 11 . _ . . A5 , . °-- ' V I Gdoa R�P ig SKrr 1 ID bd D.o��- - i.o' • ' ALL.. Y • � rurc oe 1 - ta.ILu.r•.T�II j ` - .. .. .-., SWITCH GEAR R..r , .. • _ .+�a.r a.. I 1 .∎ar 0.. .r +r � t I LwY I - / .-car e 41.411114 - simmale j-- " /-z--------- \ Si Alir......____________________ w w) If1 M Ill r.,4, D rri IN !s. L R1 R• tLS " . II `i . ....-- ____ _. \ G � '. � . . ,ri • -/ . - r - ..It1 !(! Iw 1I tt! ■ti...... _ _ alai f-.1_1 1 - - ' t - . - 111111 "/ `_ _ •_.. _ -- - - R.^rte i 1 �a+.s moo aaaa" I fir 7 fo -- i_ . +. .._ 1.71:11 ri T I.1.1 WI.10 Ile Li 007-1111 ....pia« 0 1.-----__:.,_ �-_ 41:- . - - - iirtnuc::: _.-11:1- : ' -.._4._, _ 4141000,7, a ZS ZIT IS ill � ��"'�_ " - gwsus�A T1L �/�i --:-'1___. - - --- -_ .--. _ ... . . - � `\ --- • _____ _:- . + _� _ --- - — -- --- L. ..--'I--fF. I --( .-�� - MAN 00eTPulMT N g2 ra1f4Z•- --- - --. �\ • TOTAL& it ---- -- - i - ._ _.- I. II - - _- - '-I--�r -_ _ - ___ •••••Ow •w...,� _ •'. - .- 1 0 It +�—_..-- -- _- _ v_____ �—_ —_ - � . ._ .._._ __ - ... - , ..— - -- ,......_t✓M�r_ �-. KEY �.111� - _ _ L -- _ _ F - _.r.----.:7...------ 1 ._ - t ..mod a�c�w —_ � _-- - ..� , _ _ - - •r. t -! IOre:!NAY IffO piwraar_ate Ono owMEd i hada v pp so gone oreasewessa - - - - - - 1• - - - - - - - - I Odd k .PARKING LEVELS P}&- Paella MIMES 0•= VII 110•176.,- -- �a -- - -. - - - - - - - . .. _ /. - + :A6: --- - - v. a ass, _ 1 3 \, .I ��� '13•.....C...." _l__/ -- - — - i v I F�YFY I I � I I IrlleLt A�TO�A O[JLDIIf• LThJ/ II- \ `.-- . .. i wo. �IUluuu� �w�1 ,� �.�. 1111110►�// u . sr • L •Lj 2:' _. - - u�i Ir i�wlululuu- - — _ '� • IN I ill II 11 � _JL— __ _ —� II 0 1 '- �_ _ Ji:"'��' _ t6TA EASEMENT IOOI EQ(7li�ff il�� �� a ,--;�+'1, "� .' ■ 'I o IN.- �� —". / a o . - / . �I - - fit'. ° � � — ' ..1 ti _ - 4C4C M4- I It I /I . . H eon -..— =1 11• _ __—___ __ — - 11 L.DeEY —_ _ _ • 11 1 t / - J - _ - _ • -1� r = - eAr�c�s sto�e'►t� • t / c-_-_-=_-- _ • l. I - --- I Aris1p� . .._ ,I r Nog - :::.....i... 1 - - _ - - _ 1 'ff „o. _4 - -_ 'i_ 1 —,�_ I ;� ! J -- - -- J - - - _... ._ .- - -------------------------- --- i 411."="1.1 Ilik i 1 1 X Ell { I � ice' • irrrr-�.� uar _ a - I�.►i•1 .i arr�nsrm Waal- {nay:is OCT.1M- o�•ri■ for • �� Ina«+ e:1abtao 111 I _..... — - --- - - • srrw� scar a 1 gip can .1 Oi..5.4... 14,1111r=a• \ 1..' � _- ------ I Gordon R Pierce ■ I / tc) _ PP am/it . i. LION IT.. / - --- k - II . / . �'� H_ iA If& N 4F W ..c it i w 9S se s, ;Sr. ;4h ,H 4t 91 •o ; •• , . . - c. I iiij ' I 1 LF1J ' I I JJj[IIIJ I I I I I 11 .....i / . ____- 0_, _ -___■e± t_ liej_ i_ , ___=_. ftil _ � � * *�(flea.3(... . --t.2.- . —--. I // .fl. I .y. 5i= r I I i • ._ . Z.;.......;.../rra.n._.E Tar '1_ . _-. __ .--_ ___ I_ +— - I — .- —.—.. __- .- ._._ ._ _- ._-_ ... O.77: • ' "' _ — <-- • 1 -- r:►:• . I -- .lit p rye ._ . ----. A - -_ mo SI _.= 3 I --- —L L — S -i:;::ii:lILI::l [I_lwr — J. — a—� - - •- — -- — _.-- r— — I1:--:-- ti_- _ I -- I =—._. a _ - _ � _ : 13 I " — - . -- — — — — — ..,�..--. / =- r, TOR • - - g — ' }-� ... .,_-- L--`—: ' —= ---•' --_ _ ——2 — � _� _ -_ - - - — aau� , - sews,,•— _,....._:./:_i_ '�•_ NB! r ` -.6 w1 - -r n r _y - a - - — its __• —L • • (1 . f. _ — - — — �1 - _ —_ ,-. f ifthir ti • - -- -• a,fsr�.as�.� :._ ._ 'R. A�.. , f - - - - I .. . i ' - rARKIN T'OTA3.� - f�J - — �� —__.. • � -. 14)2' .1—• �'�L- • 1'� n` 1 f i � .- � --f, r�-'+ vaar_ �.�-•- � .•---r - — -- .�. .� vim a,esH alma --_ — .—.—___ • : , �� — r- _ LY —_ ----�-r-N.- _Z`�ay__. y� "� 1 •- ---_' l-- �--- f — - -- - -� . .ti ►pro a..� __. --- --- - - --- ' . � • - %� - -- -- --- . . . - - ----_ — — t • � � ` . - __ - - ___ -. • - `�� - IDUS:I MAY lffta • - — _ a - _- = \,A� _ 3- P RK N V-_ — _ N- PARKING LEVELS P3 Pa c> . .r--_ _ . .z. _ ic - .. ._ gm ✓Of 14- ad -.. _. \ i. ' • " Able — ' — - \ .A7. ..`_= _j- - --- ---- - —. r nor _ � _ `"• . . I Gordon R Place I W - I EAST MEADOW DRIVE : _ miewnertma J Y 1� jr — — " 4• } . i -‘4WitillilliPT - 41111L . Ci3.1 ,.„111141) ALA i 1 th.. -: : Al,, ,ar#- :L116A : .• -/ ..."*"*21"....""--4.. .. _;. . lir - , 0.....'-: ,- ue `ti?: ems. s - - - -- _ - t; ; =11LT ;J:,. ' iT_ ,. J_t;:_'L . . ,, ..........„.„..„,/ ) _tilk„- ; ,\\ . ....___...•:....: „.... • --- - iu -- " Ilf---<, _ _ :i , �si _. , ,,,„,,,,„.„,„,,,, . _ • r I - ; � it � �.� ' III _ o- , - - ' - 1 i I I ' I' � I '- -Al At — f =_- �t `= �_ : - ifl -\_ I, . - 1 Iiir,;../:-.../... _ . 0 re i C.f..", '- . 1 4. . - (' .. t 44,,..s.r___--." _.1 —..livoh.— _ . .1. 7. ...._ • P igo lall Y I . . kit*I- .g i , w .. . '-,,,,,' • tn., .. ik _ w 1 Q' 4 ,-,,Q. - .-st. - _— — ---_ rtsr♦ rte. ��.-- - i.4:..1.- /` =1-�` a•- ■i— __- - - _ - r_.►fir _ e-_ __..—...„. --.....,.--..„-;-,:—: -...-''..,i ---- ' —'.."/..1— . _. __ • . - .. .1 :.-_-_7-- .._. -- - - - i .ISLISIliii:----, ' - /,_.:...`_-__=_ler. AIL � !�Ire -,: - 1 - i --, sfE r.s911#0 • ��-� . __. . ,.,I _ i i .e' J -----_ _y� f, ,r. : __. I ,.-7_::-..-L.:'.. I..,- ____\ - . I • a r T _t u.. t w _,-. -..,: . i . .,,_,:.- 4,10,,,,.- , ., • -"41111 ..-4-,.......- -- inirmarr :_ . _ .. . . . . . r------.7! \. • . - .N.7....a!ariaki4 .:§* _ , - -- .. - :MST: a - ', - _,1 ._ - - __---_ _ 9MAY 90--- -- 1/ ....ik\ I Propect ay 1.022.00 1.0.' -- __ — ' - __. , _..-- ... vas.---- -- . . k ' 2--I;' _ _ _._ _+* �� ,.moo. ' • Moto 111011■.Pliscay gm ma.. - - _ - - - -- — - 7- ' . • . .• t._ . • ' -- ..,, - :' . • i ... . Gordon R.Frforof-- &LA. all2IMICTUMIL ' COMILOMINIT WI Cie • OM•■■■'MM..Simi Woe WI.C..■...MO S11100114.1 • •■fY1.011we gm..1:1■11,C.1■4•0•21. NEI/M6.8* ...---r---- 13■101. .-.-■.. . ...------■---.. IV..Ca■..Y.MB ...."•••• ... •• Z..".. ........_._-......--.............__._ . ri■m.C.■■•••MIR moisa1.1Mal / -.....-.............. •-................ ff..•■■•-__ -----•••70,\ \ '---Mon=IIStII .MWIie ..IIMPI"i..■■ . dt,dialiglik_.:'_ Ell.„1.. ..._. --,..—;-...-- .... .:414111111111111_.s... . - -- -.■ .._..Hraltai-C,....1. -••■■ -MAP' \ It :' \ 7 1... wow It - 110 P0 . _-- Per:7" ..\-4- / t . :mL. \,:•,/ \— /I 1-40.4 . 'Et)1" I • 410* _ -41104116••■ .. _ ...... . . .. ""r , _ 'I. I___ A —r- 1.61-1 •P Li ‘ -222 e',f‘ , 4 ,, . •, : .. „ . I-. •■ , 7.<1110 .. ..."_.... .11.Nii,, / \ ' \NI l'i. - \kttlipm A,-- \ . _ /sly / _ x .- 1 , A,-- , -- ,, ,- .. . _ --- -- - • 7 1—.. J __. 1 T ii , v, _.. ,....... _ _ _ ___ _ . ,:t I ---- 14----- . —.—..,-,7- - / , 1 _ __ _ _ _ \,- -----, Z 4 0 \\ ) 1 lii \'/ • - :; - ILI X ••1 ______. _ ft ./\ ' >114 Z =nit 8 \....■ 11•1' Z ,-; _•,- Ix / 41 - IT' • ••= — • _ __ . _. I i / .. op, .....____..... ...ILA., .. i, tri . . iii.Iii _2 „,,..4\s . .,... . ' ...-\/- . .... , • , 1 ____ _ ___,2” .7..._ „,‘,...„=ri Ir \/ \ ••••-•.• •• .. \ r' • Ell ne..7■2■Ai;_c•-..i-...1 so -'. - --- ,, rta2 mill_ a \ e-, •• .0, t - 7 "- I/ -.MINK / L - - ' \.• - . ,. i I,' 7 iii / ____ _ __ . _ 1 .1 -Tfiraw- - - . _ , -......1 , i I ... .1._ .1.111 r _ -_ r _ _ . 17 - ../. ,■-.......4......tir I .-I. • _ _ Iwo - 1 Al 1 ''f", -- - ., 1 _ . . . _ -.111MIL -1-11.1611-11-1 St" NiAlismi___Iighlie_: _____ I' .1-16 'W r227_ -W6E-— - - - - • . /; "'"'""-; 1 _ _ . . 11■111•1•11110--c-r , 1.--•-•----1.. ...11■.---I. ... .I''' - .. -__ - in air L___ 111111111M— -111.60 ----jsw \\.. 22'err.io . ___ .- --- - is oc:1-1, — _ _ _ - _ ____ _ Apr. -, . ti..1.1■11,11..... ari.m•a- ----- hialkir - ______ ___ _ _ _ i -- - . _ _ -_-"-_,....;:-_-..-=:-._ 'Jr_7_ - • — - •- • - - - 00010 00 - f •- 4111 - s --__ ,, .-- --- _— ,----_-_--__ _ --- __._-, - ---- _ _ —pa,: 4__1::In---‘ ‘ 1:7,- . 1 - • - / re; 7 ;.. '■ / _ . ,-- 31171MIL MSS 1111B Essas.a.- _______ . . - -_ . . - \ _ , . _ __ _ _ I I - T— e 11,..: 4 • _.- _. —..%_ 4 _ .1...7,* __ _ ______ _ • . . __. , . ___ __ • ,..j_ i -FIF-- 41 w . , __ „---_____ 1 --.... __ __ . i \ ..10,- _ __ _. ,.....,. . ,___.. .. . ■ - - N- _ • \ ..'.....______. Il - - ' - ---: - --- --- ----- WI_lia ==-- .,;(disli 11111 \ -- -- rektile- - _ t . 1 III . _ . _ ___ .____ -----,...1:.....-_ ---- , '.- i. iii-- =--1 f.: At oft • .. ,,‘,164„ - i , _ ..... \ ___ _ ti...,-..„.-_,---- „-,,4,„ :.. •••wf ..\--‘1,. ig- a. _-_. _- •:, - _ _ ‹. _ . \ i -.4 ,, „ - • ,,, , • 7,...... ,;,,,,- . _. r_--.---..-:-_,- ---, - - -- ..,_ _ ■ , ,,F,-_-_.:-:-- - r,-t,.."-4.--,--7/ -\ - - ',0 I ....#1111 \ °mg 9 NAY 90 I - - ...I ,_ '"---•- - - -- - - . . _ /0) I Frown 20-112220 _ .. g; : For.raw crow.arTimi- ___, . *TIAN .•:_--T LW/th amm.Sie......•■■■11 L ,....,t41. 4,.. .... - _ ,,_,___,,, ,______..=___.__,.________-_= _ ,, ,Chums W i I II ril--- I. '.', ' _ - _I .._ _ ____ _ _ _ __ ,A ILI-_-__-_--= -- .'--.------= - —-ill- _ ., . 2ND LEVEL 1/ II • . . -- Shos it Of IL* -.. - . _._ ft - _ _ _ ____ KEY PLAN , ..... . . ..... si _ . 1 . • _ _ _ -- i ) - .. ____ \ . . _ ... I Gordon R Rye MO.,nTIM • 1 Yr+.i M• 0 •■0r17Mm ra am so / r,Is 1-- 7 •-................... \ r� i II " op I in v / . r Nom 40,41, / i . 1'WY . . 1,, -- - __■.� ^` :If) tea+ . /�',\. .� �� ��`` ' t\F",\-''*`• - .0./ vliFe.A7.1- `,...-.....=.• / ....- .... , / \ . -226 ./ //11iiiH__■•• , / 129' ///' ,, - - - . . , r. _ ,, ••••.. . • ,-, „ . . .,-, .-, -----.-, • / 1 ...,L. . _ •_ ..., t .__„. , 0 n . , \ hi - - ii- _ '��1 "` _ 1 I— —�, t. �: ���;- `,ii' '=_ . _bIlesdij • , ! + - . __ - _ • — -- - - -- �i / ' — ; — ' - - _ - _ = _=__ _ - r- . ___-_._..._ ._. _._ _ ir--* ------ I" A ., _ iii . _____ _____.. :_:.:__=-- -,:_-_-7_-7_77:'--_.../-_—_:.--:: t .--17—_—_. — . 4 17 11.1drif ■ a -, r......_;‘ -- • il • illi il \..- -_._ - - - --.- - Imo/ _- - --~�.:`: ' • W -. ---_-.. _ _ ._ .. _ __. .- - _-._ _ _- _ �` / - - .L_ ;4 lam- - _ -__-.I_ i.: - ---- = -- - _ ._ 1 I - 1 . .- - - . I - -_...--44 - ' 1, ....7.7.71 . __ . .. . „, ..... , _. • _ , ._.;. or -_-----:--- - „__,..1w4 _ r ,.._-_;._.:.L--..._ _..-:-':- .. .0. ,. ________. --'• 19M1 MMA WM doMMIt M VW I.4rIti 1 Prolea so:1222110 r l \• .t7� ...�..ew4. a � �. - - - ID... - r . , - - __�� - _ . o..r rr_ `n __--3RD--LEiEL- ' . . i •- - Ort tit Of 71.4, I _ _ - � �/� MO . . . / - - . I KEY PLAN 4► • ‘ - 1 -_, •- - .. _ I Gordon R.Peace A/ICHMICTUNS rum.. .. cavannsper • . ...an.. •- I.........-■,.•■•.... . 1 I.L.41=•••MOO . IlliVOMILIM •••••0■■■CIO= fa am 111•• I ammo Camal,Gammaw OM . ••••••••••• • . . . • 13■.:10= .. ■... ...■.- .■-■-■..... ............ .... ■■•■■... I T.dm C.■••mia WO . ....■... ...... I.••Mb& 7 .. I .. - ■•■.............. ''''......... .... •■•.................. 11.■..Cami■•■•••. 1•30•1343•• 1 ..................... ....................... - \4.00.40, ■-.......■.........).,....-..\ - I. ..., a -''. Si missii . , .., ,e4-wk _\_ .,Emm. _. . so ..... .... NIP • 111111k -_ Ad . . . 1 w . • . . I filli% ,, mol •V Pr "..• _ . . 1111 _ _ . . . • , 5, . .____. , • 7 i ..„...... t,...17. lir-•7•6 , ,,,,,,,.1.1•16■■ ,.. ._ . _ _ \ •,‘ Illt,„dt. Ill - _ -- - . . . . . _ _ _. . ._ %,,...... . - . • I /./ i --- 1 I 484 . _. I it\ i . . .' .. .. 121A.1124-$1 CI .. __ • . . . .. ._ . - - _ . _.i . . . . _ .. 1 ._ - •-% < _----- 11.--------1- .,-•. , _ _ --- . -. .... ' __I . --------•-------- - . ...... a k . . . 1 ----1 ..... -,-.2-- - . . _ 1 • - z .... • _ • . . - 1 . _ e 9- 0 . J; ; . .._ _,.._. • - -. .: - 6 . .....7_,_ unit Z161 47 s' - , Liag. ,fiet. -11101Pf. _, . z eg .__ . _ g imp, / r V ..- . -. _ . . 1 Lill' /461. - AA. \ •_. i ......... , ....... ti, tti > . ty. ---_ -: .7. ' ILM= . . mpr.,, / . 111=1411Em-=•:.=_gill._ 1..114.'irik. V - • . i---------Z: . , . ..- _ ,-, ._____. -.iv ..._ . I r---.. =..,-. ,, \, -**7.. 411,--- 1,7=7, am...D.:.c■rm....ti . i, ---1 -_./.___._i__ - •- ..." ; ''-l''1. , - 4LT 11 ‘_ - ...1 =----_:, Ara Gum...air Ilm■ .4.//kaa- .• \ ". UM • - • 'lt . II _. =...._.. 4" / -- 5---/- /-- 77.. kar-...-di . • lb - YEW / . i _L.. #.- . ' ' • -- ._.. -•- .. . _. -1-. IIIMIPF I I - . . ' -7-.-. I -- - .' == . , . - . / . ._ . / ._• _ , \\ .- il s . .. 11.1,..IF ! as- A■.,..-7._ ar'______„.. . 'ilk • . .. . • f .1=.. AR. __„_ . ___Iii, . 0111i :6- .111 a T._:._ . olio a•-•' ." __._..._ r • tr.= 1 ,./1/17/111 • --... ..".,- .J TL,/ - i: 1 -111.1111U -'---■Mk■----- ., _. .'".".. ::! ...= • ----• • t "-.•4; ,........,•. „..,..; _2- •MX 7 -- •71_. -. --- •• -- .. . -:;--.. - .....4411•DILELSC-:ilk. • ...- - - Ill . - 4 .. - Mamma_-.-- :21i ALY11111 ---,+: -:--.--..:.=-;-,-:---;• -:•;-:--f / .411.11,,s_ .. - _ ._ _ . ... ... _... .. _ . . ___ :-77_-"-'. „e...„----\ ,----..." :ff-atitill • 4 .. - /- ._-_ -. 1. ..----- '. -1.: '- .__..- _ ..-_ __ . - ' - - -- - - 15 OCL VS _. - _ ., _ - . ._ _ • _ . ___.. _. . r- • . ....'--"1 _ - - 1 • . ......_1._-__-.._ : 11 I . • -1 . . ......_ ._._.._ . . it( if, . , - - . .7'-: .. - / - . , • --• . .... "-- - •.._ 'L_-.7•_,- . ill. r_. _. ..___._ / .. . ' r,._. _ .-- - IX:' _ .__ ... , -!----:-=_,----.:,=-:-_---71. -7---.-_.____..,,-.- "__.._7_-7--7. ":. .77:L=7...7:-.: -._ --.'7."._-_.: ." -,.' -\ • .--..- •• "-":-.----7-•- - •.-.H.:7:-..--,:.7. 17•7'• . .. ' _„_____ :I . ._. -_ ..• _ .. _.. g... -•••--- - I . _ . -----.-- ''- - / '444 !- 4 i . ._. .. . _ . ,. .. -- - • - .. . _ . . .__._ ... . _, ._....... : li ' :• • MINA --". 'r----- ,, ,....... ,... i • __. ._ _._ __ • _• .._ 4 .. g 8..• 7 . , '' --".'"---""c...21 7 •- - - -- --•- . 4-- ■ \.........!---. ..,: --,..,-4. _ . . • _____ • • , -,...r4hy , , :, ___.-:._-,-,,_-_:._-:-..-. ..::.-:.--.:.,, ,..2.•.._ . . ._2_...-.. . ,-._• .---.- • . _._ _•_•_ . _• • . _ .._._. .._.__ - - ------- ------ --- -- _.. . . •- .1-...-:--- 1 .. 1 _• -• \ Ilif ._. . . , _ 44.i, _ . ....... -- -1. •- If i • - / .„.../.\ s \ IN hi ----- '- ' • .. ...:._.. . . ..... . / -' \ • ' I i ' 7 ----=:1 . --s••••■......:... •,4/11 -- ■___., \111/!... *.,_ I ; Iliii/11 4 -- . . .,_ ./.0b --.'. ' . ele . ' •, \\.. .. •-. _ . / apairrS..."....... 4844t41. it:71/.k . •. . ' . . " . . -. . 14"1"111.8.131641"ftlItra. "....: ....=.7,:0 *■k,,....... .V.411/:1‘.N ..._ . .9.u.5,............ ii .. .-.--.... . ..,._. . . Arge,....b.,_-_ ......._ •. .--,....: ../k ,4 ____ . 11 s......U. ■...-T.-.- --+ r__--. .." ."77-S\. .... . ‘Wig&X%• . . _ -. e - “114;411/4111111.,1%.1.4*...r: -.... It !, 1 AIN .4010 I . . . .. --. Or11•01.•6 aeMPOISP....•11•• - fiNES4 . .• - . • .- - IV '. ''.. •+... -21-"J-1 -'•-•__., . . _ . . . -- - • --- WM/a . _ .• . - _ .i.-,_ ...20......k, . _i__ ..1!- .1,... ,:. 1-- ..wr , . - - ... _ • • • . '..::. •::" . ni!M=11111M11111.11011M111111111i0". : ".-11-44- ■-% :. i- \ - - - -- ."..":".._ " . 9111112.■•••1011311111112. 7.mai as. - • • , . ; - - T-roirTm.....e.; -•:- - - " - " " '----t " I/ v 410 ow..ell 'S. i P.I..■ .*:=LOD • Nip;. 4...,_ - __L- . _e• . . .-_ _. __ . --,.. •...:.:__...„. 1. -.....-.■-esit -- ---__--_=-.2-__-=_________ /117-1, 1 Dm,.br . - . . _ - - --t-•--z-------,---7. -...4, -. _11. -11 ..i'ml •-.7" "" -_,;.... ..;...... 7. : _ . ._ _ ___, , •,.._-IL: . . . --• r ; :".__::-::.•:-..:. :::-.'. °----_7',."-=_::_:.. _-_ ._ __ . • . -_ sbala 1.4. Of 1.4. ..-- .. --.......... _ . . . ■•••=10 _ _ _ . . . •. __. .. . . . .. .. _ . . . I : ... 4.' - --- . , ._ _.. -... - . .. .. . • ---. . - r -• ---.--- ---°--..-. --..-.--;---: - ••• ... KEY PLAN a : rAll . _ .... . . . .• . . • • . . ...,,.. , , ■ ... ,_ . -.. ,... : I • I Gordon R.hens •. AAA_ •110•TOCTIAZ R.111.0•PG IMMIIIONMPIT •NB OE= •••11....m...•=1,•■ Ulna.Ga■im•••1 IMOOMAY• •ww..1..•47.. • Vs Cm..CM■1.MN 1.....1 • . Ommw O.. TA 4 lio.C..■-.mt.•• :. D.-.....-...... _ — _ - ............ - . . . . . I _ -- - _ _ — _ . - ._ ' . -, i _ . - _ . ..- _ .- - - _ : • . - / /..... IrE 1.2S.;FLAW -.-. ..-- - - ----- , --- .- ... _____-.-_ - - .. rift . I -I _ _ 1 # .___ — - - _ __ _ - IC .._ .Fm i • -..... _. _ • _ _. _ . _ _ _ . I — -- ---- = _ _ ____ . __ -.. • :-, ... .. - — _- • ---....z. ,, • !ia;l 52- _ • . . _ _ 7.2.-..-: .• a _ _ ,.. _ _ • .,:, s.: . _.___- _-_:__ - r IqP.,/di 42 _ _ z < ,.., - - Ail 1pir-N _ _ . ..... „.... ,/ _. . ..., , FOMIll . ..1411114:41 "'.. .-..- _, Otilef'71F SOO • _. . Z <II _ 11/904/ 11-1.4. 1,.," ..t.„. •-c) . ... 0. . Z.„dr A. 1--- • . /3-,-1.----..___ -.....--,-. ,...,r4 jpipp. ---,7— /..+4 r__-=.... ....z:__-_- - _._ _-_- . . < < .___.____....• _ _ , . . _ - -1 . . 1-_--. . 1, --I-_ -■ - b .. ,Ir./ ..... .. ., -- ----------.-...y_-- -r: - -- - • . --. • : % ---,--,.411/Nip ,..---Lfic_--"_-1:L-__T-1---7.---_-_-_:.--:_-_:_...-- - -- -- _ . . _ . ._ . _ - -- . -- _ - - - _ -- _ . . _. . - _,....... ./- - iner.st -.... . INN ■ ! __ __ _. . -- 1...........iiii„-- _ ____,,,__ 2_ 1 __ ._. gihri . .... ._ ______ _ _ ..._ _ , ._ _ . _ _ _... . •25 JULYS, • . -.-. • =7 r ; --,-- - _ _ 1--I --•- . weelig ,- . ,.., -. P' ... -.-..- •._ .._. ._....... . . -.. ... 1 1 . -- -'- ' - -. 7 . - .1.5 OCT.MI --7- ' : :,- : '.. --12-1 !.. "". 7._ ----- - ::-:,-„ 71---- 7-7= -=7:77 7 - -• I _ ---,-____ ---_--_- ,. . ,- _ -I t t.--- _.r___:.11-: _ _— • 1 ,. _ .__ ._._ _ __ I _ _ - __. __ . ....• ---- iitNir• r.4, _, ii ithi. .1 hi 1%, ...„.._,_ ,..... .,.. .... ,_ . ._ ,..., a , ___ ,_ .., • .. ._ _ _ • • •_ _ . _ _ _ _ . __.__._.______7_-__-_________-1 __,_„__ .-------— —--- - . • - - - -- . =__.- -,_, - .-... _- •-- - —__ .. -- --."•=-,-.-:-..--A . --- . ......,.- - : _ . _ -..._ • ..- -4. - a ____. _ _ ______._ ___ ___ _ _ ______ _ _ _ , _—_, - . ,..------ - 4 • . . .., _______ ___ • . __• .___ __ ___ -- . - - _ _ .__ 1; 1 Moo . .1-... : .. .. '. -....'. -.■=rn-MC um,,m.-.. . . ---.__,....................■ .7.:7-7.-7=-::. Z.7=-1--.=II=..: .. r - . • i___ • .,-. a ,_ 4■C _ - - ..._ -- ._.—- _ _ - - - -. _ - . - . i _ /444 t__ . _. _ __ _ . __ — -_- 917121.-AINILIIIII MEW . _L _ AMP • _. !NW 9 PIAY 1919 AL . _ _ __:______., ___, __ _ _ .. . _ _•. _._ , __ I Pmect so: _. . - -.-- " —... - _ . . . . II:km.1,7:trans -- - •- _ __ • _ •- - --- • • 4b _ __ • . • , - . ;sal LEVEE; -.- • - _ '- zai'.7.:__::__-- -- -,--__- - . - -.- -•.- ------ . - —,----..- 1.- W= 1.4r Of SO .... - - , • -- 7 .-.... _ - _ _ - - . ___ ._ ._ _-______ - . " Al2 • • 4-\ ' - ' : _ - . _ KEY PLAN to _ _ . _. _ .4 _ . - •-• ••• -----.•••- --- _ ..- ----_ _ . —. -._ . _ _ r, - ._ . . ._. . _ _ _ . — - - . , • I Gonion R Pierce ALL - ANOmrn•n R.»o.c Z ._.._. _ - - • osrnansefr ••Or • I Yc+rrr ' - \�d.0� do } let 10 Selo -_ td+ .1.0 .� �.�. 1 ��• ---"—- _W� .1 p !!i1.�;==" I --..— I n_. •=X. 11 �� /1R- Ill P___ / . .- 4 low* -u - I 0- ' — c :---- ! 1— / - --# I _._. _. ly 11 .111r „ I' -- - . ,. ill IN.•_ - :, ' '' 4) . I' _ i. rl I II 'I -it 11 MI . . . . , , ` - t.,__ —_. I— °A.%,-W - '• : �ii0' O �i •i lii•••i1iv ••ai�'i•• irig\ ��1�� �� - ... ------ - - .- - .. - -- - •�•.�ii•`�iiiiiiiii•- •iiiii••i♦ ••i•'�i•W. - - ►♦1♦♦♦ . -- - ". -. ii!, • -.__ : : ••iiiiii:•ii ri•:Oii••••••••• ••�' - - .. 111��1♦�1♦1.11.' _ _- ,i �i`��'•r•M•��•••iiiiiii.� .-�•••Noi,m0tii••••yip, --- --"- : ♦11♦♦♦♦1; — ---- - -_-------- \��J�••ii�••�•i • •i'ii!.!•!•!••.•�iSai� r.!.!.�.!r.!.!.;.•: ♦�:•♦: 1�J�1�1�♦�1�11 • -- a♦1♦1�1♦��I"� �1 -•11♦ i O O-- _ - — --- � : .. _—� -- -- - - • Il .< ---..-. - 4�... I- - - - 4... _ _ . . ._ . . . . OK• IW4C 1 -- - • f ..b . moms . . _ ... ..sr ,,,N. „is 4111. T—-----_-__- - . I_.. i::. E te ❖ _� � • 6 •1pirMAIN 99 — • O O • • ,i..,I� t•i❖•r •••� i ❖ i ------ - O Or❖•❖• ' -- F --� 11111 .• - --- • �:' 11•1 • t - _ - l _ _ t _�... _ .-' I o:❖•ii•••i� • i11'♦ :4+V0 • 3L � •:. -. - •i ,•••• +! i 1• �i � L�� am - ---AtS J ••li — J — - — __. f . . — —— T/,.:>_. s, • ___ _ 1 _ - - - _ _____ __ _ , -- _____ ______ - - . Gordon R.Pierce ALLA. • . 111.•••••G 13KVIIIIXIWINT I 1 . . . !..... ....,..2...:rt".. veal.. Ma UN&I.■.•11■10•M V..Cal■■•IMIII IM•ell••••• • - • • 1 1 1 1 1 1: .• •.••Maw . 1 1 • 11,3.6=12.1 isik 111ww..................C•1■•••••■ . PrAl ..... . 7 . - 0•••••••••• _ Mims C■.••1••NI „, r, ■11Ilt,, IIIIIIIIIIIal Illi411 Ili 111111111 II\ 1 CM110111■1•. ..- 111■1.Cal..•I■ - - - -.. - -- - -a. li••••13.101111 . ._ -- - -- • _....../1111111111111 . ____, • 1 r k . . . • \ . - MI El a ' • • - • 5 4, - 7-- • - - . .- . _ ..._ _ . .- ' -• - -- IS 1,• "' • • Or=titt,;_i___10/ . •• - . . a . . - . 11 __ _. . i - ' 1111.11V A111111116' : • 600.11114 I, illa. . . _ ' . • _ . ■ Al rill - • • IIIMIIMV AMR . . , _ : ,. ...■ _ I 1 1:, •. 1+4.2rw - __T=I t.:=74 0111.111111111111PMINNimmi re . . _ --- ___ _ ___ . . ' ' _ . .1 . . ... . --- _kill _._________. ,f _ • _ . . ----..-• - _ _ 1.11 MI II ra - - _ -. -, ... , _ - .... -,--,. - I . , -- N■1 1...■... ":- LLI I _- _ _ _. paeleg --- --"-TT, . ,..alre. * 1-..s..• i - - - _ , w -1•"' :2-iitl-tr--Alrii __ _ -- t ---'=" ' • _ a i•---- -•-•■••■•■I1 '.. {■6•1■1■1 _ .._ _ ----- ----- --.. -- _ ■ I - --, .i_, ., :. --.--.., -----• - --•--- - ' --T. -- . -. ' -: 1 t • Z.? + = • _ - • *-. I -• 1.____±., , . . ,- - -. _ . - - • 110..i R5'. - ; L _ - - /Thij•21'I' --- - - t I<i el. -- . • - - ...ace / ..- Z• _ - - _ 1 i . • _ _ _ . _____ _ __ _ c.......,,,,, LLI _ . _ _...____________ - --- - --- z < 0 _._ ... u Z gg - - - .___ . _ _ 7..---1 -- -- -- 7.----7-_---___- 7 - . . _ _ ___ . . _ _ . .__ . . . . F2-:GARDEN ELEVATION(EAST)1 0 * ._ _ _ . fir 1.-97 _ _ ._ .... _ , --.---- tin IC.> ___ i -- - . _ . ... - - ---- . . _ _ _ . • f(-.° i -, - ___;__._ _.; ... -1-;-----4--- .-- -, --.-.-- • - _ •• - ____ _ _ - - - - -- --• -- , -.:.--. --‘:=-''------=.1'-_ -- -----_-==r,-'.-_;.'-..-----_.t -.7--__-;.--_.7_77--,_-- --_.,-.._-- -_ .-_:__:-_--_ - _ - -,.• . - __ .-. .:... I - 2----------- ----- ----- - - --- •- •- - - ."- -• --•- •'•-;,„1115, -t-,-:-•-1: -.:41...: - - ---- .-1--_., :--_-.:..1-7--:__- 1._ - : --__,.-- ..-. :--=_--:._•--7--;___-_.___-___._ .,____ - •7-- _ . . , _ - - -- - - - - _ _ --- - -• - -- - - • _ -„_:.-.,_---___-,-, -- . - . - _ -= - mi/ISM __,_- .L.,...-- • ..___- ____-, •••••.... ..----7- • .:■- - ---s-"---7:_17.7:= - ,,,,?- .. \ Li 7_7.-•_.•'''',Vr ..,-'",•-",- 7 7_7 --- -;- - 71---/ --- 7--,- ••.------,_--:- ------------ -- IrsErrlef ' _ . . , :..„:__-_-_ ___ -. --- -- • - -- t .-- , . ;,, .1..... At. $t.,',U, _i i r ,.. ---4,---- --- -• - •_ - -.. - •- , _ __ ,. .-7-r----- ---1-si •... .., ... -:=-47- --- - -=-- -- - --'-' ' - Illidalir ..... .... , atha Tr,71_- -7.--.4.-___7 7e,:, 2:-- , - -.; ‘_ 1-. --- -- - lia,■,M. :::: :::: ------ -, -- -- •... ..... . - - - -“ t- -- • ..._ . _ _ ._ ._- _ - ;-.., -• _ -- -__... . .4 litii :::. :=1. --- ,__•_ ,_,4.., . _ _._ ,,r___._ _ _ . .. __._ . :::: :::: fi :. . --- jai - __ ,____ i -- - --! ----__A ---.----' 1-..; -'----7;-. L L.::--i--',7 --;""7_7'-...._':;":":=_-__-_=;_:=__,_. _; --.. --,- .-,----•.„--.------ f._ `,.. -- -- ommIlltare .- '■')"" ".- " - _ - -- . . _. . ... 4_ -7..=....77_7' _ '‘MillilliCC-7_,'1_'_._• .., _----- -....;.. .=4-7 . "- - '..... .-7:61.-- -- C ...a.--"•'77"'"7•a; --7.- _ t--- _: =1.---. _ WWI - ... r .-■2.!-....., . . a.,-.-.-,-.-...,-...,......- I "No ii ih..„‘„ 6,4001i All. _: _ -.__ . = ---t's,, ----,, --441.51,___.. _ . . . . _ .,..... _ , __,__,_ _______=__„______:___________:,_ __ _._ _ -.4104.' .-'4'; rail'asagh,1 dr.....,,L 01.1".4e.°,41110 . . , ..”.... _-- -..- .-- -.- - - , tit= - .,- ......,- - ''. 111111::=4 43:ii- .1-...tiii6. 111:M ..„ dr 15:M;; ' --- -... ••-• 1.9g,-'''r'N. .'IP. ...,,,,...4 1, 7,- ..4021...„±ta. ,,, ...... ...„... ,_ __ Impumumillimw. i 111111111111 -----_-.- - upon,WPM 0.41t __ . - . - -_-.1__x____ :- ---7_7.7•''''• :-7-72-_- -;7"-_-; -SEM ,. ... . litrf_ligia011 M.,.0.1111.11111111111 Ill 4--'111111111111 414: q111111111 11411111Ilri ' gL_IRlifilliparl II. - - :-: ,- ilnifiTINY 1.0//er •- ---- ..;,-_,.--',..----....--, -- - - k• a . . .. *''''"•'-`---•• • . lart. .17.' - . '''''' .-"-"••". -."--.--- ..&•-.!!!".....f...1- IN■IN•l• i■••le; 1 _ammo --,---- --' ricomm. " " el.,..rst, + -'-.. - - '"'tf:-.-..,--f-2._-....:_±-_--2-'-_--.7 '-•0.- ---)F7r" •----- Or44.E.s ii.,1. .":„.",;. - -*-----.---r2k .... ,-:---- :- 1... - ,-, ,- - .- - . -_ _... •--. _- _ --,.---- :. .,. ,_ .?.::::: - ._ r..vr"-•• ' '` :t... !"--'irli -Z.:.: . -f•-.---:--- ...... . . .1... •• -.?..!...!... ..0.•as nu le _ • . - - • .-2.1-.77722:-..2.-L.': ---,.."--777_72-__- -', :7"___- •- • .41 se• ....." -. " ilertinir -,..f. '41.1;00,0•".....mwa'..........-- 1;,1!-:,.; '.4.- i:HEIM . 0111 „Ifiarf.--'.---" :- -.. li. . ... .. . .:....: . .. _ • -.77-'' =c UHL "li. . 4'1 o___-._ gx.wribo UMW, -- • . -- ,•"...."1,7 -TI -1- I .•■- • AIM:.. "*". 1711;;E:ii ,. . immorrh• !mar= • .• 1,-....gm ............,„,r4,-;we- 011116E ' an ita ”mermn•'" •ir... ,; -i......1414: - •,' „. 1 T'aiiiiielial;6=-..ziWilli------'WPM....me-illtr.. , • .._ . _ 4,, .-1 ,• ....,,. . :?4.2iiiiii ; --711. 110.••••••VII .-, M.. ••• 1,..•14.. ■ , li • t --,..--__. __ 7- _ ":-.1.. •." -•,3■14":Nil. k" •■■• ...., .1,11,. pa .11F.k.''Jf--"4- 1111117.t. ' 8.1101111 ti ,ellifilifi-,' iliWII:As..., w •.,-,4 r•-• ,,._. __.:..............._. ----_..... . In i Is .(. ,, _...... aim '..ib' -. .."--- . ., -1*-- A.,'.111-Plari1104''.'3- Liacril...-- "".;- ..1:".-ii'*-17. :117::..!..71"51,-----11 :-:-----"I-7 -- • -__________ _ _ -all II- MI• r".._"1:71' --' ---.-r t.. Let'' e''. -• • ' ....s•,•••i 4.. L., • ' ".--' - 7' .77'7_1-7-__ I ''__■. _;•_, I • al -- - -- -...1!! 1 . - - - -- u .I.r.: < _ _ _ ------' ..- ...■ 5*.... - - - ,r--- 1 il • :lira; iiiii Mai ..'q:---'7 ... ' • gla r 1 • -• -- „ .....„ ---...1.4„. 11111171111r_ • Is.Ii -4.---1/2eaf6- . .......,...m.. ■•••••■■■■•• • ,...... -... .. slit7 .."--• .......x- -r•'-' I r.,.... ..:Isaac .. , 3 - - - - ---1..._ .„..._:_ .„_ _ == _ _,__,,,t,,_,:...,_z.=.1.17.- _,..,_?,,i___, ".__ ., .,: _ -. "--\_ . - --.-..-;_ .- ---.7. -- -...--- "1-73.-- ---- -- - WEST . ELEV ON :_- : - ' Arri, ....:-... ....---.- I Drwe br ..-.-.--7:__ - .= . _. .. _ _ . I __ ''-i ,-- - ---•• :- ... C-1.-.-_ __ -__._ • ,- . ___ - 101.ackad br I . ----- ' -_ - 7 "_7_- • L::7_ _ ..- _ _ . . • .....:•;...., . 7•7 ...: • 9sau fl Or SAY 1 F•.-- - . _____ -.-- - -• "."-...-'7-7 1,4'; _ 7: ' :=•'''";'-2:7'-'""_-_-7 7" :'2..1-_"-^----"-:----r- . -- . . . . - - - 1 '. •.' . ,..... . - - -, _ , - _ _ __ . - _ . , - -_ .• . . -_.-- -- - . -.7.. "---._ _ _ _ .....- __. . _. .._... ______ ,,__, __ _ _,_,_-, . . . _ 7 -"r•T7'. .."•7.".-.•':-7;_ .77. -_. . . .• . _- '.-- -___ _ ... --_ ' •'7 • ' . _ .. - -- ---- - _ ' • - . ... - - _______. .____..•,_,- ,........_ r'I Go/don R Pier= • A>J -- SIOCTICIUMS n_ac • AMO. ormor.amrr • M t•. MN• ar•■••Wrr YCi.•••1 . 106106.1•O - 1 Ywwwd••• rp 11.1.2 4n.17..b.C+1.1.10111.21 OY•••• .Lbw C•W0 - . _. 110.13.321r1 _- • . - - _ ._._ _ __—__— ---_ -. .1111 • _ ____ ._ ..- .._-__-- _ _._. _ ._ _._.. _. ____-_____. ''. it _ _ -- =t _ _ IW C- -— .u cJt:ac4 ea ■ • - —•- --- WN. c. i TN_ .-_ __ . _._ .. , ,,,,.._.___::... . .___ ._._ ..._ _ _ _ _._ _.. . _ . ___ _ .. . ... _ . ._._..__ _. . ___.___ . . . . •• . _ ._... _... . .. . . ... ..._ . ___ ____._._ _ . _ _ _____ .._ ____. •• —_ .._ _ _ - __—_ la.• I.// 7::-7'""'Ij ass, t.ti — . - __ - _— _ ___ -__. _ 1 1• .araaas•—•+ ZS 1 iY.,d j OCT.� __ _____ __ _ __ _ ;i�.� , ri.. wM: �. variirua. ...0:1.1,1...;;I: • • I i{vA/s�y� ��= �-°' �•_.: 3 l iiii .aaiila:iw iiii - _ - -----r-.__ --_— -._NS i�� •� e.0 •au 1'!t j�\ — — — — _ II:ii i''a , >_. IIII1I1111gi ..,: IIIOIII111Gt '! 111111IIBII� . - '• MI1111II111IIII11111 • ;� �_=—�_ �+ }_,;^-; `'A..1"S•••.• 1tl1!iiT •• • • 1111•••�: Ou • ,!SP1 w ••- -- - f1 U ' ' /YaL.N • 0' w. ii. w,� /31'1������•r==.1.= yat `` — ---- _ r___�_- ._:. ' . r 1 " 1�>Y /../'../ , !.._∎ r•�i.6Y ��YOi1 Y�a1•�MaliY.Y•.a. iti] Z'Yi.M'1.I ___-- - --_- _ _t��-,=- —-:=.�=-.�_.- __-- -_ _ - : — lll�Iq'II = IIlll11gIII1 -�Il,tllgnllf III !»1I,; •, .l:rlllllg111gg11i'' I r"llr-- - --;�,�,�j :- -- _ -- — _ —- — 'i fii ��n - o�/� >le ++ l _ /; � c ��`—. � . iiwi••: 6�dTCM \• € - .aaa.az N.. al.< < 111011111.41 MI i-OQ.f 1\ /.Y• M.Y1 .SC. {Rl "+r CYM�� --- _ _— — , - ..'.• . t.. __�.;•. �i[`,_��• ..,..N .Y...I...N:> till" d_wa... • 1 • _ _ - - •4 f : �I" ii::� �, ��,h tr F Y�1. - � Y.t. ,1 , t...►� — IIII11gIl I _ _ - — — -_- ri -- '.r; ' ;. 't __IIIIIIIk:h._,,:_e.�,.,. 1111111h:Ifi4`-4110 ` " -_ - ,/b •_ _ 1 b ;..3s 0,��.p ,,p s. r'�EI �'..�s ais�a - - S_� - - - - -- -__1 tti 'I':}o'�b 'y� n ;^o h9`; tiSE. • � 0.0". .� -.—_ _——_ _- - . 7a. R� •:iw.7:J ice, .-x• 101 *riS :iMi_.0 ills- :a� 'XZy '.-. -t"�.% kt� •W+...f s a+ ' _.... 'r"� ------ -_-- - a ....� 1 }f- ^ .�-g..... � s rs �'1■� s.,s�^�o3 •r;,r�,; ''a' r Y .z r w`l� Yla,-r-" ...L t/s2 �iG�a:w -"�-•.�" d�v: y;:+�' t > > ti' I�r y.{� .; ks - ---- _—.. __ �+-e',.� -- - -- _ -_ 1 1�__ iv�: ,_-_— -c.= -_t- f - r:a«- �.. j zs a� y�_c __�_ �u — _ _ _ — _ _—'_ -- _—. _ _.# a Mai - _ R� — — T o 'IS a �/ ' aYC�t/ceta...Y✓1 'L '• mss+ .- _ ��..�,�. ' - ''�."� '- rCiM " r ' p '�.Mfltf'Yr�... ::/ sA`' ...• .. _ • - -- - — t 4 adC ----- - ._. -- _.- J— _ _ --' - - -- --- - _ - - -- -_ - — - - -- — - 1 D.... L _--_ ... _ - b �� � -" — 'T NORTHWEST ELEVATION r .; SW* - - - •• - — - -- - _ - - -___ - - - - _ - — fir_--- i - ..�„�, - - t.. .l I . ..�.r, •■etia as.. • Iliali..":"....',..:M211 1 ' • P') • No. ' ..." Allijillil E • .i waR �a a_ --�1��1 l��1 . jftp qiTII}-+1I �. _ -fir'It lir !IN . _- - • --- _. RN 1 WM-wove _ 1.--f1,11 - - , _ .. 11f11 IIII --- --- - _—_ ,� _ IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIII#IIIII0111111 �__ _. • — GARDEN ELEV -��' --' -- �/!�•rtb(lroawso) t --- -- --- r - -- _.._- _'- ----- ''_- _- -• - _ t!a•rt-xe �.z V •0 _ ;zwly ------- ----- -- --- _ — -- - - - - _ - _ - - �� ATIOrLL50LTI1-D •. -— c -a_ - = iii _ lil - f — -i r — __— :_- — = _� -• omme _•- 1 1-- �..'- .. — _ .��-_ /��a 1 - i'c�" - +sa7� TC 1� `�1w%� s5..1�'- .'' 6.•rID'•ri�..... ... •"t,,'•-066,04_111:66_,A•11161~- - -. I a s.� 5�, ' �'' - _- b� - r _� - - — —__ ' ..Sal, ' ;sa sa s• uasN►. Na••••6.Kj- a .:4 as1 °5." 9 .:a ea:tt. •N ttia.a_- r■.w. 4-1 r-� pi — _1. .� a.••a■.. ,!•..r.a. <sau.`` _ � ���s.� o ,. /.•.r■az.r_ _ ,�_ _ aetetu. _ - ref- _" _____. . .... :�a~■: •• i•eao..r3 _..._ _ �_ o#h. :wi:! ::y-"•Ar..::;,:.. :4:i Sr• J ir,•••r- - g 4 •-:i - .: .•.r- _ 11_1111:_ .1111111 " -�'lllllllllllll 't �! : '� •'I ' ' 5111 1111111 " 1111111111b "AlIU11111111�=�s' " "°"'` I fi i' �� r _�s IINIIlIIIIII 111111lIlnn Ira glIIIIlIIIM. I.ullll11..1a �I�:ull,al, �: � _. ..o_ :��- ._ �; �• ��li �. 4�.eTh: _—.• a1��•--ib4y rit i i�i:•!r�� : III.. .i�• '`� ,p.,• . '- r—---- 'I •• .••.•••• :•■...■` :t■.•.•- l.G . •t'2....:t• ..ti. - yr,•••. //N/.•-s _ . f.• '7 t•••• . :::t .• e .=:■ :'■:..r. ; a.e? vw4•. •..:t.-. '. s.I. ^•ii::F:, • .��ff/t/fr1: - ar YM 1 __ _ L_—„_ I ar . 1 ■:: ••YUw •■•. :NV r{. ....pm.. r rr[t �N•. p IIIIIIIIIIIIL■.�11111ffff= ....hfilllilllll��■a1111111111i1■���Ililllitil � s ,?1110 �I11A11!- : 111�agIIINI.�� 111111111111i!5>• ► �» ll�nll tw�• '-, '�' "LrL"L6''•• rs��r"'r_ .- mac �`w _ sn� .v �rasw- -..��.r— �• ^: ".r �rwr •+3�, s, �. 1�' +�:t - ,• • . a to *' L._ - —� ��,...:..'r: rrwli ai+..a.• �w/a�r/`s .a«■.w. _diw`.. _ -. - . -:ate-¢~''N •'�a•:ei- ;'�-'r' _ _ __ r • ':.••,• :. ' w•Fa, 1�.saN.•.a■a iasw�ws .'�.ia ��,'• I �+ .. 117/r1/t r i legit-_: r.•a .�Cf/17rtNl►•rfQ.A/rr rw a.. ��fl.i�•r 1 T 'y __ __ _ _ - r. - -_ --�m q �Itra rr r.larrrw NlYrlr�w .4 .' N■.Y•=,/4 u r.N r. a■1.11:11 .2 •■er.•2•{11 ::: r o.w.�r� r.....1,_.,:,..._.=.•Ii•. a•.r.MIME Ali ..,,, ..w �'•I: -I Gordo=R Pier= I .I. linen umt .,..I... PrnIneWINT I 'Re M. Y fir Wl 811yIMWI .7:".-- ., Owlm.OM. :".' OY I f..Loom•Yam e IMIwk Omk Lamm..Oil •10.04.1011 • _. _ _ -.. _ -_.__..___.._-. . _-_--- ._ - • - 8 — cz Z o +.wcLls r++r �� i ( z ... U 0/1/4 T„,..,a■..i -- 1 iur; I ;� viar u} 1 >• - - _ - --` 4 — --- — _ II I • i 4 i liar sri . II • ,' . 999 _. . --i I .. . - i t 1 1 Z I S S r I _ _ _ _-_ _ - - -- - - - -' - - - ,I M T - "s-' __ • II .. — - -- - - - - T r�s f uuuuuuglul 11 - 1 mss+' ;, _ ;� tesmi I T«w - _ — >� PAINING rvrL . , . - 1 I . - ____ _ - - Ts,e-r _ —' --- 'PwiiHic LEVEL P(Xi ---_ -- - -- - ----- In.re a Nor PO . sv —. — mm= or - •. — -1 SECTION -- - !sr se, do . . A17 • w I Gordon R Pierce; Ali ..o.nct,= .+0116, .. . =M...= ..■G..MI= 0.■Caw OM Mk la. L... ) I I -- a �?:r - . • • O_ ._ �_— O " CO> .. - I 'III ,... - - _ - J --� . -__ t • -- - _ .-. - - - - - A.l II � �- III Iii - - — — Leo -r -- '-- _ .. ._.- - ----._ .. - - III ,- - III -' — _ _ . . •— _ ___ -_ _ _ _ - g _ -- -- _ - .. _ .. - _ - _• - - - _--_ __ •.._ _ _ ..- - c A&••1....+•.q.__: ;•. 1 I I ;,�„ro... , _ - - : :- _ _ _ tee,... Mill • • j - --' -- - — — f •, . . . TM I/. - ■ .. ._ _... --_–._—__ r.-..� -✓ __._ -- _. _ _ - S1rAY 90 _ I -_ _ _. _ - _ _ - - ...._ __. _ __._- .- _ _ - _- _— — — __ _ _ ... - ft. Ism Promo• ►wov+o rave,Pots rs : ` 1 - . - . .- ... .. . . _ .. ._ - - -• }T4.,: - ONE..., Drwy• - _ - .. ._ - - --' 9� - - •a ZI q 84• - - .. 1 SECTION A - - A18 anr.rt - - - - - • 1 N A .. . , -. . • _ . , Gordon FL Pierce AL& • .110:7•RIGTUILIt IILI.MING 110.111411111111K1 YOE.. sm..1wpm...sm... 'on C•■■••■MIN7 ■••••2•■••.” • . • . .. ■ =•••••■••• .. ........, • ; . .......c......,,... • 06 0111.4. -- -- - • • . - .. .. -- . _ _ . . -. . • • . /. . ■ . . ... , . • . • . - . ! .. . . . ... - . .-.--... ,.-. . .. .._. _ _ ..._ . . - Aillgillin: -- MM. s''.\1: . -..- . ., • . . . .... - 111••■;........C.•••••:Mill .. . - . \ ■ CIO 0 . . . _ . . ___ __ . . . • - 011 -. - • I...1 --u) a . ... _ __ ___. I . .7t ItC D < . ._ ._ . ___ =- 1 , .....," ta.... . ■Ng mg lice I t _ • •._ _ • . Li.1 ... _. r_____., . 04.44 i 1T. ........Sli...„111 . • . . Z ° - .009.4001.1t ., -. . _ . . ii- h.-. •- • "I•1.1 . .• -. . . ._. . I \\.., 1 i I 0 , . _. • . ...1 0 ■1•■ ••• 4 .CC 4CC ■ . .-. -...._ 1 ...■ , . ol. •4 (J) ra > _ p . . , . r-1 i -......... . . • • - . . . ._.. . - • - ... _ . _ . • . , 4es aff• morrow - • M..__.°3 IOW MS - L........... , I • s...... .--2 _ . _ . . -... ---'-__ ....... I .1111: n--a414 • . .--1:._ II:,,,,L_,....._.__,,A041ff SDI[ - ... • - •• - - -- - - • - - • . • IVrasn'vaallealeskino•SOW _ . • . .___ . ...._ . ,. . - --4 II . ---- IPEPIIL:9901.Ws!•13 • —— ,-.- -... __ __ . - —------ . ' ..__ ... . . . • • • imilir ZID AM xn . ;-.vis I - 21.2 __.. II I•• .....",,,,:es _ ._ . 11, • Ir .....—__7. . .. _. . I , • i /iiimmil Ira • ,___ I, ; 30 ALT 90 . F r ■if ■911 A. s---.-.....-...--. I 'tkilerr.redi .. . I . . . ___ - •.I - 10 OCL 90 . 1■■••■•11 .... ._ = -_,:..-_:::=.•_ . ._._ - ._ •...Z.4----.: _ .. . 1 ' tligignii . -- -- .- = S---7. . iji= 71' 1 II _ 7:777._:L:7:"....1.7...-. • 7: _ .. ... 6 .- ---_ _ • . . I il I .• • IMMMMIMIIIIIIIIIMIIIrllIllnlr . ,....-....-.. .■ FL MN _. _ . Mil , . . . .1_ 1_4... . -" "• . ===.77 7_7.7 7 .7L- '-=. . A :-._ __ -.7 !SEAMUS. 110•••1111 _ -,...-- --r-rr--t --• •- - - . .. . ...._- - . _.-_ ._...._ -- - . . -.-...--:- . --. • LII ______. issorams. ....-r--.--- .-...._._.s' Or, 7•_7-..-. - CI=...:- - 63.ocatm. I - .__-_.__-__ _ ._. -...„_ •- • - MIS= s 1 ..,-.... . . . _ MI 11101111 • : - • MI MI/ .I I •' -• •• •-- - - -• •-• •• -- , • =MOS SW Weil 1 111 - _7=•--. ._ _ . I I IIIIIIIE ESA . I....1 Om 81 Cir..■.=■"a : • . • —_ liostudwass 1 .. ... _ -111EsAIII- • I I 1.1. I .._.__. .. .. I.- . -•1,_ _ . I-7- i . , ... ;I -- ... - • I--— _ _ ,__-- : ,.__. . . t .• I.I-• • . -111.11111.111.11.1111111111 . . -_:.- ,__.... . . _. _ ... .. F- _ .__. .... .. - • -...,.. ...,„„„......"... .._.. . -. __ _......._ i 7 - • ....-, , '' .. .. ._. - . _-.._ _ ...._. . • I I ... . . . •2 I II I, -. I I• ---- - - __ . __ _ .. .__ - • - •• •• . . . .. ... . - , . . _ . . .. __. „.... 0 -- I. II _ .__ . ._ ... . _. . . • ii. __. • . . ....---- . .._ .. . _ ..... . . • - . - - - . . .• i I I i I I I __-301- -_ _-. ._..1 ._.. .. 6 II I • I ...._. ._ I Rem! OD:1.3274:10 _:" , - . ' ;74,711:"TrIlr -...t. -LI I -1.1-0 • • - • e.: ——— _. . . .. . ._ .. -__ __ . . _ r . • ... -.. ._ ,__..-.........-__._ _- .... ._ •._-. . ... • .. __ : - •.- . • . _ .. . ,.. - Fl•L C-E.ION . •. . _ - .... . I/0U1f1•a 01 Ar1 g b 1.O f 9 .__ __.. ._ • . . . --- — _ __ _ _ * . 6.- • . . • ' • ._ • .. — _ Galion R.Fiore ceenecvme MAIMING Y CM. • Y Grp OYC Ci CAN.. �_! w• . . , ITS V.b. e• f i• MOa0 ` . -- rN/ff1sl•F••••4 IOWAN* �►r - 1V fr - -ice .- _y�T/. _ • - - - - - r _ ... -- . �}IwM� q -- ---- - a 1 - Ili .- R..¢r •YJ • - AD • awar h7742.614.ill; tin _- - _ - - " -a . _ - -- ---. .- - - — — - \ AO'D _• I 7r D _... F - .•_. ._ - 1 _ - - - _ - - 1 - __ ._ _ . EGJON ! r _ �lne +r ,-- _ N • >m• :15 MLY55 . Lit 15194.55 - - I - - •: y _. - - 1I -'-tam_...7-_-_7_7._ - _ - _ .•- .--. _ _ .. _ _-._ .. _ • - • __ _- - ..-_ -. _,�_ - ._-b _ 0. .p _ _._ - _. .. _ F • .-- (Il}G_140 R sows lavr I M _ _ .. . . .- _ - . - • - - -a:�=.mow,...-+..•.+f- - _-- _ - �_-- • - - - _ • __ --.. - _— WPM& _ --_ .flCt/V�i__- _- _-- - ______-- _- __..____...-.-_-__-. _.._ _ -.-_-__ _ _ •_. -- N -- R. } — •.. _ '. -- - - - - .. .- — -•.:. .. 1 ., --_.. I I . . _ _,..-- •,\___._ ErJbflls ®1i2DN0 _... - _ . • • - s.1 IIA 1522.0 . - I--' -- I-:--- O •.. 45 resve4rr(rat nesmi rn _ -- - •- -- ._ • Q m•• - -- - •_-. _.. _-. - _._ _ _ - . - _ y- . 2 sErnoN f An • 15em 2.6 Of IA - - C — Gordon R Piece I. • r � - ru/.ec Yor. 11.6.C■1•■IMO ■ Ii■da.COY I ia■C -r.IMO - _ _ _--_.--- ___. -_ _ _ tae _ 1•,40 0 o s° , :.:k.. �� _a®ii V--=---- '�Ci ,fir_ 1117-' r.I_ ' E_ra+ arc S = =� - ��:.. - ai — __ _ _ _ Mir Cil •- - �� ti $ Q !� Fsm.':isiaiN�iii�iwiawi�`sww�:.: .r Vr 11111111111•111111111•011111. 6.''''Una NOMMIIIIMMOM __ 47" sirs aslsa •tcssame 1 -1 _ - -- . CRIM C z - - -- - - --t - — - ',SOUTHWEST ELEVATION"-- - - - . rtS EVAT N Z cC U' - . - - . - - -- -- =3 SECOND LEVEI. : (-� D _ -- --- -- - - _ -- (� m > ` = =_ -' - - ►'v __-SPA BUILDING -- -- -- ----- - - --_ _ _ r • i 7 MIL . ________ _ . ~ = __ ____ __ _ . d _____ _ _ __ _____ 4.,--,- ill Irr .... -� ti 4 > ,rirtttRr, ,, :._____ _ _ __ _ =___ _ — 0 _ oil '.., XAi'��.m► ^"�' "� p `i _ : :: 1 'ri oba7iTr a • i _aAsS : . i m — •• _ O, ° - 2 'NO • O - - - _ ___ - ______ �\ �� it . ,�� ° =--- — - _ _ _ — .---- RTHWEST ELEVATION-�� - - � --- - -- - --- - - - - -- J .� -.._ 4 FIRST LEVEL' - - - - - _ - i - --- - =T..� — — — —_- — _ -- -- r --- - - - - - —_--- - - - - - -- - - -- -- -- —. .. _ - — -- fnw 1990 --- --- - - -- - - - - - -- --- -- - -- - _ D.rc. Y it iE '� Q� nn tm , �• -- - - - _ _ _ _ ��- _ - L+�1 uaoo ... _ ._- --- _ _ __ -- _-___. c Iu iiaIiiiit iiar7u1SiI i ZZIlemr— - J��I 1tlts I In....r,aaa�ao� O• ; : . �711111....IZENE II :� .1 ]-, t d%-; 11111111111 IT - _.,..:_. - = -- - - -- _ .- 7 GARDEN WALL{ SOUTH ELEVATION: - A21 • - - --- --- v - - - - - - - Leigh, Scott 81 Cleary, Inc. 1889 York Street TRANSPORTATION PLANNING CE tl �J E0 OCT ® 91 al Denver,Colorado 80206 &TRAFFIC ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS (303)333-1105 Offices in Denver and Colorado Springs Fax: (303)333-1107 October 4, 1990 Mr. Ken A. O'Bryan Pierce, Segerberg & Spaeh 1000 South Frontage Road West Vail , CO 80657 RE: Sonnenalp Hotel Expansion LSC # 900710 Dear Ken: We have completed a traffic impact and access analysis for the proposed Sonnenalp Hotel project in Vail , Colorado. The project site is located along the east side of Vail Road between Meadow Drive and Gore Creek. The proposed project is assumed to consist of demolition of 75 of the Hotel 's 84 existing rooms and construction of 115 new hotel units. Thus, the new Sonnenalp facility will contain a total of 124 hotel rooms including 40 more than exist on the site today. Existing Traffic Conditions Figure 1 , enclosed, illustrates the location of the site with respect to the adjacent roadway system. All access to and from the proposed facility is planned for a pair of one-way driveways located along the east side of Vail Road about 120 feet and 180 feet south of Meadow Drive. Vail Road is an important access route through the central part of the Town where it connects residential areas to the south with I-70 and the east/west frontage road system. In the vicinity of the site, Vail Road is about 30 feet wide and it provides for one travel lane in each direction. Four-way Stop signs are posted at the Vail Road intersections with Meadow Drive and the South Frontage Road. Meadow Drive is an important two-lane, east/west route which serves the central area of Vail . West of Vail Road, Meadow is a 1500-foot long cul-de- sac street which serves many important community facilities (fire station, library, hospital , etc. ) . To the east, Meadow is a limited access route which is controlled by a gate arm mounted adjacent to Vail Road. Figure 1 also presents traffic count data for the nearby four-way Stop intersection of Vail Road and the South I-70 Frontage Road. The data shown presents evening peak-hour turning movement counts conducted in March, 1990, and future projections of same by Felsburg, Holt and Ullevig. The future data assumes build out of all proposed development in the vicinity which has already been approved by the Town. Transportation Systems•Transit•Parking•Vehicular Access•Pedestrian&Bicycle Planning•Traffic Operations&Safety•Signal Design•Traffic Impact Studies Mr. Ken A. O'Bryan 2 October 4, 1990 Estimated Traffic Generation Average weekday and evening peak-hour traffic activity expected to be generated by the Sonnenalp Hotel is shown in the following table: ESTIMATED TRAFFIC GENERATION SONNENALP HOTEL 40 Additional 124 Rooms Rooms Only Average Weekday Traffic (@ 8.704/Rm) 1080 350 Evening Peak Hour Traffic • Entering Vehicles (@ 0.359/Rm) 45 14 • Exiting Vehicles (@ 0.305/Rm) 38 12 As indicated, full occupancy of the hotel can be expected to generate 540 entering and 540 exiting vehicles during an average weekday. Less than a third of this traffic, however, is projected to be new to the area since the net increase in hotel units is only 40. These estimates are based on Category 310 rates published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers as cited in "Trip Generation", 4th edition. 11 . . 1 )- „ • t Estimated Traffic Distribution and Assignment The directional distribution of generated vehicular traffic on the roadway system providing access to and from the subject project is one of the most important elements in planning specific access requirements and in determining related traffic impacts. The major factors which influence this traffic distribution include the Hotel 's relative location within the community, the type of proposed land use, and characteristics of the roadway system providing access. Figure 2 illustrates the percentage distribution of Sonnenalp traffic which is estimated for this analysis. As indicated, the majority (93%) of the Hotel traffic is expected to pass through the four-way intersection. Application of these distribution estimates to the previously cited generation estimates for the project's 40 additional rooms results in the peak-hour and average weekday turning movement traffic assignment which is also shown on Figure 2. As indicated, traffic to be added by the project is shown at the proposed Sonnenalp driveways as well as at the Meadow Drive and Frontage Road intersections with Vail Road. Traffic Impacts Figure 3 illustrates the combination of background and site-generated traffic at the Vail Road/Frontage Road intersection for both existing (March, 1990) and future evening peak-hour traffic conditions. A comparative capacity Mr. Ken A. O'Bryan 3 October 4, 1990 analysis has been prepared for the subject intersection using procedures presented to the Transportation Research Board during the January 1990 annual meeting ( "Estimating the Capacity of an All-Way Stop-Controlled Intersection", Michael Kite) . The results of these analyses (printouts are enclosed) are as follows: CAPACITY ANALYSIS COMPARISONS VAIL ROAD & I-70 FRONTAGE ROAD Volume/Capacity Assumed Traffic Ratio Existing 119 ; Existing + Additional Site 120%.' Future 140% Future + Additional Site 143% As indicated, the intersection with existing controls is presently 19 percent over capacity during the peak-hour and in the future, it is projected to be 40 percent over capacity. The additional traffic to be added by the proposed Sonnenalp project, however, will only increase these peak-hour projections 1% and 3%, respectively. Summary and Conclusions Based on the foregoing analysis, the following summarizes our findings concerning the proposed Hotel expansion. 1 . At full occupancy, the proposed project can be expected to add approximately 175 entering and 175 exiting weekday vehicle trips to the surrounding roadway system. Of these, 14 will enter and 12 will exit during the evening peak-hour. 2. The greatest concentration of project-generated traffic is expected along Vail Road to and from the north. Ninety-three percent of the additional traffic will pass through the key Vail Road/I-70 Frontage Road intersection. 3. The traffic impact of the proposed project on existing and future peak season traffic will be minimal . At the key four-way intersection, peak- hour capacity will be reduced only one to three percent. 4. In conjunction with this project, consideration should be given to installation of painted left-turn channelization on Vail Road approximately as shown on Figure 4, enclosed. As noted, the existing ditch along the east side of Vail Road should be covered and/or protected by the installation of curb and gutter. 0 6 0 Mr. Ken A. O'Bryan 4 October 4, 1990 We trust that this report will assist with further planning for the Sonnenalp Hotel project. Please call if we can be of additional assistance. Respectfully submitted, LEIGH, SCOTT & CLEARY, INC. �\`\111111111Z1!if Ajar /.1/ Q'V -.3 -"- .�4'a,, f 7 0.3:) v,k{r.by °ois Philip N. Sc III , P.E. ... PNS/vb Enclosures. Figures 1-4 ee Capacity Analysis (4) ////cdpr.1. 1���+r,::sl:I.., 313 109 722 3130 343 L850 1 ,405 289 lJ� x105 340 324 125 440 �� 99' f 55 I -7p FRONTAGE ROAD 279 127Th 115 330. 65 Ito 150 1/t I f.--'," • J, IN APPROX. SCALE: 4 ¢ 1.=100' v. O. /674:) 341 } 433 405 1I I 510 MEADOW DRIVE . _7_ , SONNENALP \HOTEL • 1 \\.k ... _ - _ - :7// GORE C./.. FIGURE 1 EEK VICINITY MAP LEGEND • •• 99 MARCH 1990 PM PEAK—HOUR TRAFFIC AND 115 FUTURE PM PEAK—HOUR TRAFFIC BACKGROUND TRAFFIC Leigh, Scott & Cleary, Inc. 25% 7 i 48% (85) / 3 r_ (35) 3 (40) l � I-T / f/ 2 0 IRON 1 AGE ROAD (40) 6 (35) Si (85) 20% 0 A 7 CA APPROX. SCALE: cc 1'=100' 4l -.I Ov. /2:2 • 13 (160) 5% i MEADOW DRIVE 1 - - (10) - r 11 �_ 1 (160) k \10) 111:2■ 0) 1 0 (5) SONNENALP \HOTEL (1174 0)L , o . 1 (5) 1 FIGURE 2 - - NEW GORE PROJECT-GENERATED LEGEND . CREEk TRAFFIC 5% = PERCENT TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION DISTRIBUTION 12 - PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC 2% (170) - AVERAGE WEEKDAY TRAFFIC SONNENALP HOTEL Leigh, Scott & Cleary, Inc. 116 722 313 370 137 343 L850 (405 289 ` 340 j�108 324 128 372380,i 440 �- 102` 57 I-70 FRONTAGE ROAD 130 ") 118 285 67 153 336 1 • cir/// O APPROX. SCALE: 1' =100' • • MEADOW DRIVE NSO NNENALP \HOTEL N . GORE CREEK LEGEND FIGURE 3 102 _ EXISTING *PROJECT PM PEAK-HOUR TRAFFIC TOTAL TRAFFIC 118 FUTURE •PROJECT PM PEAK-HOUR TRAFFIC Leigh, Scott & Cleary, Inc. ... , 41 ---, $,-- _.....l \ FIGURE 4 MEADOW DRIVE PRELIMINARY LANE MARKING PLAN 0 , VAIL ROAD < , ..._ , ,__ SONNENALP si HOTEL I I ',..... I 1ST. BANK •-• . (N TYPICAL X-SECTION t ........-"",■ APPROX. SCALE \.....----------;I I f-----■ /- I k I I'.-- -"I`6----78' 10.5-• 9' ) 10.5'74 ----, , - 1 1 6 , , -_-..m.---- - ." ' ''(' NOTE: CURB AND GUTTER IS VAIL REQUIRED ALONG CHAPEL EAST SIDE OF VAIL ROAD BETWEEN MEADOW DRIVE AND GORE CREEK BRIDGE. . SeSV1Ge ----- \ 9 • _..- ' • -- .../.-•--- .,.,f_folS.......\ 0‘3,..-• \ Leigh, Scott & Cleary, Inc. -/ . *** **************************************************************** ALL WAY STOP INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS ********************************************************************** IDENTIFYING INFORMATION CITY VAIL, COLORADO NAME OF EAST/WEST STREET 1-70 FRONTAGE ROAD NAME OF NORTH/SOUTH STREET VAIL ROAD NAME OF ANALYST PMY DATE OF THE ANALYSIS10/2/90 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED PM Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION EXISTING PLUS SITE GENERATED TRAFFIC VARIABLE EB WB NB SB APPROACH LANES 3 3 2 3 LEFT TURNS 324 109 102 343 THRU 372 289 285 116 RIGHT TURNS 130 722 57 313 APPROACH VOLUME 826 1119 444 772 DISTRIBUTION (%) 26% 35% 14% 24% PERCENT LEFT TURNS 39% 10% 23% 44% PERCENT RIGHT TURNS 16% 65% 13% 41% APPROACH CAPACITY 782 `, 668 342 Fi52 INTERSECTION CAPACITY 2644 V/C RATIO (%) 120% ___________________________________________________ .. .. : .. . . .. . �._��_.. .�.�;.,.*.,***-.. .. ..-tom :. .. ..*** - --* . . - -.*, - **-- - -- - - - * - ALL WAY STOP INTERSECTION C;:-:PAC I TY ANALYSIS IDENTIFYING INFORMATION CITY „ VA I L. , COLORADO NAME OF EAST/WEST STREET I-70 FRONTAGE ROAD NAME OF NORTH/SOUTH S-I-REET 'JAIL- ROAD NAME OF ANALYST PMY DATE OF THE ANALYSIS 1 n/Wc?0 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED PM Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION FUTURE PM PEAR+. HOUR TRAFFIC VARIABLE ED WB NB GB APPROACH LANES 3 3 2 3 LEFT TURNS ?80 125 115 405 THRU 440 340 330 130 RIGHT TURNS 150 850 65 370 APPROACH VOLUME 970 1315 510 905 DISTRIBUTION (7:) 26% 367.. 14% 24%: PERCENT LEFT TURNS 79% 10. 2.3% 45%= PERCENT RIGHT TURNS 15%: 65% 13 41 APPROACH CAPACITY 785 668 340 854 INTERSECTION CAPACITY 2647 V/C RATIO (%) 140% . ^ � . ********************************************** *********************** ALL WAY STOP INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS ********************************************************************** IDENTIFYING INFORMATION CITY. . VAIL, COLORADO NAME OF EAST/WEST STREET 1-70 FRONTAGE ROAD NAME OF NORTH/SOUTH STREETVAIL ROAD NAME OF ANALYST PMY DATE OF THE ANALYSIS 10/2/90 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED PM Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION . . . . FUTURE PLUS SITE GENERATED TRAFFIC VARIABLE EB W8 NB SB APPROACH LANES 3 3 2 3 LEFT TURNS 380 123 118 405 THRU 440 390 336 137 RIGHT TURNS 153 850 67 370 APPROACH VOLUME 973 1363 521 912 DISTRIBUTION (%) 26% 36% 14% 24% PERCENT LEFT TURNS 39% 9% 23% 44% PERCENT RIGHT TURNS 16% 62% 13% 41% APPROACH CAPACITY 782 ~ 876 336 848 INTERSECTION CAPACITY 2643 V/C RATIO (%) 143% SONNENALP TRANSPORTATION STUDY (JAN. 1. 1990 UNTIL SEPT. 30. 1990) #OF GUESTS #OF ROOMS AV.PPL PER ROOM AV.STAY ARR/DEPT. JANUARY'90 9341 4586 2.04 5.6 1668 FEBRUARY 9067 4407 2.06 7.3 1242 MARCH 10181 4966 2.05 8.4 1213 APRIL 2695 1320 2.04 3.8 709 MAI 682 357 1.91 3.0 227 JUNE 2840 1679 1.69 3.3 860 JULY 4517 2561 1.76 3.7 1220 AUGUST 3565 1821 1.96 4.3 829 SEPTEMBER 2808 1607 1.75 4.1 684 TO DATE 45696 23304 2.0 5.28 8652 TRIPS ROUNDTRIPS VAN COMPANIES: COLORADO MOUNTAIN EXPRESS *3681 1840 VANS TO VAIL **2380 1190 ATS **1840 920 OTHER ***500 250 TOTAL 8401 4201 4201 GUESTS ARRIVE AND DEPART WITH VAN SERVICES, LEAVING 4451 GUESTS FOR OTHER MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION SUCH AS CAR, BUS, RENTAL CAR. OUR RECORDS INDICATE THAT AN AVERAGE OF 2 PEOPLE PER VEHICLE IS REALISTIC. THAT WOULD MEAN 2225 VEHICLES THAT WOULD REQUIRE PARKING DURING THE OBSERVATION PERIOD , THAT TRANSLATES TO AN AVERAGE OF 8.21 CARS PER DAY. *COLORADO MT.EXPRESS RECORDS **OUR RECORDS ***ESTIMATE 0 SONNENALP 1989 Lodge Occupancy and Parking Lot Occupancy Compared 100.00% - 90.00% 80.00% - \ / V 70.00% - 60.00°/ \ 50.00% - 1 40.00% - 1 1 30.00% - 1 1 20.00% - 1 1 10.00% - 1� ' J 0.00% I I I I I I I I I i I I I 1 I I - I -I 17/29 12/30IDE: I/06 f66 I/10 114& 1/26 TYE: 1/3 106E 1/31 161E 2/2 16E 2/5 mOE: 3// l0 3/10 16E 3/70 10E 3/26 1■E: 4/1 DC 4/2 To 4/27] fWE 5/5 TIME 5/6 f5E 6/1 TIME 1190-230 kX4-7.10 6i0-7U0 k7p-F�0 Y4-7f0 6L5-190 415-62D 5:C0-7:30 610-1• 6 -71) 700-0 6:40-7:40 6:40-735 6:45-7M 6.40-P.35 2335-335 7:40-767 ?00 695 pe mn pn om am mu pin mn mn mL an me on on OM pm on on This chart illustrates Sonnenalp Lodge ' OCCUpancy unit and parking lot occupancies on a sample of study days spread between December and June, 1989. The capacity of the parking lot is 112. Note the following: ' Parking lot occupancy ' During the March period ' The parking lot is being never exceeds 91%, and when occupancies are ex- used by employees even during most of the busy tremely high parking lot when lodge occupancies winter season is in the occupancies are in the are low. range of 50% to 65%. middle range. This illu- strates the low use of automobiles by Sonnenalp patrons: over half are visiting without cars during winter months. E VIEW ANALYSIS AND SHADOW & SHADE STUDIES Pierce, Segerberg and Spaeh Architects THE VIEW ANALYSIS The methods used to develop the View Analysis are simple and easily understood. A total of seven different views were considered in the analysis. As summarized in the diagram below, they include two looking south toward Vail Mountain, three looking east, and two looking west. Clearly, there will be visual impact and change brought about by the construction of the new building in the proposed location. However, the diversity of roof lines, and the attention to views and shadow and shade is felt to reduce the impacts. The impacts on views at the various locations are described briefly below: #1. View Looking East on East Meadow Drive This view is looking east from near the existing fire station. Although pedestrians will rarely view the Sonnenalp from this perspective because foot traffic is minimal in this area, this photo gives an overall feeling of the project and the roof shapes when viewed from the west. The impact of the new Sonnenalp will be greater at this location than at any other; a significant portion of the mountain view will be eliminated. The building height is deceptive because it will be viewed against the sky rather than the mountain backdrop; however, no major view corridor will be affected. One will sense an entrance way into the village. #2. View Looking South on Vail Road This view represents a location looking south, just north of the existing Ski Museum. This location shall be highly viewed by pedestrians and motorists traveling along Vail Road. Considering the existing structures and other development possibilities the impact of the Sonnenalp on this view will be low to moderate. While some of the mountain will be blocked, there will also be an interesting streetscape created that will enhance the pedestrian experience along Vail Road, and will improve the level of interest and diversity in the Village itself. #3. View Looking East at East Meadow Drive This view is taken from the intersection of Vail Road and East Meadow Drive looking east. The view along East Meadow Drive will not be greatly affected by the building location or setback distances along East Meadow Drive. The view will in fact be made more inviting and the new building will create interest that is presently lacking at this location. The experience that pedestrians will have will be exciting and will serve to implement the intentions of the Vail Village Master Plan. This view will improve the streetscape along Meadow Drive, and will positively enhance both existing and new shopping facilities by encouraging pedestrian movement and circulation. #4. View From 4-Way Stop Looking South. This view will have a relatively low impact and will be consistent with the Vail Road streetscape, that provides some diverse building facades with clear views of the mountain. The Sonnenalp will be in scale with the mountain when viewed from this vantage point avoids overpowering the streetscape or the mountain. #5,#6,#7- All Other Views All other views show little significant visual impact except for photo #5. Clearly, the Sonnenalp will block the entire view from point #5, and will eliminate the existing view. At the same time, the new hotel will eliminate the view of an at-grade parking lot, and will replace it with a variety of interesting building forms. From this vantage point, the pedestrian/from a vehicle view of the building will extend only to eave line. The full height of roofs will not be perceived from viewpoint#5. 2 r 4 1 -70 FRONTAGE ROAD N II i J. w APPROX. SCALE: O 1. -100' c). 1 I • iThii 6 MEADOW DRIVE 5 ......4. \ SONNENALP \HOTEL ir\ VIEW ANALYSIS KEY TO PHOTOS — , 1 - GoR F CREEK - J e ►` 1.'m i Y fir i .. °�'�'�#' :�'1'" >.a s ,r.X. 4.; ):•L,► a _ 71.�p '.+ fir .`7" �.�r' ,y ear f .. _ ti. Phot %kilt ION \.?ii. • I: ddim View From. Bank Looking East o No. 5 'Y. —,----b.._, 1 ..... it.■—..._—_=—,-_ ... / - - --:--=__---__--= ,.t _ .,•_.-- -•,_ %.:., • --___ --__— . -- ..., — er 7.,, ...t,,-11, , , ' t+9; ..,.. .,41. A, ..4i1,•-,...:2 7,..,-', .t 11,. _ , , ,... 44.*' ."- . ,, - - 74* ....- %IC% . teg.7t4 f• ,PH , ." ‘,..;:•46," ..T:-.:,'I'''' , - .., '. 1 *.T.'''''ir . ..'.: •- -4, .. -.,,,„ * •/‘ '...°- l'' -;-. .,./'4%-, ,1 :* 1•• ' —-e k ..... ,.. . .., • . •,..-- _. .. 4::'‘7' 11 V , '4 t:': • ' . - • • , • .., • . .. .. .1."* .. • 4 4 1:.- • -- 2 e : A, a V. ---XL,:tveir'_-.„. ,, I. ..1' . ...--ic-: 4•N IP ' ‘ '; W-'" n -14* , . • i . • —• . , ... e e "•• ''— e ': . ee• ma g I 1 j,.... . . . .0 . 1 4' 1 • • lir 4- 211 S. ' r • S 4. 1 '''... '-.' '''''' . 1 V . c3, ' 0 • 4.... l• _: .t.... .. .„ .. _. . . . . . t- .„.:.. . t;, ‘-'' ' . , ' / i • 7,_ li■ , t *4 .it -.41,-,: I. * II:A , . • •. . '7 . lrlik -.-o -,.. . • . 1„ - ' _ V,... 4344 1 t _ -- _ . , Al - ---4.1■•■•" - ,.....7"--• *. .,. - ...._ - _ --- . PIO.. f '. • ____.--___ .•.---- ,,• „,..• - • ,, afim - -- .,_ • ...... _ _. ...._. _ .-. ... View From East Meadow Drive Lookkia west - Photo No_ 6 . . - , - . 01r*I6 ' --- I a . '-' "----, ..... -. .. - - . - • .., "-.,..„.. - - • i , — -,...` i • . ,, .4 • . . ,... _ ON& i . ".44114 RI . ' ,■-... i _- , • ""-- • , X " :.., _.,.... 11/11 ,. .....iimi. ••i.141 . k. . ifir kliti, e , f • ' . Alt•• '' t . .. '' -..,... ,,.... . I •"44......,_ v .... ....,,-- 1.• . as,? • -:1.'..'1. ., - -, -. irr r I 1 14 r• lc .... •s 4 ' •-.., _.t., , , , .. .. ,,, . . "tonne•I olp 16014#*070,.. \ _ . . • • ••• — A. , ,, .- si a A• ft.' 1.. . .114,444. - r. r . r . dr.7ritao . , 04 1. • , I wr i• - • -‘ - ..,.*: - 41 • ; N . 4'4 - , -., .,.—- i -51''':,4■ --.,-,• - --:- - . , . . iiii; ,..,..... • 1110 -• -r" , .Id - -;Cv,4111.P i.P' — 1 .i s::_1111141, I — 'i - - — - . „-ir .---, 1 . __.... a. --v- . Jo. 1 1 .411111111111111 . . ,. . — 1 k 111112meami = . , . ! , . ._... ._ .......- . _ . ,. . s . - 1-- • , It ,.. , 1 A , .... ._ . _ 0 Ifin*.:...-' -. . , r•-f ,.4:4 ----*.- .....■r• .-.--'- - .1 _ Phni-n NI n 7 View From East Meadow Drive Looking West -:s t. ! mik __ ._ .■.. a . .. 1T 4, ,,,,c. . .. . ,. ... ,_ - - . . ,,,..„,,__ .... :._ _ ,_, - , , .. ..,.... ..?. , ..,... ,.. _ . . AL , _, ...... • 4 r , ;Iowa& _ k [� .•., - _ ti,t i ♦ ri - r .. -- dJ �P -•311. x _ � VIEW LOOKING EAST -AT EAST MEADOW DRIVE_ Photo No.3 . Revised 10-5-90 AND VAIL ROAD INTERSECTION .3^■-. .--:....-: ,1 .. ••'; ;4" '. • ..." .- - ..._ % 8... ill , • ., .. r. r-• IP ..:41r; . "•-•' ,-, , l - 4. at a 4. Ili 1 I 1 \" 4 lilt 41011 i - t, Nimitiorrimph, —••••=mo- filmiumr.a. it It I_-1 ••• . 11001V ,1 1M - I ..... i -1" I • 16 _ \\ . _ — .. - • LW II •- . • ... ,--• . . ... - • 4 . *".•.44 _ 4■''t')ii •■•''. „ . . .. . . .-- ...x.' ... .._.4-. I VIEW LOOKING SOUTH ON' VAIL ROAD Photo No. 2 Revised: 10-5-90 ri te +1i r + 3 4#[4 #4'. -1 - I. ' - r t y +„ tq .t t•amp lltr ■ y s'• 1 i S. 1.1 11 i t r• fan •� � ' ''. • Lt Ir . .. , • . Isitivistiss. . . - ,. . . . el.. •: < co View From 4-Way Stop Looking So - --- South — —---- --Photo No.4 .,_ .... 1 .... .,... It. t 411111.111116 40111PI.4. 0111111ofr or. gr- . ell...• - -Me 0 4 _-....•' - er" Am.. ...r-" ......A. - -- ^".• , ,• 11 -aill 94 'Ii• . - ... ,. .. _ -- --- _,..... 1r _ _ . I ...Pwr. .. ....1. .. I I_ . - -.-••- , ._... • 3.-11-1:.*'^-14 ' ' ''".• .....h•-• - t, .- we'je. i_,•, -''T -'' ■ -4• sir 0.,,.•,. ... ..a.e .1-w_ . ._, ,..... - - 4 ;‘" '..4 li.q 4', " '4-'•••'' .,. .774- -....'_ ....-.1"• %..--....J 15,=. -- a ........ I......r .• 4- • -; r •' .- ' A.' '-- - - - .,•-•-rftdag: ,_ z - - * - •- - •.- r7k-. .,.. .4''`, 'di-. •t„ -r--;61, .:, r '...ti?1- • . . - • -1... ' . ....1=9.;--• - m'''' - ,....A41;•••-.' !--!-,- 411 r. - .:11k_ : ' •,,-4,--.-1:11,4-' ' '--• ''" IV. ' ''-_.ft`; 4tic ' ," -41.1--*7 -- .,.. .41.-- .) :. _ ...E. ,-2 ' -.' . -. ' t , '4 '. . 2- •4 . , . • - . .. :. • - - • ' - - '.•-_ VIEW LOOKING EAST ON EAST MEADOW DRIVE Photo No. 1 Revised: 10-5-90 SHADOW AND SHADE STUDIES The position of the sun in relation to specific geographic locations, seasons, and times of day can be determined by several different methods. Model measurements, by means of sun machines or shade dials are one method. Tabulative and calculative methods are also employed. The graphic projection method was used in this study because it is easily understood and can be correlated to both radiant energy and shading calculations. Any building element will define a characteristic form known as a "shading mask". Masks of horizontal devices (mainly roof overhangs) will create a segmental pattern; vertical intercepting elements (such as fins) produce a radial pattern; shading devices with horizontal and vertical members will create a combination of these patterns. A shading mask can be developed and drawn for any shading device or structure, even very complex ones, by geometric plotting. As the shading masks are geometric projections they are independent of latitude and exposed directions, therefore they can be used in any location and at any orientation. By overlaying a shading mask in the proper orientation on the sun-path diagrams, one can read off the times when the sun rays will be intercepted. Masks (such as the ones used to construct this study) can be drawn for full shade (100% mask) when the observation point is at the lowest point of the surface needing shading; or for 50% shading when the observation point is placed at the halfway mark on the surface. It is customary to design a shading device in such a way that as soon as shading is needed on the surface the masking angle should not exceed 50%. The shadow and shading studies completed for the Sonnenalp were constructed using a 100 percent "shadow mask", meaning a summer study using sun at an angle of 72 degrees on June 21st, and a winter study using a sun angle of 28 degrees on December 21st. Both of these studies were based on the latitude for the property and represent shadows cast at 8:00 a.m., 12:00 noon and at 4:00 p.m. These studies are all accurate, but they portray the worst possible cases at the worst possible times. Because the sun's path of travel will be constantly changing, it will only cast shadows on East Meadow Drive for a short period of time during the winter months. The shadow and shade study indicates that on December 21st, and for a period of time during the winter months, the new Sonnenalp building will cast shadows over all or a portion of East Meadow Drive. During the summer months, shadowing will be negligible. In comparison to the existing maturing landscaping, the icing problems on the roadway as a result of the Sonnenalp would be similar. However, given that the new pedestrian walkway will be largely covered, and that the impacts will only occur during a short period of the winter on a relatively short segment of East Meadow Drive, the icing impacts are felt to be relatively minor. 1 • • caT�S Race • A{.�'-- � I flAnw 1. I a. ; .... .G/ F Iram•_• .,2;4V1f1,;,A4/j",i•..,..a-4.t-0•.'a2.t-1,.,--61'W8•....T 1r._1.y'*4T'b".',.'T1,'7..t..A..,.\l•1:,...'f......ir;r,.,'0'`,-.„..,.:7vw7i4a10ri•.0.1.tt..r*..*...l....g..1....%..f0i1o'-4:r4 4i-gja1,i-ei-7.4-4,'..-S4-:-"1,t'..',i','4",.1gl.j1&?t.4:,";.0--,'■`('•.1-2.i T1,:-i.I.4.*.P•t"?.V.`1-.4•''.-1.'4.1.-.,7..4.*..XV,.-t..."f.?-tr Tf.a`.-j—:.,',..:".4.:- \ \ /' .e S. ♦a .rt '. EAST MEADOW DRIVE: —'� ._ .,. ':7`111.1-w.C".'y'lFa.-' . '., i...V •µJ _ \ 1 T■ .-rmo yam' �r } ‘ _. _ / /•f•: `«-'{t �w,f:�.4iy� <h"!•7 jA•1•1�- r�••.i' ♦i + OIE.AY wow • " -• • .`roA.oe•D.� ` .f •' _ . <r- ''', n O,'�� 1 -I 1 I 1 - wrss LauLeT. ,t"�' - 1 1• • `' .___— /,/ /// ' .,`'+ .� ^ may. s-a riw{mFw.rAFm.: i._ // %�• �,4L4 .k_ -1.91Q�li,11.""CfrEt Mash. •` Iti.. L1/4**A.)_I. ' 1 --. . -. . ,.... . ... .. t• ..-. .1 ./.(//////. i'4.,044-44,;(6.41.:• .z ...,1-411,...1,-,,,,-„,..f.;,.' -:-.-.::4;,:2.416-4*... ....11,,k Atiki L�//� J�/-/,// / • ::"R �" '{ 4ji; 4 1 !� f• `. l...w yy.FA..+� - �. 1 /�‘ •■ �J O •.■ 10 , Pr "NFLIgkelkos ,•,,t7-c. N, -*N.A wor ',., .\,. .. ...- .... -V // / .. .°,-17,',..;.:',,,,-.-.:,-'Ahlro- ' ''' e,„..?...‘1.tW,t, littb),* ••,,,...........".........elkozik., --x itiS,, N.': V ...-..i. __.- -'1 qq1.1:.:A.,":Z"=;: \- .4.,_...i.c. . . .‘-:-... --;i-\. .:.:.:-.:..':_ r-'2'..- -:, :iT.,'Si.7.i.?;,--. - ....,.....7.:::;:::::_-):.,.-......r.. , , ///,,_,,,, . ... ...,. ,. ,._ ......-...5..‘N.......... ,.. ...„N...,.... ........„.............,.\\ . :..... .• • .. . ,/,, Amo / _ Of"tok4ttaxisi,„.... .,... . -,10,--111:-14%10sN&' AIL'As.‘■• b. ---"- ilk .. ......-4...44,, , ik,„,,,i, _,---,,,..k ,....,;,„,,,,:.,.. / //, ---;.,- ..A// ,- //F.- .> �/ �� % Tr /�r� �� *"`!4 �C;y ,.�C••11 ,�5.•�.,5.7? F_.a3'.- _ �s'yFi- •• -•. -�• ,,_ . c,. . _ _ liS :,. .f,.- - i -- . r..:it• .. 1% ! ..r b!CrIt*i*!• COOL '�T:; r+:tom-/ /.!"7�// I' � c:'.'7".--;'.‘:•.., // � . • _ ��r:. p• �^� - Pj,p�' i.+ —•• • / 3 ,� . •4�. fie,"!° �. ; •. /;, ,;it. ..‘4.---(‘-1--..-...., ,``� i I�i/���� ` � ►o � y�4 / F/• �¢:si?-=7 f� rI 'ma` �` ,�/ - -V-4(4/ Ili&':',"."',,10 - ltile... -41' - .1-2z-,2Ry.,`IN-,� LnuFa.�nn.r_T>• �i....�w...w.r m.4 :. J /j' 6't •F > tir. r� i. - . S a'1:.'.� '� .... {r.!l A.a ....+rr ra�rw+. A >t.r. a. F��....Fr '- _ '4: .. ��/J/ r s P. Y£< •�. �:.n• .-.c- - \`_ \ =MO j;:,...._ ..„,./.,.,...,.......,.• ��w.� — T �_� 1.. i -e...;.4 � ; v 'Ai- . •ri F' am r+r/ - . � ` _ t j- _ j 1 . . - Rg �n. a l ..wS1�." : s IMAM COat INEPITwa. • _V // y ♦i - A a .... . .„,, / c.• {7 / � f:,r Jy Lr TOT .......AL o�w.AVws rc (..l�l 112.1..i Pm..G.�v - ,/ :• - " � . .. � • : ` sir*;�•.r_.Y '\ Farr.-4++.{:...-- --.� aw..� TLru�rA�c,wr .t+r= ::: �� _ _ i .... /1 ♦ •�•.� �rI _jJ - f'yr) / \ WIr.Os. ...NY r+.��.r��. .•Ir.a 3.1.Lawa 713.72N al f:, ►, -. - '- • ' - ''''�•>r�FQ r�,+`�;'si'r:..i' / .r{.... FA/Sl.11. TOTIK warty O.OEM TaAIN.I rr r+�ra. r>e a I Mc:9 NAY l0• • '-• � ..y+I?; •�r .�l.r 4It1K .Y..ArYr F..�T..�. 3IM.L TOTAL O[l.•R.1FtZ.bILt►.\Y/a 1 .o: �_ - \ �.� s'-�:.�•'=� y. In - Fms®wF4�.Ombr •IYK -111.•-.._ • Air'r .�_ '.,..L41*-- r TASK lom_ &J,AMONG w.iA: =Sala K' -. .. ` __`m. }Ian. .., I�rd`l• R -^'�r•"A- Lrf - _- TOTAL,vw WADING A.0 sar{.4 _ -. ..•b. �, �'-^Y awr!> .1'..-...: ._ J am / y.: .. Fywy ll.r.�lr.A..i..�� �....► Fad af...fail. _ S71{� .. {•. -:f •S r. i "" BISHOP PA= .... `• _ .''+^AOl7 ,• K. _• P.-u +�..r _� �� \ s'., T.�.r•fir.... ..Meal +r. wFrA LL ;4.+....ar r.r -• • -- -•v '. �f^%:.-r'- ^�:z:.s....• torK.nocw rAaae ►wr.. - .. •-.. . r� / ,vFwt MOTEL rA.m.c AaLY {c.n.I. ( tiiisi■Elimmuneammim I 1 \ -71 • i - - -'774 • - I 1 1 ...---- . , . - . . ..-. -::-------"--------. . ,i , LLIJ i> . - • • . Gardca•....RiPierc- : ALIA. •acaffr2Crunz . PLAI••••G OEVILOMONT ■•■■•,■•■••,...., , \ .".•=.1.."'''.....0■1,0•......7 ril,kaats• • - i . .,--...,‘ Ilr , ,,,..., ; 1--\>--; . ...._.:-r,'t.--x-..-s. -Y44----c".- -- -'4 "-... • • I \ ,------".--------- - .- 1.- ---.-..........._ . 0.....0...r....•••••• Sionsawn s. \ .....ritrl...--is, . EAST MEADOW DRIVE, ., S. l=1 A/r.. ..'' ' "..'' ....■ .1.1■:="11.•=5 \ ■ .. ...... r,_ --_ __ on Ow.. I T ,....• fams los ....-.-----. 0.....(.1.■••••■• suanam 2.. \ aAn 4 .1C'-, . "7•••sgeriklgar."-Y-.15 .___.,...tre*".•■•• A-.--- "'-' , 7Z - ,ialikk ! . I \,. , 71" ,.. . , 1,..,....•••;ANtW:-.;'' ''''..- 411111. '-•.47 .'.4.1.,N.-,..u. its' -//7,7,/"..- ''' .\...... 2.1.10---------.........,„ ..10afimp... .„„„, ---- -001...- _. " citae..1.A....._.„ Aarilk 'IV ..--- I r - Illi filt ..-r-'-'-,,, Ow OAT DIME '.4 Ade° AN . . . • / ..k., ."' -,474, .1;.-• -- I -,.._ - -„, . ... •. .....„. ,-. , ,... . 4,_,..„ . .: 4•113 ..A\4‘\ ' .__.. ; . _ _--, -_ . . _ --- J., . . • ,u-amaze , 1 : .... ... , ' ------------41/4 ; I / i / 1 . . • - ! ..... --.1__ ; : , . „ MITT TO ---.____ ., Cr.ILSEDOM.C."A"''-. w'k...,. 77, ., , .,:,. : ...-- .......„....:,..,,---..V.::."..7:'..-.....-• '.-- . . ' . itouu-rr-.. .... - ___ ■ . •. - , . _ _ ... ‘ • . _ . _ •.-...i..- " ---..../ / / . ..' . . \ "I- • LIIIV '11-." ,' ,-.,,,;:.,"."-":':44fiLSCSONMZA. .'4 .:4' :: -.., ,; , :: 450sr , . ._-- f • Ab --.... , • .. ., - -- ; • v Pr- .. :',...: .,i74-f .i.....:•:-.;:-... .:-,.:-.7-7, .7.7:-: :.,,,..:.,-:..::::,;;:i..H,:-...A•:i-L..':-.., ..v4-.N.N . •-•.4maLul r•soW .1.. ..s.-.- '""• • . \ .". 0- •- .t-t-'.'---s--.-,-,....-..--r-.-,*-,,--,,;,,,..:z--,,..,:-:-.- ' -: :.? .....-...-..., iiiik.,,,,4 ;._..._ k. - ._:,..,-.K#-:-..-.-:.,•,..4iL.,,,-,..,,::•••.::::::-. . -:.. •-..,:-:,-,-.:,-,:.::-,; -Alb nt _ _. _ -_-e• - 0 .:,:---,,---:-... ■ ::.;:,•-,.-;f7-.:--.:-.:-..-..-. . .,.1 :.'---.--...':z•; ,-:.-.7.: . ... . . . ..„ , _ - - \/ . ..• . . . - . • \ .. . ,,,,,, ,,,,,....,-iocalliel.01tOTE4'-..^.'', ,.. .......'..... :--. :`., . • \ .t _.46 i ik...„.„1. ...,..i..,..!:-;-. •:,.:, ,.........., . ....„..... _... , . . ... ....._ \ 1,, 1 ,:, ,..Nr.,--.-:., , ... ......i.„,,,-,T., _ --_-,. .---- sSNN'N-- ,,-- _ . . ....... • „ ..... .... _ . . . .. . . . ... --":,...-'_.--,--;''"'".•••:•-•7•,:s.„._-- - 6*# • 1... - - . . ill • _ . . . . . ...._ --- - - gni, 4 Ir..,•` • ; L.- IC" . . , .. . ,.. ... . _ . . . . . . .. -...,___ _ : ;- - %. , . --- • - . ..... . „ . • :_......,...„:„....„... . . - • . . _ . .. : .,. ...... " ' _ , .. .... ..... . .. _____. . - - - -1 Z• lit _ ._ ......,-,-•,;::: -•-•• , ...,:-- • 0.4144 - ;'-'':•--.-',--'-' --.'-..-7....:-.=•:.:-,..; 1.1.1 ...a CORArr.." !--:,-1-,-",'‘P--':=Z-V."7".•N.,-:''''.."•=11..: Niiiir - • ..........;;.i.,:.0........-,..,...- -;.--...1- ::..r.-.‘ -- Z < -CI' --p-, ...-;;::::-",-;-.7.?-.-',-,,.-z:ft.-:';:"----:'-'• •-- - .• ---- .• _,--t-% • '..-.." ':::'-i-l--:"-:: '.-: ' :- --.• -'--...j.,„......›<.:. .''-. ..‘ ''- Z''...\\ ' -f:..-,;''L.,-'-...-'': '..':'71 --- „ , . . . . . ... . .. -. ._ Iligt.,,"5'.... ;.:;aar-,F.-!>C1- ::'11:1-::?:ii. ' 1 - - '7''-.PL'.. ' . . . . __. . ... . ... . . . -.,, ----- N .. _ . . -,. . . .. ..._ .... ..--• . • < m.I . - i - '. • - :-,--="... -- . . . . //1 stirovii,-•-:-; -- -- _ A ..,......,. .... -- ... \ 1 - c i tero 41116- r,''.... ...;',...'::::iA.1::.:'1;::::::::' I' ..4 d . 4r- II . ..,-----. ..,:. --- •- low,.... _,.4.--... .. .. -.-. • - ________---- _:_... ... - -..... ; . . ! ,LL.,:.. „.....:,-.,,,,,,,..,..7 - - - --' I 4111. ::0. • • ._.... . .7].., . - - - ''.. : •j- •i a-_liirdilk., ....."••■............ _ . . - 1 .g, . .. • , •• ,.....-,• . . I • -- AUTO Od(TRI‹ 4', 1- - 7 1 leaLL014§ .01111111111112111111111117 -;;/ lt.-L - ;: - . , ENrRY /Er. .1 I r!----tZ•r•C•ri '14'..• al."111..n.- .'. c.: , i . te.,„,•••-'1-.......--c-L-. '-"-- -. . -- --- : - ... ..,., ---- . ' ....-- / ' • r fiek .. 4A Or .. . -_ .,____ . ........ . .. . . . , .... _ r4"'F -4-gpm :•:•.:.;-,-- ‘-...:7•7•-•:;-'''''' -,...:,- .c- ..g.r-- IF.: Int.....migereofx__ .. i*-,9 EIL.M . ',....', 11A ._.....1.; IW. ..a.. ..r,-7, Is. .. ---5i_ . . • .> . r ill „ . . " '.-- •v , ='...=:; "..:. *"'------ __. .77. F: -- :0 ',CI. A.,.:.::-T.:., 1,. .r, . .2 'r, v, t11,-,,tr.-_-,::::-*:-F. -"1..:. 1-, E . .it-• -. ,. ; $ ,.,-..,4,-,.,. ,;;;__4. ;:-.• ., -,7e-x--.-A4*--- • , . - -- OK: - --,----- „./.-::4,--,.•. . ti 3,,....-:' • _ N..„,,,.....8 1‘'tlirEll SHADQW STUDY • rt...,........7 ' -.c Act : '°' ....'11 ''' UNA....' .....':..-.--:., --.7 0_,..ig'.% 4 .rc , . .zgt . t- - ...qpic. ■ ,..e,-, ' . ..r.f' ;.-....----,-.. - . a' 4 • -- .,,,,,ii. ••....,..,.•:;::_.:.. ......„ ...... .....: '''..•.'7'"'"' •••7_ iSirr,E pLAN .:::.). •-•,.., ,,,,,-..ir ,..i. 1.,--:-,/...r.,.. .; oto ....„, .....,..••.•:;.... -- .,, ..„ :.-..- ' . r opur.20-.0..- .._ ...., :',:•••_21,.-,:-. 1• .... ...._ • „, sk_- 1.„.„..,.,, ..,..,,, ...0.147"....: vegrife -......':.-.;.. i.;z--_-)--4.;,..,,t-',....:, ..,--i.......: '...- ...<:.-. '''. ' -' 12441;.--", 7.''o.1:11117"::-.-'-‘;•4":..'''Iloi-Okill*'"4111?• NA ...-+: .--.„7--.-• 4-......---..;:-,-.-, ,' '-.. •st. ...v7 --.. - . .._• ... -:---•:•-• - ak .-. i , • - ,/,-.___,1 .... . .,,,,_ ...,..... . .... .._ ._ . _• III/ ._:-.)...;,.. ... . _ '''''Z-7:.•-...%:-."--- . , , k. ,..."!:.'-''‘''' .' ... .,:,..;::.... ....:41:41-'-ik 1 ....10):1 _,.---s:7.4. °.11-1 .---1;. 1!„.:f 1" .' . .._,....7,:./h-::::;-7-:::'...'.3::;." ,. . - • l'4 • . ... I t OBEGORMIZAIM12111 - ,,, r.-1,-.•,:'• r%.-. - ..,.. ::-i,i'-_:: . . - '1::::,.......tf-7..._ 11••••t••••■ ••• • .1 "1-- ..._. . . 44.•SWIM. 1...04110■1. I.11.114.• Ca•■••■•■••• Omiall........1.1=Node Lama:ea•■•••:a. i '-• ' ". - ,•,.. Sr.. •-•.."2..4.,... - - i-• ';.‘2.7':.: Nifiki.:'•::,-..... "..t.:."t'....:: ---- - --- - '- -.5. - - ' 25/7s.i. sled. _ _ .;\ . .. . ... • ... 1._-_-• -i-:=.1._-'1. '• --.•_• ...._. • -' . . . P Ave--.:::-i..-...-...:; :-... . ‘..., _.L., ._...,,,„. ...,,, ,,i„,_ ._•. , . . . _.. . : • • ,alr e...a.-iitn,,F,. -•--..-_:'. "--"-...----. 411J•••1./ OLS••••• = 1.17.......Tawl Ow C...■•. -•'''' . " .. ' -.41111110.7":;"<"?"," "!!;:' ..•,,i-,----,,-,' -■•• r .. 7.cr,:: ,.:.„., .,,,,i,...:.,,,,„.........,.‘,...,1)\. , ...... ,,,,...._2:1;__. 5\,.. _..... ;;...?„...,,....r.:.1..7'. ..... _•. ,...• \ TOTAL 11011.0•10 MIAS Mg La.e.I _ t.. Yi.- - c...::7----..: -,•-• • • ' - ‘. .1 :..$:......- : . r •- ..- ,•4- .a-. • . .__ _ .: A.T.-....-F:..-,: ??t7.,.,), ,.;- •.:!i:-:. ; ..,,,. -:: • -,-.,-,--/ - ) / • • s PM..La.&PS A 11.* 12.ATI aL 11....18...1....■PM..i■bn a ra WAN eL _ -- P.a..C.....••■• -• -- -- - .6.1.Camm Osimr IMMO.1. 1.....,■=4 s•e•A 4 - 11,11=AL ••••■•■•iri a ra ••••••■•141•••••1 8:121..i. _ _ - - . ' . .. . ..• A"--r-:•"'"-",r" ',;"...71.f.":-/ .. --. ---' • _ .•• .. . --.4• 1 k •....•40. le.• \...._ - I ...,...:1,7,1•:.";-7"'...,%,-.."?" - .,. , ba.n.....L.•■■ir a c.. ...i....,. 21.9•1 aL •.=aL 11=11 Ma:MG AM*. ELMS aL - - /;.,..":.;-..... ., ',C.• ,,-,- 1.1m...1.•Loma '.."..praLLL:Ala•OIM"b ANZAa- -MIND aL T--. . . • se•••=e•-.., :s,,. .41.67 ......t.,„_.4 1 .,,I . ., • .' ' . - - •taloa.MY To Mama. 1110■01. - -- --- V. : . , .........,...,.. ...7.4.i....,;.7- ' 11..l■li• !Lift aL . _ ...4"7,21.1...-',....•• .7.7-•••/,'...... ,\ ' - •. " - \ ' .- u ■•■Yaw au....• LOWE.CIEM■ILO. MAO aL z __ N \--._,-•"' .,..e......-.0.e.-i et.'": --- . 1:-:''--.:. 11..... ........ VIIPP._.. -:,...--.-•,•- - .., - . • IA=aL . _ . -'----• - . - 'r "...q.::.7......;"•:;.4-..... :-....',i:,7., ...--. - .o...c..r■...or WA al • • • . IOW.=RA OF MOM CUM aL / r• - . _ 1Propc4 so:13=30 _ '-- . . . _, . ._ -----_,--". • -2--'-'-'•..-:'".- •''' - . . -Form.cooresomat••4:4•Fra fan., • . ,. .. . arr..Ow.!amnia to Nana. suss.L . .. . • .4._....e-AS----••..."';'1.- •-•••-4.....?.:!..‘".-e--"--....,:si.;'-4-4#1/0 ../.......'.......--'...."/ - . ...TOT-.".al NO=trANISIM AIWA 1_ 112-4:$571.:L - . _ _.. ___ , _. a... m..bizIlm...111.... 11•11aL - • , . -' " • ...:•?•,.--:-.. .....•-•••:-('a- ...' .el-i,;:,■-• ._!2.-,:tr,.•-• , _. _. le■.r.■■•a•masai TA.•••• I Cbskad by-. f. :-. - . __. •-, _ ._ „... ..... ...... -- ..-.,:-......:•.;•-,...---r---,_ ..,c-..;:--„,...,,.._.,.. _.•,... 11,TAL nom.*owe - ••••••al .• #,....4 t.....",:.-,7 L:,.■;los•-, ' • ....,-' .__ - :Wm Si _x , . ,. . • ,-,.......- ...----- • __,r......- ,„ 7,..v.6--,-.: -- - - -.. - .......k. -7- .,-..-•-•••••91: -.-:.•- ............-6.•■• %.7•1 al 1 . . .... . ..........r."':;&!.....r7,0.7..C:•'......• _ a 2. .---,;,...:--.7.-• •f_-,- ---- " - . . __ . .. '.:=- .-.:.:: -:14^4 --- '--- BISHOP PARIC - ' __ . . -- - 1-7 -:.ek0-6-'--- -.........;.A.m.Vim ,•..............•'maw .1.711M aL " ,-.-... Lana...A...a o.FAA..3....lb...No ...ins.,• - • :st... .- ...-.1;77< rri'--T......-'..": rii =- ,r •-...n.r, .,,.. .■01-..;: 57--- :+ -- • --. \ _ ___...."----- _ . 1 - 4.----"."." .7kr._.•-•"""-':; ::Ttil " , TM._noTEL•'Alm.Alt, 1.22,-10 1 . .- :---Z-A ,---#,-,-, AMIN Al ., . =MA. aCalTO, Law al Nu./ bUZUJ 303-860600 Fax:303-860-6698 rrLrti�� October 9, 1990 T J i.JJU Mr. Johannes Faessler f N- 3 tD Sonnenalp Properties, Inc. 20 Vail Road Vail, CO 81657 Dear Johannes: COHEN Re: Sonnenalp Redevelopment This report will address the phasing sequence and construction management for the subject project. The contents of the report is presented in the following format of items: 1. Phased construction schedule. 2. Access and egress to site. 3. Construction traffic. 4. Temporary road closures. 5. Anticipated effect on public improvements. Item 1: Phased construction schedule. The construction schedule is defined by Phase I, II and III parameters. Phase I includes the parking structure and elevator core. Mass excavation and shoring begins on May 1, 1991 and completes on July 15, 1991. The concrete foundation and precast garage structure will begin June 24, 1991 and complete September 13, 1991. The mechanical and electrical portion of work will complete September 20, 1991. The adjacent fine grading and preliminary landscaping will be completed by October 15, 1991. This phase will also allow for the kitchen addition to occur between July 1, 1991 and October 15, 1991. Phase II includes the new hotel tower and north wing. This work will proceed immediately upon completion of the parking structure. The steel frame will complete on the north wing by December 5, 1991 and the exterior skin will be enclosed by December 20, 1991. The enclosed work will consist of steel studs covered with plaster board, and windows and doors. The roof will be enclosed by December 31, 1991 for this area. With this, the building will be fully enclosed. Interior work will be underway from December 1, 1991 through August 1, 1992. Retail space will be built from January 2, 1992 through April 1, 1992. The hotel suites will be ready for occupancy on December 10, 1992. Denver•Colorado Springs•Des Moines•Phoenix•West Palm Beach Sonnenalp Properties, Inc. CIMMUMMMOMP OHEN October 9, 199 Page 2 Phase III includes the Spa Building, Meeting Rooms, and remodel to the existing Hotel. This work will proceed on May 1, 1992. The existing east wing of the Hotel will be demolished and properly disposed of between May 1, 1992 and June 5, 1992. The Spa Building and addition foundations will be complete by September 1, 1992. The exterior and interior work will be complete December 10, 1992. The swimming pool and site amenities will be built from August 1, 1992 through October 1, 1992. Final landscaping and gardens will be built in the Spring of 1993. Item 2: Access and egress to site. The construction site will be accessed from the Talisman access road area, and Vail Road through Phase I and II. Most traffic occurring through these phases will be material delivery trucks for the structural work. Phase III will require a 12' wide temporary road from the existing loading dock area to the Courtyard/Spa Building area. This temporary road will be removed and all grades and landscaping replaced by Winter of 1993. Item 3: Construction traffic. The construction traffic will consist primarily of material deliveries for the project. Primary traffic will be from Vail Road and from the Talisman Access Road. The bus route on East Meadow Drive will not be affected. No "worker" type traffic is planned. Item 4: Temporary Road Closure. We will request and coordinate any temporary street closures with the Town. We anticipate short term, temporary street closures on Vail Road for the utility work, kitchen shoring, and some structural erection for the Zbwer and Remodel. Item 5: Anticipated effect on public improvements. We anticipate no interruption of public services due to the project. Both Public Service and Holy Cross Electric are aware of the project parameters due to our initial coordination. The weights of the normal construction traffic should cause no damage to the existing roads in the Town. Sincerely, K. Steven Tilton Project Manager /lm cc: Karl Faessler/Sonnenalp Properties, Inc. Gordon Pierce/Pierce, Segerberg and Spaeh Architects Ken O'Brian/Pierce, Segerberg and Spaeh Architects is now 8 feet from the property line, and the applicant is requesting an additional' variance of . 5 feet. Kathy moved and Chuck seconded to approve the request per the staff memo dated December 10, 1990. 6. A request for a major amendment to SDD No. 4 , commonly referred to as Cascade Village, Section 18 . 46, Area D, in order to add office floor area to the Glen Lyon Office Building, 1000 South Frontage Road, Lot 45 , Block K, Glen Lyon Subdivision. Applicant: Glen Lyon Partners Shelly Mello explained that the request was to change an existing exterior deck on the Glen Lyon Office Building to 400 square feet of interior office space. The applicant wished like to amend SDD4 which included the addition of 2800 square feet of office space to the existing Glen Lyon Office Building. A number of conditions of approval addressing site improvements were attached to the SDD at the time of approval. The applicant was requesting to meet only a portion of the required conditions for the office expansion. The applicant agreed to the undergrounding of the electrical utilities and to the addition of more landscaping around the existing surface parking lot. The staff recommendation was for approval provided the applicant underground the electrical utilities along the north side of the Glen Lyon property. (The applicant had agreed to complete the undergrounding as well as to improve the site ' s landscaping. ) Dalton Williams moved to approve the request per the staff memo, and Jim Shearer seconded the motion. The vote was 5-0 in favor. 7. A request to establish a Special Development District for the Sonnenalp redevelopment, located at 20 Vail Road; a part of Lot L, Block,-5—ET Vail-„Village 1st Filing. Applicant: /Sonnenalp P perties , Inc. Kristan Pritz explained how the presentation would proceed. Mike Mollica reviewed the changes highlighted in the memo. Mike pointed out that the applicant had agreed to incorporate the 13 surface parking spaces near the Swiss Chalet into the parking structure and proposed a pocket park design where the surface parking had been. Regarding a traffic study for Vail Road, Mike stated that the applicant did not want to do another traffic study. He added that Arnie Ullevig, Town of Vail Transportation consultant, was in general agreement with the study, but that additional survey work was needed. Due to the widening of Vail Road to accommodate the Sonnenalp's additional traffic load, the staff was suggesting that 3 some mitigation was needed in the form of planted medians, two of which would be near the Gateway Building to break up the view down Vail Road and discourage additional traffic. Mike added that the Gateway project had pulled their sidewalk back to accommodate the medians. According to the traffic study, the Sonnenalp is required to have a left turn lane, and thus the staff felt a median was needed in this area. A survey is still needed to see how the medians will fit. Kristan pointed out that the parking at the bank needed to remain. Regarding Fire Department concerns, Mike stated that the applicant had met with the Fire Department and the Fire Department had signed off on the conceptual design. Modifications had been made to the Talisman parking and to the northeast corner of the Sonnenalp property which would facilitate fire truck access. A portion of the swimming pool had been pulled back out of the rear setback, but the staff felt that the entire pool should be completely out of the rear setback area and that the deck should also be pulled out of the setback. Mike then explained that a third loading space had been provided, but that all the spaces were 4 feet narrower than the required width. The applicant felt that these spaces were wide enough for the type of trucks used for Sonnenalp deliveries. Connie Knight arrived at this point. Andy Knudtsen continued the description of items of staff and PEC concern, beginning with a description of additional landscaping being added to the intersection of Meadow Drive and Vail Road, and also along Vail Road. The staff felt that more landscaping was still needed. Andy said that the applicant had not included the streamwalk in his proposal , but the staff still felt that the streamwalk should be incorporated into the proposed plan. Regarding employee housing, the staff felt that a minimum of 7 of the Sonnenalp's existing employee units should be permanently deed restricted and at ' least 4 new employee 'units should be required. This calculation did not include additional employees for the 4700 square feet of new restaurant area. (More information was needed on this area. ) The Talisman access easement issue still had not been finalized. Concerning the height of the building, the applicant had reduced the height of the building by approximately 6 feet for a portion of the building at the northwest elevation along Vail Road. Andy showed the changes on elevation drawings which included an addition 4 of 2 feet to the height of the corner tower and a lowered portion that connects the tower to the rest of the building. Although the tower then functioned more as a focal point, the staff continued to have major concerns with the overall height, mass and bulk of the proposed structure. Andy then reviewed the Meadow Drive concerns. The staff still had 4 concerns: 1) a change in material on the large Meadow Drive dormers, 2) the arcade design, 3) landscaping should be brought to the front of the stone wall, and 4) more variation in the overall elevation was needed. Jeff Winston, Town of Vail urban design consultant, reviewed design issues. He stressed that once a building has been constructed, it will be there for a long time and although the process was frustrating, it was very important to get the building right. He felt it was a fine line to determine when a building was appropriate for Vail, when it was too big, etc. Jeff added that although the applicant was proposing a building of the highest quality, and the parking would be underground, there were still many concerns: The number of encroachments into the setbacks, the pool and patio encroached into the stream setback, loading and unloading on Vail Road, increase in traffic on Vail Road, employee housing and using the stream setback for a construction road. Jeff felt that the most important issues were: 1) what the feeling would be like when walking down Meadow Drive, 2) the areas of flat roof, and 3) public access to Gore Creek. He used a site plan to show the encroachments. Jeff also showed that the Vail Village Inn buildings were set at angles and had varied heights, both of which helped the walking experience. Jeff felt that the parking grid under the building could be moved back from East Meadow Drive and that would allow the building to be moved back some, which would decrease some of the shadow along Meadow Drive. Regarding the flat roof, Jeff felt that even though the pedestrian may not notice the flat roof from the immediate area, it would be setting a precedent. He added that flat roofs were a foreign element in Vail. He suggested that perhaps dormers could be carried through to vary the roof. Kristan then summarized the staff's concerns: 1 . Design Compatibility : height, sun/shade and views. 2 . Site Plan: In general the form needs to be reworked so that it does not exceed the height limits and the setbacks. 3 . Vail Village Master Plan: The plan meets 2 of 5 sub-area concepts, and the staff feels the plan should meet more than 5 this. 4 . Landscaping and open space 5. Employee housing 6. Design of Vail Road 7 . Resolution of Talisman access easement 8. The location of the access road for construction Art Albplanalp, representing the Vail Religious Foundation, stated that there were basically two types of applicants: one who follows the rules and therefore won't face opposition, and one who tries to do what he wishes. He added that the second type of applicant first proposes something so out of scale that the Town then negotiates the project down to what the applicant wanted in the first place. Art added that the applicant purchased the property knowing the zone district that it was in. He felt that an SDD was being requested to build totally out of all proportion. He said that a building 77 feet tall did not fit in that area. Art then quoted staff concerns in the memo related to height, shade, loading, and mass. He appreciated what Johannes had done to the Sonnenalp, but felt the proposed building was not appropriate for this site. Art mentioned the problem the Chapel had with people who were going to the Sonnenalp and used the Chapel parking area. He then said that the Master Plan authorized a height of 27 to 36 feet on Vail Road, and discussed the fact that the loading zone was located directed across from the Chapel and the potential impacts upon the Chapel from loading areas that were undersized. Art discussed the streamwalk and the fact that the applicant felt that it "should not be an issue. " Art felt that SDD' s were not to be used to obtain wholesale variances. He quoted from Section VIII of the staff memo. Rick Rosen, representing the owners of condos at First Bank and Villa Cortina, felt the project should follow the Master Plan. He mentioned concerns which included the height, the canyon effect along Meadow Drive, the lack of open space along the two streets, and the fact that 'the applicant had not tried to design within the existing zoning. Diane Hagen spoke about construction on the site interfering with weddings in the Chapel. She asked that construction be curtailed on the weekends. 6 Jay Peterson, attorney representing the Sonnenalp, said the contractor was in the audience to answer construction concerns. He explained that the Faesslers were trying to build a quality hotel, and that Vail was rated #11 in ski resorts with regard to lodging. He felt that many of the encroachments were minor ones. He added that the loading dock was a necessary evil. Three times a week there would be liquor trucks that were 38 feet long. Jay stated that the streamwalk was only a study area in the Master Plan, not a requirement. He added that there would be no fireplaces in the hotel rooms. Jay explained that the tower height was needed for hydraulic elevators that must go 7 stories. Forty to 50% of the common ' a' -ea was below ground--hallways, stairs, lobby, and conference facilities which did not add to the bulk. He would like to solve the parking problem between the Chapel and the Sonnenalp. The mass did not change near the Bully III , but was merely a modification of the loading area. Regarding employee housing, Kathy Warren asked if the applicant were willing to restrict the requested units, and Jay stated that the applicant would comply with what the Town makes others comply with, that they agreed to restrict the 11 existing employee units, but not to 4 new units. Regarding the Talisman access easement, if a new easement is offered to the Talisman, the existing one would not be needed. Kristan responded that the staff merely wanted to be sure that Meadow Drive remained a pedestrian area. Jay compared the heights of surrounding buildings, stating that most of them were not lto 2 story buildings. He felt that the Town needed a hotel and bulk was inevitable with a hotel . Gordon Pierce, architect for the project, described the architectural changes made since the last proposal . He felt that most of Jeff Winston's criticisms were "right on the money" . He stated that he had met with Mike McGee, the Fire Marshal, and got approval of the fire truck access. Regarding the flat roof, he felt that it could not be seen except from the mountain. The meeting was adjourned for a 15 minute recess. Diana Donovan, Chairperson, called the meeting back to order. She asked the board to ask questions and make comments. Connie stated that even if the building were designed differently, the mountain view would be lost, and she asked Jeff if any view corridor study had been done in that area. Jeff responded that there were concerns with the view along Meadow Drive, and that with even a two story building, virtually all of the views would be lost. Connie then asked if the views would be lost if the building were constructed within the setbacks, and Jeff stated that part of 7 the views would still be lost. Connie stated that aesthetically, flat roofs were not what the Town wanted in the Village, and Jay responded that the Vail Gateway building had partly flat roofs, and that the first submittal for the Covered Bridge Building had a flat roof. Connie stated that, overall, she did not see any improvement over the proposal from the last meeting. She felt the shading of Meadow Drive was dreadful, that the landscaping looked better, but there still needed to be more landscaping along the Sonnenalp. She hated to see the pool encroach into the setback. She felt the Sonnenalp would handle their employee housing situation well on their own. Connie was upset about the height and felt that she could not support the project. Jim Shearer stated that he would like to see the applicant do more study along Meadow Drive. He suggested a large archway on the "punch-outs" . He liked the parking access for the Talisman, the pocket park, and the 2 loading areas. Jim wanted a commitment to a bridge for pedestrians and wanted the pool and patio moved out of the setback area. He wanted to see more study regarding the pedestrian way across to the Vail Village Inn. He felt that the applicant must address traffic increases. He wanted the DRB to look at the arcade area where there is only 3 feet of clearance. He also felt that more landscaping was needed on the northwest corner. Jim felt that flat roofs were a bad situation and required much maintenance. He said that he supported the project, he felt the Town needed the au' s, that redevelopment should be encouraged, especially a well run business. He felt that the project provided additional parking, increased the commercial base, and added a pocket park. Jim felt that more study should be done on the increase in traffic, on the number of variances being requested, and public access to the public areas. He felt the DRB should study the pedestrian ways. Kathy asked Gordon why the Meadow Drive wing could not be pulled to the south, and Gordon replied that this would cause some problems. Kathy wasn't comfortable with the implication that a building done within zoning could not be aesthetically pleasing. Kathy read from 18 . 40. 090 Development Standards for SDD' s, " . . .Before the Town Council approves development standards that deviate from the underlying zone district, it should be determined that such deviation provides benefits to the Town that outweigh the adverse effects of such deviation. " Kathy listed the deviations the Sonnenalp was requesting, including additional units, excess accessory use square footage, excess common area, setback encroachments, and excess height. She wondered what benefits the Town was receiving that outweighed the adverse effects of the requested deviations. 8 Kathy reminded the applicant that one purpose of an SDD was to further the goals of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, and she felt this project had fallen short. Chuck Crist felt that the patio should be moved back out of the setback, was concerned about the loading docks, the sun/shade (aside from that caused by the tower) , and suggested the crosswalk to the VVI be heated. He felt that if medians were placed by the 4-way, that one should also be placed by the bank. He felt that the applicant had some responsibility to provide public open space. He did point out that the pocket park was positive, and was not concerned with the streamwalk. Chuck felt that the Sonnenalp did provide for their employees with housing, and was not concerned about the increase in height of the corner tower. He was concerned about the regulation of the construction activity and felt it should be limited to weekdays, and that no construction should be allowed on Saturdays, Sundays or holidays. He supported the project. Steve Cohen, the probable contractor for the Sonnenalp, stated that he planned 10 hour days, 5 days per week, with some work on Saturdays. He stated that he had much experience constructing buildings under difficult circumstances. Dalton Williams had no problem with the pool, but felt that the patio should be pulled back. Regarding employee units, he felt that the request to restrict a certain number of units was within reason, but did not feel additional employee units would have to be constructed. Dalton pointed out that the First Bank was within 6 feet of its property line, and he was concerned about having the left turn lane near the bank entry. Dalton wondered if the Sonnenalp could validate parking tickets for church parking. Regarding the building along Meadow Drive, he liked the idea of bringing out the dormers, and suggested that perhaps the retail could also be brought further out to really provide ins and outs. He felt that the building would read as 3 stories. He was in favor of the pocket park. Regarding construction during peak times, he felt that construction activity should cease and look the least obtrusive as possible during Christmas week, Presidents ' week, and Easter. Dalton felt no work should be done on Sunday, and only interior work done on Saturdays. Concerning the construction road along the creek, he suggested putting the utilities in the fall and leaving the road out, then putting in the road in the spring. He felt the flat roof would read as a sloped roof. Regarding the height, he felt that the building could be lowered by one story at the auto court. 9 Regarding the accessory and common space, Dalton felt the percentage for allowable accessory use and common space used by the Town should be increased. Dalton was in favor of the increase in au's and in favor of the project. Diana stated that she could not support the project because it did not meet the SDD criteria. It was not compatible with the neighborhood, the site plan could be improved, and the open space was a big issue. Diana felt the project needed a "front yard" to mitigate the height and bulk. She felt the traffic study needed to be done concerning the original circle proposed for the intersection of Vail Road and Meadow Drive. Diana felt the Town Council should determine who should construct the medians. She felt the pool setback should meet existing regulations and would like to see a letter from the Sonnenalp stating that they would not use the fact that they would not use the impact upon the pool as an excuse to protest the streamwalk. Diana was in favor of the VA parcel being an informal pocket park. She felt that the employee housing absolutely must be restricted, and that there must be more relief and interest on the Meadow Drive side of the building. Diana felt that the applicant was asking too much. She also wished to restrict the au' s permanently since this was an important part of the project. Diana felt the construction activity should be restricted, especially during July, August and from December through Easter. She felt that the applicant was placing improvements on public right-of-ways, and that the stream access was only for Sonnenalp guests. The phasing plan must be workable. She had many problems with a construction road along Gore Creek and felt that all construction activity must be contained on the site. Johannes Faessler stated that he was surprised to learn of problems with the Vail Interfaith Chapel. He stated that Don Simonton had come to a meeting at the Sonnenalp, and added that he would be happy to work out problems with the church. He also mentioned that many church goers used the Sonnenalp parking, and he had no problem with that. Craig Snowdon, representing the Talisman, stated that the Talisman had no problem with the Sonnenalp proposal. The board retired to executive session with Larry Eskwith, Town Attorney. When they returned, Kathy Warren moved to recommend denial of the project, and Connie Knight seconded the motion with the following findings: 1. The project was not in compliance with Criteria A, regarding design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment, neighborhood and adjacent properties. 10 2. SDD Criteria C, requiring that the proposal meet the loading standards of the Town, was not met. 3. The project failed to meet SDD Criteria D regarding conformity with the applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, Urban Design Plans, and specifically the Vail Village Master Plan. 4. The project did not meet SDD Criteria F regarding the site plan, in that the site plan lacked quality public open space on the site. 5. SDD Criteria H was not met, not adequate open space on the site. 6. SDD Criteria I was not met regarding the phasing plan, as there may be a conflict with the construction of the project and the weekend activities at the Vail Interfaith Chapel . In addition, the PEC summarized their specific concerns about the project, which were: 1 . The swimming pool should be moved out of the rear (south) setback. The patio adjacent to the pool should be allowed to encroach only 10 feet into the rear setback. 2. The building is too high. 3 . More relief on Meadow Drive is needed. 4 . Ideally, Vail Road should bend at the intersection of Meadow Drive and Vail Road. Because the traffic generated by this project will require widening Vail Road, there should be some mitigation to reduce the "thoroughfare" appearance of Vail Road. This bend in the road should be done in conjunction with moving the Ski Museum. Sub-area concept 1-2 of the Vail Village Master Plan needs to be addressed. 5. The land VA owns by the Swiss Chalet should be turned into a pocket park. The improvements to this parcel should be very informal. The natural character of the site should be maintained. 6. The applicant should permanently restrict 11 employee housing units. 7. The noise and construction activity should be limited so that it does not impact the chapel activities on Saturdays, Sundays, or holidays. 8 . All construction should occur on-site. The construction activity should not affect Gore Creek, particularly with 11 erosion' or sediment disturbance because of construction. 9. The applicant should construct the proposed pedestrian bridge across Gore Creek at the existing Vail Road Bridge. This work should be coordinated with Public Works. 10. The applicant should ensure that the Talisman access easement onto East Meadow Drive is vacated. This paperwork needs to be finalized. 11. The applicant should build a planted median in the center of Vail Road south of Meadow Drive per the traffic study. 12 . The accommodation units the applicant will be building should all be restricted permanently as lodge rooms so that no conversions to condominiums will be allowed in the future. 13 . The loading bays should be expanded in size to meet the Town ' s minimum size requirement. 14 . The applicant should provide public access to Gore Creek through green space or pocket parks. 15. The required setbacks along Meadow Drive should be met. The vote was 3-3 . Diana noted that the comments of concern were from the entire board, hut were weighted differently. They requested that the staff pass along the individual comments to the Town Council. • 8 . A request for a front setback variance in order to construct a garage and a wall height variance in order to construct retaining walls at 1448 Vail Va ;ley Drive;. Lot 18 , Block 3 , Vail Valley First Filing. • Applicants: John and Barbara .Schbfield Andy Knudtsen showed a site plan and .xp f _ ined the request regarding setbacks and wall heights.. Barbara Schofield stated that her family needed another garage and described the site. She stated that they were willing to landscape heavily. John Schofield stated that the height and slope of all the finished grades would be equal to or less than .the existing grades. One wall was proposed to be 9 feet nigh and one wall would be 11 feet high. Kathy wondered if the garage could be placed closer to the house, and was told the house would fall down. Kathy suggested underpinning. John replied that the most distance to be gained would be 3-1/2 feet. Kathy then asked why the garage wasn't 12 1 U `" 1" G MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development RE: Sonnenalp Redevelopment DATE: December 10, 1990 SECTION I . INTRODUCTION This memorandum summarizes the Planning and �55 � �` Environmental Commission' s major comments from their November 26, 1990 public hearing on the Sonnenalp redevelopment. Listed below are the PEC ' s comments, ; ass a( the applicant ' s response to those comments, and the staff ' s response. Please note that the attached staff Ge memorandum dated December 10, 1990, is esentially the Stieto-(14 same as was reviewed by the PEC at their November 26, (/A/ 1990 public hearing. There have been some od°� ' ao modifications to the development plan and those 1)(114 11� T! modifications are addressed and highlighted in bold type within the body of the memorandum. 4 �\�5 !SECTION II. ANALYSIS P 1• MEADOW DRIVE A. PEC Concerns - The PEC suggested that more relief is S eF needed along the facade- of the proposed building in the Meadow Drive area. They suggested that additional }/ � desi streetscap e interface and the gn work focus on the , YtSSr connection with the plazas of the Vail Village Inn to the north. Also, additional public green space should e included in this area. The concern expressed by the 47,,,Ji3v1/LAA_ eJ most Commissioners regarded a need for a break in the facade. B. Applicant' s Response - "Additional relief is indicated rt}� 1 and proposed along East Meadow Drive as requested. ! co-4 !� � This was accomplished in a manner similar to suggestions by the staff. See Sheets A0, A8 and A16 for this revision. Also, a connecting plaza to the VVI rigA is being proposed as suggested; see Sheets A0, A00 and A8 . " ciNt) j` . Staff Response - In an attempt to break up the facade ! 1 of the building along East Meadow Drive, the applicant has carried the cantilevered portion of the building down to the ground at two locations. To accomplish this, it was required that additional columns be placed approximately 6 feet further north and closer to Meadow P )Cqfp'n Drive. This change was as requested by the Planning staff, however we feel that the applicant could have gone even further in the redesign to break up this facade. More relief on this elevation could be achieved by some variation in the use of materials, the arcade design, and landscaping. Each of these components are described in detail in the memo. Additional recommendations by the Planning staff 0.7u included adding dormers along the flat roof portion of ec`L .A the structure. The applicant was unwilling to include this as a part of the project. The applicant has proposed a pedestrian connection between their project and the VVI to the north. We do have some concerns with regard to the design of the paver connection between the two properties, however, the applicant has indicated a willingness to redesign this area, in conjunction with the on-going Village Streetscape Improvement Project. We support the Vf\"uk concept for the plaza connection. 2 . SWISS CHALET PARKING A. PEC Concerns - The PEC recommended that this surface parking area be removed and a plan to landscape and redesign this area into a pedestrian plaza should be developed. Reference Vail Village Master Plan Sub-area Concepts. B. Applicant' s Response - "As suggested, the surface parking in this area has been removed and a pocket park is being proposed. See Sheets AO and A00 for this conceptual revision. " C. Staff Response - We believe that it is extremely positive that the applicant has agreed to incorporate the 13 surface parking spaces adjacent to the Swiss Chalet into the proposed new Sonnenalp Hotel parking structure. The staff is very supportive of the applicant' s pocket park design, given that this is a conceptual design at this phase of the project only. Additional work would be needed to determine exactly how this pocket park relates to the intersection of East Meadow Drive and Willow Bridge Road. This area will be studied as a portion of the on-going Village Streetscape Improvement Plan. 2 3 . VAIL ROAD TRAFFIC STUDY A. PEC Comments - The issues regarding traffic on Vail Road should be finalized (i. e. , turn lanes, width of lanes, sidewalks, and landscaping) , with the recommendation that the area be restudied at peak periods (Saturdays) . Additional survey information is needed for both sides of Vail Road. In addition, a plan to mitigate the construction traffic and parking on Vail Road needs to be presented. B. Applicant' s Response - "As agreed to in our November 29, 1990 meeting with the staff, the Town ' s consulting engineer will help arrive at a conclusion regarding this issue. If the complexity of the issue exceeds the time Arnie Ullevig can spend on it, additional studies will be provided by the applicant. " C. Staff Response - The traffic study was forwarded to the Town' s consultant, Arnie Ullevig, and Ullevig' s report is included as an attachment to this memo. Generally, he recommended that a center left turn lane be provided by the applicant. He firmly stated that the lanes should not be substandard. His comments are discussed in detail in the memo. As indicated in one of the Sub Area concepts of the Vail Village Master Plan, traffic along Vail Road is to be discouraged. Because the applicant ' s proposal requires additional widening of Vail Road, we feel that mitigation of this widening is necessary. The staff recommends that should the PEC recommend approval of the Sonnenalp redevelopment, that the following condition be placed upon said approval : That the applicant be required to construct two median planters on Vail Road. Said planters would be located adjacent to the Vail Gateway Plaza Building, up near the 4-way stop. The intent of locating the median planters in this area is to discourage unnecessary vehicular traffic from entering onto Vail Road. It should also be required of the applicant that an additional median planter be located immediately south of Meadow Drive, on Vail Road. This planter median would assist in the channelization of traffic as it enters the left turn lane for the Sonnenalp. 4 . FIRE DEPARTMENT CONCERNS A. PEC Concerns - All concerns of the Fire Department need to be addressed. 3 B. Applicant's Response - "We feel that the revised plans, Sheets AO and A00, have addressed this issue. " C. Staff Response - The applicant has met with members of the Fire Department and as of the date of this memorandum the Fire Department has signed off on the conceptual design for the Sonnenalp. Modifications have been made to the Talisman parking and to the northeast corner of the Sonnenalp property which would \,j^`A facilitate fire truck access. 5 . SWIMMING POOL A. PEC Concerns - The proposed swimming pool needs to be relocated out of the rear setback area. B. Applicant's Response - "The swimming pool has been revised; see Sheet A00. It has been pulled back, but due to the swim-through location, a very small portion of the pool still encroaches into the setback. Also, the whirlpools have been relocated. " C. Staff Response - We believe that it is positive that the applicant has pulled a portion of the swimming pool out of the setback, however, we feel that the entire pool should be completely out of the rear setback area and that the patio should also be pulled out of the setback. We feel that there is adequate room within the interior courtyard/garden area to accommodate the swimming pool and associated patio. The staff feels that there is no justification for allowing any encroachments into the rear setback for the pool and patio. 6 . LOADING AND DELIVERY AREA A. PEC Concerns - This area should be restudied, as it was determined by the PEC that the proposed loading dock was not adequate to handle all loading for the facility. Access from this loading dock to the Meadow Drive commercial shops needs to be shown that it is in fact feasible. B. Applicant' s Response - "The loading area has been restudied; see Sheet A2 . For deliveries to the commercial spaces, see Sheets A2 and A8 , indicating two loading/delivery spaces. C. Staff Response - The applicant ' s redesign has included an additional loading berth at the southwest corner of the building, for a total of two loading berths in this 4 area. It should be pointed out that the proposed loading berths do not meet the minimum size requirements as outlined in the Town of Vail Municipal Code. The Town Code requires each loading berth to be a minimum size of 12 feet wide, by 25 feet long. The applicant's loading berths are approximately 8 feet wide, by 25 feet long. One additional loading berth has also been added in the auto court area. The intent of this loading berth is to accommodate UPS-sized vehicles for the retail commercial spaces located along East Meadow Drive. 7 . VAIL ROAD/MEADOW DRIVE INTERSECTION A. PEC Comments - Additional green space should be included on the site. The creation of a possible pocket park should also be considered. B. Applicant' s Response - "Additional green space has been proposed as per your suggestion; see Sheets AO, A00 and A8 . C. Staff Response - Some additional landscaping has been added along Meadow Drive, specifically in the area of the Vail Road and Meadow Drive intersection. While the staff believes that this is a step in the right direction, we feel strongly that additional work is needed on the landscape plan. A more detailed landscape plan is needed to specifically address the issues of planting along Vail Road and Meadow Drive in conjunction with the commercial space needed for visibility. Screening of the transformer vent needs to be resolved. �G✓a 8 . STREAMWALK A. PEC Comments - The Sonnenalp proposal should include a streamwalk along Gore Creek for the length of the property. B. Applicant's Response - "This issue, as stated many times before, will not be a part of or included in this proposal . Due to the location (i.e. , Town property) \ _., this should not be an issue. C. Staff Response - As stated in our original memorandum OWL V, on this project, the staff firmly believes that a streamwalk would be in the best interests of the Town. J � Because we believe that the streamwalk could be (/ constructed sensitively to the hotel, the staff strongly feels that the applicant should incorporate i u J� 5 the streamwalk into their proposed site plan. 9 . EMPLOYEE HOUSING A. PEC Comments - The applicant should restudy the employee housing demand and should propose to meet the standards as outlined in the recently adopted "Employee Housing Report" of the Town of Vail. B. Applicant ' s Response - "This shall be addressed by Sonnenalp Properties, Inc. " C. Staff Response - A revised employee count has been by the applicant, showing that 94 employees ')C1 work at the Bavaria House. Staff has used this number with the same analysis done for the previous hearing. 10 . TALISMAN ACCESS EASEMENT A. PEC Comments - The existing access easement from the Talisman parking lot to East Meadow Drive should be vacated and an access agreement finalized with the Sonnenalp/Talisman. B. Applicant ' s Response - "This issue shall be addressed by Sonnenalp Properties, Inc. and by the Talisman Association. " C. Staff Response - To date, no additional information has been submitted by the applicant with regard to this issue. We believe it is in the community' s best interest of insure that Meadow Drive is preserved as a pedestrian mall. It appears that both the Sonnenalp and Talisman have a verbal agreement to allow the Talisman to access their property through the new parking structure as well as through an access point adjacent to the traffic gate on the east end of the mall. We recommend that this verbal agreement be formalized and that it become a part of the proposal. This approach would make it possible to vacate an access easement for the Talisman that bisects the Meadow Drive pedestrian mall . This access easement was granted to the Talisman when the pedestrian mall was established to insure access to the property if acess was no longer allowed through the Sonnenalp property. This is an opportunity to insure that Meadow Drive will remain a pedestrian mall and resolution of this issue is necessary. W11. BUILDING HEIGHT A. PEC Comments - Some of the Commissioners were concerned \LW Gf 6 l J \ about the height of the building along Vail Road, while others were concerned about the height of the building along East Meadow Drive, thereby creating shade on the pedestrian area. General height concerns were raised by most Commissioners. B. Applicant' s Response - "The roof height along Vail Road has been reduced per your suggestion. The exit access corridor that was in this roof area has been relocated. Due to this relocation, a lockoff on the fifth floor will be eliminated and a unit on the fourth floor will be relocated to the mezzanine level . " C. Staff Response - The applicant has been able to reduce the height of the building by approximately 6 feet for a portion of the building at the northwest elevation along Vail Road. In addition to this, the applicant has raised the height of the tower at the Vail Road/Meadow Drive intersection by approximately 2 feet. By raising the height of this tower and lowering the portion of the building that connects this tower to the main building, we believe, that the tower now functions more as a focal point than as previously submitted. Generally, the staff continues to have major concerns with the overall height, mass and bulk of the proposed structure. fAr c. SONCOVMO ✓ ^ c 7 December 7 , 1990 Mr. Andy Knutsen Town of Vail Community Development 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 RE: Vail Transportation, ._ _ ,....ioNvl �a1.3On i'lan FHU Reference No. 89-091 Dear Mr. Knutsen: This letter is in response to your request to review the Sonnenalp site redevelopment. Specifically addressed are the following: o Review of trip generation and traffic assignments for reasonableness. o The need for left turn lanes along Vail Road. o General design characteristics of Vail Road. These items are discussed in the subsequent sections of this review. Trip Generation and Traffic Assignment A traffic impact analysis addressing this redevelopment spe- cifically evaluated the number of trips generated by the site, their distributisn onto the roadway network, and the traffic impact on the 4-way stop intersection. The analysis was done assuming the site would contain 40 additional hotel rooms beyond that which currently exists, and the analytical process that was documented appears to be reasonable. December 7, 1990 Mr. Andy Knutsen Page 3 Several center lane operation options exist which include striping it as a two-way left turn lane (to also serve the bank and the chapel on the west side) and striping it to be an exclusive left turn lane for the Sonnenalp. Left turns into the bank and the chapel will be infrequent relative to left turns into the Sonnenalp because much of their inbound traffic will also come from the north. As such, it would probably be desirable to lay out a striping plan which utilizes the center lane for left turning vehicles into the Sonnenalp, and have left turning vehicles into the bank and chapel make their movement, from the no: thbou.rd through .lane_ Left .turn 1:?^2s .,(o'aid probably not be needed at the Meadow Drive intersection. If you have questions concerning this information, please call. Sincerely, FELSBURG HOLT & ULLEVIG / / /// . /I ' 1 . Arnold J Ullevig, P. Christopher Fasching Principal Transportation Engineer CF/co December 7, 1990 Mr. Andy Knutsen Page 2 However, the Environmental Impact Report for this project indicates that in addition to 40 additional hotel rooms, the redevelopment will also contain an additional 7 , 155 square feet of meeting space and approximately 5, 800 square feet of new commercial space. If these areas are indeed expansions and are open to general public use, it would be advisable to include them in the analysis. Left Turn Lane Along Vail Road The traffic impact study indicates 45 inbound, trips during the P.M. peak hour in which 93 percent (42 trips) would be left turning vehicles from the north. Given the amount of south- bound through traffic (estimated to be 250 to 300 vehicles per hour during the P.M. peak) , a left turn lane should be provid- ed. In addition, if the meeting space and commercial space are included the projected number of left turning vehicles into the site will be greater than that indicated, thus making a left turn lane even more necessary. Further, the need for a left turn lane is not solely determined by absolute volume. The provision of an exclusive left turn lane, even for small turning volumes, is often beneficial in terms of safety and the elimination of traffic stoppages. Such stoppages could create queues which might obstruct other nearby access points and intersections which may be critical to overall Town circu- lation. Under either condition, we suggest that an exclusive left turn lane be implemented. General Design Characteristics Two basic aspects of the design characteristics are discussed here: the cross-section of Vail Road, and the operating char- acteristics of the center left turn lane. The traffic study illustrated a three lane cross-section in which the two through lanes wera each ten and one-half feet, and the center lane was only nine feet in width. These dimensions are less than the standard lane width of 12-feet. Providing 12 feet for all three lanes would be desirable, and at a minimum, eleven feet should be provided. It is recognized, however, that these widths may be difficult to obtain due to existing physical limitations. If these physical limitations are deemed to be critical , we agree with the conclusion that Vail Road operations might as well remain as a two-lane design rather than attempt to force 3 substandard lanes into 30 feet. TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: December 10, 1990 RE: A request for a Special Development District for the Sonnenalp redevelopment, located at 20 Vail Road; A part of Lot L, Block 5-E, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Sonnenalp Properties, Inc. I . INTRODUCTION Changes to the November 26, 1990 PEC memo are indicated in bold print. Johannes Faessler, of Sonnenalp Properties, Inc. has filed a request to apply a Special Development District to his property located at 20 Vail Road. The applicant proposes a mixed use hotel complex. The reason the applicant is applying for an SDD is that variations from the Public Accommodation (PA) underlying zoning are needed for: a 26 percent density increase, a height variance allowing 81 feet where 48 feet is the maximum height, setbacks (on all four sides) , the proposed loading berths do not meet the Town' s required minimum size of 12 ' x 26 , an increase in the amount of accessory hotel floor area (23% of the GRFA where 10% is allowed) , and an increase in the amount of common area (85% of the GRFA where 20% is allowed) . Section III of this memo (Zoning Analysis) has a detailed comparison of the proposed SDD to the Public Accommodation zone district requirements. II . DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Listed below is a summary outline of the proposed redevelopment request: A. Bavaria Haus Hotel (immediately east of First Bank) Establish SDD with existing, underlying Public Accommodation zoning for the hotel redevelopment. Increase accommodation units from 72 to 126 units. Eliminate 10 existing dwelling units. Maintain all units as lodge units. Install gas burning fireplaces . No additional wood- burning fireplaces are requested. There are currently four wood-burning fireplaces in the building, one in the lobby and three in hotel rooms at the mezzanine level of the existing structure. Add 4000 square feet of conference space for a total of 7930 square feet. - Construct the redevelopment to the following heights: West side: 51 - 81 ft. North side: 49 - 59 ft. East side: 52 ft. South side: 24 ft. B. Landscaping - Construct a pedestrian walkway, attached to the east side of the existing Vail Road bridge, over Gore Creek. Remove the existing surface parking and construct a pocket park northeast of the Swiss Chalet and adjacent to Willow Bridge Road. Construct a sidewalk along the east side of Vail Road, and construct improvements such as planters and sidewalks along E. Meadow Drive. Install landscaping along the north and west elevations. C. Parking and Loading " Construct a parking garage with 210 spaces regular spaces: 127 compact spaces: 25 valet spaces: 58 Remove the existing exterior surface parking lot. " Locate all parking underground. The primary access to the parking structure will be from Vail Road, adjacent to the First Bank Building. The primary surface loading/delivery will remain at the southwest corner of the property, however, an additional loading berth is proposed to be added in the auto court. D. Other Construct retail commercial space of 5,713 square feet. " Expand the existing restaurant and lounge area for a total of 6, 657 square feet. 2 III. SONNENALP ZONING ANALYSIS - The project' s departures from the PA zone district standards are highlighted in bold type. UNDERLYING ZONING: EXISTING PROPOSED PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION PROJECT SDD Site Area: 2 . 024 acres or Same Same 88 , 165 sq. ft. Setbacks: 20 feet all sides N=Meadow Dr: 20 ft. N = 10 ft. W=Vail Road: 13 ft. W = 2 ft. S=Gore Creek: 4 ft. S = 0 ft. E=Talisman: 0 ft. E = 5 ft. Height: 45 ft. flat roof 42 . 0 ' - ridge 81. 0 ' - ridge 48 ft. sloping roof 23 .5 ' - eave (maximum) GRFA: 70, 532 sq. ft. 30, 122 sq. ft. 69 , 989 sq. ft. Units: 25 units per acre, or 46 units 63 units 50 units for the site. (72 a.u. & 10 d.u. ) (126 a.u. ) Site Coverage: 48 , 491 sq. ft. 17, 984 sq. ft. 44 , 378 sq. ft. or 55 % or 20 % or 50 . 3 % Landscaping: 30% of site or 29 , 926 sq. ft. 40 , 363 sq. ft. 26, 450 sq. ft. or 33 . 9 % or 45 . 8 % Parking: Per Town of Vail Required: 105 Required: 194* parking standards Provided: 101 Proposed: 127 spaces 25 compact 58 valet 210 Total Loading: Per Town of Vail Required: 3 berths loading standards Proposed: 3 berths** Accessory Uses: 10% of the 18% or 23% or Commercial, constructed GRFA 5, 396 sq. ft. 15,819 sq ft. Restaurant, or 7, 053 sq. ft. Lounge: Common Area: 20% of Allowed GRFA 20% or 85% or or 14 , 106 sq. ft. 13 , 862 sq. ft. 59 ,271 sq. ft. Gross Floor Area: N/A 49 , 380 sq. ft. 145, 079 sq. ft. (does not include structured parking) *Required parking includes a 5% credit for multiple use parking facilities per Town of Vail parking code, Section 18 . 52 . 120. Also allows for non-conforming parking credit (see exhibits for breakdown) . **Does not meet the minimum size requirements per the Town code. 3 IV. SDD CRITERIA In order to avoid too much repetition of Staff comments, we have tried to list our comments under the most appropriate criteria heading. This is not to imply that many of the comments do not relate to several headings or planning documents. Upon completion of the submittal requirements, the following review criteria will be used to assess the merits of the Sonnenalp redevelopment: A. Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment, neighborhood and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones , identity, character, visual integrity and orientation. Height: Staff strongly objects to the maximum height of 77 feet for the Vail Road building elevation and 81 feet for the elevator tower given the Vail Village context. The heights of the surrounding buildings are 47 . 5 for the Vail Village Inn (VVI) ridge, 70 for the VVI tower, and 20 for the ridge of the chapel . Though the VVI tower is tall, it is an architectural accent to the rest of the building. Its slender proportions are such that it is a tower. The "tower" above the auto court is designed with proportions which make it appear quite massive (i. e. "a building") and should not be labeled as a tower. Staff acknowledges that a certain number of rooms must be obtained in order to construct a project of this magnitude. However, the Vail Village Master Plan calls out for a range of heights between 27 ' and 36 ' , plus a roof, on the southern portion of the site. The mass above the auto court and the elevator tower are proposed in this same area, at 45 to 50 feet above the limit recommended in the Master Plan. The applicant did respond to the height issue by lowering the ridge between the Vail Road corner tower and the building above the auto court. The ridge was lowered 6 ' by removing a hallway, reconfiguring the staircases and relocating one accommodation unit to the mezzanine level. At the request of the staff, the applicant also raised the roof of the tower at the Vail Road intersection by 2 ' . The intent of this increase was to accentuate the tower. By lowering the ridge line and raising the tower peak, the proportions of the building work much better. Along East Meadow Drive, the Village Plan recommends heights of 18-27 feet plus a roof. Proposed heights in this area range from 49 . 5 ' to 59 ' . The PA zone district allows for a maximum height of 48 ft. for sloping roofs . Staff believes that the Sonnenalp proposal needs to come more into compliance with these recommended heights. It is positive that the height of the building along Vail Road has 4 been reduced trom the originally proposed height of 102 feet, down to 77 feet. As mentioned in the two previous work session memos, height should terrace down to Vail Road and East Meadow Drive to respect pedestrian areas as well as views from public areas. Character In staff' s analysis, a significant deviation from the character of the Village is the formal, unbroken facade of the building along East Meadow Drive. The arcade extends 165 feet with little relief, though there are a variety of dormer treatments in the north facing roof. Over the past two weeks, staff has worked on the Meadow Drive problems with the applicant, trying to break up the linear appearance of the arcade and roof line. The Town suggested that the applicant accentuate the existing large dormers to break up the mass of the elevation. The applicant responded by "grounding" these dormers; bringing the mass all the way to the ground. As a result, the arcade bends in and out from the building where the dormers have been brought down. In staff' s opinion there are several design changes which the applicant should include in the facade design to further break up the facade along Meadow Drive. Staff requested that materials, such as rock and stone be used to emphasize the changes in the plane of the building. Secondly, it was recommended that the applicant bring landscaping up to the base of the elements to accentuate the differences from the surrounding arcade and walkway. Thirdly, it was suggested that the applicant change the shape of the first floor archway openings. Instead of the triple radius arches used along the entire length of the 165 foot arcade, different openings, similar to the balconies above, were suggested. This would have made the element tie in with the forms above instead of the arches on either side. Although staff realized this would add slightly to the mass and bulk, the benefit of breaking up the long, symmetrical arcade and creating vitality and interest along Meadow Drive would have compensated for the increased mass. The overall intent of the staff' s recommended changes was to make some visually interesting breaks in the arcade. Plazas would also help accomplish this. The Village Master Plan calls for two "plazas with green space" along this section of Meadow Drive. Tying both sides of the street together will be accomplished with a plaza area, which the applicant has added to the plans over the past two weeks. The design of this plaza area will be refined during the Village Streetscape Improvement Plan. The overall architectural style generally is of high quality. However, the mass of the building is too large in relation to the site and surrounding properties; the building does not fit the scale of the Village. More relief from the formal architectural style is still needed on Meadow Drive. 5 B. Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. Density, GRFA and Uses: The proposal , though all lodge rooms, will have a density 26% greater than the allowable. Staff supports the plan to have lodge rooms only, but is concerned that the density, in conjunction with the height, is too much for the site. The applicant does comply with the GRFA limitation for the site; however, the GRFA calculation only counts the residential areas. The accessory uses exceed the allowable by 13% and the common area exceeds the allowable by 65%. As a result, the mass of the project is much larger than what the zoning code allows . (The specific breakdown of the accessory area and common area can be found in Section III . Briefly, what PA zoning allows is 10% of GRFA for accessory and 20% for common. What is proposed is 23% and 85%, respectively. ) It has been common for the staff to support increases in common area above the allowable. In this case, the common area, in conjunction with the accessory use increase, is causing the building mass to become excessive. Concerning uses, the mix of lodging, commercial and conference space is appropriate and supports the goals of the Vail Village Master Plan. C. Compliance with parking and loading reauirements as outlined in Chapter 18 .52 . Parking: All parking will be provided on site. 58 spaces (28%) will be valet. 25 spaces (12%) will be compact. A positive aspect of this proposal is that all the existing surface parking will be placed underground. There will be no surface parking except for five spaces in the auto court. The Town' s parking analysis indicates that the redevelopment would provide a surplus of 16 parking spaces. The staff has strongly recommended that the 13 existing surface parking spaces for the Swiss Chalet (adjacent to Willow Bridge Road) be incorporated into the new underground parking structure and that the surface spaces be removed. The applicant has agreed to this recommendation and the 13 surface parking spaces have been incorporated into the parking structure. A pocket park has been designed for this area. As this is a specific goal of the Vail Village Master Plan, staff provides more details on this issue in that section. Loading: The Zoning Code requires three berths. Staff has been concerned that if loading spaces within the auto court were not specifically designated for loading, the delivery trucks would try to use Meadow Drive or the area adjacent to the southwest corner of Crossroads for loading. 6 The applicant has modified the loading bay area and is now proposing a total of three loading berths. Two berths would be located at the southwest corner of the property and one berth would be located in the auto court. However, the proposed loading berths do not meet the minimum size requirements of the Town' s municipal code. The code requires a minimum size of 12 ' wide by 25 ' in length. The proposed berths are approximately 8 ' wide by 25 ' in length. D. Conformity with applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, Town policies and Urban Design Plans. Because of the many different goals, policies, and illustrative plans that pertain to this proposal, a separate section of the memo discusses the compliance of the project with the Vail Village Master Plan. The intention to maintain all of the units as accommodation units fits well with the Town policies. Any conversion of these lodge rooms to condominium units in the future should be prohibited. E. Identification and mitigation of natural and/or geologic hazards that affect the property on which the special development district is proposed. The floodplain is the only hazard which could affect the site. The applicant is not proposing any construction in the 50 foot Gore Creek stream setback or the floodplain. F. Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions designed to produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural features , vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community. Site plan/Setbacks The building will encroach into all setbacks. PA zoning requires 20 foot setbacks on all sides of the property. The applicant has relocated the building to meet the setback line in many cases, which is an improvement over previous proposals but still has ten areas of encroachment. The specific points of encroachment in each setback, starting with the compactor area on the southwest corner of the site are: West 1. The compactor area encroaches 15 '-6" into the Vail Road setback; 2 . The new kitchen expansion and Bully Pub encroach 18 '-0" into the Vail Road setback; 3 . The rooms above the auto court entry encroach 12 ' - 0" into the Vail Road setback; 4 . The tower on the corner of Meadow Drive and Vail Road encroaches 9 ' -0" into the Vail Road setback and 8 ' -0" into the East Meadow Drive setback; 7 North 5. The roof over the commercial arcade encroaches into the Meadow Drive setback 10 '-0"; 6 . The tower on the east end of the project encroaches 13 ' -0" into the east side setback; East 7 . The eastern most corner of the new hotel wing encroaches 18 ' -0" into a setback abutting the Talisman site; South 8. The swimming pool/whirlpool encroaches 7 '-0" into the rear setback. The patio around the swimming pool area encroaches 19 '-0" into the setback; 9 . The King Ludwig deck (above) and the conference room area (below) encroach 4 '-0" into the rear setback; and 10. The loading/delivery area encroaches 20 ' 0" into the rear setback, creating a zero rear setback situation. The encroachment which concerns staff the most is the one required for the kitchen expansion and compactor area on the southwest corner of the property. Staff has worked with the. applicant in reducing the mass and bulk of the building on this corner as much as possible, but believes that it still has the most impact of all the encroachments. Another encroachment of major concern is the swimming pool/patio area. The Zoning Code allows recreational amenities to encroach into the setback if the Design Review Board determines that the location is not detrimental environmentally or aesthetically. Staff believes that in this case, the Gore Creek corridor should be maintained as natural as possible to preserve its aesthetic appeal . Staff does not support the pool/patio in this location and would recommend that the pool/patio be pulled back out of the setback. The two tower encroachments on either end of the building along Meadow Drive are not problems in staff ' s opinion. Staff believes that undulating the building along Meadow Drive and allowing the towers to come out closer to the street gives more definition to the public space and is a benefit. The Village Master Plan calls for plazas in two locations on either side of the tower locations. Though the appliant is providing a plaza, there is not enough undulation and variety to the Meadow Drive facade. Natural Features The site is generally flat with Gore Creek running along the south side of the property. Significant landscaping also exists along East Meadow Drive, in the center of the parking area, and adjacent to the Bully III deck. The applicant has taken advantage of the beauty of Gore Creek and has located the spa and garden along the creek. Staff believes that adding a streamwalk along the creek would allow more guests in Vail to enjoy this natural feature. 8 G. A circulation system designed for both venicles and pedestrians addressing on and off-site traffic circulation. Talisman/Sonnenalp Coordination: Coordination between the proposed Sonnenalp SDD and the existing Talisman Condominiums is necessary. Staff encourages the two owners to work together on access, landscaping, and parking for the two projects in a comprehensive manner. The Town Fire Department has now approved the design of the Sonnenalp redevelopment, with specific reference to emergency vehicle access to both the Sonnenalp and the Talisman properties. Traffic: This will be discussed in the section of the memo dealing with the Environmental Impact Report. Pedestrians : The design of the project has provided some improvements for pedestrians. The applicants will provide a sidewalk along Vail road from the corner of Meadow Drive to Gore Creek. At that point, they will construct a pedestrian bridge over the creek so that pedestrians can continue to walk south of the creek. Staff supports the idea of the pedestrian bridge; however, at this time, we do not have specific design drawings of the proposal . Along East Meadow Drive, the design could be improved for pedestrians by providing a stronger interface between the pedestrian street and the store fronts. What is also missing from the project is the streamwalk. H. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and functions. The proposal has provided an optimal garden area in the center and south side of the site. Though this is good preservation of open space, it is limited to the hotel guests. The hotel has been designed so that the building is located close to Vail Road and Meadow Drive. By not providing open space west or north of the building, the public does not benefit from the open space on-site. Staff recommends that the applicant create a plaza/planting area across from VVI, to provide some public open space. This has been discussed during the review process since it is called out for in the open space plan of the Vail Village Master Plan. Not only would it provide some open space on the site which the public would benefit from, it would break up the hard line of the Meadow Drive facade. It would also allow for a concentration of landscaping, and would create a space where the VVI, the Sonnenalp, and the pedestrian way are brought together. The applicant has redesigned this area and has included a pedestrian connection/plaza as 9 recommended by the staff. Final details of this plaza will be coordinated with the on-going Village Streetscape Improvement Plan. I . Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional and efficient relationship throughout the development of the special development district. See discussion under the EIR analysis. J. Outstanding concerns from other departments: 1. Fire Department: The applicant has received conceptual approval of the Fire Department, however, some landscaping will be lost (at the northeast corner of the site) due to the Fire Department' s required access. The proposed landscape plan must be amended to reflect this change. 2 . Public Works: A minimum sidewalk width of 6 feet, on Vail Road, will be required for the full length of the project. Drainage improvements along Vail Road and East Meadow Drive will be needed. 3 . Landscape Architect: The stream walk should be shown on the site plan. The applicant will need to submit a revised landscaping plan if proposed changes to Vail Road are approved. Maintenance of landscaped areas and sidewalks shall be the owner' s responsibility. The conceptual landscape plan appears to be acceptable. A detailed planting and irrigation plan should be submitted for review. 10 V. VAIL VILLAGE MASTER PLAN In general, the staff believes that the Sonnenalp project should be much more responsive to the Vail Village Master Plan. The previous two work session memos listed many areas where the project could comply more closely with the Village Plan. In most cases, the previous staff comments apply to the revised proposal since the applicant has failed to address the concepts of the plan. Staff believes that one of the most important parts of the Master Plan is the conceptual building height diagram. The portion of that plan which includes the Sonnenalp project is shown below. The corner treatment for Vail Road and Meadow Drive should be 2-3 stories. The rest of the site is called out at 3-4 stories. The project severely deviates from the Master Plan as it is 4 stories on the corner and rises up to 6 stories above the auto court. Iry `r -L►^"=' " - �L�r.•`��T „ CONCEPTUAL BUILDING HEIGHT PLAN -- During the review, it has been mentioned that the master plan is not applicable to a demo/rebuild such as this. The master plan, by definition, cannot address the aspects of every construction project. But the policies and objectives of the plan do apply to all projects. When the plan was developed, the appropriate scale for redevelopment was established with consideration of surrounding properties and the overall streetscape. The principle design concepts are relevant and applicable even if a demo-rebuild is proposed. The specific goals, objectives, and sub-area plans which pertain to this project are listed below. Important points of the Master Plan text are underlined. Staff comments are below the Master Plan excerpts. 11 A. Sub-Area #1-2 - Vail Road Intersection #1-2 Vail Road Intersection � --- Possible realignment of /✓. - intersection in conjunction with � � ---- — C relocation of the Ski Museum. � '�--- Focus of redesign should be to ,4.. !!I •�A�N pedestrian aentry lfor rthe nwest end � ����ll091 of the Village and to provide a �� mma visual barrier to discourage � �` vehicular traffic from heading roc : south on Vail Road from the 4-way >> �, [ 1. 2 s _,,'ri stop. Specific design of Ski � �, lEM �_�� Museum site to be included in West %r� �,w,M Meadow Drive pedestrian ! f c' improvement project. The .. rHC grh \ ti. pedestrian connection both north " ..71 )( • and south along Vail Road should also be improved. Special emphasis on 3.2, 3.4, 4.1, 5.3, 5.4. Sub-Area #1-2 states : "Possible realignment of intersection in conjunction with relocation of the Ski Museum. Focus of redesign should be to establish a small park and pedestrian entry for the west end of the Village and to provide a visual barrier to discouraae vehicular traffic from heading south on Vail Road from the 4-way stop. Specific design of Ski Museum site to be included in West Meadow Drive pedestrian improvement project. The pedestrian connection both north and south along Vail Road should also be improved. " Staff Response: The project does provide a six foot wide sidewalk along the full length of the west side of the property. The sidewalk will be made out of pavers and will extend from the northwest corner of the site to the pedestrian bridge that the applicant will install over Gore Creek. These improvements serve to implement this concept. Because the Sonnenalp redevelopment will require additional widening of Vail Road, we belive that mitigation will be necessary to discourage vehicular traffic from heading south on Vail Road. The staff is recommending that three planted medians be installed along Vail Road. Two medians would be located near the Vail Road/South Frontage Road intersection (4-way stop) , and one median would be located on Vail Road, immediately south of Meadow Drive. Final designs would need to allow for fire access and public works needs for snow removal . 12 B. Sub-Area #1-3 - Sonnenalp (Bavaria Haus) Infill Commercial infill development with second floor residential/lodging - ` to enclose Meadow Drive and improve the quality of the p edes- 4 trian experience. Designated VOL./r..w walkways and plazas with • reenspace should interface with r-• ((1',' those of the Vail Village Inn. A �`i�'�� pedestrian walkway (possibly • rr arcade) should be provided ao ...i2 , �t r "� encourage pedestrian circulation phys4cally removed from West Meadow Drive. Mass of building should not create a shadow pattern ////'' on Meadow Drive. Development will ,. require coordination and/or I /.�.... . property !..,.,9 , i / • i involvement with adjacent p P owners. Existing and new parking demand to be provided on site. Special emphasis o .l on 1 5.1, 2.3, Sub-Area #1-3 states : 2.4, 2.6, 3.1, "Commercial infill development with second floor residential/lodging to enclose Meadow Drive and improve the quality of the pedestrian experience. Designated walkways and plazas with green space should interface with those of the Vail Village Inn. A pedestrian walkway (possibly arcade) should be provided to encourage pedestrian circulation physically removed from Meadow Drive. Mass of building should not create a shadow pattern on Meadow Drive. Development will require coordination and/or involvement with adjacent property owners. Existing and new parking demand to be provided on site. " Staff Response: Meadow Drive will be completely shaded in the winter. The ridge along Meadow Drive will cast a shadow which will extend 67 .3 feet from the north wall of the building at noon on December 21st. This shadow will completely cover Meadow Drive. Even on the equinox dates (March 21 and September 21) , the shadow cast will be 27 . 5 feet from the northern wall of the building. Staff understands that some shadow will be cast by any redevelopment that occurs along Meadow Drive; however, the mass of this proposal and the way the roof line is designed makes the shadow impact worse than alternative designs that were discussed in the review process. In the EIR, the applicant claims that the building will shade the street for only a short period of time without specifying the length. Staff believes that this statement is misleading and more information is needed on this impact. Staff is also very concerned about the possible icing of East Meadow Drive, given the location and height of the new building. Please 13 see comments on project design, parking, circulation, and landscaping under SDD criteria. Staff recalculated the shadow lenths and drew them in both plan and section. These drawings will be presented at the hearing on December 10 . The shadows were calculated from several points in the roof to determine which ridge caused the worst impact. All shadows were calculated for both the equinox (March 21/September 21) and the winter soltice (December 21) . C. Sub-Area 4l-5 - Willow Bridge Road Walkway f i n II - ' #1-5 Willow Bridge Road Walkway �U J- A decorative paver pedestrian - ' - walkway, separated from the street G • _ �f �•- f, �� - and accented by a strong C% landscaped area to encourage r•1 1 /r ^I^ pedestrian circulation along iii r i -5' Meadow Drive. Loss of parking 4 • ,a,,\ • need to be relocated on site. Special emphasis on 3.4, 5.1. 4glk 177Kte Sub-Area #1-5 states: "A decorative paver pedestrian walkway, separated from the street and accented by a strong landscaped area to encourage pedestrian circulation along Meadow Drive. Loss of parking will need to be relocated on site. " Staff Response: The diagrams in the Master Plan show the area discussed in the paragraph above and the area along Willow Bridge Road blending into one another. The applicant has expressed an interest in removing the parking that exists there now and converting the space into a pedestrian area. The parking garage that will be built in this proposal has 16 extra spaces. There are 13 spaces in front of the Swiss Chalet. Because the applicant is proposing to consolidate the front desks for these two buildings, the parking can be located in the garage of the main building. Staff had recommended that the applicant redesign the space and convert it into a pedestrian area according to the Master Plan. The applicant has now redesigned this 14 area and has removed the 13 surface parking spaces. A pocket park is now proposed for this section of the property, as previously discussed in Section IV,H of this memo. The applicant studied the pedestrian routes through this area and designed a combination of planters and walkways that accomodates the existing pedestrian traffic patterns. D. Sub-Area i1-4 - Sonnenalp East (Swiss Chalet) Infill Sub-Area #1-4 states: �, 1 Litli-77.- 11::, #1-4 Sonnenalp East (Swiss Chalet) L, ! :-.--2.• Commercial infill of north facing '' alcove of existing structure to �— �c�o �' �`/' 3 provide shops and pedestrian �,.,.ip. �/ activity. A plaza with greenspace 1 shall be developed in conjunction 711--' ,... 4 " .: ,, ,� . •. �J� with the adjacent plaza at the ��.�� °+' Vail Village Inn. Fire access and on-site parking are two issues to '4..: be addressed in the design and 11) 4;1 development of this project. 1, •:; 12 Special emphasis on 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, /// • •� 'r ^s 3.1, 3.2, 4.1, 5.1, 6.1, 6.2. "Commercial infill of north facing alcove of existing structure to provide shops and pedestrian activity. A plaza with areensnace shall be developed in conjunction with the adiacent plaza at the Vail Village Inn. Fire access and on- site narking are two issues to be addressed in the desian and development of this project. " Staff Response: Two issues in this sub-area recommendation pertain to the proposal. One is to develop a plaza for pedestrian activity outside the Swiss Chalet. This area is intended to relate to the VVI as well as Willow Bridge Road. This improvement relates directly to the recommendation for the Willow Bridge Road walkway, which is discussed in the paragraph above. The second issue involves fire access. The Town' s Fire Department has given conceptual approval of the fire access to the Sonnenalp/Talisman. 15 E. Sub-Area #1-9 - Study Area: Village Streamwalk Sub-Area #1-9 states : #1-9 Study Area: Village Streamwalk \ 6 / ' " Study of a walking only path along s'r1 ,• Gore Creek between the Covered • i` ; �3- Bridge and Vail Road, connecting• :\O2- p ""`. • f • • I r ' ee,eio to existing streamwalk, further e"""'a"�H 2 • \e`eo. ��. enhancing the pedestrian network ( � , 1-9 �� throughout the Village and • �' )7" .3 WILLOW o 3-� providing public access to the 9 , )� , - • � �+k G creek. Specific design and .sf rA1 .tea �\ • � ��o'�»eP. � K �^�'" \\\/ location of walkway shall be V1 _ sensitive to adjacent uses and the �. , '.� r_,_71,../; — • ` ✓ creek environment. (Reference to �• J 1� i.,_ v``� Vail Recreational Trails Plan for ,_� / •. , 9UMM. _,r �oo,E additional information on this -�R°� 1� �QI �� trail) . Special emphasis on 3.4, 4.2. "Study of a walking only path along Gore Creek between the Covered Bridge and Vail Road, connecting to existing streamwalk, further enhancing the pedestrian network throughout the Village and providing public access to the creek. Specific design and location of walkway shall be sensitive to adjacent uses and the creek environment. " Staff Response: Staff believes that a streamwalk is in the best interests of the Town. Expanding the existing popular recreational amenity is worthwhile, especially since staff believes it can be designed in a way that is sensitive to the hotel proposal . Benching a walkway down near the stream appears to be feasible. Additional landscaping is another way to buffer the walk from the hotel ' s garden area. Developing pedestrian-only walkways and stream access fulfills Objective 3 . 4 of the Master Plan, which reinforces the goal of this sub-area. Because a streamwalk is an effective way to provide a natural experience within the Village, and because it could be built sensitively to the hotel, staff believes the applicant should incorporate it into the site plan. F. Emphasized Goals & Policies Below is a list of the specific objectives of the Master Plan. With the exceptions of the objectives dealing with employee housing and the streamwalk, the proposal generally meets the list below. Staff believes that the project ' s primary positive aspects include its provision of accommodation units, the parking plan, the pedestrian bridge and the fact that this is a good site for a mixed use redevelopment. 16 1. 2 Objective: Encourage the upgrading and redevelopment of residential and commercial facilities. 1.3 Objective: Enhance new development and redevelopment through public improvements done by private developers working in cooperation with the Town. 2 .3 Objective: Increase the number of residential units available for short term overnight accommodations. 2 . 4 Objective: Encourage the development of a variety of new commercial activity where compatible with existing land uses. 2 .5 Objective: Encourage the continued upgrading, renovation and maintenance of existing lodging and commercial facilities to better serve the needs of our guests. 2 . 6 Objective: Encourage the development of affordable housing units through the efforts of the private sector. 3 . 1 Objective: Physically improve the existing pedestrian ways by landscaping and other improvements. 3 . 4 Objective: Develop additional sidewalks, pedestrian-only walkways and accessible green space areas, including pocket parks and stream access. 4 . 1 Objective: Improve existing open space areas and create new plazas with green space and pocket parks. Recognize the different roles of each type of open space in forming the overall fabric of the Village. 5. 1 Objective: Meet parking demands with public and private parking facilities. 6. 1 Objective: Provide service and delivery facilities for existing and new development. 17 H. Illustrative Plans. 1. Land Use Plan: a. North side of Sonnenalp site, "Mixed Use. " This category includes the "historic" Village core and properties near the pedestrianized streets of the Village. Lodging, retail and a limited amount of office use are found in this category. With nearly 270 , 000 square feet of retail space and approximately 320 residential units, the mixed use character of these areas is a major factor in the appeal of Vail Village. Staff Response: Since the proposal is mixed use, it fits well with this Master Plan illustration. b. South side of Sonnenalp site, "Medium/High Density Residential and Mixed Use. " Medium/High Density The overwhelming majority of the Village ' s lodge rooms and condominium units are located in this land use category. Approximately 1, 100 units have been developed on the 27 acres of private land in this category. In addition, another 110 units are approved but unbuilt. It is a goal of this Plan to maintain these areas as predominantly lodging oriented with retail development limited to small amounts of "accessory retail . " Mixed Use (along Meadow Drive and Willow Road) This category includes the "historic" Village core and properties near the pedestrianized streets of the Village. Lodging, retail and limited amount of office use are found in this category. With nearly 270, 000 square feet of retail space and approximately 320 residential units, the mixed use character of these areas is a major factor in the appeal of Vail Village. Staff Response: The project complies with the types of uses called for in the Illustrative Land Use Plan. An all lodge room redevelopment, with support commercial, is a very positive land use type for this site. 18 2 . Open Space Plan: a. "Planted Buffer" is designated on north and west side of site. b. "Plaza with green space" is designated on north side of property connecting to the Vail Village Inn and on eastern property adjacent to Swiss Chalet and VVI sculpture plaza. c. "Open Space" is designated along entire stream corridor. Staff Response: The proposal does not provide a "Plaza with green space" . Though a plaza at this location would benefit the area by: Tying in with the VVI buildings, reducing the shadow cast by the structure, and providing some public open space. At this time, these goals are not addressed in a comprehensive way. 3 . Parking and Circulation Plan: a. East Meadow Drive is designated as a pedestrian street with plazas, limited or no autos and a bus route. The Gore Creek corridor is designated as a study area for a walking path. Staff Response: East Meadow will continue to be a pedestrian corridor; however, the proposal does not include a stream walk. 4 . Building Height Plan: a. The area along East Meadow Drive is recommended to be a maximum of two to three stories or 18 to 27 ft. high. Three to four stories (27 ft to 36 ft. ) is designated on the southern three quarters of the property. All heights exclude roof forms. Staff Response: As this is one of the most important components of the Master Plan, staff discussed this item in the first section of the memo on page four. 19 VI. EIR ANALYSIS A. Hydrologic Conditions The applicant will be altering the existing drainage along Vail Road significantly. Currently there is a rock lined ditch that conveys the water to Gore Creek. Curb and gutter will be installed. All drainage improvements must meet Town of Vail standards and will be reviewed for compliance at time of building permit. Drainage from the parking structure will be drained to the sanitary sewer. Details for the parking structure drainage have not been put together at this time. Staff recommends that the best possible pollution control devices, including grease traps and sediment traps, should be installed in the drainage system. The one area of concern that the Town has regarding drainage is how it will be handled during construction of the project. Dewatering any excavation pits into Gore Creek could negatively impact the creek unless the sediment is removed. The Environmental Impact Report completed by the applicant commits the applicant to undertake erosion and dewatering control measures according to the best available practices to ensure that the creek impacts are minimized. B. Atmospheric Conditions The three ways this project will impact air quality are through fireplaces, dust control, and automobile trips to the site. Concerning fireplaces, all units in the hotel are proposed to have gas burning fireplaces. The air emissions from these gas burning appliances will be negligible. There are four existing wood burning fireplaces in the hotel which will remain. Dust is an impact that is generated from the construction process and through the sanding of the existing parking lot. During construction, the applicant (in the EIR) commits to undertake efforts to control the dust. By locating the parking underground and eliminating the need for sanding, air quality will be improved. The last possible impact is from automobile trips. With 54 additional accommodation units, less 10 20 dwelling units, there will be additional trips to the site. Staff believes that this is a reasonable increase and that further documentation is not needed. The hotel 's mini-van service combines trips that some guests might otherwise make individually in their own cars. Given the benefit of gas appliance fireplaces, eliminating the sanding in the winter from the parking lot, the negative impact of the additional trips is offset. C. Geologic and Biotic Conditions The proposal does not change the impacts relating to geologic and biotic conditions. D. Visual Conditions The applicant has used seven photographs taken of the Village to show how the proposal will relate to surrounding structures. The building outline has been shown in tape. Concerning the view looking east on West Meadow Drive (#1) , the EIR consultant claims that few people will view the Sonnenalp from this point since foot traffic is minimal in the area. Staff strongly disagrees with this analysis. Since Meadow Drive is a bus and pedestrian route linking the Village to Lionshead, staff believes this view will be highly noticeable. All of the views of the building from points in the Village show that the ski slopes, the mountain, and the sky will be blocked. (3 , 5, 6 and 7) The view east from the First Bank and chapel area will be completely blocked. (#5) The views from the four way stop (#2 and 4) show that the building will not exceed the highest ridge of Vail Mountain, as it will from the vantage points in the Village. This is because the elevation of the four way stop is higher than the site of the project. Staff realizes that some view impacts are inevitable if the project is redeveloped. However, we believe the building as proposed has severe view impacts which are not supportable given the scale of the surrounding areas. 21 E. Land Use Conditions The uses proposed are compatible with those around the site. This issue has been analyzed in the SDD and Vail Village Master Plan sections of the memo. F. Circulation and Transportation conditions The traffic study, done by Leigh, Scott and Cleary, Inc. , concluded that the capacity of the surrounding road network can generally handle the traffic generated by the project. The only street improvement recommended was to provide three lanes in Vail Road' s existing alignment. The new lane is for a left turn lane into the project. The original study recommended that the three lanes be provided with substandard lane widths so that the street would not have to be widened. Other significant findings from the study include: At full occupancy, the proposed project can be expected to add approximately 175 entering and 175 exiting weekday vehicle trips to the surrounding roadway system. Of these, 14 will enter and 12 will exit during the evening peak-hour. The greatest concentration of project- generated traffic is expected along Vail Road to and from the north. Ninety-three percent of the additional traffic will pass though the four way stop. The traffic impact of the proposed project on existing and future peak season traffic will be minimal . The first traffic study, dated October 4 , 1990, was completed based on national averages of trip generation and staff believes does not accurately reflect Vail traffic patterns. (See attached report. ) The applicant and the Town did independent studies of the parking demand for the existing hotel which showed that the supply exceeds the demand. Because of this information and the general agreement on this issue between the staff and the applicant, a revised traffic study was submitted. The issue which needed clarification was the requirement for a center lane to allow left turns 22 into the auto court. The first study, based on national standards, determined that it was needed, but that substandard lanes would suffice. Since it is not reasonable for the Town to accept substandard lanes on one of the busiest roads in the Town, the second study dated November 15 , 1990, based on local standards, was intended to clarify the issue and determine what the new project would require. A major flaw of the second study is found in the conclusion. The consultants state that "if roadway widening is required in order to [provide three lanes] , the resultant expenditures are not justified, and we would recommend that the operation of Vail Road remain as a two-lane design. " Staff discussed the study with the engineer who prepared it and found that he had no documentation of the cost which "is not justified. " Staff does not concur that the cost/benefit analysis referred to in the conclusion is an appropriate means to determine what improvements the applicant is responsible for. This is especially true when the cost, at the time the report was written, was unknown to the consultants. More importantly is the fact that a requirement to build the middle lane must be determined by the amount of demand generated by the new project. If the Sonnenalp generates the demand, they must mitigate the impact. Cost should not be a factor in this decision. The applicant has committed to place curb and gutter at the edge of the street for the full length of Vail Road. The Town' s traffic engineering consultant, Arnie Ullevig, reviewed the traffic studies and concluded that three lanes is the better alternative because of the high number of left turn movements at peak demand (45 turns per hour at 4:00 P.M. ) and the potential for traffic congestion to worsen without the left turn lane. In his review, he also said that the left turn lane should extend only to the auto court and that a median south of Meadow Drive would be helpful for traffic flow. A related issue to this is the need for accurate survey information. Setting the edge of pavement must be based on accurate information. The architectural drawings submitted by the applicant show the proposed curb eight feet from where it should have been, according to Town records. The 23 applicant' s solution was to merely shift all of Vail Road approximately eight feet to the west. This shift must be verified with survey information showing both sides of Vail Road prior to any improvements being approved so that staff can verify that there are no impacts to the First Bank Building. G. Population Characteristics The Sonnenalp currently employs approximately 270 employees during the winter season. The proposed redevelopment would add approximately 26 new employees per the EIR. Ten of these employees will be needed for housekeeping, a houseman, laundry service, and general hotel staffing. The consultants preparing the EIR assumed that 16 employees are enough to staff the additional commercial area. The applicant is assuming that no additional employees will be needed for the 4000 square feet of new conference area or for the 4700 square feet of new restaurant area. The applicant claims that the conference area requires the same staffing, regardless of size. Concerning the restaurant, the applicant has stated that he will use the existing Sonnenalp Austria House restaurant staff to serve the expanded Bavaria House area. (The Austria House is by the Covered Bridge, the Bavaria House is the one under consideration. ) The Austria House restaurant will shut down when the Bavaria House restaurants are open. The additional 26 employees will increase the total number to 296. Of the total, the applicant states that 94 employees work at the Bavaria Haus. The Sonnenalp currently provides housing for approximately 145 employees. 33 units are owned by the Sonnenalp, housing 67 employees and 20 units are rented by the Sonnenalp, housing 78 employees. This assumes that each bedroom houses two Sonnenalp employees. No additional employee housing is proposed by the Sonnenalp for the redevelopment, though statements in the EIR acknowledge that the housing goals of the Sonnenalp are not being met. However, staff believes that a redevelopment of this magnitude should have some permanent employee housing. The material in the EIR states that "housing is of potential concern to both the Sonnenalp and the 24 Town. " Staff needs to clarify this point and state that significant resources have already been invested by the Town to address this issue. With the adoption of the Town of Vail Affordable Housing Study on November 20, 1990 , it is no longer a potential concern but is an issue that must be addressed formally. At this time, the report has been adopted and provides guideline for new development. At a later date, the report' s recommendations will be incorporated into the Zoning Code. In addition, the Land Use Plan calls for employee housing by stating: 5.3 - "Affordable employee housing should be made available through private efforts, assisted by limited incentives, provided by the Town of Vail, with appropriate restrictions. " It should also be mentioned that most SDD's in the past have provided some number of employee housing units within the proposal . Using the recommendations from the Affordable Housing Study, staff determined the amount of housing which should be deed restricted using two calculations. For "by-right" projects, housing for 15% of the employees should be provided. For those projects with density increases, 16% - 30% of the employees should have housing provided by the employer. For example, the redevelopment will require an additional 26 employees. Since a density increase is needed for the expansion, the 30% multiplier is used: 26 employees x . 30 = 7 . 8 Assuming that two employees will share a dwelling unit, the 7 . 8 is divided by 2 , resulting a requirement for 4 dwelling units . Or, 26 employees x . 16 = 4 . 16 or 2 dwelling units. Staff believes that it is also appropriate to review the over all demand on housing that the project will generate. Given that the existing operation requires 94 employees, and meets density limits, staff believes that housing should 25 be provided for these employees by using the 15% multiplier. 94 employees x . 15 = 14 . 1 A \ divided by 2 equals 7 . 05 By combining the "by-right" demand with that generated by the density increase, a minimum of 7 of the Sonnenalp ' s existing employee units should be permanently deed restricted and at least four new employee units should be required for the density and retail above the allowable. This results in a total of 11 employee restricted units. Staff' s calculations do not include any additional employees for the 4700 square feet of new restaurant area. Because this does not seem plausible, staff needs more information about this area before an accurate housing demand can be done. H. Phasing The construction will take place in three phases. Phase I includes the parking structure and elevator core. Mass excavation and shoring is planned to begin May 1, 1991. The parking garage is planned to be completed by September 13 , 1991 . The kitchen addition will be completed October 15 , 1991. Phase II activity includes the new hotel tower and the north wing with planned occupancy for December 10 , 1992 . Phase III work includes the spa building, meeting rooms and the remodel to the existing hotel which will begin May 1, 1992 . The existing east wing of the hotel will be demolished between May 1, 1992 and June 5, 1992 . At this time, the applicant proposes to build a paved road around the existing loading dock (southwest corner of site) for trucks to use during the demolition of the existing east wing. Staff is concerned about the impacts to the creek, and believes that another route can be found to haul the debris away from the site. The second concern of staff is the parking for the construction workers. As the Town has seen with the construction of the parking structure and 26 Gateway, major projects require many employees and vehicles. We would like to see a plan explaining where the construction workers will park. The applicant, in the EIR, has said that partial closures of Vail Road will be needed. The Town understands that the road will never be completely closed. In addition, the Town understands that all deliveries to the site will occur from the Talisman access road or Vail Road but will not take place via Meadow Drive. VII . LAND USE PLAN The Land Use Plan refers to the Vail Village Master Plan for reviewing any requests for redevelopment in this area. VIII . CONCLUSION Although the project has positive aspects such as the lodge use, underground parking, sidewalks, and a pedestrian bridge, staff recommends denial of the project for many reasons. Using the SDD criteria, staff finds severe noncompliance with Criteria A: design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment. The height, at 81 feet, exceeds the 48 foot limit beyond what is compatible with the surrounding area. The mass of the building, exceeds the allowed accessory area and common area by 53,931 square feet. This square footage as indicated by the height, setbacks, minimal public spaces and shadow patterns, is too much for the site. Criteria D, conformity with applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, Town policies and urban design plans, has not been met. Several plans and illustrations from the Vail Village Master Plan have not been addressed. Specifically, the open space plan with plazas, the building height plan, the shade and shadow issues, and the streamwalk have not been addressed adequately. Criteria F, regarding the site plan, has not been met in that the concepts for the. site plan results in a building layout that lacks quality public spaces. Staff does not agree that the resulting site plan, reserving most of the open space on the site for hotel guests, is the best design for the community. Criteria G, regarding a circulation system designed 27 for pedestrians and automobiles, has not been met, either. Additional survey information is needed to fully address and to accurately locate the proposed improvements. The two issues discussed first are the fundamental problems with the project; however, there are numerous others which must be resolved prior to approval, as identified in the main body of the memorandum. The applicant has been aware of the Town' s concerns, in most cases, since the original PEC work session. Staff believes that until all outstanding issues are resolved, the project should not be approved. Staff asks that the applicant address the Town' s issues more thoroughly. We believe the project has merit but additional design changes are necessary before the staff could support and recommend approval of the project. 28 TOWN ENGINEER'S Conditions of Approval for Sonnenalp SDD 1. Provide a left turn lane into the new entrance of the Hotel. These improvements will be accommodated by widening the asphalt on the east side of Vail Road. The total width of the paved section will be 36 ' wide to accommodate (3) 12 ' lanes. The Vail Road Frontage on the east side shall contain a Type II-B curb and gutter section or 4 ' concrete drainage pan to handle storm water runoff and delineate the road section from the pedestrian areas. The sidewalks shown shall at a minimum be 6 ' in width. The left turn lane shall have a storage length of 60 ' and provide appropriate tapers in and out as determined by accepted design standards. Any work necessary as far as modification to drainage facilities, utility relocations or other incidental work to accommodate these improvements will be the responsibility of the developer. 2 . Drainage from the site will be handled in a way that no discharge is allowed onto the public right-of-way on the north and west of the site, unless it is discharged directly to a storm sewer system. Drainage discharged to the south of the site will be done in a manner that provides an environmentally sound way and doesn't flow across the Public Stream Tract in concentrated flows. 3 . The proposed construction access, across the Public Stream Tract is in violation of the covenants of the subdivision which state no man-made improvements are allowed in the open space. If formal landscaping is established in the Stream Tract, this should also include the introduction of a pedestrian walkway to be built by the developer. If use of the Stream Tract is allowed as an access roadway, the developer shall build the pedestrian walkway after construction is over, and contribute up to 1/2 the cost of the pedestrian bridges to connect the trail with the Stream Tract land adjacent to Lot 3 , if in the future this is determined the best alignment of the stream walk pedestrian trail between Willow Road and Vail Road. Landscaping and layout of the pool area should be provided in a manner to screen the site from the proposed stream walk if it is desired by the applicant to provide a private patio setting for their guests. 4 . Acquire for the Town a long term lease/purchase to the Tract of land south of the Swiss Chalet if the applicant proposed to landscape it. N14'451114-411' - • ..,T, - The Vail Religious Foundation 4 December 1990 Ms. Kristan Pritz Town of Vail Department of Community Development Vail, Colorado 81657 HAND DELIVERED RE: Application for Special Development District Designation of Sonnenalp Hotel Dear Kristan: The Vail Religious Foundation has requested that I communicate to the Town of Vail the concern of the Foundation in association with the Vail Interfaith Chapel, regarding the rezoning of the Sonnenalp Hotel. The Vail Religious Foundation is strongly opposed to the rezoning request which is before the Town of Vail and to the redevelopment plan which is associated with that rezoning request. The application has no relationship to present zoning, the Town Master Plan or the guidelines which affect the property in question. It is apparent that the owners of the Sonnenalp Hotel purchased a property which was half the size they wanted, but the lack of planning on the part of the property owners serves as a justification neither for the rezoning which they request or for the wholesale waiver of zoning limitations which is the crux of the request now before the Town of Vail . The Foundation begins with the premise that the zoning which applies to the Sonnenalp Hotel and the surrounding properties was applied for a reason. In the opinion of the Foundation, that reason was to provide some degree of certainty regarding what would be developed on the land, and, when redevelopment was necessary, a reasonable degree of assurance regarding what would be developed when existing structures became obsolete or, for any reason, required demolition and replacement. Unfortunately, the Special Development Districts 19 Voll Rood• Vail, Colorado 81657 permitted under the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail can be used to frustrate and to circumvent the purposes and protections created by good zoning practice. That is exactly what is occurring in the case of the Sonnenalp application. The present owners of the Sonnenalp Hotel knew what they were receiving when they purchased the property. There existed at the time of their purchase, and there now exist, limitations on that property which insure that its use will be, to some extent, consistent with the surrounding properties. The purposes of Special Development Districts are clearly listed in Section 18. 40 . 10, and need not be repeated verbatim in this letter. It is sufficient to note that the goals of promoting the appropriate use of land, improving the design character and quality of new development, facilitating the adequate and economical provision of streets and utilities, preserving open space areas, and furthering the overall goals of the community may all be accomplished within the framework of the Public Accommodations Zone District in which the Sonnenalp hotel is presently located. What cannot be accomplished within that zone district are increases in building height, density, and accessory and common area GRFA, and the elimination of setbacks which are being requested by the present owners of the Sonnenalp Hotel. The request might generously be interpreted as an attempt to obtain blanket variances where no basis exists to obtain any variances whatsoever. As to the merits of the application, it is inconceivable that an eighty-foot residential structure sticking up in the middle • of Vail could do anything to enhance the attractiveness of the Town of Vail. The Town of Vail has been able to preserve, to some extent, the atmosphere of an alpine village through the zoning which is fundamental to its land use planning. It should be the goal, if there is such a goal, to remind the visitor of Interlaken or Garmish, not Zurich or Munich. To permit the intensity of development which is requested by the Sonnenalp would be inconsistent with the goals which the Vail Religious Foundation believes to be those of the Town of Vail and the residents of the Town. Those goals may not necessarily be those of developers who purchase property governed by reasonable and appropriate limitations and then attempt to create appreciation of their investment by requesting special rights which violate the expectations if not the rights of the residents and the guests who are impacted by the proposed development. With regularity, and particularly during the winter season, the Interfaith Chapel is troubled by the use of its limited parking facilities by the employees of the Sonnenalp Hotel and those individuals using the Sonnenalp restaurant facilities. Despite requests made of Sonnenalp management and the positioning of the signage required by the Town of Vail to limit unauthorized parking, that use continues on a daily basis. If the development proposed by the Sonnenalp were to be permitted, that unauthorized use of the Chapel ' s parking facilities would be aggravated by that fact that the Sonnenalp parking which now is reasonably visible 1 e would be less visible and less accessible, and a greater number of individuals who use the Sonnenalp facilities would use the Chapel 's limited parking. The visual impact of the Sonnenalp project on the Interfaith Chapel and its environs would be dramatic and undesirable. Where the Town of Vail now has a focal point which, for many years, has been identifiable to the Town's residents and visitors, the visibility of the Chapel would be dramatically decreased. The Foundation suggests that the many postcards of the Chapel indicate its importance to the image of the Town of Vail. The Sonnenalp Hotel, currently an attractive facility consistent with the Town' s image, would be no greater asset to the Town's image were the redevelopment plan approved. In fact, because of the mass and impact of the proposed redevelopment, it would almost certainly be an edifice to avoid, and a blight on the views of the Gore Range and Vail Mountain which people identify with the Town of Vail. Even the existing loading dock operated by the Sonnenalp Hotel creates problems in the operation of the Interfaith Chapel. That facility, across Vail Road from the Chapel, is far from an attractive feature of one of Vail 's central streets, and the one which bears the Town's name. A proposal which doubles the number of rooms in the facility must bring with it the recognition that the use of the loading bay(s) will increase dramatically. That use will further disrupt the services and functions conducted at the Chapel and will detract from the appearance, not only of the Chapel, but of the street as a whole. Even under present circumstances, delivery vehicles must deal with the pedestrian and vehicular traffic on Vail Road in a manner which is inconsistent with safe practice. An aggravation of this problem should not be permitted. Beyond the deficiencies in the proposed project on its merits, there are also operational problems with the construction of the project. If the set-backs are to be waived, as requested, or significantly reduced, the work on the project must be conducted in the public right-of-way. This project is not one which would be accomplished during a single construction season. Not only the Chapel, but the Town as a whole would suffer for several construction seasons with traffic disruption, noise and a scar on the village. The functions of the Chapel, which occur on every day of the week, would be disrupted by the noise and the construction activity, including but not limited to vehicular traffic. The Vail Religious Foundation appreciates the existence and the quality of services offered by the Sonnenalp Hotel. This letter is written only after considerable discussion regarding the merits and demerits of the proposed redevelopment plan. It is, however, written upon the unanimous vote and authority of the ten members of the Vail Religious Foundation who considered the question. It is also written with the conviction that the approval of the plan would be a serious problem for the Vail Interfaith Chapel, to those who use the facility, and to the thousands of people to have seen, and expect in the future to see, an environment in Vail which reflects some regard for the visual and psychological experience of those who seek relief, recreation and renewal during their visits in our community. The development of the Town of Vail into islands of concentrated density and mass rivaling the cities from which our visitors escape will do no more for those visitors than to send them elsewhere, seeking the experience which they formerly identified to be that of Vail. Respectfully, VAIL • IGIOUS + • ND. ' ON By. nor<A '� / President 'l C�.,. l / ::/ �.e ,!d-m'Z!,�„/Ji'-,,,"^,+�..-.^' 'tee tip I�/�J Cj f Y ✓ # ,- SL. ✓ .,, ` ` /t4..,,i .r_..e / ' r '' � ,../ ... 1 f 6.1/ Y r i t ,c /, f vJ 1J 3 L{#} ,,.--`/ I 1`..."" %_ ,, 1!/L--6\"c_ t r„,, ., ,i . 'G� ',.,,s?; L - (.--_(.37-1:4,1-,, l../J / )/ <”€�f , t{ ,J--6,----,7'1,.,_/.:1,.. ‘, r / /( ,Li ./.:',.. -, � 9 ,,,.'',.,,-.,,-','''', . w - ! i+) ioo H pi-4 t - ' W KI4 /6=64% 1/—' -7'4) �. I%�t�-tdr,) ‘ ,f. COAA I IA 7 i. 0 , L , ,_/_.1 ' ' ,A. tet-k /6 Pi f____d (I ' ' I ) 7.11(6`fc e °Le-ft 1/1/t.. _,e).4.) ,a_C tc:: ii-Lf l' "7 4j77 r .'d . --) '4' I --,, i) /-A- -(6 '''t ‘t ,I ' z.) ./-it,--eur cm cey-a.9-7.-- / , ,c, s /1,72-47 r* r --sd f ' N t -,,') pa 64,....4 i0-,---e-c I 7 171 /...4,,,_ .'",-;) i .' Z . ' ? k„. 0 1 rnJ cy- N Z . -(71;0 2 1,4....is e...7:4, ,71 V -) -Ne, NA C- 7,---t.4";14,7, 1 -'---. ----) ..."':_ ., r,\2 &) --17) fir,, Cc- / 4,�. S , ee_c l.� l -,ex p .. , I V C() iza,e-cr ask -2. Q 3 _ei f .)1 'r `' 1 wL kL._______I 8 19. Uptown Grill - Awning & Signage BR 472 East Lionshead Circle MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: 7 20. Gondos Sign BR Gondola Building, Lionshead Mall MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: 12 21. Mountain Haus Awning & Sign BR 292 East Meadow Drive MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF APPROVALS: Gore Range Mountain Works - Sign Gore Creek Drive, Bell Tower Building Mclnerey-McVay Corporation Real Estate Sign Gorsuch Building, Clock Tower Marriott Mark - Yard Lighting 714 West Lionshead Circle 0 L,„-- ,,, 5 c' ,,1ti U f 0 : kh�x� ill':,.,, 5 iy"-c--fr-5 cue i?4.... o C .(1) 1. , ;7.---> '�7rs�rte ” 10 :.' b(kil.L.1' . cl.-21,j/t,. i ''' zp„.11iL'. (7‘) . ..1.,e,,,i, . J 0 a...--ei ' � re,.. 1 4 ,ir . i; t e V Li j'/)-'1''''''./''(-0-1!✓y +^J 5 ( i th lvie, J j u ' i/ ? oteeu(4,7„,) ,,,, ,t,„,_,,,,,,./ ,,,,.74 , y , , L ,A I'Ce,f- 0 e,-‘'-e / j '/fC... ..--•Cr;'1 1,J) f531 O'bk 4.i7 , ( 1 � " *� J V S C U ,y S \ !ice ,A,t c--AL A, ..------N,,,.tcilr_ ii(,..,aivx discussed the appropriateness of the condition of approval with Larry Eskwith, the town attorney. Larry felt the staff ' s condition of approval was inappropriate, therefore staff was recommending approval of the setback variances without conditions. After discussion, Kathy Warren moved and Chuck Crist seconded to approve the setback variance per the staff memo with findings A, B, and C. 1, C. 2 and C. 3 excluding the condition of approval related to the streamwalk and pocket park. The vote was 6-0 in favor. 5. A request for a height variance and a variance and a variance to the number of satellite dishes permitted in order to allow for the installation of two satellite dish antennas on the roof of the Marriott Mark Resort, Lots 4 and 7 , Block 1 , Vail Lionshead 3rd Filing and Lots C and D, Morcus Subdivision, located at 715 Lionshead Circle. Applicant: Marriott Mark Resort/Tri-County Cablevision Betsy Rosolack explained that the Marriott wished to place two 6- foot in diameter on their roof in the southwestern corner of the Marriott building. Lynn Johnson of Tri-County Cablevision then stated that since the dishes were painted to match the building, he hoped a screening fence would not be necessary, but was willing to place a fence later if the Town felt it was necessary. He also explained that a mesh fence was not being proposed because it caught snow and because the quality of the mesh dishes was not as good as the solid dishes. Connie Knight moved and Kathy Warren seconded to approve the variances per the findings in the staff memo with the decision of whether or not a fence was needed to be made by the Design Review Board. The vote was 6-0 in favor. 6. A request to establish a Special Development District for the Sonnenalp redevelopment located at 20 Vail Road; a part of Lot L, Block 5-E, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Sonnenalp Properties, Inc. - '1 , !.4.3,1w11011.4.ca and Andy Knudtsen explained the requested SDD. Mike rs, noutlined 6 variations to the Public Accommodation zone district that would be part of the proposed SDD. The six were 1. A 24 percent density increase 2 . A height variance allowing 81 feet where 48 feet is the maximum height 3 . Setbacks (on all four sides) 4 . A reduction in the number of loading berths required; (1 is proposed, 3 are required) 2 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION November 26, 1990 Present Staff Chuck Crist Kristan Pritz Diana Donovan Mike Mollica Connie Knight Jill Kammerer Jim Shearer Andy Knudtsen Kathy Warren Shelly Mello Dalton Williams Betsy Rosolack Absent Ludwig Kurz The meeting was called to order at 2 : 00 p.m. by Diana Donovan, Chairperson. 1 . Approval of minutes from the October 22 , 1990 meeting. Chuck Crist moved and Jim Shearer seconded to approve the minutes as presented. The vote was 6-0 in favor. 2 . A request for a conditional use permit in order to establish a bed and breakfast operation on Lot 7B, Vail Village 10th Filing, 930 B. Fairway Drive. Applicant: Paul and Nancy Rondeau Betsy Rosolack explained the request and stated that the Rondeaus met all the required conditions for a bed and breakfast. Connie Knight moved and Dalton Williams seconded to approve the request. The vote was 6-0 in favor. 3 . A request for front and side yard setback variances to allow for a garage on Lot 10 , Block 4 , Lionsridge Filing No. 4 ; 1464 Aspen Grove Lane. Applicant: Carrol P. Orrison The applicant asked to table this item until 12/10 . Kathy Warren moved and Chuck Crist seconded to table to 12/10 . Vote was 6-0 . 4 . A request for two setback variances for the Village Center Condominiums, located at 124 Willow Bridge Road, a part of Tract C and Lot K, Block 5-E, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Village Center Condominium Association Kristan Pritz explained that at the previous PEC meeting, the motion had been to approve the setback variance requests subject to staff recommended condition. Prior to the vote Kirk Akers, the applicant' s architect, asked that the request be tabled to allow him an opportunity to confer with his client regarding the staff recommended condition of approval. Since that time staff 1 5. An increase in the amount of accessory hotel floor area (23% of the GRFA where 10% is allowed) 6. An increase in the amount of common area (85% of the GRFA where 20% is allowed) Mike then reviewed the memo, stating that the SDD would use the existing Public Accommodation Zone as the underlying zoning. The number of accommodation units would be increased from 72 to 124 , and 10 existing dwelling units would be eliminated. All units would be maintained as lodge units, and all fireplaces would be gas burning with the exception of the existing 4 wood-burning fireplaces. Also added would be 4 , 000 square feet of conference space for a total of 7,930 square feet of conference space. The building heights would be 51-81 feet on the west side, 49-57 feet on the north side, 52 feet on the east side and 24 feet on the south. The proposed site amenities would include a pedestrian walkway over Gore Creek. This would be attached to the existing Vail Road bridge. A pocket park would be constructed south of the Swiss Chalet, adjacent to Willow Bridge Road. (This property is owned by Vail Associates who had not agreed to have a pocket park at this location at this time. ) A sidewalk would be constructed along the east side of Vail Road and planters and sidewalks would be constructed along East Meadow Drive. Landscaping would also be included along the north and west elevations. Mike showed these improvements on a site plan. An underground parking garage would be constructed with 185 spaces and the existing surface parking lot would be removed. The restaurant and lounge areas would be expanded to 6657 square feet, and new retail would consist of 5, 760 square feet. Mike then reviewed the zoning analysis on page 3 of the staff memo and referred also to Exhibit B. Andy Knudtsen summarized the SDD criteria. He stated that the staff was concerned about the excessive heights. They also felt that the formal, unbroken facade along Meadow Drive was a significant deviation from the character of the Village, and that the overall building mass was too large in relation to the site. Concerns were also expressed about the west setback encroachments, shade impacts, lack of loading, Talisman access, lack of Fire Dept. approval, Vail road alignment, lack of streamwalk, location of the swimming pool and construction road along the creek. Mike then discussed the Vail Village Master Plan with relation to the proposal . He stated that of the 5 applicable sub-area goals, 3 only 1 was being met, that of the pedestrian connection along Vail Road. Mike felt that the sun/shade analysis was not accurate. He added that the mass and unbroken roof line contributed to excess shading on East Meadow Drive. Among other concerns was the fact that the Fire Department had not approved the access to the Talisman. Mike added that the streamwalk was an extremely important issue and felt that the applicant should incorporate it into the site plan. Andy reviewed the EIR analysis concerning hydrologic conditions, atmospheric conditions, visual conditions, land use conditions, circulation and transportation conditions, population characteristics, and phasing. Andy recommended that this be a work session, so that additional time could be provided for the board to study the proposal. Kristan stated that Rev. Don Simonton from the Vail Interfaith Chapel had mentioned their concern about construction impacts on their activities particularly on the weekend when they have many weddings and worship services. Jay Peterson, representing the applicant, stated that it was implied that the applicant had not worked with the staff, but in fact, the applicant had worked long and hard with the staff before coming back with the present proposal. Jay admitted that the proposed building was large and that major issues, such as height and bulk needed resolution. He stated that the Urban Design Guide Plan called for an infill in this area, but that the proposal was not just an infill. Jay pointed out that the design of a hotel had less flexibility because rooms must be the same size to have unified interiors. The parking structure also drove the design. Regarding employee housing, Jay felt the requirement was not correct, for many of the employees worked at other Sonnenalp properties. He did not feel additional housing should have to be purchased. Kristan Pritz felt the requirement was a fair one and pointed out that the staff would be willing to look at employee demand generated solely by the Bavarian Haus, however, that requested information had not been given to the staff at present. Gordon Pierce, architect for the property, explained his reasons for the design of the project. He stated that Jeff Winston supported the height on the corner, but did want an indentation along Meadow Drive. He felt that the building on East Meadow Drive had a definite relation to the eave lines of the VVI. Regarding the sun/shade study, he felt that if it was inaccurate, it was not very inaccurate. He stated that noon on December 21st was the worst possible time. Gordon felt that any building would cast a shadow on East Meadow Drive. He added that the Sonnenalp 4 building would have heated sidewalks. Gordon pointed out that the Mountain Haus was much higher and had sheets of ice many days. He then showed slides of other buildings in Vail to show the simplicity of hotel design. Jay then stated that 40% of the common area was underground. He pointed out that the VVI had 100, 000 square feet of GRFA and 50, 000 square feet of retail, while the Sonnenalp has less than 5, 000 square feet of retail. He felt that the required maximum of 20% common space was very outdated. Kristan replied that retail was not included in common space. She also stated that when all the various uses were added together, it was strongly felt by staff that the building was too large for the site. Amos Kaminsky, president of the Talisman Condominiums, stated that he had been working with the Faesslers for several months and Johannes had offered to allow the Talisman residents to enter the underground parking from Vail Road. He felt comfortable with what was proposed by the Sonnenalp. Kristan asked about the access easement at E. Meadow Drive along the pedestrian mall and Amos replied that the Talisman would give up their access easement under the new proposal, and would enter through the fire access gate east of the bus control gate. Amos added that the ramp was being narrowed and made less obvious. He stated that if the Talisman did not build a garage, they would move the access easement to the fire exit. Dalton asked where the Talisman garage would be, and Amos replied that it would be partially under the ramp. The plan was to build the Talisman garage at the same time that the Sonnenalp garage was being constructed. Amos added that at present there was no written agreement, only a verbal one. Paul Rondeau, from the audience was concerned about the height of the tower at the west elevation. Rick Rosen, legal counsel for the condominium owners in the First Bank building to the west, stated that these owners had concerns about the traffic and the height of the Bully part of the building, but were not against the project. Rick Rosen then spoke as legal counsel for the Villa Cortina condo owners, and said they were opposed to the project. They were concerned about the height of the tower blocking the view of the Gore Range from the condos (the ground floor condos do not have a view at present) . They were very concerned about the fact that Meadow Drive would seem to be like a tunnel. They felt that they would feel closed in. They were concerned about traffic, shading, and the fact that the construction of the project would impact businesses for 18 to 24 months. They did feel that the hotel appeared to be a good project. 5 • Eric Affeldt, a retail tenant at the VVI across Meadow Drive, thanked the PEC and the staff for their work and stated that it was easy for them to lose the broad picture. He said that when he was on the Council, the Council spent a lot of time establishing the Goals and study areas for the Vail Village Master Plan. Affeldt felt that the SDD did not depart far from the PA zone district. He felt that over the years the Town had emphasized the need for quality and for additional hotel rooms in the core. He felt this would be a benefit in the long run. He supported the project. Hermann Staufer, another former Council member, also felt that the project would be a good one, and was one of quality. Dalton Williams felt that he would like to have more time to study the information about the project before being asked to vote on it. He felt the swimming pool should be moved back within the setbacks to allow for the future streamwalk and was concerned about servicing the shops along Meadow Drive. He felt that there would probably be 4 UPS trucks per day serving the retail shops. Jay replied that the auto court was designed for trucks of UPS size. Dalton was concerned that on busy days the guests and trucks would conflict. Gordon Pierce answered that perhaps they would have to plan a pick-up point. Dalton was in favor of the pocket park near the Swiss Chalet where cars are now parked. Regarding the shadow pattern on Meadow Drive, he suggested that the entire street be heated. Dalton was also concerned about the potential traffic, especially on Saturday when there was a lot of traffic at the bank across the street. He felt the narrow lanes would be a concern. Regarding phasing of the project, Dalton stated that he was unimpressed with the construction of the Gateway project, but was impressed with the way the Red Lion construction had been handled. He repeated that he was not ready to make a decision today. Gordon answered Dalton's concerns about the construction phasing, stating that he had hired a contractor who had a great deal of experience with difficult construction projects and was, in his view, very conscientious. Rick Rosen wondered if there was any testing done of the soil because of the former gas station on the site to the north, and Gordon replied that tests had been made and the soil was ok. Chuck Crist asked about the number of rooms in the top floor of the tower, and Gordon replied that there were 7 plus some mechanical area and the elevator tower. Chuck wondered if one story could be removed. Gordon replied that rooms would be lost, 6 and the tower's architectural statement would also be lost. Chuck was concerned with the shadow on Meadow Drive and the height of the building. He added that he did not feel the pedestrian entry at WI adjacent to the Liquor Store was a valid one at this time, but with future development, there would be reason to walk to the back of the WI. He would like to see more relief on the Meadow Drive side of the building. Gordon asked Chuck if he felt a focal point like a fountain would be a valid feature to have across from the WI entry. Chuck was in favor of that idea, saying that he did actually prefer a narrower street, but felt the need for more pedestrian interest. Jay Peterson said the street was 60 feet wide, as opposed to Bridge Street, which is 25 to 30 feet wide. Kathy Warren was concerned about the Fire Department access issue. Andy stated that the staff had passed the Fire Department concerns along to the applicant. Gordon replied that they had talked to the Fire Department and the Fire Department stated that the proposal was fine. Mike pointed out that the problem had not been resolved, because a fire truck could not get to the Talisman and turn around. Kathy felt an OK from the Fire Department was needed before the board could give final approval on the project. Jay stated that there was no need to resolve minor issues before getting approval. Some of Kathy's concerns were the height, lack of public open space, shadow on Meadow Drive, and that some breaks in the facade would help the appearance of the height. Regarding loading, she was uncomfortable with a project of this scale not having appropriate loading. She felt that there was not one good loading dock that would take a semi-trailer. Gordon replied that the back of the existing loading dock was being removed so most trucks could be handled. Faessler added that most trucks were merely food trucks, with the biggest 24 feet long. He said that there were 2 spaces for trucks of that size. Kathy was still uncomfortable about the loading. With regard to the employee housing situation, she wondered how many units Johanness would be willing to deed restrict. Jay replied that they were willing to abide by the guidelines in the Employee Housing Study. Rosen added that he felt deed restrictions on private property were unfair. Kristan pointed out that the Town could ask for employee housing on site, and many SDD proposals had been required to have employee housing on site. Jay stated that employee housing on site was not appropriate for this hotel, for the owners did not want the employees to mingle with the guests in their off hours, and it was better for the employees not to live where they work. Kathy stated that she would like to see more restricted units. She was not comfortable with the streetscape interface, loading, employee housing, and 7 felt a need to have the Fire Department approval. Jim Shearer felt the added hotel rooms and parking were beneficial and that the quality and beauty of the project were positive. Regarding the employee housing, he wondered if the applicant would be willing to do a retroactive housing requirement and was told the applicant would be. Jim was pleased with the pedestrian bridge, and supported the commercial aspect, and getting the parking off of Vail Road. His concerns were with the intersection of Meadow Drive and Vail Drive and mentioned that he had spoken with Terry Minger who felt that the Town was getting further and further away from landscaping at the Village entrys. Jim felt that it would be nice if each corner could be more park-like. Regarding Meadow Drive, he felt it would be better if the pillars were not so close to the building so that one could walk more freely. He felt that the commercial spaces were too far from the street, and would prefer to have the column distance varied so that one could meander. Jim also wished to have more building undulation, more interest. He preferred more sun on Meadow Drive. Jay replied that the shade was not from the upper stories. Kathy was still not comfortable with the shade and shadow pattern. Gordon said the sidewalks would be heated. Jim was pleased that the walks would be heated, but stated that he had heard that one problem with heated walks was that after the snow is melted, icy spots were created. Jay reminded them that the heated walks at the WI worked well. Jim encouraged the study of a stream walkway. He would like to see 3 lanes on Vail Road, but did not feel this must be a condition of approval. In this regard, Jay said that a study had been done. He felt the biggest problem was the bank traffic because everyone want to park in front of the bank. Mr. Rosen stated that the First Bank Condo owners would not want part of the land in front of First Bank to be taken for roads. Greg Hall, Town engineer, stated that 3 lanes could be constructed without using land in front of the bank. Kristan pointed out that this area must be pinned down, studied, designed, etc. to insure adequate distance for the road in addtion to landscaping and the sidewalk. Jim Shearer said he would like to see more public accommodations, i.e. more public landscaped areas. He supported the park in front of the Swiss Chalet and suggested putting a loading dock area on one end. He felt the pool should be pulled back within the setback and that fire access to the Talisman should be studied. Connie Knight stated the whole corner should be considered, not 8 just this building. She felt a building this size needed more space and added that the developer was not considering the public. Connie pointed out that only 40 rooms were being gained with great mass. She felt that the building was looking even bigger by being so close to the property line and losing green space. Connie stated that the height was nearly double that allowed. She saw no need to encroach upon the setbacks. Mike had mentioned that much public land was being used for landscaping. Connie did feel that the Faesslers would take care of employee housing. She suggested that the Vail Road walk be coordinated with the walk on Vail Road from the Gateway project. She questioned the need for the pedestrian bridge. Regarding the shade, Connie pointed out that not everyone would be walking near the Sonnenalp shops. She felt that 10 setback encroachments were a substantial number and felt the there was not enough room on the lot to construct a building of this size. Gordon felt the pedestrian experience would be improved. Diana Donovan was concerned with snow sliding off of the roof, the traffic lanes and the need to protect the creek. She said the pool should be pulled back and that the temporary construction road should not be on the south side of the lot because of the impact on the creek. She felt the construction should be quieted on Saturdays and Sundays because of the weddings and services at the Chapel . Regarding Master Plan Objective 6. 1, she was concerned about loading berths. She felt the East Meadow side of the building needed more attention to landscaping because it was even closer to the road than the VVI . Jay pointed out that there was minimal landscaping on the VVI side. Diana felt there should be housing restricted to employees, that the hotel units should be restricted so that they remain hotel units, and that more attention should be paid to the sub-area concepts. Diana's main concern was that there were not enough public spaces and green spaces, especially along Meadow Drive and especially since the developer was not doing the streamwalk. She felt the pedestrian bridge was essential and that more public space was needed in front of the building. Diana felt the project had come a long way. Johannes Faessler admitted that the property was not perfect for a hotel. He stated that if he were in the Board' s chair, he would weigh the same concerns, but that he could never take care of their concerns to everyone's satisfaction. He wanted to leave with some guidance, but stated that this was the best job he could do and that the project was close to not making sense economically. He wanted to have a vote with a list of concerns agreed upon. Perhaps the Board felt the concerns were more important than having a hotel there. 9 Diana pointed out that she would like to have the project come back in two weeks. Johannes stated that he would come back with almost the same thing. He could not come back in two weeks with significant changes. Jay stated that over two weeks he could not satisfy the staff and do the hotel . Gordon offered to discuss the concerns and try to make the project work. Johannes stated that they could wait 2 weeks, but there would not be major changes. Dalton felt the need to study the proposal. Kristan replied that a project of this size deserved a thorough study and that there were significant issues. The proposal would have incredible impact on the character of the area. She added that the staff had been complimentary on many issues. Regarding the height and setbacks, there were strong concerns, but the staff did not advocate throwing in the towel and forgetting the project. She felt the issues did warrant review and was happy that Johannes was willing to reconsider some issues. Jim moved and Chuck seconded to table the proposal until December 10th and the vote was 6-0 to table. 7. A request for a conditional use permit and a variance to the parking standards, Section 18 .52 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code to allow off-street surface parking at the "Holy Cross parcel" which is generally located on the north side of the South Frontage Road east of and immediately adjacent to Red Sandstone Creek. Applicant: Vail Associates, Inc. Jill Kammerer explained the request, summarizing that the applicant wanted a conditional use permit and a variance to the parking standards which required that all parking lots be paved and landscaped. Diana asked that a' fence be constructed to screen the lot. She thought the snow berms to be used in screening the lot would be dirty and ugly. Joe Macy, of Vail Associates, stated that this lot had been used for parking and storage for 20 years. Kathy asked that the unsightly fence posts be removed from the site. Joe responded that to do the fences right would require sinking the fence post in a concrete base and he was reluctant to commit to this. Jim stated that if the applicant grades and gravels the lot and then plows the snow to create snow berms the plows will just scrape up the gravel which would contribute to the dirty, ugly appearance of the berm. 10 j., , , ,;, , _1 ;,./,-; i 1,...„,,,_„..c/),,-/„..--1-'7/1. ;; ( :,;: S'; ; ,,..-..„ / liss- ,--;---;, .. . , ;;•-, - -,' r 143k74 1‘1,1‘14,i . . i iilL.i3O . - Al, Y 24) " , i: A -,' ) - -C-- ' - - i ' • • - --.)---- , - :,..-;i: /:‘,/trell,i-e. c_e,,,ift.,.,,,.(e,,,,,,i._4.. , et..2..:77.;?/, :(:)'c..„,..r,ks° <__ti . -1..e.-,,,,.,,,, ,-.-- , ,,,,,„, / /,s• ._. f •', - :- „.../ c 7 7 rf 7-. / 4 - v (ca_ ., ,,,..e.ii,,,,,,..,. - .,- -, , .. , -, - - ',-"( .1."r.., 6.C....-z4;,..6,44(....:6-/:-,44-1.--'w- , Or" ..,:. i. (/ ,,,,,,e- /2/0 1- /C.1','4r2A) il/tWr•-- ./i2,/t. , . J,^4'I 4-'t- L-':`,.. .4!'",r- 7,,,----Zij ,..- ',.! 12 S,4,,i-1,4_,U1 ' •t,,- I 17 7 ( :,'-,•;, c ‘--,A--., 1 f_,)--2),(- ), . ',.,.. ',.',.,,; - - -' ' - • ' !:::, . -i':' / ."--44-- °6<1,,t,l' •z-4) ys,-,(e_ z-1,,,- /.9/ .:, r ,,,,,,4:-/4,._ - i .„.. Lier4 -Le.;\f- . , T--- _ u : Ili v -- ; ; ' : :1 j�`�- v ; c , 7c.,..,,s,1,,,,,,,..,,,, :" .1.., It) 1 1 y' r . ,ec)..,,,,. : , '-' '' c e' dre.. ..3 - C;) ...p.'-1,. . . ..'7,,,,,7-1 ' -' _ -pt,,..,: _,_._.,e, _ ,-- --, 66_,..„,.d 0 / 4 .17 ''-L , _ , * ,,,a-t...2..--,,A,,.,..-.1,1....,..e....,/- .(,,,,,,--1,........4L-A- ,,,7C L.7/1/-..?::24,7,fi'''..— � a "�. �. do P ...., . r ,L, , _....,/ . ;;;;; ;:;:: 0 - . ...,_ L,„...,, ..2>,.....; /57.2c--?..) e- : ; .:: , ;;: .:. :,:.; ,::: , , . , .._ ..., . .. ; . _ ; ., . . ; :. . :.:, ;,:,., ,:, . . , ... , , _ ::,, . . . . , . . .. , , .. . , ; . ; , . „.. ' .-:::_ . , ; ; ;.... . . . , . . ., . . .; 3 ter, 6 . / I -J /;s / / -1 - ' :fir n -tom -- P1 - > -r, t 'L .(ii 4.,ce-11', (.iii--/(-c."4 '-. .' -'4_i/ e,,,,-d. ' G/e S � C l t -�J�'d✓t L)- ,-. l ii, s f 4 >2/ j.�.z, 1/ -/ /7/_./ . .; -,,, . 4 ,.,,i) &9,il .. .. - , /� ' /1----- 'e .. „. ., / ,j ti.,---1_ .,.._f w ,=__e_,,,, (1 , c�� . ., " u.-.mac ,k, _ _ .,/'✓;4,I z- S "> *'7{... j i q.c GI' )„,z) O J i ` e... e'-E1. L L,1 %L'r— j� ,11 ��/ / „ 1 i r t /a r _7 ,f < a /` , ," 5 y/ , , C -,----,-vi--- , ,._ ' ' 14- 1-4')-c--- ..'/..\--,4 .4.-'. Aid..-(... x-, ,..„,,--/(„9_,,, C,---cmt-,5"-iiiis..,......-,...-,'> i/t..(,..,i ,,,, cP - 9 ') .e A ' ''''-A6 . ' '-e - ' •---- -., ' 1 ' .A.44__k--2,-.7L. rf7,---"if,',,, .. 4/4 _ :,',•:', ,..'-i_ id4„,,,./4 :7‘ 2-, - / jc,..c. ,19----ery - , 17/ /-0 _ ":,!'-., ,,-,",:,:,, 'd�✓ 6-''z-. ( j L,-z.� ,, ,,4 6`).'e-4-7'- 5' y " P.)(i /---1')'')r )-/ P i 2'-I.'7 7" • f,:--- , :1 Ao ii,,--,07' /L% 7 'Jt- L 0✓. c :,11.c.'74-4.11(-‘' it.,2__/-- '04,-,;e. / 5 / S Jt / Gtj,, 1'L. (-e c Ci,...t..4-4---(,-..., " S i , c_. ,.... ,, .., , 0,1 , , : ,,, 9 0( ,e."-I , , ,/2 -ci t:. „,„ ,..,,,,,,,/, ,. , .: . . .j, .,.... I G' (cT c-�!yt. k? ,`/ 6,yt t45' �-€ ,tti yr /`�� `�'� `� w , IGt. iir :d j2), 5 jG 66`e-c-IU' 1 ltd, ;4"c T )7, .- v�. /. .--_, ,''''' .r- 7,hr i ::,:., , 1,1,', , , (..-,-",..-=--t9, iti, , , •, „,,,„ ,. , ,, , :,,,,, ,s ay- t.. 1 r/1-3, BYC Sri. r C'.. /f--?*:t , r j / ,s ctrSSGGt 4 "& . ,. l' S I" G� GL 71.(`- � ,. - 4 J 7L / t / l ,..i!.., ht;g:7,-- C., e),( . t .-__,., . i, l l l-a j)Q--ed //l c_,.,,, ,,.z0, ire.,e- X52 ..07lt'p1; TC/A de-- Gt?,: C, f„)- 1L„( h, ' f d�- ,,''„ J /1'u, 6&/ ef , ., ,42 lt.,,.. ., t� ., {= u�5 hs .U” GM .e,e 01- .v...�-i,J G 4,,LA A iii,-..r-r-c - f,-,4/2 Xi ,r/ , : S / / ‘j 64-1,t,46 ._(-4,,,,4 i .,,t, .,,s/y, -,,,....f., ‘,.„),-..4-„,,,,,...7 , , :, . 0_,,,` 4 L'. . rX '- k .. 4 ._ mot '9` c7 G -� e ` � , ; c • }3.3 C/k . ..,6tiu0 s)' -mot erred t r e '1'r uc•C. a Cc<SS — ''' Gi111. ..S -cS ir-1 t-C-ei I' •'C.i /6o4 ' : - ups ; �Ir c C . c3f .. M t� .t � s a s ct K.; ,ti 4 G 1 k � --5 ,f ..,� ,� w 4 0 rte.--i .., ..........] -.,. r�rr4- ! ? Vii-'6. -k� s l'''":(5L - ' '',',1, :,':', ` � � � ,-/--- ..,47-1_,;,__...______ ifv....._1, „ ,,, ,..,..,. 4M) ''' . t_.. ?.....7e_. f:e 0A-4 ... ...:1-1,--4A,,--(.. -1 a.--6J----e)- . , ‘,-C, .., ._--'4--e.3.../,--,-G-y/spy-ak . - �# -�iA__ice-° f�et.- //a - . ..�, ... 7k'l i* . t1 / i d/< c _ ., :...,_,L,...„...,,,..„,_.,..,......._ . . . ,-..,,, . .,,,,„....,, _ , .. . . :,.::, ,,,,:, ... . ... b ry /Z Z`.-!t ,,,o-,7'- L� ip / .:, lG I U4 ,, 1 ;-//1 /id`, G-,.-e, / 1�I , -”i 'i'''''''''' ,'''.,.''''''''.''''',,,'' /1)o3 C e ►, 4 / J t,-, .c 481 v ,i...--7 '-'1--""--' ''''- - : C/() e �u Ltd C. �'c V / 4 1 k- , I ..gy�pp , /4) 0_,,,L....6-474-1,,L..r.- /,/ _s-X .i7/_z) , ,5':1. /{% f/ 24 -GAL-. ¢- I( j , ‹)--/e4 , /4..,,--'lt-ci-e. u..),`// _s- 11-6),,' --/J 4,e__. ._,(i_e,1-2/-te-,-.i? DIrif #) 1--- . , loi,L,4, - 1--(-yi,4_, , 0411_,,, , i /./r,__,...pir),.,,, rt:o.,_„, ,i,,,,,e. „., ,,,,e__,,i,,,_„(;) . __ r _ 71/L;.e tf') 4,r fN 1 v TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department 3S/ DATE: November 26, 1990 RE: A request for a Special Development District for the Sonnenalp redevelopment, located at 20 Vail Road; A part of Lot L, Block 5-E, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Sonnenalp Properties, Inc. I. INTRODUCTION Johannes Faessler, of Sonnenalp Properties, Inc. has filed a request to apply a Special Development District to his property located at 20 Vail Road. The applicant proposes a mixed use hotel complex. The reason the applicant is applying for an SDD is that variations from the Public Accommodation (PA) underlying zoning are needed for: a 24 percent density increase, a height variance allowing 81 feet where 48 feet is the maximum height, setbacks (on all four sides) , a reduction in the number of loading berths required (1 is proposed, 3 are required) , an increase in the amount of accessory hotel floor area (23% of the GRFA where 10% is allowed) , and an increase in the amount of common area (84% of the GRFA where 20% is allowed) . Section II of this memo (Zoning Analysis) has a detailed comparison of the proposed SDD to the Public Accommodation zone district requirements. II. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Listed below is a summary outline of the proposed redevelopment request: A. Bavaria Haus Hotel (immediately east of First Bank) Establish SDD with existing, underlying Public Accommodation zoning for the hotel redevelopment. Increase accommodation units from 72 to 124 units. Eliminate 10 existing dwelling units. Maintain all units as lodge units. Install gas burning fireplaces. No additional wood- burning fireplaces are requested. There are currently four wood-burning fireplaces in the building, one in the lobby and three in hotel rooms at the mezzanine level of the existing structure. Add 4 0 square feet of conferenc space for a total of 7930 .�.. uare feet. Construct the redevelopment to the following heights: West side: 51 - 81 ft. North side: 49 - 57 ft. East side: 52 ft. South side: 24 ft. B. Landscaping Construct a pedestrian walkway, attached to the east side of the existing Vail Road bridge, over Gore Creek. - Construct a pocket park south of the Swiss Chalet and adjacent to Willow Bridge Road. However, this property appears to be owned by Vail Associates and as far as the Town is aware, VA has not formally, or conceptually agreed to have a pocket park developed at that location. Construct a sidewalk along the east side of Vail Road, and construct improvements such as planters and sidewalks along E. Meadow Drive. - Install landscaping along the north and west elevations. C. Parking and Loading - Construct a parking garage with 185 spaces regular spaces: 127 compact spaces: 25 valet spaces: 33 Remove the existing exterior parking lot - Locate all parking underground. The primary access to the parking structure will be from Vail Road, adjacent to the First Bank Building. Surface loading/delivery will remain at the southwest corner of the property. D. Other Construct retail commercial space of 5, 760 square feet. Expand restaurant and lounge area for a total of 6657 square feet. 2 III. ZONING ANALYS - The project ' s departure from the PA zone district standards are highlighted in bolt type. SONNENALP ZONING ANALYSIS UNDERLYING ZONING: EXISTING PROPOSED PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION PROJECT SDD Site Area: 2 . 024 acres or Same Same 88, 165 sq. ft. Setbacks: 20 feet all sides N=Meadow Dr: 20 ft. N = 10 ft. W=Vail Road: 13 ft. W = 0 ft. S=Gore Creek: 4 ft. S = 1 ft. E=Talisman: 0 ft. E = 7 ft. Height: 45 ft. flat roof 42.0 ' - ridge 81. 0 ' - ridge 48 ft. sloping roof 23.5 ' - eave (maximum) GRFA: 70, 532 sq. ft. 30, 122 sq. ft. 70, 113 sq. ft. Units: 25 units per acre, or 46 units 62 units 50 units for the site. (72 a.u. & 10 d.u. ) (124 a.u. ) Site Coverage: 48 , 491 sq. ft. 17 ,984 sq. ft. 44 , 378 sq. ft. or 55 % or 20 % or 50 . 3 % Landscaping: 30% of site or 29, 926 sq. ft. 40, 363 sq. ft. 26, 450 sq. ft. or 33 . 9 % or 45 . 8 % Parking: Per Town of Vail Required: 105 Required: 169*** parking standards Provided: 101 Proposed: 127 spaces 25 compact 33 valet 185 Total Loading: Per Town of Vail Required: 3 berths loading standards Proposed: 1 berth Accessory Uses: 10% of the 18 % or 23 % or Commercial, constructed GRFA 5,396 sq. ft. 15,866 sq ft. Restaurant, or 7,011 sq. ft. Lounge: Common Area: 20% of Allowed GRFA 20% or 84% or or 14 , 106 sq. ft. 13,862 sq. ft. 59 ,497 sq. ft. 4c, 31/ Gross Floor Area: N/A 49, 380 sq. ft. 145, 476 sq. ft. (does not include structured parking) ***Required parking includes a 5% credit for multiple use parking facilities per Town of Vail parking code, Section 18 . 52 . 120 . 2 Also allows for non-conforming parking credit (see attachments for breakdown) . 3 IV. SDD CRITER- In order to avoid too much repetition of Staff comments, we have tried to list our comments under the most appropriate criteria heading. This is not to imply that many of the comments do not relate to several headings or planning documents. Upon completion of the submittal requirements, the following review criteria will be used to assess the merits of the Sonnenalp redevelopment: A. Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment, neighborhood and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones , identity, character, visual integrity and orientation. Height: Staff strongly objects to the maximum height of 77 feet for the Vail Road building elevation and 81 feet for the elevator tower given the Vail Village context. The heights of the surrounding buildings are 47 . 5 for the Vail Village Inn (VVI) ridge, 70 for the VVI tower, and 20 for the ridge - of the chapel . Though the VVI tower is tall, it is an architectural accent to the rest of the building. Its slender proportions are such that it is a tower. The "tower" above the auto court is designed with proportions which make it appear quite massive (i.e. "a building") and should not be labeled as a tower. Staff acknowledges that a certain number of rooms must be obtained in order to construct a project of this magnitude. However, the Vail Village Master Plan calls out for a range of heights between 27 ' and 36 ' , plus a roof, on the southern portion of the site. The mass above the auto court and the elevator tower are proposed in this same area, at 45 to 50 feet above the limit recommended in the Master Plan. Along East Meadow Drive, the Village Plan recommends heights of 18-27 feet plus a roof. Proposed heights in this area range from 49 . 5 ' to 57 . 5 ' . The PA zone district allows for 2-`$- 3' a maximum height of 48 ft. for sloping roofs. t,s4 Staff believes that the Sonnenalp proposal needs to comet/ m 4S S� more into compliance with these recommended heights. It is positive that the height of the building along Vail Road hasvV! •i been reduced from the originally proposed height of 102 it) 1 .cr feet, down to 77 feet. As mentioned in the two previous work session memos, height should terrace down to Vail Road and East Meadow Drive to respect pedestrian areas as well as _ ,,)(D1' � views from public areas. Character In staff' s analysis, a significant deviation from the character of the Village is the formal, unbroken facade 4 along East Me .ow Drive. The arcade extE s 165 feet without any relief, though there are a variety of dormer treatments in the roof. The master plan calls for two "plazas with green space" along this section of Meadow Drive, which would break up this facade. Tying both sides of the street together has not been accomplished in this proposal . This is not to say that the overall architectural style is not of high quality. However, the mass of the building is too large in relation to the site and surrounding properties; the building does not fit the scale of the Village; and more relief from the formal architectural style is needed on Meadow Drive. B. Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. Density, GRFA and Uses: The proposal, though all lodge rooms, will have a density 24% greater than the allowable. Staff supports the plan to have lodge rooms only, but is concerned that the density, in conjunction with the height, is too much for the site. The applicant does comply with the GRFA limitation for the site; however, the GRFA calculation only counts the residential oti areas. The accessory uses exceed the allowable by 13% and 54/iC-1)6' the common area exceeds the allowable by 64% . As a result, ee. &l the mass of the project is much larger than what the zoning code allows . (The specific breakdown of the accessory area and common area can be found in Section III . Briefly, what A:aw PA zoning allows is 10% of GRFA for accessory and 20% for common. What is proposed is 23% and 84%, respectively. ) It is common for the staff to support increases in common area above the allowable. In this case, the common area, in conjunction with the accessory use increase, is causing the building mass to become excessive. Concerning uses, the mix of lodging, commercial and conference space is appropriate and supports the goals of the Vail Village Master Plan. C. Compliance with parking and loading requirements as outlined in Chapter 18 . 52 . Parking: All parking will be provided on site. 33 spaces (17 . 8 percent) will be valet. 25 spaces (13 .5%) will be compact. A positive aspect of this proposal is that the existing surface parking will be placed underground. There will be no surface parking except for six spaces in the auto court. The Town ' s parking analysis indicates that the redevelopment would provide a surplus of 16 parking spaces. The staff would strongly recommend that the 13 existing surface parking spaces for the Swiss Chalet (adjacent to Willow Bridge Road) be incorporated into the new underground parking and that the surface spaces be removed. This will allow the applicant to convert this space from a parking lot to a pedestrian area. As this is a specific aim of the Vail Village Master Plan, staff provides more details on this 5 issue in t t section. Loading: The Zoning Code requires three berths. The applicant is proposing one. In discussions with the applicant, it is evident that he believes the hotel programming requires only one. However, since all commercial tenants located along Meadow Drive will service their shops via the auto court, staff believes that two of the spaces in the auto court should be reserved for loading. This would bring the development up to the Town standards for loading. Staff is also concerned that if two spaces within the auto court are not specifically designated for loading, the delivery trucks may try to use Meadow Drive or the area adjacent to the southwest corner of Crossroads. D. Conformity with applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, Town policies and Urban Design Plans. Because of the many different goals, policies, and illustrative plans that pertain to this proposal, a separate section of the memo discusses the compliance of the project with the Vail Village Master Plan. The intention to maintain all of the units as accommodation units fits well with the Town policies. Any conversions of these to condominium units in the future should be prohibited. E. Identification and mitigation of natural and/or geologic hazards that affect the property on which the special development district is proposed. The floodplain is the only hazard which could affect the site. The applicant is not proposing any construction in the 50 foot Gore Creek stream setback or the floodplain. F. Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions designed to produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural features , vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community. Site plan/Setbacks The building will encroach into all setbacks. PA zoning requires 20 foot setbacks on all sides of the property. The applicant has relocated the building to meet the setback line in many cases, which is an improvement over previous proposals but still has ten areas of encroachment. The specific points of encroachment in each setback, starting with the loading dock area on the southwest corner of the site are: West 1. The loading dock encroaches 8 '-9 ' into the Vail Road setback; 6 2 . The ew kitchen and Bully encrc h 15 ' -0" into the Vail Road setback; 3 . The rooms above auto court entry encroach 3 ' -9" into the Vail Road setback; 4 . The tower on the corner of Meadow Drive and Vail Road encroaches 7 ' 6" into the Vail Road setback and 7 ' 0" into the East Meadow Drive setback; North 5. The roof over the arcade encroaches into the Meadow Drive setback 3 ' 9" ; 6 . The tower on the east end of the project encroaches 10 ' 0" into the east side setback; East 7. A stair encroaches 15 '5" into a setback abutting the Talisman site; South 8 . The swimming pool encroaches 8 ' 0" into the rear setback; 9. The King Ludwig deck (above) and the conference room area (below) encroach 5 ' 0" into the rear setback; and 10 . The loading area encroaches 20 ' 0" into the rear setback creating a zero rear setback situation. The encroachment which concerns staff the most is the one required for the kitchen and loading dock area on the southwest corner`uf the property. Staff has worked with the applicant in reducing the mass and bulk of the building on this corner as much as possible, but believes that it still has the most impact of all the encroachments. Another encroachment of concern is the swimming pool . The Zoning Code allows recreational amenities to encroach into the setback if the Design Review Board determines that the location is not detrimental environmentally or aesthetically. Staff believes that in this case, the Gore Creek corridor should be maintained as natural as possible to preserve its aesthetic appeal . Staff does not support the pool in this location and would recommend that the pool be pulled back out of the setback. The two tower encroachments on either end of the building along Meadow Drive are not problems in staff' s opinion, if the heights were reasonable. Staff believes that undulating the building along Meadow Drive and allowing the towers to come out closer to the street gives more definition to the public space and is a benefit. The master plan calls for plazas in two locations on either side of the tower locations. The concept shown in the open space plan is accompanied by a relat :d concept in the height plan which limits the height to 2-3 stories. The two must go together to make the Meadow Drive corridor work. Therefore, if the heights were reduced to 2-3 stories, the setback encroachments would actually be a contribution to the streetscape. 7 Natural Fe pares The site is generally flat with Gore Creek running along the south side of the property. Significant landscaping also exists along East Meadow Drive, in the center of the parking area, and adjacent to the Bully III deck. The applicant has taken advantage of the beauty of Gore Creek and has located the spa and garden along the creek. Staff believes that adding a streamwalk along the creek would allow more guests in Vail to enjoy this natural feature. G. A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and off-site traffic circulation. Talisman/Sonnenalp Coordination: Coordination between the proposed Sonnenalp SDD and the existing Talisman Condominiums is necessary. Staff encourages the two owners to work together on access, landscaping, and parking for the two projects in a comprehensive manner. The Town Fire Department continues to have major concerns over emergency access to both properties . Traffic: This will be discussed in the section of the memo dealing with the Environmental Impact Report. Pedestrians: The design of the project has provided some improvements for pedestrians. The applicants will provide a sidewalk along Vail road from the corner of Meadow Drive to Gore Creek. At that point, they will construct a pedestrian bridge over the creek so that pedestrians- can continue to walk south of the creek. Staff supports the idea of the pedestrian bridge; however, at this time, we do not have specific design drawings of the proposal. Along East Meadow Drive, the design could be improved for pedestrians by providing a stronger interface between the pedestrian street and the store fronts. What is also missing from the project is the streamwalk and permission for the pocket park allowing public access to Gore Creek. H. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve natural features , recreation, views and functions. The proposal has provided an optimal garden area in the center and south side of the site. Though this is good preservation of open space, it is limited to the hotel guests. The hotel has been designed so that the building is located close to Vail Road and Meadow Drive. By not providing open space west or north of the building, the public does not benefit from the open space on-site. 8 0 S k& E 111 ° fs�� ° Staff recommends that the applicant create a plaza/planting 'V p nting area across from WI, to provide some public open space. This has been discussed during the review process since it is called out for in the open space plan of the Vail Village (��olrLr Master Plan. Not only would it provide some open space on V the site which the public would benefit from, it would break - - Y up the hard line of the Meadow Drive facade. It would also allow for a concentration of landscaping, and would create a space where the WI, the Sonnenalp, and the pedestrian way are brought together. 61"'t There are also other ways to provide publicly accessible open space, such as including the pocket park on VA land or w, ,ae&I the streamwalk. (The applicant has not received permission from the owner to develop a pocket park in this area. Staff did the research which, at this point, shows that VA is the owner. The applicant has not yet shown that a pocket park in this location is feasible. ) I. Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional and efficient relationship throughout the development of the special development district. See discussion under the EIR analysis. J. Outstanding concerns from other departments 1. Fire Department: The proposed building must be equipped with fire sprinklers throughout; Access to the Talisman must be assured as per UFC 10-207 ; The existing building must be equipped with fire sprinklers throughout and must have access per UFC 10-207 ; Fire flows must be provided in agreement with Upper Eagle Valley Water and Sanitation District; Conference room exiting is inadequate. 2 . Public Works: An amended traffic analysis is required; The Talisman parking area does not function properly, as currently designed. A minimum sidewalk width of 6 feet, on Vail Road, will be required for the full length of the project. Drainage improvements along Vail Road and East Meadow Drive will be needed. 3 . Landscape Architect: The stream walk should be shown on the site plan. The applicant will need to submit a revised 9 ndscaping plan if proposed -hanges to Vail Road approved. Maintenance of landscaped areas and sidewalks shall be the owner's responsibility. The conceptual landscape plan appears to be acceptable. A detailed planting and irrigation plan should be submitted for review. V. VAIL VILLAGE MASTER PLAN In general, the staff believes that the Sonnenalp project should be much more responsive to the Vail Village Master Plan. The previous two work session memos listed many areas where the project could comply more closely with the Village Plan. In most cases, the previous staff comments apply to the revised proposal since the applicant has failed to address the concepts of the plan. Staff believes that one of the most important parts of the Master Plan is the conceptual building height diagram. The portion of that plan which includes the Sonnenalp project is shown below. The corner treatment for Vail Road and Meadow Drive should be 2-3 stories. The rest of the site is called out at 3-4 stories. The project severely deviates from the Master Plan as it is 4 stories on the corner and rises up to 6 stories above the auto court. Alt ,.� -`- �3 s 1,-%ardijoirligW . 42r` " .. ymIZ�4 :. 1 ` * CONCEPTUAL ' BUILDING - /^_ -N HEIGHT PLAN During the review, it has been mentioned that the master plan is not applicable to a demo/rebuild such as this. The master plan, by definition, cannot address the aspects of every construction project. But the policies and objectives of the plan do apply to 10 all projects. When the plan developed, the appropriate scale for redevelopoment was established with consideration of surrounding properties and the overall streetscape. The principle design concepts are relevant and applicable even if a demo-rebuild is proposed. The specific goals, objectives, and sub-area plans which pertain to this project are listed below. In the following analysis of the Master plan information, the staff comments are in bold, the important points of the plan are underlined, and the regular type is the rest of the Master Plan text. A. Sub-Area #1-2 - Vail Road Intersection _ #1-2 Vail Road Intersection 11� Possible realignment of `-ti_ intersection in conjunction with \ r relocation of the Ski Museum. Focus of redesign should be to .t.„I, establish a small park and ✓ ;� , ,III` pedestrian entry for the west end �, :....011�I of the Village and to provide a �-� ` c , .°111 visual barrier to discourage �1 �� vehicular traffic from heading „a, 1-2 �� I south on Vail Road from the 4-way ^ 5C ��-� y, stop. Specific design of Ski j !`=/ Museum site to be included in West �, Meadow Drive pedestrian ) /� i rayC/ improvement project. The 1�! pedestrian connection both north °"`".�(\ .( �, , ,=• and south along Vail Road should • also be improved. Special emphasis on 3.2, 3.4, 4.1, 5.3, 5.4. Sub-Area #1-2 states: "Possible realignment of intersection in conjunction with relocation of the Ski Museum. Focus of redesign should be to establish a small park and pedestrian entry for the west end of the Village and to provide a visual barrier to discourage vehicular traffic from heading south on Vail Road from the 4-way stop. Specific design of Ski Museum site to be included in West Meadow Drive pedestrian improvement project. The pedestrian connection both north and south alone Vail Road should also be improved. " The project does provide a six foot wide sidewalk along the full length of the west side of the property. The sidewalk will be made out of pavers and will extend from the northwest corner plaza area to the pedestrian bridge that the applicant will install over Gore Creek. These improvements serve to implement this concept. 11 B. Sub-Area #1-3 - Sonnenalp (Bavaria Haus) Infill Commercial infill development with second floor residential/lodging to enclose Meadow Drive and improve the quality of the pedes- trian experience. Designated et P t �^� walkways and plazas with greenspace should interface with �~ _. those of the Vail Village Inn. A pedestrian walkway (possibly p arcade) should be provided to T-2 4.211 ..a.- encourage encourage pedestrian circulation physically removed from West Meadow Drive. Mass of building should not create a shadow pattern ,1 on Meadow Drive. Development will /�/.�..... require coordination and/or C " / • involvement with adjacent property owners. Existing and new parking demand to be provided on site. Special emphasis on 1.2, 1.3, 2.3, Sub-Area #1-3 states: 2.4, 2.6, 3.1, 3.4, 4.1, 5.1, 6.1. "Commercial infill development with second floor residential/lodging to enclose Meadow Drive and improve the quality of the pedestrian experience. Designated walkways and plazas with green space should interface with those of the Vail Village Inn. A pedestrian walkway (possibly arcade) should be provided to encourage pedestrian circulation physically removed from Meadow Drive. Mass of building should not create a shadow pattern on Meadow Drive. Development will require coordination and/or involvement with adjacent property owners. Existing and new parking demand to be provided on site. " Meadow Drive will be completely shaded in the winter. The ridge along Meadow Drive will cast a shadow 98 feet long at noon on December 21st. This will completely cover Meadow Drive. Even on the equinox dates (March 21 and September 21) , the shadow cast will be 43 feet long. Staff understands that some shadow will be cast by any redevelopment that occurs along Meadow Drive; however, the mass of this proposal and the way the roof line is unvaried makes the shadow impact worse than alternative designs that were discussed in the review process. In the EIR, the applicant claims that the building will shade the street for only a short period of time without specifying the length. Staff believes that this statement is misleading and more information is needed on this impact. Staff is also very concerned about the possible icing of East Meadow Drive, given the location and height of the new building. Please see comments on project design, parking, circulation, and landscaping under SDD criteria. 12 C. Sub-Area #1-5 - Willow Bridge Road Walkway I -r% #1-5 Willow Bridge Road Walkway 6. A decorative paver pedestrian walkway, separated from the street and accented by a strong landscaped area to encourage , •• 1, )- pedestrian circulation along 0 _ Meadow Drive. Loss of parking •" 4 \ will need to be relocated on site. 4• 1 Special emphasis on 3.4, 5.1. Sub-Area #1-5 states: "A decorative paver pedestrian walkway, separated form the street and accented by a strong landscaped area to encourage pedestrian circulation along Meadow Drive. Loss of parking will need to be relocated on site. " The diagrams in the Master Plan show the area discussed in the paragraph above and the area along Willow Bridge Road blending into one another. The applicant has expressed an interest in removing the parking that exists there now and converting the space into a pedestrian area. The parking garage that will be built in this proposal has 16 extra spaces. There are 13 spaces in front of the Swiss Chalet. Because the applicant is proposing to consolidate the front desks for these two buildings, the parking can be located in the garage of the main building. Staff recommends that the applicant redesign the space and convert it into a pedestrian area according to the Master Plan. It was mentioned by a Planning Commissioner at the first work session that this Sub-Area Concept be addressed through the Sonnenalp proposal. Staff also agrees with this suggestion that it be incorporated into the project. 13 D. Sub-Area #1-4 - Sonnenalp East (Swiss Chalet) Infill #1-4 Sonnenalp East (Swiss Chalet) Infill c Commercial infill of north facing ° •D' k alcove of existing structure to ,'•�� j, • !'? / provide shops and pedestrian • �f- \./s, activity. A plaza with greenspace ...,,. 4 \ `, •' f shall be developed in conjunction with the adjacent plaza at the Vail Village Inn. Fire access and • on-site parking are two issues to be addressed in the design, and i12 • development of this project. • Special emphasis on 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, r' v 3.1, 3.2, 4.1, 5.1, 6.1, 6.2. "Commercial infill of north facing alcove of existing structure to provide shops and pedestrian activity. A plaza with greenspace shall be developed in conjunction with the adjacent plaza at the Vail Village Inn. Fire access and on- site parking are two issues to be addressed in the design and development of this project. " Two issues in this sub-area recommendation pertain to the proposal. One is to develop a plaza for pedestrian activity outside the Swiss Chalet. This area is intended to relate to the VVI as well as Willow Bridge Road. This improvement relates directly to the recommendation for the Willow Bridge Road walkway, which is discussed in the paragraph above. The second issue involves fire access. The Town' s Fire Department has determined that access to the Talisman is not adequate as proposed. 14 E. Sub-Area #1-9 - Study Area: Village Streamwalk Sub-Area #1-9 states: 41-9 Study Area Village Streamwalk Study of a walking only path along .r ,' .�`1 ' s ; • -� Gore Creek between the Covered Bridge and Vail Road, connecting ®� • �! ti to existing streamwalk, further � �` • \ �� enhancing the pedestrian network I throughout the Village and �7-9`-' WILLOW • �rr „3 providing public access to the ® 9 ®� 1 ® A,. ., creek. Specific design and m ""` ' °""' location of walkway shall be • = • - C sensitive to adjacent uses and the Oji �� /� lip`; �: creek environment. (Reference to Vail Recreational Trails Plan for " I,� additional information on this rc;��'•� ll LODGE �, trail) . Special emphasis on 3.4, 4.2. "Study of a walking only path along Gore Creek between the Covered Bridge and Vail Road, connecting to existing streamwalk, further enhancing the pedestrian network throughout the Village and providing public access to the creek. Specific design and location of walkway shall be sensitive to adjacent uses and the creek environment. " Staff believes that a stream walk is in the best interests of the Town. Expanding the existing popular recreational amenity is worthwhile, especially since staff believes it can be designed in a way that is sensitive to the hotel proposal. Benching a walkway down near the stream appears to be feasible. Additional landscaping is another way to buffer the walk from the hotel' s garden area. Developing pedestrian-only walkways and stream access fulfills Objective 3.4 of the Master Plan, which reinforces the goal of this sub-area. Because a streamwalk is an effective way to provide a natural experience within the Village, and because it could be built sensitively to the hotel, staff believes the applicant should incorporate it into the site plan. F. Emphasized Goals & Policies Below is a list of the specific objectives of the Master Plan. With the exceptions of the objectives dealing with employee housing and the streamwalk, the proposal generally meets the list below. Staff believes that the project ' s primary positive aspects include its provision of accommodation units, the parking plan, the pedestrian bridge and the fact that this is a good site for a mixed use redevelopment. 15 1.2 Objective: Encourage the upgrading and redevelopment of residential and commercial facilities. 1. 3 Objective: Enhance new development and redevelopment through public improvements done by private developers working in cooperation with the Town. 2 . 3 Objective: Increase the number of residential units available for short term overnight accommodations. 2 . 4 Objective: Encourage the development of a variety of new commercial activity where compatible with existing land uses. 2 .5 Objective: Encourage the continued upgrading, renovation and maintenance of existing lodging and commercial facilities to better serve the needs of our guests. 2 . 6 Objective: Encourage the development of affordable housing units through the efforts of the private sector. 3 . 1 Objective: Physically improve the existing pedestrian ways by landscaping and other improvements. 3 . 4 Objective: Develop additional sidewalks, pedestrian-only walkways and accessible green space areas, including pocket parks and stream access. 4 . 1 Objective: Improve existing open space areas and create new plazas with green space and pocket parks. Recognize the different roles of each type of open space in forming the overall fabric of the Village. 5. 1 Objective: Meet parking demands with public and private parking facilities. 6. 1 Objective: Provide service and delivery facilities for existing and new development. 16 H. Illustrative Plans. 1. Land Use Plan: a. North side of Sonnenalp site, "Mixed Use. " This category includes the "historic" Village core and properties near the pedestrianized streets of the Village. Lodging, retail and a limited amount of office use are found in this category. With nearly 270, 000 square feet of retail space and approximately 320 residential units, the mixed use character of these areas is a major factor in the appeal of Vail Village. Since the proposal is mixed use, it fits well with this Master Plan illustration. b. South side of Sonnenalp site, "Medium/High Density Residential and Mixed Use. " Medium/High Density The overwhelming majority of the Village ' s lodge rooms and condominium units are located in this land use category. Approximately 1, 100 units have been developed on the 27 acres of private land in this category. In addition, another 110 units are approved but unbuilt. It is a goal of this Plan to maintain these areas as predominantly lodging oriented with retail development limited to small amounts of "accessory retail. " Mixed Use (along Meadow Drive and Willow Road) This category includes the "historic" Village core and properties near the pedestrianized streets of the Village. Lodging, retail and limited amount of office use are found in this category. With nearly 270, 000 square feet of retail space and approximately 320 residential units, the mixed use character of these areas is a major factor in the appeal of Vail Village. The project complies with the types of uses called for in the Illustrative Land Use Plan. 2 . Open Space Plan: 17 a. "Planted Buffer" is designated on north and west side of site. b. "Plaza with green space" is designated on north side of property connecting to the Vail Village Inn and on eastern property adjacent to Swiss Chalet and VVI sculpture plaza. c. "Open Space" is designated along entire stream corridor. The proposal does not provide a ',Plaza with green space!!. Though a plaza at this location would benefit the area by: Tying in with the VVI buildings, reducing the shadow cast by the structure, and providing some public open space. At this time, these goals are not addressed in a comprehensive way. 3 . Parking and Circulation Plan: a. East Meadow Drive is designated as a pedestrian street with plazas, limited or no autos and a bus route. The Gore Creek corridor is designated as a study area for a walking path. East Meadow will continue to be a pedestrian corridor; however, the proposal does not include a stream walk. 4 . Building Height Plan: a. The area along East Meadow Drive is recommended to be a maximum of two to three stories or 18 to 27 ft. high. Three to four stories (27 ft to 36 ft. ) is designated on the southern three quarters of the property. All heights exclude roof forms. As this is one of the most important components of the Master Plan, staff discussed this item in the first section of the memo on page four. 18 VI. EIR ANALYSIS A. Hydrologic Conditions The applicant will be altering the existing drainage along Vail Road significantly. Currently there is a rock lined ditch that conveys the water to Gore Creek. Curb and gutter will be installed. All drainage improvements must meet Town of Vail standards and will be reviewed for compliance at time of building permit. Drainage from the parking structure will be drained to the sanitary sewer. Details for the parking structure drainage have not been put together at this time. Staff recommends that the kgs_t possible pollution control devices,_ including grease traps and sediment traps, should be installed in the d . ' .. . - stem. ?The one area of concern that the Town has regarding drainage is how it will be handled during construction of the project. Dewatering any excavation pits into Gore Creek could negatively impact the creek unless the sediment is removed. The Environmental Impact Report completed by the applicant commits the applicant to undertake erosion and dewatering control measures according to the best available practices o ensure that the creek impacts are minimized. B. Atmospheric Conditions The three ways this project will impact air quality are through fireplaces, dust control, and automobile trips to the site. Concerning fireplaces, all units in the hotel are proposed to have gas burning fireplaces. The air emissions from these gas burning appliances will be negligible. There are four existing wood burning fireplaces in the hotel which will remain. Dust is an impact that is generated from the construction process and through the sanding of the existing parking lot. During construction, the applicant in the EIR commits to undertake efforts to contrcl the dust. By locating the parking underground and eliminating the need for sanding, air quality will be improved. The last possible impact is from automobile trips. 19 With 40 additional rooms, there will be additional trips to the site. Staff believes that this is a reasonable increase and that further documentation is not needed. The hotel ' s mini-van service combines trips that some guests might otherwise make individually in their own cars. Given the benefit of gas appliance fireplaces, eliminating the sanding in the winter from the parking lot, the negative impact of the additional trips is offset. C. Geologic and Biotic Conditions The proposal does not change the impacts relating to geologic and biotic conditions. D. Visual Conditions The applicant has used seven photographs taken of the Village to show how the proposal will relate to surrounding structures. The building outline has been shown in tape. Concerning the view looking east on West Meadow Drive (#1) , the EIR consultant claims that few people will view the Sonnenalp from this point since foot traffic is minimal in the area. Staff strongly disagrees with this analysis. Since Meadow Drive is a bus and pedestrian route linking the Village to Lionshead, staff believes this view will be highly noticeable. All of the views of the building from points in the Village show that the ski slopes, the mountain, and the sky will be blocked. (3 , 5 , 6 and 7) The view east from the First Bank and chapel area will be completely blocked. (#5) The views from the four way stop (#2 and 4) show that the building will not exceed the highest ridge of Vail Mountain, as it will from the vantage points in the Village. This is because the elevation of the four way stop is higher than the site of the project. Staff realizes that some view impacts are inevitable if the project is redeveloped. However, we believe the building as proposed has severe view impacts which are not supportable given the scale of the surrounding areas. 20 E. Land Use Conditions The uses proposed are compatible with those around the site. This issue has been analyzed in the SDD and Vail Village Master Plan sections of the memo. F. Circulation and Transportation conditions The traffic study, done by Leigh, Scott and Cleary, Inc. , concluded that the capacity of the surrounding road ,network can generally handle the traffic generated by the project. The ornTy street improvement recommended was to provid-e—three lanes in 'al Road' s exis ing di gnme-nt---The new lane -is or a left turn ane. The original study recommended that the three lanes be provided with substandard lane widths so that the street would not have to be widened. Other significant findings from the study include: At full occupancy, the proposed project can be expected to add approximately 175 entering and 175 exiting weekday vehicle trips to the surrounding roadway system. Of these, 14 will enter and 12 will exit during the evening peak-hour. The greatest concentration of project- generated traffic is expected along Vail Road to and from the north. Ninety-three percent of the additional traffic will pass though the four way stop. The traffic impact of the proposed project on existing and future peak season traffic will be minimal. The first traffic study, dated October 4 , 1990, was completed based on national averages of trip generation and does not accurately reflect Vail traffic patterns. (See attached report. ) The applicant and the Town did independent studies of the parking demand for the existing hotel which showed that the supply exceeds the dz.-and. Because of this information and the general agreement on this issue between the staff and the applicant, a revised traffic study was submitted. The issue which needed clarification was the requirement for a center lane to allow left turns into the autocourt. The first study, based on 21 national standards, determined that it was needed, but that substandard lanes would suffice. Since it is not reasonable for the Town to accept substandard lanes on one of the busiest roads in the Town, the second study dated November 15, 1990, based on local standards, was supposed to clarify the issue and determine what the new project would require. A major flaw of the second study is found in the conclusion. The consultants state that "if ; roadway widening is required in order to [provide ! three lanes] , the resultant expenditures are not '; justified, and we would recommend that the ? operation of Vail Road remain as a two-lane design. " Staff discussed the study with the engineer who prepared it and found that he had no documentation of the cost which "is not ; justified. " Staff does not concur that the cost/benefit analysis referred to in the conclusion is an appropriate means to determine what improvements the applicant is responsible s for. This is especially true when the cost, at \ the time the report was written, was unknown to the consultants. More importantly is the fact that a requirement to build the middle lane must be determined by amount of demand made by the new project. If the Sonnenalp generates the demand, they must mitigate the impact. Cost should not be a factor in this decision. At this time, the need for the third lane is not known. What is known is that the applicant has committed to placing curb and gutter at the edge of the street for the full length of Vail Road, and that the new edge will make the roadway either wider or narrower. Because the traffic report should determine that two or three lanes is needed, placing the curb and gutter at the existing edge of pavement would not be appropriate for either solution as it does not provide proper alignment for a two lane or three lane road design. A related issue to this is the need for accurate survey information. Setting the edge of pavement (whether it is two or three lanes) must be based on accurate information. The architectural drawings used up to November 8th showed the proposed curb eight feet from where it should have been. The applicant's solution was to shift all of Vail Road approximately eight feet to the west. 22 This shift must be verified with survey information showing both sides of Vail Road prior to any improvements being approved so that staff can verify that there are no impacts to First Bank. G. Population Characteristics The Sonnenalp currently employs approximately 270 employees during the winter season. The proposed redevelopment would add approximately 26 new employees per the EIR. Ten of these employees will be needed for housekeeping, a houseman, laundry service, and general hotel staffing. The consultants preparing the EIR assumed that 16 employees are enough to staff the additional commercial area. The applicant is assuming that no additional employees will be needed for the 4000 square feet of new conference area or for the 4700 square feet of new restaurant area. The applicant claims that the conference area requires the same staffing, regardless of size. Concerning the restaurant, the applicant has stated that he will use the existing Sonnenalp Austria House restaurant staff to serve the expanded Bavaria House area. (The Austria House is by the Covered Bridge, the Bavaria House is the one under consideration. ) The Austria House restaurant will shut down when the Bavaria House restaurants are open. The additional 26 employees will increase the total number to 296. The Sonnenalp currently provides housing for approximately 145 employees. 33 units are owned by the Sonnenalp, housing 67 employees and 20 units are rented by the Sonnenalp, housing 78 employees. This assumes that each bedroom houses two Sonnenalp employees. No additional employee housing is proposed by the Sonnenalp for the redevelopment, though statements , in the EIR acknowledge that the housing goals of the Sonnenalp are not being met. However, staff believes that a redevelopment of this magnitude should have some permanent employee housing. The material in the EIR states that "housing is of potential concern to both the Sonnenalp and the Town. " Staff needs to clarify this point and state that significant resources have already been ;: invested by the Town to address this issue. With 23 the adoption of the Town of Vail Affordable Housing Study on November 20, 1990, it is no longer a potential concern but is an issue that must be addressed formally. At this time, the report has been adopted and provides guideline for new development. At a later date, the report ' s recommendations will be incorporated into the Zoning Code. Using the recommendations from the study, staff determined the amount of housing which should be deed restricted using two calculations. For "by- right" projects, housing for 15% of the employees should be provided. For those projects with density increases, 16% - 30% of the employees should have housing provided by the employer. For example, the redevelopment will require an additional 26 employees. Since a density increase is needed for the expansion, the 30% multiplier is used: 26 employees x . 30 = 7 . 8 Assuming that two employees will share a dwelling unit, the 7 . 8 is divided by 2 , resulting a requirement for 4 dwelling units. Or, 26 employees x . 16 = 4 . 16 or 2 dwelling units. Staff believes that it is also appropriate to review the over all demand on housing that the project will generate. Given that the existing operation requires 270 employees, and meets density limits, staff believes that housing should be provided for these employees by using the 15% multiplier. 270 employees x . 15 = 40. 5 40. 5 divided by 2 equals 20 By combining the "by-right" demand with that generated by the density increase, a minimum of 20 of the Sonnenalp's existing employee units should be permanently deed restricted and at least four new employee units should be required for the density and retail above the allowable. Staff's calculations are based on the entire Sonnenalp employee demand as presented in the EIR. If a breakdown is done, showing the number of employees working at the Swiss and Austria 24 locations, the number of units to be restricted can be reduced accordingly. Staff's calculations also do not include any additional employees for the 4700 square feet of new restaurant area. Because this does not seem plausible, staff needs more information about this area before an accurate housing demand can be done. H. Phasing The construction will take place in three phases. Phase I includes the parking structure and elevator core. Mass excavation and shoring is planned to begin May 1, 1991. The parking garage is planned to be completed by September 13 , 1991. Y` The kitchen addition will be completed October 15, 1991. Phase II activity includes the new hotel tower and etev` "' the north wing with planned occupancy for December c 10 , 1992 . Phase III work includes the spa building, meeting rooms and the remodel to the existing hotel which will begin May 1, 1992 . The existing east wing of the hotel will be demolished 'Jltic%� between May 1, 1992 and June 5, 1992 . cl. m4.14114 cjik,74,r At this time, the applicant plans to build a paved road around the existing loading dock (southwest c1( ( ii '-V corner of site) for trucks to use during the demolition of the existing east wing. Staff is concerned about the impacts to the creek, and believes that another route can be found to haul the debris away from the site. _ Os I The second concern of staff is the parking for the of iv' Siwu eta construction workers. As the Town has seen with the construction of the parking structure and /21 Z Gateway, major projects require many employees and vehicles. We would like to see a plan explaining where the construction workers will park. The applicant, in the EIR, has said that partial closures of Vail Ro -R, will be needed. The Town understands that the road will never be completely gIas,ed. In addition, __ e own understands tha all deliveries to the site will occur from the Talisman access road or Vail Road but wi no take place via Meadow rive 25 VII. LAND USE PLAN The Land Use Plan refers to the Vail Village Master Plan for reviewing any requests for redevelopment in this area. VIII. CONCLUSION Although the project has positive aspects such as the lodge use, underground parking, sidewalks, and a f . pedestrian bridge, staff recommends denial of the Lt �r- project for many reasons. Using the SDD criteria, l• staff finds severe noncompliance with Criteria A: design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment. The height, at 81 feet, exceeds the 48 foot limit beyond what is compatible with the �L surrounding area. The mass of the building, exceeds the allowed accessory area and common area by 54 , 250 square feet. This square footage as indicated by the height, setbacks, minimal public spaces and shadow patters, is too much for the site. Criteria D, conformity with applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, town policies and urban design plans, has not been met. Several plans and illustrations from the Vail Village Master Plan have not been addressed. Specifically, the open space plan with plazas, the building height plan, the shade and shadow issues, and the streamwalk have not been addressed adequately. Criteria F, regarding the site plan, has not been met in that the concepts for the site plan results in a building layout that lacks quality public spaces . Staff does not believe that resulting site plan, reserving most of the open space on the site for hotel guests, is the best design for the community. Criteria G, regarding a circulation system designed for pedestrians and automobiles, has not been met, either. A major outstanding question is whether two or three lanes are needed in Vail Road. An additional traffic study is needed, as well as survey information to accurately locate the proposed improvements. The two issues discussed first are the fundamental problems with the project; however, there are numerous others which must be resolved prior to approval. The applicant has been aware of the Town' s concerns, in most cases, since the original work session. Staff believes that until they are resolved, the project 26 4 §. should not be approved. Staff asks that the applicant to table the SDD request and consider the staff comments. We believe the project has merit but additional design changes are necessary before staff could recommend approval of the project. 27 f 0 A-) ,r / fl.g i) . 7 , ...,., (--,-, e 4 1 e;6z et,r1 ,-- . C-„47. likt -‘'• 41 S,=)m3 5 C. LC).--- -,Lj ,--- r-- , .... ........,...,, -:' V 4( i / p_. (:,-...., ,9 --,-, -----, -----„, ,—, F"- 41- ,, ,... ..__„ ■ %, ■., . c-... )1/ti i ,-, ,..,.---,--c. cs- ,.....v,,t F,----- — _.•c_.. ,,,..._ , . .„. ._ . C C - A vi,e_cli_e ii-c.t vf.ei 4 0-,, h /1, 2---eto...3 ?ill r-,..0....",-/kr-c,,Z,-1 )Y,-- 64' '''. f a",,--t- ..,,,,,,,,___•,k,-/-6,4--1(' .. /c:c„.,,,,,...,__, f (--64---' 4_ ------o-2A--,----- e ,-.._ , 2 __.-- , f),,,,i„ ,,. ,.... / it„..C...cy—(.- LA,,,,,,,tbile iter,,J...2- 4.21A- AC-cz-e:41:0 yYzycyc__ . v 1-,--- (,, f 6-,--, --,./ ___ 1 ) 4 ..„ , . .. ,...„....._-___-_-_... ) li I1 -`(.17-:- 1 - - - - - - -- i v I-, ... . 1 ?V 1 1 • • : r . u� / - . I , i n : i t A Leigh, Scott & Cleary, nc." t / 11�1 S I 1889 York Street TRANSPORTATION PLANNING l l It Denver,Colorado 80206 &TRAFFIC LNGJNEERING CONSULTANTS (303)333-1105 Offices in Denver and Colorado Springs Fax: (303)333-1107 it November 15, 1990 Mr. Ken A. O'Bryan Pierce, Segerberg & Spaeh 1000 South Frontage Road West Vail, CO 80657 ' RE: Sonnenalp Ho 1 Expansion LSC #900410 Dear Ken: It has been brought to our at :ntion. that recent site-specific tra ic data indicates that the traffic generation estima == used in our Octo er 4, 1990 tra c re1port for the Sonnenalp expansion project are to. high. !As you ma recall,the ra are national averages published by the Institute of TrOsportation ngineers. t • The proposed project is expec d to *dsult in a to al of 124 hotel oo s. If the hotel were to generate entering traffic at a rate bbf half thatpreviously ass m , entering southbound left-turns would be lik y to 4proximate wenty during e peak hour. We previously recommended a painted eft-turn median a ong Vail Road o ve this and other nearby left-turn traffic. The easibility of such painted medi , h wever, was assumed to rest on not having to w den V'il Road. T e only require en specified were the covering of an existing ditch an instil lation of c b and gutter ja nt to Sonnenalp. It was also assumed t t the proposed ee-lane design o d be installed within the existing Vail Road cross tiop of approxi ately thirty f-:t. a would further recommend an 11-foot northbound lane, a .0-foot sou bound lane : • a -foot left-turn median. I ■ It is our understanding that there i4 some cone n about using :ne idths along Vail Road which are less than 12 feet. Tha 12-foot wi th is one whic• h been accepted as a design standard and, as such, works fiery well. It should be r_ gni , however, that the 12-foot design has been develo for high speed state high• ay editions such as 1-70. Application of this standard to to speed urban streets may •e desirable standard for new construction whe a righ of-way is fI"icient but it often unrealistic and, in our experience, unneceesar . For xample, th re are many i = of travel lanes with 10-foot widths or less w ich ction well long major str: -te n Denver and virtually any other major city. Eve the Colorado Hi way Departm-nt l?as reduced lane widths on I-70 near the Eisenhowe Tuni l to 11 feet in order to eco.omi ally allow the addition of a third travel lane. ii I Transportation Systems•Transit•Parking•Vehicular Access•P dcstnan&Bicycle Planning•.Traffic Operations&Sa ty•S. nal Design•Traffic Impact Studies • 1 Mr. Ken A. O'Bryan I 2 November 15, 1990 In our opinion, the recommend-. striping in the vicinity of the nnenalp will benefit traffic flow and safety, even • 'thou the proposed hotel expa 'on. However, if roadway widening is required in o .er to 0 ect this change, the reeul nt xpenditures are not justified, and we would reco men: that the operation of Vail a remain as a two-lane design. I •I • • 1 I 1 We trust flint this supplemen . inf I ation will assist with fu her lanning for the Sonnenalp project. Please call if w: can la of additional assistance. Respectfully submitted, ! LEIGH, SCOTT & CLEARY, INC. , I by: eI:Z' /A'-,Philip Sco , P.E. PNS/vb I 1 {f" / ;� 'lei l / / i_ \\ y L �v `t .—ma Niiii towu of vail y ■, �__ l 75 south frontage road = s� office of community de eiopmerit i veil,coloredo 81657 S 1 (303)479-2138 f (303)479-2139 i,� 5t \ 1 September 28, 1990 t L v. is fl \ C L Mr. Johannes Faessler -1,, The Sonnenalp Hotel 20 Vail Road Vail, CO 81657 RE: Sonnenalp Redevelopment Dear Johannes: Thank you for submitting revisions to the Sonnenalp project on Monday of last week. You were originally scheduled before the Planning and Environmental Commission on October 22, 1990; however, the material you submitted does not address all of the concerns previously raised by the staff. As a result, you must submit a complete application addressing all of the following items before staff will schedule you for a PEC meeting. The November 12, 1990 meeting is the following PEC hearing which the project could go to. To have adequate time to review the project, staff must have a complete application addressing all the concerns that have been raised a minimum of four weeks prior to the hearing.. To stay on track for November 12th, the deadline for the items on the list below is October 15th. These items have been taken from the previous two work session memos. We believe that there is nothing on this list that you are not aware of: 1. Traffic Analysis. 2. Employee Housing Demand Analysis and Proposed Employee Housing. What we are looking for here is a thorough description of the number of employees to run the proposed Sonnenalp and where these employees are likely to be housed. 3 . Written statement listing reasons why an SDD is necessary, and how the proposal departs from the underlying PA zone district requirements. 4 . A written statement addressing phasing for the project and construction management. 5. An updated view analysis, from the following areas: a. Ski Museum, future pocket park, looking toward project; b. West Meadow Drive looking east from the fire station/bank area to project; c. Bank entry looking east to project; d. 4 way stop looking south; e. East Meadow Drive looking west towards project. 6. A more detailed landscape plan indicating trees removed, added landscaping, and any landscaping on Town of Vail property. Also include water features, artwork, paths, plazas etc. per Section 18. 40. 050 (11) . At this time, a brief indication of the type of species is appropriate. We do not need detail ; what is more important are the concepts. The conceptual landscape plan should indicate the purpose of certain planting groups and the goals that you are trying to achieve with landscaping at specific parts of the project. 7. An EIR addressing all the requirements listed in section 18.56. 040 specifically: a. Drainage and all improvements along Creek. b. Air Quality, c. Visual Conditions, d. Land Use Plan, e. Circulation including Pedestrian and vehicular modes, and f. Population densities. 8. Submit a survey including topography and the 50 ft. Gore Creek setback. 9. Submit elevations of the proposed walkway connecting the spa building to the hotel. 10. A title report indicating ownership and easements. 11. Application fee of $400. 00. The SDD application is $500. 00; the file indicates that you have paid $100. 00 already and have a balance of $400. 00 left to pay. 12. Submit a new, accurate address for the River House. 13 . Please be informed that Jeff Winston, design consultant for the Town, is reviewing your project and that the cost for his review will be paid for by the applicant. 14. Identify all public benefits resulting from the project. 15. At a later date, staff will need 8-1/2" by 11" reduced drawings for the PEC and Town Council packets. 16. Please submit the model a minimum of three weeks prior to the PEC hearing. 17. Please find attached a summary of the staff' s comments (dated September 26, 1990) with regard to your project's overall design. Although this list may appear long, staff is pleased that it is shorter then the previous list. We feel that we have made considerable progress towards a better project and we look forward to continuing to work with you. Sincerely, ; J Andy Knudtsen Town Planner /1/1i4 /4/C874._ Mike Mollica Senior Planner /PP Enclosure xc: Jay Peterson Gordon Pierce Minutes of Staff Meeting with Kristan Pritz, Mike Mollica, Andy Knudtsen and Jeff Winston RE: Sonnenalp Redevelopment Date: September 26, 1990 BUILDING HEIGHT ISSUES: Overall building heights - we believe it may be acceptable to step the building up to four stories, only in certain areas, and then step it back down to three. Generally, 2-3 stories would be the accepted maximum for this building, along the East Meadow Drive area, with 3-4 stories being acceptable for the remaining areas of the property (see Vail Village Master Plan) . The proposed tower on the northwest corner of the property may be acceptable but we believe that the building would have to step back horizontally and that the facades of the building would have to vary before we could support the height of the tower at this location. We believe that the entire building is too monolithic. If the majority of the building were smaller in scale, then maybe the proposed tower could be acceptable. Perhaps make the tower more slender and more in the form of an actual tower. We believe that the proposed elevator tower is out of scale and draws too much attention to itself. We also believe that the elevator tower is too close to the larger (exclamation point) tower. We feel that one of these towers should be eliminated. Flat roofs are a concern--see Section C, page A19. Will the flat roofs be visible from the 4-way stop, or other areas surrounding the property? VAIL ROAD ISSUES: Loading Dock and Enclosure -- Staff believes that the proposed expansion of the new enclosure is too close to Gore Creek. This leaves only approximately 9-12 feet between the building's loading area and the bridge, and this corner of the building also encroaches into the Gore Creek 50 ' setback. Perhaps the loading dock area should be kept open and the use of pavers be utilized. Another concern is whether or not the proposed service and delivery area is adequate in size. Staff needs to review the loading standards in the zoning code. There is a question of how large trucks access the proposed service and delivery area. Will Vail Road be used as a turnaround area? Will trucks extend out into Vail Road when in the loading bay? 1 The applicant should identify the square footage of the existing outdoor dining deck that would be lost with the proposal, specifically the areas for the Bully III restaurant. Vail Road Sidewalk--Staff believes the proposed 5 ' width for the sidewalk would not allow for a positive pedestrian experience. The applicant should make this sidewalk wider, at least in places, and seating areas should be added. A serpentine walk would be much more acceptable. Question whether the applicant should redo the model. Before investing money into a model which will have to be changed later, staff and the applicant should have a basic agreement. Staff can be flexible on the timing noted in #16. We will need the model in order to address our concerns regarding the height and the mass and bulk of the proposed tower. EAST MEADOW DRIVE ISSUES: The primary concern with the East Meadow Drive facade is that we believe it to be too uniform and formal, given the Village's context of undulating walkways, plazas, and buildings. We feel that the applicant should rework the landscaping, the hardscape, the plazas and the architecture to create more interest and relief along East Meadow Drive, in what would be a relatively tight pedestrian corridor. Staff would like to see a much better solution than what the Lodge has done on Gore Creek Drive. The North Elevation--The landscape separation is not positive along the pedestrian areas. The applicant should reverse the proportions of paving versus landscaping, with the goal of tieing it in with the Vail Village Inn plazas. The proposed plaza areas should unify the building with East Meadow Drive. Generally, the building facade on this elevation should be broken up much more. Arcade and columns vs. integration with the VVI--Staff believes that some of the retail shops should be brought out closer to East Meadow Drive. Where there are columns, ensure that there is adequate room between the shop fronts and those columns. Perhaps the northeast wing of the proposed structure should be rotated more to the south, possibly 10 to 20 feet. This would allow for more room between the VVI and the Sonnenalp building, which would subsequently allow for a plaza to be created in this area. The tower at the northeast corner of the building could be left in the proposed location, helping to actually anchor the plaza, and creating a variety of 2 public spaces (small & large) . It appears that the proposed building relationship, along the north elevation (i.e East Meadow Drive) , could be improved by redesigning it so that the ratio of the height of the building, to the width of public space (streets) , is approximately 1:2 . The staff has a question regarding sheet number A17, section B; what is the use of the attic space? Should the applicant cut back the roof and tapper it down, and actually treat this as a dormer? The tallest volume of the building should be constructed the furthest from the street. The Parking Structure Ventilation--This is shown in a proposed pocket park at the northwest corner of the property. Is this part of the ventilation system, or an electrical transformer of some type? Staff believes this location to be very inappropriate. Sun/Shade -- Staff needs to verify the applicants proposed sun/shade analysis. The applicant needs to indicate the angles used for the sun and the time of year the analysis was completed for. STREAMWALK: Streamwalk--The Vail Road Bridge is proposed to be rebuilt within the next few years. Staff will verify with Greg Hall as to the exact time table. The applicant's proposal calls for a pedestrian walkway along the existing bridge. Consideration should be given to locating the streamwalk under the new and expanded bridge. In addition, consider where a pedestrian bridge, or bridges, could be placed to achieve the best alignment possible for a streamwalk. Willow Bridge may also be replaced in the near future, allowing a path under the bridge, or allowing a stair to be built up to the road. Given these opportunities, design alternatives for the streamwalk should be pursued. We believe this to be the applicant's opportunity to propose a streamwalk with the least impact on all adjacent properties, as well as the proposed Sonnenalp garden. TALISMAN/SWISS CHALET ISSUES: Propose granting a new easement, or some type of access agreement, to the Talisman so that the access easement on East Meadow Drive can be vacated. 3 Are the property lines which are adjacent to the Talisman legal property lines? We need to obtain a letter from Craig Snowdon, representative of the Talisman, on their opinion regarding the proposal. Staff to request that the applicant close off the eastern most access at the control gate (Sonnenalp Swiss Chalet) ; see the Urban Design Guide Plan. Perhaps we can create a plaza in this area. Remove all Swiss Chalet surface parking. Rebuild the tie planter at the Swiss Chalet, use a stone planter. SITE PLAN/LANDSCAPE ISSUES: The proposed swimming pool is too close to the south property line, and is also too close to Gore Creek. Staff believes that there is no need for a setback encroachment in this area. We have some concerns regarding the wall for the Ludwig deck. Is this wall bermed up on the south side? And we also believe the wall around the pool may be too hard. Perhaps a softer finish around the pool would be more appropriate, specifically the use of landscaping and gentle sloping of the grades towards the creek. The applicant needs to provide information on the slopes of the grades around the King Ludwig deck. A cross section through this area is needed to fully understand what is planned here. A conceptual landscape plan needs to be submitted; this does not need to be a final planting design. Design intent should be indicated. The pocket park design, shown to the southeast of the Swiss Chalet, may not be feasible if the Town, or the applicant, does not own the property. The applicant should research ownership of this parcel. MISC. ISSUES: There is some question as to why there are so many chimneys shown on the building, when in fact all the units will have gas fireplaces or gas logs. Are these just architectural features? All elevation drawings should show any and all building lines behind the foreground elevation. The staff should cut and paste all the west elevation drawings so that we have a continuous elevation for this part of the building. 4 2 Leigh, Scott & Cl' Nry, Inc. 1889 York Street TANSPORTATION PLANNING ,�� .���� OCT � „ Denver.Colorado 80206 �r &TRAFFIC ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS `� (303)333-1105 Offices in Denver and Colorado Spnngs Fax:(303)333-1107 3 October 4, 1990 Mr . Ken A. O'Bryan Pierce, Segerberg & Spaeh 1000 South Frontage Road West Vail , CO 80657 3 3 RE: Sonnenalp Hotel Expansion LSC * 900710 3 Dear Ken: We have completed a traffic impact and access analysis for the proposed 3 Sonnenalp Hotel project in Vail , Colorado. The project site is located along the east side of Vail Road between Meadow Drive and Gore Creek. The proposed 3 project is assumed to consist of demolition of 75 of the Hotel 's 84 existing rooms and construction of 115 new hotel units. Thus, the new Sonnenalp facility will contain a total of 124 hotel rooms including 40 more than exist on the site today. Existing Traffic Conditions Figure 1 , enclosed, illustrates the location of the site with respect to the 10 adjacent roadway system. All access to and from the proposed facility is planned for a pair of one-way driveways located along the east side of Vail 10 Road about 120 feet and 180 feet south of Meadow Drive. 10 Vail Road is an important access route through the central part of the Town where it connects residential areas to the south with I-70 and the east/west 10 frontage road system. In the vicinity of the site, Vail Road is about 30 feet wide and it provides for one travel lane in each direction. Four-way Stop signs are posted at the Vail Road intersections with Meadow Drive and the South Frontage Road. ' Meadow Drive is an important two-lane, east/west route which serves the 10 central area of Vail . West of Vail Road, Meadow is a 1500-foot long cul-de- sac street which serves many important community facilities (fire station, ', library, hospital , etc. ) . To the east, Meadow is a limited access route which is controlled by a gate arm mounted adjacent to Vail Road. 10 Figure 1 also presents traffic count data for the nearby four-way Stop :7 intersection of Vail Road and the South I-70 Frontage Road. The data shown presents evening peak-hour turning movement counts conducted in March, 1990, and future projections of same by Felsburg, Holt and Ullevig. The future data assumes build out of all proposed development in the vicinity which has ',s already been approved by the Town. :0 Transportation Systems•Transit•Parking•Vehicular Access•Pedestrian di Bicycle Planning•Traffic Operations&Safety•Signal Design•Traffic Impact Studies 31 Mr. Ken A. O'Bryan 2 October 4, 1990 Estimated Traffic Generation '.a Average weekday and evening peak-hour traffic activity expected to be generated by the Sonnenalp Hotel is shown in the following table: 3 ESTIMATED TRAFFIC GENERATION 31 SONNENALP HOTEL 11 40 Additional 124 Rooms Rooms Only a • Average Weekday Traffic (@ 8.704/Rm) 1080 350 a Evening Peak Hour Traffic • Entering Vehicles (@ 0.359/Rm) 45 14 • Exiting Vehicles (@ 0.305/Rm.) 38 12 As indicated, full occupancy of the hotel can be expected to generate 540 31 entering and 540 exiting vehicles during an average weekday. Less than a third of this traffic, however, is projected to be new to the area since the 31 net increase in hotel units is only 40. These estimates are based on Category 310 rates published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers as cited in 31 "Trip Generation", 4th edition. 31 Estimated Traffic Distribution and Assignment 31 The directional distribution of generated vehicular traffic on the roadway system providing access to and from the subject project is one of the most 31 important elements in planning specific access requirements and in determining related traffic impacts. The major factors which influence this traffic 31 distribution include the Hotel 's relative location within the community, the S type of proposed land use, and characteristics of the roadway system providing access. +s Figure 2 illustrates the percentage distribution of Sonnenalp traffic which is estimated for this analysis. As indicated, the majority (93%) of the Hotel traffic is expected to pass through the four-way intersection. Application of these distribution estimates to the previously cited generation estimates for S the project's 40 additional rooms results in the peak-hour and average weekday S turning movement traffic assignment which is also shown on Figure 2. As indicated, traffic to be added by the project is shown at the proposed Sonnenalp driveways as well as at the Meadow Drive and Frontage Road intersections with Vail Road. 31 Traffic Impacts 31 Figure 3 illustrates the combination of background and site-generated traffic ,, at the Vail Road/Frontage Road intersection for both existing (March, 1990) and future evening peak-hour traffic conditions. A comparative capacity JP Mr. Ken A. O'Bryan 3 October 4, 1990 analysis has been prepared for the subject intersection using procedures presented to the Transportation Research Board during the January 1990 annual meeting ( "Estimating the Capacity of an All-Way Stop-Controlled Intersection", Michael Kite) . The results of these analyses (printouts are enclosed) are as follows : 31 3 CAPACITY ANALYSIS COMPARISONS 31 VAIL ROAD & I-70 FRONTAGE ROAD a Volume/Capacity Assumed Traffic Ratio Existing 119% Existing + Additional Site 120% Future 140% 3) Future + Additional Site 1430 3) As indicated, the intersection with existing controls is presently 19 percent over capacity during the peak-hour and in the future, it is projected to be 40 a percent over capacity. The additional traffic to be added by the proposed Sonnenalp project, however, will only increase these peak-hour projections 1% 31 and 30, respectively. 31 Summary and Conclusions 31 Based on the foregoing analysis, the following summarizes our findings concerning the proposed Hotel expansion. 3) 1 . At full occupancy, the proposed project can be expected to add 3) approximately 175 entering and 175 exiting weekday vehicle trips to the surrounding roadway system. Of these, 14 will enter and 12 will exit 3) during the evening peak-hour. 2. The greatest concentration of project-generated traffic is expected along Vail Road to and from the north. Ninety-three percent of the additional 30 traffic will pass through the key Vail Road/I-70 Frontage Road intersection. 3) 3. The traffic impact of the proposed project on existing and future peak 3) season traffic will be minimal. At the key four-way' intersection, peak- hour capacity will be reduced only one to three percent. 4. In conjunction with this project, consideration should be given to 31 installation of painted left-turn channelization on Vail Road approximately as shown on Figure 4, enclosed. As noted, the existing ditch along the 1) east side of Vail Road should be covered and/or protected by the installation of curb and gutter. 3) a • a AMik 3 Mr. Fen A. O'Bryan 4 October 4, 1990 ZIP We trust that this report will assist with further planning for the Sonnenalp Hotel project. Please call if we can be of additional assistance. Respectfully submitted, a LEIGH, SCOTT & CLEARY, INC. 3 by • , Philip/N. Sc t, III , P.E. ' ' ", PNS/vb - 3 Enclosures. Figures 1-4 3 Capacity Analysis (4) 3 3 • 3 3 3 9 3 3 3 TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: August 27, 1990 RE: A request for a work session on the Sonnenalp remodel and proposed Special Development District at 20 Vail Road, Part of Lot L, Block 5-E, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Sonnenalp Properties, Inc. I. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST On June 25, 1990, a work session was scheduled with the Planning Commission on this project. Attached to this memo are comments from the Commissioners. The applicant has made several changes to the project. The most significant is that the building for the most part has been pulled out of the 20 ft. setback along Meadow Drive. The height of the tower along Vail Road has also been decreased. Presently, the tower has a proposed height of 78 to 80 ft. The King Ludwig Deck has also been built into the hillside facing Gore Creek. Details on other changes will be explained by the applicant at the work session. Staff has revised the previous work session memo. However, many of our previous comments still pertain to the proposal. Below is a summary of the request: ` Establish SDD with underlying Public Accommodation Zoning. Please see attached zoning analysis for comparison of SDD to PA requirements. Increase accommodation units from 72 to 128 units. Decrease 10 dwelling units to 1 dwelling unit. Increase commercial space from 5, 396 sq. ft. to 14, 287 sq. ft. Maintain all units as lodge units except for 1 dwelling unit. Underground all parking. Access to structure will be from Vail Road and East Meadow Drive. Existing control gate on east end of Meadow Drive will be moved to the west to allow access. Surface loading will remain on southwest corner of property. Addition of spa, conservatory and pool amenities inside courtyard. Construct sidewalk along east side of Vail Road. No wood-burning fireplaces are requested except for one lobby fireplace. 1 II. ZONING ANALYSIS The project departs from the PA standards highlighted in bold type. SONNENALP PRELIMINARY ZONING ANALYSIS UNDERLYING ZONING EXISTING PROPOSED PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION PROJECT* SDD* Site Area: 2 . 024 acres or Same Same 88, 165.44 sq. ft. Setbacks: 20 feet all sides N=Meadow Dr: 20 ft. N = 12 ft. W=Vail Road: 13 ft. W = 3 ft. S=Gore Creek: 4 .2 ft. S = 4 ft. E=Talisman: 0 ft. E = 5 ft. Height: 45 ft. mansard roof **** 77 '-80 ft. Max 48 ft. sloping roof approx. GRFA: 70, 532 sq. ft. 30, 122 sq. ft. 72 ,716 sq. ft. Units: 25 units per acre, or 46 units 65 units 50 units for the site. (72 a.u. & 10 d.u. ) (128 a.u. & 1 d.u. ) Site Coverage: 55% of site or 17 ,984 sq. ft. 45, 685 sq. ft. 48 , 491 sq. ft. or 20 % or 52 % Landscaping: 30% of site or **** **** 26,450 sq. ft. Parking and Per Town of Vail Required: 105 Req. : 211** or Loading: parking standards Provided: 101 207*** Prop. : 159 spaces 37 valet 196 Total Accessory: 10% of total GRFA 5, 396 14, 287 Retail, or 7, 053 sq. ft. Eating,Drinking, Rec. , sq. ft. Common Area: 20% of Allowed GRFA 20% or 37% or or 14, 106 sq. ft. 13,862 sq. ft. 26, 163 sq. ft. * All existing and proposed calculations will need to be verified by staff. ** Required parking includes 5% credit for mixed use development per Town of Vail parking Code Section 18.52. 120. *** Allows for non-conforming parking credit. **** Information unavailable at this time. 2 III. PRELIMINARY STAFF COMMENTS, GOALS AND OBJECTIVES Height: It is positive that the height of the tower along Vail Road has been reduced from approximately 102 ft. to 77 '-80 ft. However, staff strongly encourages the applicant to reduce the height even more. We understand that a certain number of rooms must be obtained in order to construct a project of this magnitude. However, the Vail Village Master Plan calls out for a maximum height of 36 ft. on the southern portion of the site (Please see building height plan) . The PA zoning allows for a maximum height of 40 ft. for sloping roofs. The proposal needs to comply with these heights as much as possible. As mentioned in the previous memo, height should terrace down to Vail Road and East Meadow Drive to respect pedestrian areas as well as views from public areas. Talisman/Sonnenalp Coordination--Control Gate: Coordination between the proposed Sonnenalp SDD and Talisman is necessary. Staff encourages the two owners to work together on access, landscaping, and parking for the two projects in a comprehensive manner. The issue of access to the Sonnenalp property and the question of whether or not the control gate will be removed is also very critical. GRFA Density/Uses: The project still contains 99% of the units as lodging. This is very positive. In addition, the mix of lodging and commercial is very appropriate and supports the Vail Village Master Plan. Landscaping/Pedestrian Areas: Accessible greenspace areas including pocket parks and stream access per objectives 3.4 and 4.1 of the Vail Village Master Plan should be included in the project. Staff also believes that the pool area and Ludwig Deck could be pulled back away from the creek area to open up the Town of Vail stream tract for public access. 3 Setbacks: Staff believes it is very positive that the applicant has tried to pull the building back from Meadow Drive. We believe the building could actually meet the 20 ft. setback on the north side of the property. Staff would like to see the dining deck preserved on the west side of the property. From the drawings, it appears that a portion of the deck will be removed for a building infill. Employee Housing: The owner is asked to address the employee housing issue by describing employee demand and including employee units within the project. Parking: All parking should be provided on site. It is very positive that underground parking is proposed. Traffic: A traffic study is absolutely critical. The Town Engineer has indicated his concern that this information be submitted as soon as possible. The plan should also address loading and delivery. Vail Village Master Plan: In general, the project should respond more to the Vail Village Master Plan. The last memo listed many areas where the project could comply more with the plan. In most cases, the previous staff comments apply to the revised proposal. A Planning Commissioner at the first work session did mention that Sub-Area Concept 1.5 Willow Bridge Road Walkway should be addressed through the proposal. This section states: "A decorative paver pedestrian walkway, separated from the street and accented by a strong landscaped area to encourage pedestrian circulation along Meadow Drive. Lots of parking will be need to be relocated on site. " Staff also agrees that this was a good suggestion and should be considered in other future work on the project. 4 III. OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS 1. Fire Department: The building must be equipped with fire sprinklers throughout. Access to the Talisman must be assured as per UFC 10-207 and UFC 10.207 The existing building must have access per UFC 10.207 or sprinklers Fire flows must be provided in agreement with Upper Eagle Valley Water and Sanitation District via a letter completed. ' 2 . Public Works: " Traffic analysis will be required for access points, Vail Road, and the Four Way Stop must be submitted as soon as possible. " The Talisman parking area does not function as designed. " Sidewalk width of 6 ft. minimum on Vail Road will be required for the full length of the project. " The modifications to Vail Road are a concern at this time. However, the Town Engineer is willing to sit down with the applicant to understand exactly what is being proposed. " Drainage improvements along Vail Road and East Meadow Drive will be needed. " Stream walk could be easily accommodated with appropriate screening form the pool and deck area on the Sonnenalp property. 3 . Landscape Architect: The stream walk should be shown on the site plan. The applicant will need to submit a revised landscaping plan if proposed changes to Vail Road are approved. Maintenance of landscaped areas and sidewalks should be the owner's responsibility. 5 " The conceptual landscape plan appears to be acceptable. A detailed planting and irrigation plan should be submitted for review. IV. VAIL VILLAGE MASTER PLAN A. Sub-Area #1-3 . Sub-Area #1-3 states: "Commercial infill development with second floor residential/lodging to enclose Meadow Drive and improve the quality of the pedestrian experience. Designated walkways and plazas with green space should interface with those of the Vail Village Inn. A pedestrian walkway (possibly arcade) should be provided to encourage pedestrian circulation physically removed from West Meadow Drive. Mass of building should not create a shadow pattern on Meadow Drive. Development will require coordination and/or involvement with adjacent property owners. Existing and new parking demand to be provided on site. " B. Sub-Area #1-5. Sub-Area #1-5 states: "A decorative paver pedestrian walkway, separated form the street and accented by a strong landscaped area to encourage pedestrian circulation along Meadow Drive. Loss of parking will need to be relocated on site. " C. Emphasized Goals & Policies. 1.2 Objective: Encourage the upgrading and redevelopment of residential and commercial facilities. 1.3 Objective: Enhance new development and redevelopment through public improvements done by private developers working in cooperation with the Town. 2.3 Objective: Increase the number of residential units available for short term overnight accommodations. 2 .4 Objective: Encourage the development of a variety of new commercial activity where compatible with existing land uses. 6 2 . 6 Objective: Encourage the development of affordable housing units through the efforts of the private sector. 3 . 1 Objective: Physically improve the existing pedestrian ways by landscaping and other improvements. 3 .4 Objective: Develop additional sidewalks, pedestrian-only walkways and accessible green space areas, including pocket parks and stream access. 4. 1 Objective: Improve existing open space areas and create new plazas with green space and pocket parks. Recognize the different roles of each type of open space in forming the overall fabric of the Village. 5. 1 Objective: Meet parking demands with public and private parking facilities. 6. 1 Objective: Provide service and delivery facilities for existing and new development. D. Illustrative Plans. 1. Land Use Plan: a. North side of site, "Mixed Use. " This category includes the "historic" Village core and properties near the pedestrianized streets of the Village. Lodging, retail and a limited amount of office use are found in this category. With nearly 270, 000 square feet of retail space and approximately 320 residential units, the mixed use character of these areas is a major factor in the appeal of Vail Village. b. South side of site, "Medium/High Density Residential. " The overwhelming majority of the Village's lodge rooms and condominium units are located in this land use category. Approximately 1, 100 units have been developed on the 27 7 acres of private land in this category. In addition, another 110 units are approved but unbuilt. It is a goal of this Plan to maintain these areas as predominantly lodging oriented with retail development limited to small amounts of "accessory retail. " 2. Open Space Plan: a. "Planted Buffer" is designated on north and west side of site. b. "Plaza with green space" is designated on north side of property connecting to the Vail Village Inn and on eastern property adjacent to WI sculpture plaza. c. "Open Space" is designated along stream corridor. 3 . Parking and Circulation Plan: a. East Meadow Drive is designated as a bus route, and Gore Creek Corridor is designated as a study area for a walking path. 4. Building Height Plan: a. The area along East Meadow Drive is recommended to be a maximum of two to three stories or 18 to 27 ft. high. Three to four stories (27 ft to 36 ft. ) is designated on the southern three quarters of the property. (All heights exclude roof forms. ) Please note PA zoning also allows a maximum height of 48 ft. for sloping roofs. V. LAND USE PLAN The Land Use Plan refers to the Vail Village Master Plan for reviewing any requests for redevelopment. VI. ADDITIONAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS )Lt- 1. Sun/Shade Analysis on East Meadow Drive and Vail Road. Jj Traffic Analysis. ,3) Employee Housing Demand Analysis and Proposed Employee Housing. 8 1" � Ur- f2'412 u �� Written statement listing reasons why SDD is necessary and depart from PA zone district requirements. Zoning analysis for SDD compared to PA standards. (f'C. 5. Written statement comparing proposal to Vail Village Master Plan Goals and Policies, Sub-Areas, and Illustrative Plans. Written statement addressing phasing for the project and construction management. 7. Revised plans excluding Talisman improvements unless L�� proposal from Talisman is to be reviewed simultaneously. 0V') A vicinity plan showing all adjacent properties and buildings particularly VVI, Vail National Bank, Ski Museum Site and Intersection, Talisman, Gore Creek, and Chapel at a minimum scale of 1"= 50 ' . Additional view analyses from: a. Ski Museum pocket park looking toward project (SE) b. Meadow Drive looking East from fire station/bank area to project. c. Bank entry looking east to project. 10 A more detailed landscape plan indicating trees removed, added landscaping, any landscaping on Town of Vail property, water features, artwork, paths, plazas etc. per Section 18.40. 050 - 11. 11. EIR should address 18.56.040 requirements below: a. Drainage and any improvements along Creek. b. Air Quality c. Visual Conditions (per request in # 9 of staff list) d. Land Use Plan e. Circulation Pedestrian and Vehicular f. Population densities (per request in # 3 of staff list) . 04 12. Survey should indicate 50 ft. creek setback and creek centerline. T 00.3. Height Analysis using roof plan on survey indicating roof elevations and existing and finished grades. Base =' elevations must be verified by a surveyor. Existing 6t, 4 and finished grades must be indicated on elevation drawings. 9 )ittw 6 1 ; G�„1 G1ti �V t Site Coverage Analysis for existing and proposed development completed by red-lining survey and proposed site plan. a, 15. Indicate 20 ft. setbacks on all sides of property on site plan. ,16. Square footage-redlined drawings for GRFA, retail, L accessory and back of house uses. k17. South elevation drawing and interior courtyard elevations. 18j PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION JUNE 25, 1990 Present Staff Chuck Crist Kristan Pritz Diana Donovan Mike Mollica Ludwig Kurz Shelly Mello Jim Shearer Andy Knudtsen Kathy Warren Penny Perry Dalton Williams Members Absent Connie Knight In the interest of time, work sessions were held prior to the public hearing beginning at 12 :40 p.m. A request for a work session on the Sonnenalp redevelopment and proposed Special Development District at 20 Vail road, Part of Lot L, Block 5-E, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Sonnenalp Properties, Inc. Kristan Pritz explained that the request was for the redevelopment of the Sonnenalp property and a proposed Special Development District. She gave a brief summary of the request and reviewed the zoning analysis. She reviewed those items related to the project found within the Vail Village Master Plan including Sub-Area #1-3 , emphasizing Goals & Policies, and Illustrative Plans. She also provided corresponding preliminary staff comments. Kristan then relayed comments made by the Fire Department and Public Works. This was a work session, so no recommendation was made. Jay Peterson, representing the applicant, explained that they were before the board on a preliminary basis and simply wanted comments and suggestions so they could move ahead with the design process. Irene Westby, manager of the Talisman, explained that the owners had discussed the proposal, though not in depth, regarding coordination with the Sonnenalp on landscape and parking. As the manager, she would encourage the board to move faster. They do have concerns with parking, landscape and fire access. Jay explained that he had met with the president of the association and the Sonnenalp had offered access through the Sonnenalp structure. Marilyn Fletcher, a Talisman condominium owner, felt the proposal was very nice looking. She was concerned about the setbacks and rr ingress/egress. 1 Kent Rose, speaking for himself as a Council Member, felt that the zoning analysis found within the memo was well prepared. In the future, he would like to see a comparison of the SDD with the Village Master Plan as well. He suggested to Kristan to add this comparison to the present chart. He stated that the additional comparison could help him lean more favorable toward the project. As it was currently depicted, the project looked too large. Larry Eskwith explained that he would prefer that the Council members not participate in the PEC meeting. The Council is a quasi-judicial board and he felt their participation could cause legal problems. Diana asked if they could speak in a general sense or at a minimum ask questions, and Larry said "yes. " Mery Lapin felt that page 2 of the memo was the key. When an SDD is proposed, there should be trade-offs. He wanted to know what these trade-offs were. He felt that staff presented the trade- offs in respect to the Marriott project well. Regarding the Marriott project, he felt that too much time was spent comparing the original application to the current proposal. Mery agreed with Larry Eskwith, that the Council 's comments should be limited at this point. The Council was in a quasi-judicial role. Kristan explained that the Planning Commission simply wanted general comments and issues that the Council felt needed to be addressed. Lynn Fritzlen asked if staff could restate the purpose of applying underlying zoning and Kristan explained that there were basically two reasons. The first was to identify the uses possible on the site and the second was used to compare the proposal with the underlying zoning requirements which PEC and Council always request staff to do. Jay Peterson addressed the trade-off issue. He stated that the Sonnenalp building could meet the PA criteria, however, the building design would become a terrible bulky mass in the middle of the lot. He also felt that the proposed use of 99% hotel rooms was a trade-off. Also, the proposal was not far over GRFA. The current proposal was at 32 units per acre compared to the 25 units per acre called for under PA zoning. Peggy Osterfoss stated that it would be helpful if all parties concerned had a copy of the Vail Village Master Plan. Jim Shearer felt it was extremely important for the Sonnenalp to work with the Talisman regarding parking and landscaping. He was concerned about the Ludwig deck and its impact on the creek area. He also wanted to see the employee housing issue addressed. He was very concerned about the height creating a crowded feeling on 2 b«` Meadow Drive. He understood Jay's comments regarding the bulk in the middle of the lot, but felt that the mass could be pulled off of Meadow Drive and a more attractive walk created. He felt the approach would create more interest for the retail area. Jim also felt a phasing plan was needed. Jim liked the increase in lodging units, underground parking, and felt that the Faesslers were good managers. He had some concern about the amount of retail space and density. He prefered the tower as an architectural feature as opposed to a "building" providing living area in the tower. Kathy Warren asked if the staff could total all the sq. footage calculations (GRFA, Accessory etc. . ) on the charts in the future. From what she could quickly calculate, the proposal was over PA zoning by 25%. Kathy felt she could not support setback variances for Vail Road, Meadow Drive or the Stream and she felt that the heights called for by the Master Plan should be adhered to. Though slightly under on site coverage and over on landscaping, the landscaped area is private and should be opened up and more inviting to the public. Creek access is important. Kathy felt employee housing was necessary and would like to see it on site. The Talisman parking should also be addressed. No variances on parking should be given. Lodge use is very good. She is looking for the public good in respect to the project. Kathy felt that, because it was a hotel, she was not as concerned J with units per acre as she was with GRFA. She did not see much in the way of benefits for the Town. Jay, in response to the employee housing issue, stated that the Faesslers own 24 units in Solar Vail as well as some units in Bighorn. Chuck Crist stated that he had always wanted to see the site developed. He had concerns about the tower. He stated that he was not as concerned with setbacks with the exception of Meadow drive. The mass on Meadow Drive needs to be broken up. The loss of landscaping is a problem. He also would like to see employee housing incorporated into the project on site. He felt that the Town would be losing green space and the stream would be blocked from the public and he liked the amount of retail space proposed. He liked the underground parking. Dalton was very concerned with the setbacks as they related to the transfer of open space from public areas to private areas. The 20 foot setback must be maintained. The berm, per the Vail Village Master Plan, should be kept. He felt that the building, along Meadow Drive, should be stepped back in order to avoid a "canyon" affect. He did not feel he could approve the requested setback variances. The parking for the entire project including Talisman and Swiss House must be addressed. 4 3 di/ Dalton continued by quoting the Vail Village Master Plan Sub-Area ##1-5 Willow Bridge Road Walkway as stating: Ar "A decorative paver pedestrian walkway, separated from the street and accented by a strong landscaped area to encourage pedestrian circulation along Meadow Drive. Loss of parking will need to be relocated on site. " Dalton felt that the ingress/egress should be on the east side of the Sonnenalp by Village Center (Swiss House) and the planter along Meadow Drive must stay. Dalton also felt that the building should be pulled back to buffer noise from bus traffic. He felt that the gate should be moved east and felt that the mass and bulk was not compatible with East Meadow Drive. Dalton felt that the 48 foot height requirement should be strictly adhered to, a 101' tower was out of the question and the King Ludwig deck should be stepped down towards the creek. The deck creates too much of a wall. Dalton felt that the employee housing should be on-site and that the proposal was taking open space and landscaping away from the public. The applicant should put in public spaces, like a stream walk. He commended the Faesslers for being excellent hoteliers. Ludwig complimented the Faesslers for running a "class operation. " Ludwig Kurz felt the proposal needed a comprehensive parking plan as well as an access study. He felt he could give ,460 some leeway with the height and mass, however, the building still needed work. Ludwig felt that the walkway and loading area were in conflict and need a better interface. Jay stated that the loading area was located by default. Ludwig also felt that the internal open space was maximized at the sacrifice of areas along Meadow Dr. and Vail Road. Diana stated that the proposal disregarded the Vail Village Master Plan. She questioned whether parking for commercial would be accessible and reserved for commercial. Jay said space would be made available to customers. She felt that the building was beautiful but would be more appropriate on large acreage. Diana felt that a streamwalk should be proposed and the parking situation concerned her. Jay explained that he felt the parking regulations pertained to smaller hotel rooms. The proposed parking would work similar to Crossroads and the gate would be relocated. Diana felt that the loading needed to be either moved away from the creek or improved. Parking for Swiss House and Talisman needs to be figured out. The role of the Talisman also needs to be defined. Employee housing must be addressed - perhaps permanently restrict what Sonnenalp already has for employee units. She felt it was important to know what the Talisman's intentions were soon and what would be done. Diana also had concerns regarding the setbacks along Meadow Drive and Vail Road. She didn't have a iil 4 0 e a "" 7 problem with a variance for an architectural statement, however, the height in general must be reduced. Diana was concerned whether an SDD was realy necessary. She questioned the benefit of the project to the public and stated more general public improvements were needed. Kathy Warren felt that the trash situation needed to be addressed and that the applicant needed to soften the approach at the pedestrian level. She also felt that new employee housing units needed to be addressed in addition to those already owned. She felt the commercial square footage also contributed to employee housing demand. Jay felt that an additional employee unit requirement would be penalizing the applicant for having the foresight to purchase the units. The applicant purchased the Solar Crest units with the intention of completing the redevelopment currently proposed. Tom Steinberg commented that he felt the proposal was going in the correct direction. He also agreed with Diana that he was not sure an SDD would be needed. A request for a work session for an exterior alteration, a site coverage variance, a height variance, a landscape variance and a floodplain modification for the Covered Bridge Building, located on Lot C and Lot D, and the southwesterly 4 feet of Lot B, all in Block 5-B, Vail Village 1st Filing, 227 Bridge Street. Applicant: Hillis of Snowmass, Inc. and Bruce Amm & Associates. Mike Mollica explained that the applicants were proposing a major redevelopment of the Covered Bridge Building. The proposal called for major modifications to the front entrance of the existing commercial spaces, the creation of lower level commercial spaces, infill on the north and northwest sections of the existing structure, the addition of an elevator, and the addition of two upper floors. The request involved 5 separate applications, an exterior alteration request, a site coverage variance request, a height variance request, a landscape variance request, and a floodplain modification request. Mike reviewed the applicable zoning considerations and gave preliminary staff comments. Since this was a work session, no staff recommendations were made. Kathy Warren asked what the allowed GRFA was and Mike explained that the survey was not finished and therefore calculations were not made with regard to GRFA. Ned Gwathmey, project architect, felt that they would be within what was allowed. Ned explained the changes that were made since the staff memo was written. The only issue he felt that the PEC might be concerned about was the height of the new roof line. The new proposal did, however, eliminate the flat roof design. He explained that the 5 .... ,---, , /-.)4 :,.",) , -Z-''-• , /-,f-c-_,...s (72./--c: o)7,-- r ‘.. • C-11-7.42 ,-/C e ce,4_,--4-z,.,-_(--(...,, _ _ PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION November 26, 1990 FILE COPY Present Staff Chuck Crist Kristan Pritz Diana Donovan Mike Mollica Connie Knight Jill Kammerer Jim Shearer Andy Knudtsen Kathy Warren Shelly Mello Dalton Williams Betsy Rosolack Absent Ludwig Kurz The meeting was called to order at 2 : 00 p.m. by Diana Donovan, Chairperson. 1 . Approval of minutes from the October 22 , 1990 meeting. Chuck Crist moved and Jim Shearer seconded to approve the minutes as presented. The vote was 6-0 in favor. 2 . A request for a conditional use permit in order to establish a bed and breakfast operation on Lot 7B, Vail Village 10th Filing, 930 B. Fairway Drive. Applicant: Paul and Nancy Rondeau Betsy Rosolack explained the request and stated that the Rondeaus met all the required conditions for a bed and breakfast. Connie Knight moved and Dalton Williams seconded to approve the request. The vote was 6-0 in favor. 3 . A request for front and side yard setback variances to allow for a garage on Lot 10, Block 4 , Lionsridge Filing No. 4 ; 1464 Aspen Grove Lane. Applicant: Carrol P. Orrison The applicant asked to table this item until 12/10. Kathy Warren moved and Chuck Crist seconded to table to 12/10. Vote was 6-0. 4 . A request for two setback variances for the Village Center Condominiums, located at 124 Willow Bridge Road, a part of Tract C and Lot K, Block 5-E, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Village Center Condominium Association Kristan Pritz explained that at the previous PEC meeting, the motion had been to approve the setback variance requests subject to staff recommended condition. Prior to the vote Kirk Akers, the applicant ' s architect, asked that the request be tabled to allow him an opportunity to confer with his client regarding the staff recommended condition of approval . Since that time staff 1 discussed the appropriateness of the condition of approval with Larry Eskwith, the town attorney. Larry felt the staff' s condition of approval was inappropriate, therefore staff was recommending approval of the setback variances without conditions. After discussion, Kathy Warren moved and Chuck Crist seconded to approve the setback variance per the staff memo with findings A, B, and C. 1, C. 2 and C. 3 excluding the condition of approval related to the streamwalk and pocket park. The vote was 6-0 in favor. 5. A request for a height variance and a variance and a variance to the number of satellite dishes permitted in order to allow for the installation of two satellite dish antennas on the roof of the Marriott Mark Resort, Lots 4 and 7 , Block 1 , Vail Lionshead 3rd Filing and Lots C and D, Morcus Subdivision, located at 715 Lionshead Circle. Applicant: Marriott Mark Resort/Tri-County Cablevision Betsy Rosolack explained that the Marriott wished to place two 6- foot in diameter on their roof in the southwestern corner of the Marriott building. Lynn Johnson of Tri-County Cablevision then stated that since the dishes were painted to match the building, he hoped a screening fence would not be necessary, but was willing to place a fence later if the Town felt it was necessary. He also explained that a mesh fence was not being proposed because it caught snow and because the quality of the mesh dishes was not as good as the solid dishes. Connie Knight moved and Kathy Warren seconded to approve the variances per the findings in the staff memo with the decision of whether or not a fence was needed to be made by the Design Review Board. The vote was 6-0 in favor. 6. A request to establish a Special Development District for the Sonnenalp redevelopment located at 20 Vail Road; a part of Lot L, Block 5-E, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Sonnenalp Properties, Inc. Mike Mollica and Andy Knudtsen explained the requested SDD. Mike outlined 6 variations to the Public Accommodation zone district that would be part of the proposed SDD. The six were: 1. A 24 percent density increase 2 . A height variance allowing 81 feet where 48 feet is the maximum height 3 . Setbacks (on all four sides) 4. A reduction in the number of loading berths required; (1 is proposed, 3 are required) 2 5 . An increase in the amount of accessory hotel floor area (23% of the GRFA where 10% is allowed) 6. An increase in the amount of common area (85% of the GRFA where 20% is allowed) Mike then reviewed the memo, stating that the SDD would use the existing Public Accommodation Zone as the underlying zoning. The number of accommodation units would be increased from 72 to 124 , and 10 existing dwelling units would be eliminated. All units would be maintained as lodge units, and all fireplaces would be gas burning with the exception of the existing 4 wood-burning fireplaces. Also added would be 4, 000 square feet of conference space for a total of 7, 930 square feet of conference space. The building heights would be 51-81 feet on the west side, 49-57 feet on the north side, 52 feet on the east side and 24 feet on the south. The proposed site amenities would include a pedestrian walkway over Gore Creek. This would be attached to the existing Vail Road bridge. A pocket park would be constructed south of the Swiss Chalet, adjacent to Willow Bridge Road. (This property is owned by Vail Associates who had not agreed to have a pocket park at this location at this time. ) A sidewalk would be constructed along the east side of Vail Road and planters and sidewalks would be constructed along East Meadow Drive. Landscaping would also be included along the north and west elevations. Mike showed these improvements on a site plan. An underground parking garage would be constructed with 185 spaces and the existing surface parking lot would be removed. The restaurant and lounge areas would be expanded to 6657 square feet, and new retail would consist of 5, 760 square feet. Mike then reviewed the zoning analysis on page 3 of the staff memo and referred also to Exhibit B. Andy Knudtsen summarized the SDD criteria. He stated that the staff was concerned about the excessive heights. They also felt that the formal, unbroken facade along Meadow Drive was a significant deviation from the character of the Village, and that the overall building mass was too large in relation to the site. Concerns were also expressed about the west setback encroachments, shade impacts, lack of loading, Talisman access, lack of Fire Dept. approval, Vail road alignment, lack of streamwalk, location of the swimming pool and construction road along the creek. Mike then discussed the Vail Village Master Plan with relation to the proposal . He stated that of the 5 applicable sub-area goals, 3 only 1 was being met, that of the pedestrian connection along Vail Road. Mike felt that the sun/shade analysis was not accurate. He added that the mass and unbroken roof line contributed to excess shading on East Meadow Drive. Among other concerns was the fact that the Fire Department had not approved the access to the Talisman. Mike added that the streamwalk was an extremely important issue and felt that the applicant should incorporate it into the site plan. Andy reviewed the EIR analysis concerning hydrologic conditions, atmospheric conditions, visual conditions, land use conditions, circulation and transportation conditions, population characteristics, and phasing. Andy recommended that this be a work session, so that additional time could be provided for the board to study the proposal . Kristan stated that Rev. Don Simonton from the Vail Interfaith Chapel had mentioned their concern about construction impacts on their activities particularly on the weekend when they have many weddings and worship services. Jay Peterson, representing the applicant, stated that it was implied that the applicant had not worked with the staff, but in fact, the applicant had worked long and hard with the staff before coming back with the present proposal . Jay admitted that the proposed building was large and that major issues, such as height and bulk needed resolution. He stated that the Urban Design Guide Plan called for an infill in this area, but that the proposal was not just an infill. Jay pointed out that the design of a hotel had less flexibility because rooms must be the same size to have unified interiors . The parking structure also drove the design. Regarding employee housing, Jay felt the requirement was not correct, for many of the employees worked at other Sonnenalp properties. He did not feel additional housing should have to be purchased. Kristan Pritz felt the requirement was a fair one and pointed out that the staff would be willing to look at employee demand generated solely by the Bavarian Haus, however, that requested information had not been given to the staff at present. Gordon Pierce, architect for the property, explained his reasons for the design of the project. He stated that Jeff Winston supported the height on the corner, but did want an indentation along Meadow Drive. He felt that the building on East Meadow Drive had a definite relation to the eave lines of the VVI . Regarding the sun/shade study, he felt that if it was inaccurate, it was not very inaccurate. He stated that noon on December 21st was the worst possible time. Gordon felt that any building would cast a shadow on East Meadow Drive. He added that the Sonnenalp 4 building would have heated sidewalks. Gordon pointed out that the Mountain Haus was much higher and had sheets of ice many days. He then showed slides of other buildings in Vail to show the simplicity of hotel design. Jay then stated that 40% of the common area was underground. He pointed out that the VVI had 100, 000 square feet of GRFA and 50, 000 square feet of retail, while the Sonnenalp has less than 5, 000 square feet of retail. He felt that the required maximum of 20% common space was very outdated. Kristan replied that retail was not included in common space. She also stated that when all the various uses were added together, it was strongly felt by staff that the building was too large for the site. Amos Kaminsky, president of the Talisman Condominiums, stated that he had been working with the Faesslers for several months and Johannes had offered to allow the Talisman residents to enter the underground parking from Vail Road. He felt comfortable with what was proposed by the Sonnenalp. Kristan asked about the access easement at E. Meadow Drive along the pedestrian mall and Amos replied that the Talisman would give up their access easement under the new proposal, and would enter through the fire access gate east of the bus control gate. Amos added that the ramp was being narrowed and made less obvious . He stated that if the Talisman did not build a garage, they would move the access easement to the fire exit. Dalton asked where the Talisman garage would be, and Amos replied that it would be partially under the ramp. The plan was to build the Talisman garage at the same time that the Sonnenalp garage was being constructed. Amos added that at present there was no written agreement, only a verbal one. Paul Rondeau, from the audience was concerned about the height of the tower at the west elevation. Rick Rosen, legal counsel for the condominium owners in the First Bank building to the west, stated that these owners had concerns about the traffic and the height of the Bully part of the building, but were not against the project. Rick Rosen then spoke as legal counsel for the Villa Cortina condo owners, and said they were opposed to the project. They were concerned about the height of the tower blocking the view of the Gore Range from the condos (the ground floor condos do not have a view at present) . They were very concerned about the fact that Meadow Drive would seem to be like a tunnel. They felt that they would feel closed in. They were concerned about traffic, shading, and the fact that the construction of the project would impact businesses for 18 to 24 months. They did feel that the hotel appeared to be a good project. 5 Eric Affeldt, a retail tenant at the VVI across Meadow Drive, thanked the PEC and the staff for their work and stated that it was easy for them to lose the broad picture. He said that when he was on the Council , the Council spent a lot of time establishing the Goals and study areas for the Vail Village Master Plan. Affeldt felt that the SDD did not depart far from the PA zone district. He felt that over the years the Town had emphasized the need for quality and for additional hotel rooms in the core. He felt this would be a benefit in the long run. He supported the project. Hermann Staufer, another former Council member, also felt that the project would be a good one, and was one of quality. Dalton Williams felt that he would like to have more time to study the information about the project before being asked to vote on it. He felt the swimming pool should be moved back within the setbacks to allow for the future streamwalk and was concerned about servicing the shops along Meadow Drive. He felt that there would probably be 4 UPS trucks per day serving the retail shops. Jay replied that the auto court was designed for trucks of UPS size. Dalton was concerned that on busy days the guests and trucks would conflict. Gordon Pierce answered that perhaps they would have to plan a pick-up point. Dalton was in favor of the pocket park near the Swiss Chalet where cars are now parked. Regarding the shadow pattern on Meadow Drive, he suggested that the entire street be heated. Dalton was also concerned about the potential traffic, especially on Saturday when there was a lot of traffic at the bank across the street. He felt the narrow lanes would be a concern. Regarding phasing of the project, Dalton stated that he was unimpressed with the construction of the Gateway project, but was impressed with the way the Red Lion construction had been handled. He repeated that he was not ready to make a decision today. Gordon answered Dalton's concerns about the construction phasing, stating that he had hired a contractor who had a great deal of experience with difficult construction projects and was, in his view, very conscientious. Rick Rosen wondered if there was any testing done of the soil because of the former gas station on the site to the north, and Gordon replied that tests had been made and the soil was ok. Chuck Crist asked about the number of rooms in the top floor of the tower, and Gordon replied that there were 7 plus some mechanical area and the elevator tower. Chuck wondered if one story could be removed. Gordon replied that rooms would be lost, 6 and the tower's architectural statement would also be lost. Chuck was concerned with the shadow on Meadow Drive and the height of the building. He added that he did not feel the pedestrian entry at WI adjacent to the Liquor Store was a valid one at this time, but with future development, there would be reason to walk to the back of the WI. He would like to see more relief on the Meadow Drive side of the building. Gordon asked Chuck if he felt a focal point like a fountain would be a valid feature to have across from the WI entry. Chuck was in favor of that idea, saying that he did actually prefer a narrower street, but felt the need for more pedestrian interest. Jay Peterson said the street was 60 feet wide, as opposed to Bridge Street, which is 25 to 30 feet wide. Kathy Warren was concerned about the Fire Department access issue. Andy stated that the staff had passed the Fire Department concerns along to the applicant. Gordon replied that they had talked to the Fire Department and the Fire Department stated that the proposal was fine. Mike pointed out that the problem had not been resolved, because a fire truck could not get to the Talisman and turn around. Kathy felt an OK from the Fire Department was needed before the board could give final approval on the project. Jay stated that there was no need to resolve minor issues before getting approval . Some of Kathy's concerns were the height, lack of public open space, shadow on Meadow Drive, and that some breaks in the facade would help the appearance of the height. Regarding loading, she was uncomfortable with a project of this scale not having appropriate loading. She felt that there was not one good loading dock that would take a semi-trailer. Gordon replied that the back of the existing loading dock was being removed so that trucks of that size could be handled. Faessler added that most trucks were merely food trucks, with the biggest 24 feet long. He said that there were 2 spaces for trucks of that size. Kathy was still uncomfortable about the loading. With regard to the employee housing situation, she wondered how many units Johanness would be willing to deed restrict. Jay replied that they were willing to abide by the guidelines in the Employee Housing Study. Rosen added that he felt deed restrictions on private property were unfair. Kristan pointed out that the Town could ask for employee housing on site, and many SDD proposals had been required to have employee housing on site. Jay stated that employee housing on site was not appropriate for this hotel, for the owners did not want the employees to mingle with the guests in their off hours, and it was better for the employees not to live where they work. Kathy stated that she would like to see more restricted units. She was not comfortable with the streetscape interface, loading, employee housing, and 7 felt a need to have the Fire Department approval . Jim Shearer felt the added hotel rooms and parking were beneficial and that the quality and beauty of the project were positive. Regarding the employee housing, he wondered if the applicant would be willing to do a retroactive housing requirement and was told the applicant would be. Jim was pleased with the pedestrian bridge, and supported the commercial aspect, and getting the parking off of Vail Road. His concerns were with the intersection of Meadow Drive and Vail Drive and mentioned that he had spoken with Terry Minger who felt that the Town was getting further and further away from landscaping at the Village entrys. Jim felt that it would be nice if each corner could be more park-like. Regarding Meadow Drive, he felt it would be better if the pillars were not so close to the building so that one could walk more freely. He felt that the commercial spaces were too far from the street, and would prefer to have the column distance varied so that one could meander. Jim also wished to have more building undulation, more interest. He preferred more sun on Meadow Drive. Jay replied that the shade was not from the upper stories. Kathy was still not comfortable with the shade and shadow pattern. Gordon said the sidewalks would be heated. Jim was pleased that the walks would be heated, but stated that he had heard that one problem with heated walks was that after the snow is melted, icy spots were created. Jay reminded them that the heated walks at the WI worked well. Jim encouraged the study of a stream walkway. He would like to see 3 lanes on Vail Road, but did not feel this must be a condition of approval. In this regard, Jay said that a study had been done. He felt the biggest problem was the bank traffic because everyone want to park in front of the bank. Mr. Rosen stated that the First Bank Condo owners would not want part of the land in front of First Bank to be taken for roads. Greg Hall, Town engineer, stated that 3 lanes could be constructed without using land in front of the bank. Kristan pointed out that this area must be pinned down, studied, designed, etc. to insure adequate distance for the road in addtion to landscaping and the sidewalk. Jim Shearer said he would like to see more public accommodations, i .e. more public landscaped areas. He supported the park in front of the Swiss Chalet and suggested putting a loading dock area on one end. He felt the pool should be pulled back within the setback and that fire access to the Talisman should be studied. Connie Knight stated the whole corner should be considered, not 8 just this building. She felt a building this size needed more space and added that the developer was not considering the public. Connie pointed out that only 40 rooms were being gained with great mass. She felt that the building was looking even bigger by being so close to the property line and losing green space. Connie stated that the height was nearly double that allowed. She saw no need to encroach upon the setbacks. Mike had mentioned that much public land was being used for landscaping. Connie did feel that the Faesslers would take care of employee housing. She suggested that the Vail Road walk be coordinated with the walk on Vail Road from the Gateway project. She questioned the need for the pedestrian bridge. Regarding the shade, Connie pointed out that not everyone would be walking near the Sonnenalp shops. She felt that 10 setback encroachments were a substantial number and felt the there was not enough room on the lot to construct a building of this size. Gordon felt the pedestrian experience would be improved. Diana Donovan was concerned with snow sliding off of the roof, the traffic lanes and the need to protect the creek. She said the pool should be pulled back and that the temporary construction road should not be on the south side of the lot because of the impact on the creek. She felt the construction should be quieted on Saturdays and Sundays because of the weddings and services at the Chapel . Regarding Master Plan Objective 6. 1, she was concerned about loading berths. She felt the East Meadow side of the building needed more attention to landscaping because it was even closer to the road than the VVI . Jay pointed out that there was minimal landscaping on the VVI side. Diana felt there should be housing restricted to employees, that the hotel units should be restricted so that they remain hotel units, and that more attention should be paid to the sub-area concepts. Diana's main concern was that there were not enough public spaces and green spaces, especially along Meadow Drive and especially since the developer was not doing the streamwalk. She felt the pedestrian bridge was essential and that more public space was needed in front of the building. Diana felt the project had come a long way. Johannes Faessler admitted that the property was not perfect for a hotel . He stated that if he were in the Board ' s chair, he would weigh the same concerns, but that he could never take care of their concerns to everyone' s satisfaction. He wanted to leave with some guidance, but stated that this was the best job he could do and that the project was close to not making sense economically. He wanted to have a vote with a list of concerns agreed upon. Perhaps the Board felt the concerns were more important than having a hotel there. 9 Diana pointed out that she would like to have the project come back in two weeks. Johannes stated that he would come back with almost the same thing. He could not come back in two weeks with significant changes. Jay stated that over two weeks he could not satisfy the staff and do the hotel . Gordon offered to discuss the concerns and try to make the project work. Johannes stated that they could wait 2 weeks, but there would not be major changes. Dalton felt the need to study the proposal . Kristan replied that a project of this size deserved a thorough study and that there were significant issues. The proposal would have incredible impact on the character of the area. She added that the staff had been complimentary on many issues. Regarding the height and setbacks, there were strong concerns, but the staff did not advocate throwing in the towel and forgetting the project. She felt the issues did warrant review and was happy that Johannes was willing to reconsider some issues. Jim moved and Chuck seconded to table the proposal until December 10th and the vote was 6-0 to table. 7 . A request for a conditional use permit and a variance to the parking standards, Section 18 . 52 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code to allow off-street surface parking at the "Holy Cross parcel" which is generally located on the north side of the South Frontage Road east of and immediately adjacent to Red Sandstone Creek. Applicant: Vail Associates, Inc. Jill Kammerer explained the request, summarizing that the applicant wanted a conditional use permit and a variance to the parking standards which required that all parking lots be paved and landscaped. Diana asked that a fence be constructed to screen the lot. She thought the snow berms to be used in screening the lot would be dirty and ugly. Joe Macy, of Vail Associates, stated that this lot had been used for parking and storage for 20 years. Kathy asked that the unsightly fence posts be removed from the site. Joe responded that to do the fences right would require sinking the fence post in a concrete base and he was reluctant to commit to this. Jim stated that if the applicant grades and gravels the lot and then plows the snow to create snow berms the plows will just scrape up the gravel which would contribute to the dirty, ugly appearance of the berm. 10 December 5 . 1990 to: Jay Peterson from: Johannes Faessler Subject: employee number Bavaria Haus The numbers appear in two categories to visualize employees directly related to the building size and employees that are a result of the size of the total operation including the other buildings , additional restaurants and golf course. Category a: (assuming Bavaria Haus would be a selfstanding hotel ) General Manager Executive Assitant/Personell Controller A/P & AIR Clerk Cas r Activity Guide Housing Manager Rooms Division Manager Front Desk Manager Front Desk Supervisor Front Desk Clerk Front Desk Clerk Front Desk Clerk Front Desk Clerk PBX Operator PBX Operator Night Manager Audit Assitant Bell Captain Bell Boy -ySSTl Boy Sales & Res . Mgr. Reservationist Reservationist Reservationist C ncierge Concierge Housekeeping Mgr. Assitant Mgr. Maid Maid Maid Maid Maid -44a1.11_ Maid Maid Maid . Maid Carpet Man Houseman Mouseman Houseman Seamstress Laundry L nary Washer Yardperson Yardperson _ Maintenance Mgx_.._--- Maintenance Worker Maintenance Worker Painter F&B Manager Assitant Manager_,__. Bartender King' s Club Bartender King' s Club/Bully Bartender Bully Bartender Bully attiring Manager-_ Assitant Catering Mgr. Bully Waitperson Bully Waitperson Bully Waitperson Bully Waitperson Bully os Bully Supervisor Ludwig' s Supervisor Ludwig' s Host Ludwig' s Waitperson Ludwig' s Waitperson Ludw.ig' s Waitperson Ludwig ' s Waitperson Breakfast Supervisor —__JEKAaAautive Chef Sous Chef Pastry Chef Ludwig ' s Souschef Bully Souschef Garde Manger Entremetier Saucier Saucier Commis Commis 3 Commis Steward 4 Steward Steward -s-t--eQQ r d Purchasing Manager Purchasing Clerk Purchasing Clerk • total 94 employ es for 80 room Bavaria Haus. v(A , -v'N Category B: Departments presently in other buildings or locations Spa Cosmetique Chalet Restaurant Chalet Bar Austria Haus Bar Austria Haus Restaurant Singletree Golf Course Singletree Restaurant Singletree Pool and Tennis Singletree Proshop All other departments have obviously more staff then listed in category A. 4 Pierce , Segerberg & Spaeh m Architects ® P. C . ® A. I. A. December 4, 1990 Town of Vail Office of Community Development Vail. CO 81657 Re: Sonnenalp Redevelopment Attn: Mike Mollica - Senior Planner Please find attached revised drawings that were a direct result of our November 29. 1990 meeting, the November 26, 1990 Planning Commission Meeting and your letter addressed to Jay Peterson Dated. November 27 , 1990. The following issues correspond to those listed in your November 27. 1990 letter and explain the revisions to the drawings: 1. Meadow Drive - Additional relief is indicated and proposed along East Meadow Drive as requested. This was accomplished in a similar manner as suggested by the Staff in our November 29, 1990 meeting; See sheets AO, AS and Alb for this revision. Also a connecting plaza to the VVI is being proposed as suggested; see Sheets A0, A00 and A8. 2. Swiss Chalet Parking - As suggested, the surface parking in this area has been removed and a pocket park is being proposed. See Sheets AO and A00 for this conceptual revision. 3. Vail Road Traffic Study - As stated in our November 29, 1990 meeting, Andy is to have the Town's Consulting Engineer Review all data and arrive to a conclusion regarding this issue. As of the date of this letter. 1 have heard nothing as to this issue status. 4. Fire Department Concerns - I feel that the revised plans; see Sheets AO and A00, have addressed this issue along with the letter I wrote to you dated October 25, 1990 addressing these concerns. However, to insure that all these issues are resolved I have scheduled a meeting today at 3:00 p.m. with Mike McGee. I will advise you of the outcome. 5. Swimming Pool - The swimming pool has been revised; see Sheet A00. It has been pulled back, but due to the swim-thru location, a very small portion of the pool still encroaches the setback. Also the whirlpools have been relocated. Main Office: 1000 South Frontage Road West Vail, Colorado 81657 e 303/476-4433 Post Office Box 2313 e Beaver Creek, Colorado 81620 m 303/949-6049 One Tabor Center 1200 Seventeenth Street, Suite 51.5 e Denver, Colorado 80202 303/623-3355 Town of Vail Office of Community Development December 4, 1990 Page 2. 6. Loading and Delivery Areas - The loading area has been redesigned; see Sheet A2. Also a 1/4" plan of this area is being submitted.; see Sheet R1 showing two loading berths. For deliveries to the commercial spaces see Sheets A2 and AS indicating two delivery spaces. 7, Vail Road/Meadow Drive Intersection - Additional green space has been proposed as per your suggestion; see Sheets A0, A00 and A8. 8. Steam Walk - This issues. as stated many times before, will not be a part of or included in this proposal. Due to the location (ie: Town property) this should not be an issue. 9. Employee Housing - Shall be addressed by Sonnenalp Properties, Inc. 10. Talisman Access Easement - This issue shall be addressed by Sonnenalp_ Properties, Inc. and by the Talisman Association. 11. Building Height - The roof height along Vail Road has been reduced per your suggestion. The exit access corridor that was in this roof area has been relocated. Due to this relocation, a lock-off on the fifth floor will be eliminated and a unit on the fourth floor will be relocated to the Mezzanine Level. See Sheets A3, All, Alt and A15 for this revision. Additional Revisions Due to a mathematical error, additional parking shall be requested. These spaces have been included. See Sheets A6 and A7 If you have any further questions please contact me as soon as possible. Sincerely, PIERCE SEGERBERG & SPAEH, ARCHITECTS ' P.C. A.I.A. Ken O'Bryan. cc.-Johannes Faessler -Jay Peterson -Gordon Pierce 4410 towii of Vail 75 south frontage road office of community development vail,colorado 81657 (303)479-2138 (303)479-2139 November 27, 1990 Mr. Jay Peterson Vail National Bank Building 108 South Frontage Road West Suite 307 Vail , CO 81657 RE: Sonnenalp Special Development District Dear Jay: As a result of the Planning and Environmental Commission 's November 26, 1990 public hearing on the Sonnenalp redevelopment, the staff has assimilated a list of concerns that the PEC has generated. The following concerns are not in any prioritization, however, all of the issues listed below were mentioned by a majority of the Commissioners and must be addressed before the next hearing: 1. Meadow Drive - More relief is needed along the facade of the proposed building in this area. Additional design work should be done on the streetscape interface, and the connection with the plazas of the Vail Village Inn to the north. Additional public greenspace should be included in this area. The Commissioners stated that a break in the facade would be beneficial . 2 . Swiss Chalet Parking - This surface parking area should be removed and a plan to re-landscape and redesign this area into a pedestrian plaza should be developed. Reference Vail Village Master Plan sub-area concepts. SONNENALP SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT LETTER NOVEMBER 27, 1990 PAGE 2 3 . Vail Road Traffic Study - The issues regarding traffic on Vail Road should be finalized (i. e, turn lanes, width of lanes, sidewalks, and landscaping) , with the recommendation that the area be restudied at peak periods (Saturdays) . Additional survey information is needed for both sides of Vail Road. In addition, a plan to mitigate the construction traffic and parking on Vail Road needs to be presented. 4 . Fire Department Concerns - All concerns of the Fire Department need to be addressed. 5. Swimming Pool - The proposed swimming pool needs to be relocated out of the rear setback area. 6. Loading and Delivery Area - This should be restudied as it was determined by the Commissioners that the proposed loading dock was not adequate to handle all the loading for the facility. Access from this loading dock to the Meadow Drive commercial shops needs to be shown that it is in fact feasible. 7 . Vail Road/Meadow Drive Intersection - Additional greenspace should be included in this area and possibly the creation of a pocket park. 8 . Streamwalk - The Sonnenalp proposal should include a streamwalk along Gore Creek for the length of the property. 9 . Employee Housing - The applicant shall restudy the employee housing demands and shall propose to meet the standards as outlined in the recently adopted "Employee Housing Report" of the Town of Vail . 10 . Talis"an Access Easement - The existing access easement from the Talisman parking lot to Meadow Drive should be vacated and an access agreement finalized with the Sonnenalp/Talisman. SONNENALP SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT LETTER NOVEMBER 27 , 1990 PAGE 3 11. Building Height - Some Commissioners were concerned about the height of the "tower" , others were concerned about the height of the building along Meadow Drive, thereby creating shade on the pedestrian area. General height concerns were raised by most Commissioners. As you are aware, the PEC tabled the Sonnenalp redevelopment proposal until December 10, 1990. Though this list is much shorter than the issues raised in the staff memo, these issues appear to be the ones which a majority of Planning Commissioners stated concerns about. Once you have had an opportunity to review the above concerns of the Commissioners, please give me a call so we can meet to discuss your reactions to the above. Staff needs revised drawings showing how these issues are incorporated into the proposal no later than 8 : 00 a.m. on Tuesday, December 4 , 1990. We would like to meet with you no later than this Thursday, November 29 , 1990. If you should have any questions or concerns please do not hesitate to call me or Andy Knudtsen at 479-2138 . Sincerely, /1/24, ,��� Mike Mollica Senior Planner MM/ds cc: Gordon Pierce Johannes Faesler L:.>C INC DENVER TC No . =+i -3 7_110 I'd i', , q0 11 : 48 F . 0 r; i r ,,, ,,,.., , 5 , t� 1889 York Street TRANSPORTATION PLANNING l�( Denver, Colorado 80206 &TRAFFIC ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS (303)333-1105 Offices in Denver and Colorado Springs i � Fax: (303)333-1 107 ; t November 16, 1990 ii Mr. Ken A. O'Bryan I Pierce, Segerberg & Spaeh 1000 South Frontage Road West Vail, CO 80657 E: Sonnenal a Hotel Expansion LSC #900 10 Dear Ken: It has been brought to our at ntion'iihat recent ite-specific tra' is data indicates that the traffic generation estima used in our Octo er 4, 1990 tra c report for the Sonnenalp expansion project are to. high, ;As you ma recall,the ra are national averages published by the Institute of Tr$t;tisportation ngineers. • The proposed project is expec d to i 4sult in a to-al of 124 hotel oo s. If the hotel were to generate entering traffic at a rate _ f half that,previously ass m , entering southbound left-turns would be lik y to O. proximate twenty during e peak hour. We previously recommended a painted eft-turn median a'.ong Vail Road o se ve this and other nearby left-turn traffic. The easibil�ty of such painted medi , h wever, was ascumed to rest on not having to w den Road. T e only require en specified were the covering of an existing ditch an instlation of cb and gutter a jac nt to Sonnenalp. It was also assumed that the proposed th ee-lane design 1wou d be installed within the existing Vail Road cross-kection of approxi ately thirty f t. e would further recommend an 11-foot northbound lane, li f.0 -foot southbound lane a a -foot left-turn median. i It is our understanding that there i4 ome conce n about using ane ; idths along Vail Road which are less than 12 feet. Th, 12-foot wi th is one whic. ha been accepted as a design standard and, as such, works' ery well. It should be r- •gni , however, that the 12-foot design has been develo for high seed state high' ay onditions such as I-70. Application of this standard to to speed urban streets may:.e a desirable standard for new construction whe e right-of-way is s fficient but it .: often unrealistic and, in our experience, unnecessa . For;example, th re are many i to ces of travel lanes with 10-foot widths or less w ich fu. ction well long major str--ts in Denver and virtually any other major city. Eve the Colorado Hi hway Departm-nt leas reduced lane widths on 1-70 near the Eisenhowe Tunntl to 11 feetin order to eco omi ally allow the addition of a third travel lane. 1 Transportation Systems•Transit•Parking•Vehicular Access•Pg &dcstrian Bicycle Planning•,Traftc Operations&Sa -t} •S nal Design•Traffic Impact Studies Mr. Ken A. O'Bryan 2 Nobember 15, 1990 In our opinion, the recommend-. stri f ing in the vicinity of the S nn nalp will benefit traffic flow and safety, even • 'thou the proposed hotel expa ion. I However, if roadway widening is required in or er to 0 ect this change, the result;nt expenditures are not justified, and we would reco ol men that the operation of Vail .as remain as a two-lane design. • • • i We trust thr.t this supplement: information will assist with fur her planning for the Sonnenalp project. Please call if w: can l$ of additio al assistance. Respectfully submitted, d4' LEIGH, SCOTT & CLEARY, INC. t l.i1 I i C ' by: / - ''71._ .(A7C.- -r-7-- v , ,. V k i j_b Ce 4.D Philip . Sco , III, P.E. '- PNS/vb W oi) FN '261" /' /`(- V CL, ' ; ,J 0- a s G 1 \i,,(1) \ OLC ,JV ,kiy., AnI °146P3r/ ' 11°°DI) 9 LL- , f u VJ i 1 l 1 y nr 7 Percent Occupancy By Parking Lot By Date And Time This table summarizes the parking counts done at the various lots over the course of the winter. This same data is presented graphically on the three pages that follow. Note that the "average" occupancy and "minimum" and "maximum" are also identified at the bottom of the table. A B . C 0 E F G H I J K \ West Vail Glen Vail Prof. Stream- Simba Double- The Timber Racquet 7CipFAN c V C�V, .1 Mall s Lyon Bldg. side Run Tree Westin Tivoli Sonnenalp Falls Club A_ T�.)I 3 J TOTAL SPACES 139 54 81 165 128 162 412 28 112 180 275 viidir¢55 A DATE: 12/29 TIME: 8:20-9:30 am 0.00% 66.67% 0.00% 55.76% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00• 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% B DATE: 12/29 TIME: 1:15-2:30 pm 33.81% 74.07% 75.31% 0.00% 24.22% 59.88% 0.00% 0.00' 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% C DATE: 12/29 TIME: 5-6:30 pm ,„ 22.22% 38.27% 43.03% 29.69% 62.35% 0.00% 0.00'. 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% ,Z ad 0 DATE: 12/29 TIME: 9:50-11:00 pm 10.79% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 39.84% 0.00% 41.75% 0.00'a 58.93% 0.00% 0.00% E DATE: 12/29 TIME: 11:15-12:20 pm 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 34.38% 35.80% 0.00% 0.00'. 0.00% 44.44% 46.55% T r,g F DATE: 12/30 TIME: 11:OOam-2:30 pm '36.69% 61.11% 51.85% 42.42% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 91.07% 0.00% 0.00% ' V 2 3. G DATE: 1/05 TIME: 5:30-7:10 am .K 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 38.18% 64.06% 21.78% 18.93% 50.00'., 50.89% 43.33% 73.45% H DATE: 1/06 TIME: 2:15-4:00 pm 38.85% 61.11% 65.43% 28.48% 50.00% 56.79% 40.53% 53.57% 74.11.% 21.11% 44.73% S( O I DATE: 1/18 TIME: 6:00-7:00 pm .)TG' 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 42.42% 28.13% 16.67% 25.91% 92.86'.: 90.18% 37.22% 60.73% %r .7 :2, J DATE: 1/26 TIME: 8:30-9:30 an ff'' 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 38.18% 25.18% 49.38% 13.35% 32.14% 73.21% 21.22% 52.00% %` t (,/,'; A DATE: 1/29 TIME: E:50-7:00 am 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 53.33% 0.00% 48.77% 33.01% 0.00 55.36% 51.67% 93.82% r y L DATE: 1/31 TIME: 6:05-7:00 am f j� 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 46.51% 18.15% 62.96% 30.83% 89.29% 52.68% 45.00% 83.27% .i7,. 3 M DATE: 2/2 TIME: 4:55-6:20 pm , 43.17% 46.30% 60.49% 30.91% 24.22% 44.44% 57.28% 82.14% 63.39% 12.22% 51.27% ...Y, / N DATE: T 2/5 IME: 6:00-7:30 am 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 50.30% 24.22% 36.42% 33.25% 42.86% 53.57% 36.11% 69.82% %'-',/,? , 3 0 DATE 3/7 TIME: 6 OOam-7:30 am 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 60.00% 40.63% 32.12% 60.68% 60.71% 47.32% 43.89% 19.64% `'7, P DATE: 3/10 TIME: 6:OOam-7:00 am 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 49.09% 41.41% 30.25% 35.92% 53.57% 49.11% 51.11% 87.27% Q GATE: 3/10 TIME: 10 30-10:4 am 40.29% 87.04% 50.62% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% '`'./ °/- A DATE: 3/20 TIME: 7:00-8:00 am 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 58.18% 52.34% 41.36% 39.81% 60.71% 66.07% 65.00% 17.45% �� S DATE: 3/20 TIME 4:50-5:05 pm 44.60% 64.81% 56.79% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 57.28% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% �� /?%,- T DATE: 3/26 TIME: 6:40-7:40 am 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 67.88% 60.94% 53.09% 34.71% 53.57% 69.64% 62.18% 81.45% (7)--(,,4- 1' U DATE: 4/1 TIME: 6:40-1:55 am 15.11% 0.00% 0.00% 58.79% 49.22% 56.17% 34.47% 53.57% 63.3S% 55.00% 87.64% 5 r V DATE: 4/2 TIME: 6:45-1:50 am 7.91% 0.00% 0.00% 60.61% 37.50% 59.88% 33.74% 53.57% 61.86% 54.44% 78.91% 3 7. h DATE: 4/20 TIME: 6:40-7:30 am 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 16.36% 8.59% 27.16% 12.86% 25.00% 20.54% 24.44% 31.82% P 7, 0 DATE: 5/5 TIME: 2:55-3:55 pm 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 25.45% 10.94% 24.01% 25.24% 10.71% 40.16% 11.78% 24.36% 3 "'j Y DATE: 5/6 TIME: 7:40-7:51 am 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 9.70% 1.03% 26.54% 12.38% 14.2S% 19.64% 14.44% 31.21% 3 `ir/ 2 DATE: 6/4 TIME: 7:00-8:05 an 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 49.10% 5.47% 19.14% 25.00% 32.14% 51.7S% 23.33% 39.27% AA DATE: 7/1 TIME: 6:50 am 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 51.58% 30.41% 26.54% 33.50% 82.14% 59.82% 49.44% 69.09% Average Parking Utilization 31.15% 60.42% 56.97% 42.07% 30.19% 39.62% 31.16% 50.56% 55.19% 36.53% 60.04% Maximum 45% 81% 75% 68% 64% 63% 51% 100% 91% 65% 94% Minumum 6% 22% 38% 10% 5% 17% 12% Ilk 20% 12% 24% 9 ROSALL REMMEN CARES `?'Ii OCT 999 SONNENALP TRANSPORTATION STUDY(JAN. 1. 1990 UNTIL SEPT. 30. 1990) #OF GUESTS #OF ROOMS AV.PPL PER ROOM AV.STAY ARR/DEPT. JANUARY'90 9341 4586 2.04 5.6 1668 FEBRUARY 9067 4407 2.06 7.3 1242 MARCH 10181 4966 2.05 8.4 1213 APRIL 2695 1320 2.04 8.8 709 MAI 682 357 1.91 3.0 227 JUNE 2840 1679 1.69 3.3 860 JULY 4517 2561 1.76 3.7 1220 AUGUST 3565 1821 1.96 4.3 829 SEPTEMBER 2808 1607 1.75 4.1 684 TO DATE 45696 23304 2.0 5.28 8652 7`0 i-6( . TRIPS ROUNDTRIPS VAN COMPANIES: COLORADO MOUNTAIN EXPRESS *3681 1840 VANS TO VAIL **2380 1190 ATS (4, 9 ? Tet. s 4.1 ,,.._**1840 920 OTHER ***500 250 TOTAL : 8401 4201 4201 GUESTS ARRIVE AND DEPART WITH VAN SERVICES, LEAVIN 445 GUESTS FOR OTHER MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION SUCH AS CAR, BUS, RENTAL CAR. OUR RECORDS INDICATE THAT AN AVERAGE OF 2 PEOPLE PER VEHICLE IS REALISTIC. THAT WOULD MEAN 2225 VEHICLES THAT WOULD REQUIRE PARKING DURING THE OBSERVATION PERIOD , THAT TRANSLATES TO AN AVERAGE OF 8.21 CARS PER DAY. g.21 X S. 27 = 43.3 e7,7. # *COLORADO MT.EXPRESS RECORDS -,c — **OUR RECORDS CZ G p o /9-� '� ***ESTIMATE --- axe 5 01\,,c\k-Y-0-1/74 /4Leall^-e TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: November 26, 1990 RE: A request for a Special Development District for the Sonnenalp redevelopment, located at 20 Vail Road; A part of Lot L, Block 5-E, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Sonnenalp Properties, Inc. I. INTRODUCTION Johannes Faessler, of Sonnenalp Properties, Inc. has filed a request to apply a Special Development District to his property located at 20 Vail Road. The applicant proposes a mixed use hotel complex. The reason the applicant is applying for an SDD is that variations from the Public Accommodation (PA) underlying zoning are needed- for: "6) a 24 percent density increase, "9 a height variance allowing 81 f et where 48 feet is the maximum height, (3 3` � setbacks (on all four sides) , a reduction in the number of loading berths required (1 is proposed, 3 are required) , eft an increase in the amount of accessory hotel floor � area (23% of the GRFA where 10% is allowed) , and 'l/ an increase in the amount of common area (84% of the GRFA where 20% is allowed) . Section II of this memo (Zoning Analysis) has a detailed comparison of the proposed SDD to the Public Accommodation zone district requirements. II . DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Listed below is a summary outline of the proposed redevelopment request: A. Bavaria Haus Hotel (immediately east of First Bank) Establish SDD with existing, underlying Public Accommodation zoning for the hotel redevelopment. Increase accommodation units from 72 to 124 units. Eliminate 10 existing dwelling units. Maintain all units as lodge units. Install •as burning fireplaces. No additional wood- turning fireplaces are requested. There are currently four wood-burning fireplaces in the building, one in the lobby and three in hotel rooms at the mezzanine level of the existing structure. - Add 4 square feet of conferenc -pace for a total of 7930 s are feet. Construct the redevelopment to the following heights: West side: 51 - 81 ft. North side: 49 - 57 ft. East side: 52 ft. South side: 24 ft. B. Landscaping - Construct a pedestrian walkway, attached to the east side of the existing Vail Road bridge, over Gore Creek. - Construct a pocket park south of the Swiss Chalet and adjacent to Willow Bridge Road. However, this property appears to be owned by Vail Associates and as far as the Town is aware, VA has not formally, or conceptually agreed to have a pocket park developed at that location. Construct a sidewalk along the east side of Vail Road, and construct improvements such as planters and sidewalks along E. Meadow Drive. Install landscaping along the north and west elevations. C. Parking and Loading - Construct a parking garage with 185 spaces regular spaces: 127 compact spaces: 25 valet spaces: 33 Remove the existing exterior parking lot Locate all parking underground. The primary access to the parking structure will be from Vail Road, adjacent to the First Bank Building. Surface loading/delivery will remain at the southwest corner of the property. D. Other Construct retail commercial space of 5,760 square feet. Expand restaurant and lounge area for a total of 6657 square feet. 2 III. ZONING ANALY_ - The project' s departu7 from the PA zone district sta,.aards are highlighted in bo.�u type. SONNENALP ZONING ANALYSIS UNDERLYING ZONING: EXISTING PROPOSED PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION PROJECT SDD Site Area: 2 . 024 acres or Same Same 88, 165 sq. ft. Setbacks: 20 feet all sides N=Meadow Dr: 20 ft. N = 10 ft. W=Vail Road: 13 ft. W = 0 ft. S=Gore Creek: 4 ft. S = 1 ft. E=Talisman: 0 ft. E = 7 ft. Height:+ 45 ft. flat roof 42 . 0 ' - ridge 81.0 ' - ridge (exu,+ 48 ft. sloping roof 23.5 ' - eave (maximum) GRFA: 70, 532 sq. ft. 30, 122 sq. ft. 70 , 113 sq. ft. Units: 25 units per acre, or 46 units 62 units 50 units for the site. (72 a.u. & 10 d.u. ) (124 a.u. ) Site Coverage: 48 , 491 sq. ft. 17 , 984 sq. ft. 44 , 378 sq. ft. or 55 % or 20 % or 50 . 3 % Landscaping: 30% of site or 29, 926 sq. ft. 40, 363 sq. ft. 26, 450 sq. ft. or 33 . 9 % or 45 . 8 % Pam Per Town of Vail Required: 105 Required: 169*** 6:1(1,11,4 fl1 parking standards Provided: 101 Proposed: 127 spaces 25 compact 33 valet 185 Total Loading: Per Town of Vail Required: 3 berths loading standards Proposed: 1 berth Accessory Uses: 10% of the 18 % or 23 % or Commercial, constructed GRFA 5,396 sq. ft. 15,866 sq ft. Restaurant, or 7 ,011 sq. ft. Lounge: Common Area: 20% of Allowed GRFA 20% or 84% or or 14, 106 sq. ft. 13,862 sq. ft. 59,497 sq. ft. Gross Floor Area: N/A 49 , 380 sq. ft. 145, 476 sq. ft. (does not include (161"4 structured parking) ***Required parking includes a 5% credit for multiple use parking facilities per Town of Vail parking code, Section 18 . 52 . 120 . Also allows for non-conforming parking credit (see attachments for breakdown) . 3 IV. SDD CRITER In order to avoid too much repetition of Staff comments, we have tried to list our comments under the most appropriate criteria heading. This is not to imply that many of the comments do not relate to several headings or planning documents. Upon completion of the submittal requirements, the following review criteria will be used to assess the merits of the Sonnenalp redevelopment: A. Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment, neighborhood and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones , identity, character, visual integrity and orientation. Heiaht: Staff strongly objects to the maximum height of 77 feet for the Vail Road building elevation and 81 feet for the elevator tower given the Vail Village context. The heights of the surrounding buildings are 47. 5 for the Vail Village Inn (VVI) ridge, 70 for the VVI tower, and 20 for the ridge of the chapel. Though the VVI tower is tall, it is an architectural accent to the rest of the building. Its slender proportions are such that it is a tower. The "tower" above the auto court is designed with proportions which make it appear quite massive (i.e. "a building" ) and should not be labeled as a tower. Staff acknowledges that a certain number of rooms must be obtained in order to construct a project of this magnitude. However, the Vail Village Master Plan calls out for a range of heights between 27 ' and 36 ' , plus a roof, on the southern portion of the site. The mass above the auto court and the elevator tower are proposed in this same area, at 45 to 50 feet above the limit recommended in the Master Plan. Along East Meadow Drive, the Village Plan recommends heights of 18-27 feet plus a roof. Proposed heights in this area range from 49 . 5 ' to 57. 5 ' . The PA zone district allows for a maximum height of 48 ft. for sloping roofs. Staff believes that the Sonnenalp proposal needs to come more into compliance with these recommended heights. It is positive that the height of the building along Vail Road has been reduced from the originally proposed height of 102 feet, down to 77 feet. As mentioned in the two previous work session memos, height should terrace down to Vail Road and East Meadow Drive to respect pedestrian areas as well as views from public areas. Character In staff ' s analysis, a significant deviation from the character of the Village is the formal, unbroken facade 4 along East P low Drive. The arcade ex .ds 165 feet without any relief, though there are a variety of dormer treatments in the roof. The master plan calls for two "plazas with green space" along this section of Meadow Drive, which would break up this facade. Tying both sides of the street together has not been accomplished in this proposal . This is not to say that the overall architectural style is not of high quality. However, the mass of the building is too large in relation to the site and surrounding properties; the building does not fit the scale of the Village; and more relief from the formal architectural style is needed on Meadow Drive. B. Uses , activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. Density, GRFA and Uses: The proposal, though all lodge rooms, will have a density 24% greater than the allowable. Staff supports the plan to have lodge rooms only, but is concerned that the density, in conjunction with the height, is too much for the site. The applicant does comply with the GRFA limitation for the site; however, the GRFA calculation only counts the residential areas. The accessory uses exceed the allowable by 13% and the common area exceeds the allowable by 64%. As a result, the mass of the project is much larger than what the zoning code allows. (The specific breakdown of the accessory area and common area can be found in Section III . Briefly, what PA zoning allows is 10% of GRFA for accessory and 20% for common. What is proposed is 23% and 84%, respectively. ) It is common for the staff to support increases in common area above the allowable. In this case, the common area, in conjunction with the accessory use increase, is causing the building mass to become excessive. Concerning uses, the mix of lodging, commercial and conference space is appropriate and supports the goals of the Vail Village Master Plan. C. Compliance with parking and loading requirements as outlined in Chapter 18 . 52 . Parking: All parking will be provided on site. 33 spaces (17 . 8 percent) will be valet. 25 spaces (13 . 5%) will be compact. A positive aspect of this proposal is that the existing surface parking will bo placed underground. There will be no surface parking except for six spaces in the auto court. The Town' s parking analysis indicates that the redevelopment would •_o •- • 16 •arkin• s.aces. The staff would strongly recommend that the 13 existing surface parking spaces for the Swiss Chalet (adjacent to Willow Bridge Road) be incorporated into the new underground parking and that the surface spaces be removed. This will allow the applicant to convert this space from a parking lot to a pedestrian area. As this is a specific aim of the Vail Village Master Plan, staff provides more details on this 5 issue in t section. Loading: The Zoning Code requires three berths. The applicant is proposing one. In discussions with the applicant, it is evident that he believes the hotel programming requires only one. However, since all commercial tenants located along Meadow Drive will service their shops via the auto court, staff believes that two of the spaces in the auto court should be reserved for loading. This would bring the development up to the Town standards for loading. Staff is also concerned that if two spaces within the auto court are no . _ • - ' . •.ted for loading, he de iyery trucks „may try to use Meadow Drive or the area adjacent to the southw-est corner . D. Conformity with applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, Town policies and Urban Design Plans. Because of the many different goals, policies, and illustrative plans that pertain to this proposal, a separate section of the memo discusses the compliance of the project with the Vail Village Master Plan. The intention to maintain all of the units as accommodation units fits well with the Town policies. Any conversions of these to condominium units in the future should be prohibited. E. Identification and mitigation of natural and/or geologic hazards that affect the property on which the special development district is proposed. The floodplain is the only hazard which could affect the site. The applicant is not proposing any construction in the 50 foot Gore Creek stream setback or the floodplain. F. Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions designed to produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural features , vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community. Site plan/Setbacks The building will encroach into all setbacks. PA zoning requires 20 foot setbacks on all sides of the property. The applicant has relocated the building to meet the setback line in many cases, which is an improvement over previous proposals but still has ten areas of encroachment. The specific points of encroachment in each setback, starting with the loading dock area on the southwest corner of the site are: West 1. The loading dock encroaches 8 ' -9 ' into the Vail Road setback; 6 2 . Tr- ew kitchen and Bully enc] h l5 ' -0" into the Vail Road setback; 3 . The rooms above auto court entry encroach 3 ' -9" into the Vail Road setback; 4 . The tower on the corner of Meadow Drive and Vail Road encroaches 7 ' 6" into the Vail Road setback and 7 ' 0" into the East Meadow Drive setback; North 5 . The roof over the arcade encroaches into the Meadow Drive setback 3 ' 9" ; 6. The tower on the east end of the project encroaches 10 ' 0" into the east side setback; East 7 . A stair encroaches 15 ' 5" into a setback abutting the Talisman site; South 8 . The swimming pool encroaches 8 ' 0" into the rear setback; 9 . The King Ludwig deck (above) and the conference room area (below) encroach 5 ' 0" into the rear setback; and 10 . The loading area encroaches 20 ' 0" into the rear setback creating a zero rear setback situation. The encroachment which concerns staff the most is the one required for the kitchen and loading dock area on the southwest corner of the property. Staff has worked with the applicant in reducing the mass and bulk of the building on this corner as much as possible, but believes that it still has the most impact of all the encroachments. Another encroachment of concern is the swimming pool. The Zoning Code allows recreational amenities to encroach into the setback if the Design Review Board determines that the location is not detrimental environmentally or aesthetically. Staff believes that in this case, the Gore Creek corridor should be maintained as natural as possible to preserve its aesthetic appeal . Staff does not support the pool in this location and would recommend that the pool be pulled back out of the setback. The two tower encroachments on either end of the building along Meadow Drive are not problems in staff ' s opinion, if the heights were reasonable. Staff believes that undulating the building along Meadow Drive and allowing the towers to come out closer to the street gives more definition to the public space and is a benefit. The master plan calls for plazas in two locations on either side of the tower locations. The concept shown in the open space plan is accompanied by a related concept in the height plan which limits the height to 2-3 stories. The two must go together to make the Meadow Drive corridor work. Therefore, if the heights were reduced to 2-3 stories, the setback encroachments would actually be a contribution to the streetscape. 7 Natural Fe res The site is generally flat with Gore Creek running along the south side of the property. Significant landscaping also exists along East Meadow Drive, in the center of the parking area, and adjacent to the Bully III deck. The applicant has taken advantage of the beauty of Gore Creek and has located the spa and garden along the creek. Staff believes that adding a streamwalk along the creek would allow more guests in Vail to enjoy this natural feature. G. A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and off-site traffic circulation. Talisman/Sonnenalp Coordination: Coordination between the proposed Sonnenalp SDD and the existing Talisman Condominiums is necessary. Staff encourages the two owners to work together on access, landscaping, and parking for the two projects in a comprehensive manner. The Town Fire Department continues to have major concerns over emergency access to both properties. Traffic: This will be discussed in the section of the memo dealing with the Environmental Impact Report. Pedestrians : The design of the project has provided some improvements for pedestrians . The applicants will provide a sidewalk along Vail road from the corner of Meadow Drive to Gore Creek. At that point, they will construct a pedestrian bridge over the creek so that pedestrians can continue to walk south of the creek. Staff supports the idea of the pedestrian bridge; however, at this time, we do not have specific design drawings of the proposal. Along East Meadow Drive, the design could be improved for pedestrians by providing a stronger interface between the pedestrian street and the store fronts. What is also missing from the project is the streamwalk and permission for the pocket park allowing public access to Gore Creek. H. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and functions. The proposal has provided an optimal garden area in the center and south side of the site. Though this is good preservation of open space, it is limited to the hotel guests. The hotel has been designed so that the building is located close to Vail Road and Meadow Drive. By not providing open space west or north of the building, the public does not benefit from the open space on-site. 8 Staff recommends that the applicant create a plaza/planting area across from VVI, to provide some public open space. This has been discussed during the review process since it is called out for in the open space plan of the Vail Village Master Plan. Not only would it provide some open space on the site which the public would benefit from, it would break up the hard line of the Meadow Drive facade. It would also allow for a concentration of landscaping, and would create a space where the VVI, the Sonnenalp, and the pedestrian way are brought together. There are also other ways to provide publicly accessible open space, such as including the pocket park on VA land or the streamwalk. (The applicant has not received permission from the owner to develop a pocket park in this area. Staff did the research which, at this point, shows that VA is the owner. The applicant has not yet shown that a pocket park in this location is feasible. ) I . Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional and efficient relationship throughout the development of the special development district. See discussion under the EIR analysis. J. Outstanding concerns from other departments 1. Fire Department: The proposed building must be equipped with fire sprinklers throughout; Access to the Talisman must be assured as per UFC 10-207 ; The existing building must be equipped with fire sprinklers throughout and must have access per UFC 10-207 ; Fire flows must be provided in agreement with Upper Eagle Valley Water and Sanitation District; Conference room exiting is inadequate. 2 . Public Works: ° An amended traffic analysis is required; The Talisman parking area does not function properly, as currently designed. A minimum sidewalk width of 6 feet, on Vail Road, will be required for the full length of the project. Drainage improvements along Vail Road and East Meadow Drive will be needed. 3 . Landsca e Architect: The stream walk should be shown on the site plan. The applicant will need to submit a revised 9 i ,dscaping plan if proposed 'Ianges to Vail Road a. approved. Maintenance of landscaped areas and sidewalks shall be the owner' s responsibility. The conceptual landscape plan appears to be acceptable. A detailed planting and irrigation plan should be submitted for review. p , Ta„ , ( 4 l O {( i•1 1 v. VAIL VILLAGE 'MASTER PLAN - f / ,�, "- In •eneral, the staff believes that the Sonnenal. project should be much II• a - .. . the Vail Villa.e Master Plan. The previous two work session memos listed many areas where the project could comply more closely with the Village Plan. Inmost cam_ th.e_,,.previous staff comments ap•1 to to - -vised 'proposal since the applicant has failed to �ddress the concepts of the plan. Staff believes that one of the most important •ar , .. of the Master Plan is the • o - .. _. •• _ ?din. e a•ram. The portion o that plan which includes the Sonnenalp project is shown below. The corner treatment for Vail Road and Meadow Drive should be 2-3 stories. The rest of the site is called out at 3-4 stories. The project severely deviates from the Master Plan as it is 4 stories on the corner and rises up to 6 stories above the auto court. :, lid► az Jam, , y-,!' / `.ate. «.by�s:r :A- .,,s. •� ', 1\ � 6 ,- a_ _- - h� . "2'� . i _ —Q. . — s / .. r: ' r e' :- ". :;a ... _ _ _ CONCEPTUAL =-E:= j.a BUILDING "C.;'Cr‘ HEIGHT PLAN _- During the review, it has been mentioned that the master plan is not applicable to a demo/rebuild such as this. The master plan, by definition, cannot address the aspects of every construction project. But the policies and objectives of the plan do apply to 10 all projects. When the plan developed, the appropriate scale for redevelopoment was established with consideration of surrounding properties and the overall streetscape. The principle design concepts are relevant and applicable even if a demo-rebuild is proposed. The specific goals, objectives, and sub-area plans which pertain to this project are listed below. In the following analysis of the Master plan information, the staff comments are in bold, the important points of the plan are underlined, and the regular type is the rest of the Master Plan text. 0 Sub-Area #1-2 - Vail Road Intersection #1-2 Vail Road Intersection_ r'l1i=u Possible realignment of kajs �} intersection in conjunction with 1� _ relocation of the Ski Museum.4 ft$a14 --- _-= Focus of redesign should be to .....Yak establish a small park and ✓•) ;4 , pedestrian entry for the west end -�,,\ ,� ,1 110›.--''__ of the Village and to provide a �� i� 9 visual barrier to discourage isill!'- - vehicular traffic from heading 771 �� �� south on Vail Road from the 4-way NWSL C 1_2, rtL�� _�, stop. Specific design of Ski � 1-2 �C__ Museum site to be included in West ,i °° Meadow Drive pedestrian � f improvement project. The �r 1 \ P'' pedestrian connection both north "" � �Vho and south along Vail Road should ° `i , 1 . \ N � • also be improved. Special emphasis on 3.2, 3.4, 4.1, 5.3, 5.4. Sub-Area #1-2 states: "Possible realignment of intersection in conjunction with relocation of the Ski Museum. Focus of redesign should be to establish a small park and pedestrian entry for the west end of the Village and to provide a visual barrier to discourage vehicular traffic from heading south on Vail Road from the 4-way stop. Specific design of Ski Museum site to be included in West Meadow Drive pedestrian improvement project. The pedestrian connection both north and south along Vail Road should also be improved. " The project does provide a six foot wide sidewalk along the full length of the west side of the property. The sidewalk will be made out of pavers and will extend from the northwest corner plaza area to the pedestrian bridge that the applicant will install over Gore Creek. These improvements serve to implement this concept. 11 Sub-Area #1-3 - Sonnenalp (Bavaria Haus) Infill Commercial infill development with second floor residential/lodging to enclose Meadow Drive and improve the quality of the pedes- trian experience. Designated ���� walkways and plazas with »; .` I�1 greenspace should interface with those of the Vail Village Inn. A meet 1PP�t4. ��� pedestrian walkway (possibly gc_2e5 - arcade) should be provided to JJ�i��// —Q �U�i encourage pedestrian circulation physically removed from West Meadow Drive. Mass of building / should not create a shadow pattern on Meadow Drive. Development will /.�.... , require coordination and/or "''7'1 j, ( - e involvement with adjacent property owners. Existing and new parking demand to be provided on site. Special emphasis on 1.2, 1.3, 2.3, Sub-Area #1-3 states: 2.4, 2.6, 3.1, 3.4, 4.1, 5.1, 6.1. "Commercial infill development with second floor residential/lodging to enclose Meadow Drive and improve the quality of the pedestrian experience. Designated walkways and plazas with green space should interface with those of the Vail Village Inn. A pedestrian walkway (possibly arcade) should be provided to encourage pedestrian circulation physically removed from Meadow Drive. Mass of building should not create a shadow pattern on Meadow Drive. Development will require coordination and/or involvement with adjacent property owners. Existing and new parking demand to be provided on site. " Meadow Drive will be completely shaded in the winter. The ridge along Meadow Drive will cast a shadow 98 feet long at noon on December 21st. This will completely cover Meadow Drive. Even on the equinox dates (March 21 and September 21) , the shadow cast will be 43 feet long. Staff understands that some shadow will be cast by any redevelopment that occurs along Meadow Drive; however, the mass of this proposal and the way the roof line is unvaried makes the shadow impact worse than alternative designs that were discussed in the review process. In the EIR, the applicant claims that the building will shade the street for only a short period of time without specifying the length. Staff believes that this statement is misleading and more information is needed on this impact. Staff is also very concerned about the possible icing of East Meadow Drive, given the location and height of the new building. Please see comments on project design, parking, circulation, and landscaping under SDD criteria. 12 C. Sub-Area #1-5 - Willow Bridge Road Walkway 1 ,„ #1-5 Willow Bridae Road Walkway ` :, � . ' A decorative paver pedestrian G walkway, separated from the street ---"..(.0,,. . �- and accented by a strong C landscaped area to encourage pedestrian circulation along MM P- -, , t _4 ` Meadow Drive. Loss of parking de �V '— "" � ' will need to be relocated on site. q6 t 4\ v-, 10\ 1.; ' C'-'1:-9 41* Special emphasis on 3.4, 5.1. J*Z- -'. • 44144;:,: i, Sub-Area #1-5 states: "A decorative paver pedestrian walkway, separated form the street and accented by a strong landscaped area to encourage pedestrian circulation along Meadow Drive. Loss of marking will need to be relocated on site. " The diagrams in the Master Plan show the area discussed in the paragraph above and the area along Willow Bridge Road blending into one another. The applicant has expressed an interest in removing the parking that exists there now and converting the space into a pedestrian area. The parking garage that will be built in this proposal has 16 extra spaces. There are 13 spaces in front of the Swiss Chalet. Because the applicant is proposing to consolidate the front desks for these two buildings, the parking can be located in the garage of the main building. Staff recommends that the applicant redesign the space and convert it into a pedestrian area according to the Master Plan. It was mentioned by, a Planning Commissioner at the first work session that this Sub-Area Concept be addressed through the Sonnenalp proposal. Staff also agrees with this suggestion that it be incorporated into the project. 13 D. Sub-Area #1-4 - Sonnenalp East (Swiss Chalet) Infill-^ , #1-4 Sonnenalp East (Swiss Chalet) - c Infill ✓J L Jj. Commercial infill of north facing �-- — -�eD°" \ alcove of existing structure to ,.••�'N�, P. , provide shops and pedestrian 1 d' ' \ \/t activity. A plaza with greenspace shall be developed in conjunction mo //,- ,, \' with the adjacent plaza at the es �6 Vail Village Inn. Fire access and on-site parking are two issues to - - '' be addressed in the design and f1411 . •%, ; 1j development of this project. /� Special emphasis on 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, ^� � r A 3.1, 3.2, 4.1, 5.1, 6.1, 6.2. "Commercial infill of north facing alcove of existing structure to provide shops and pedestrian activity. A plaza with greenspace shall be developed in conjunction with the adjacent plaza at the Vail Village Inn. Fire access and on- site parking are two issues to be addressed in the design and development of this project. " Two issues in this sub-area recommendation pertain to the proposal. One is to develop a plaza for pedestrian activity outside the Swiss Chalet. This area is intended to relate to the VVI as well as Willow Bridge Road. This improvement relates directly to the recommendation for the Willow Bridge Road walkway, which is discussed in the paragraph above. The second issue involves fire access. The Town' s Fire Department has determined that access to the Talisman is not adequate as proposed. 14 E. Sub-Area #1-9 - Study Area: Village Streamwalk Sub-Area #1-9 states: #1-9 Study Area: Village Streamwalk \ ` / Study of a walking only path along `c7 Ic ' �;" • ,f Gore Creek between the Covered /P` �, �� • � . ,r, , A•- � • . 3 Bridge and Vail Road, connecting •� • ! ., .M 1 \e'Cr \\ to existing streamwalk, further �w � • \ enhancing the pedestrian network • L ' , . 1 2 1-9 �L ) throughout the Villa • J A..:1::: `_ g Village and i7-9 V+/tLLOVV • \3 providing public access to the • g • ( creek. Specific design and /. n ., r a `d pnu �. • . ,r- ^�. nK, �-}� location of walkway shall be'1_ • � �� sensitive to adjacent uses and the - � ey �� J }�`ti`� creek environment. (Reference to '�,� �. ^ ( Vail Recreational Trails Plan for .�+r'-•� 11 - 9IOitill additional information on this � i=,2 " / " trail) . Special emphasis on 3.4, 4.2. "Study of a walking only path along Gore Creek between the Covered Bridge and Vail Road, connecting to existing streamwalk, further enhancing the pedestrian network throughout the Village and providinq public access to the WIE ilte� creek. Specific design and location of walkway shall be sensitive to adjacent uses and the creek environment. " lArik Staff believes that a stream walk is in the best interests of the Town. Expanding the existing popular recreational amenity is worthwhile, especially since staff believes it can be designed in a way that is. sensitive to the hotel proposal. Benching a walkway down near the stream appears to be feasible. Additional landscaping is another way to buffer the walk from the hotel's garden area Developing pedestrian-only walkways and stream access fulfills Objective 3. 4 of the Master Plan, which reinforces the goal of this sub-area. Because a streamwalk is an effective way to provide a natural experience within the Village, and because it could be built sensitively to the hotel, staff believes the applicant should incorporate it into the site plan. F. Emphasized Goals & Policies Below is a list of the specific objectives of the Master Plan. With the exceptions of the objectives dealing with employee housing and the streamwalk, the proposal generally meets the list below. Staff believes that the project' s primary positive aspects include its provision of accommodation units, the parking plan, the pedestrian bridge and the fact that this is a good site for a mixed use redevelopment. 15 ( ,,,--4-- /f 1. 2 Objective: Encourage the upgrading and redevelopment of residential and commercial facilities. 1. 3 Objective: Enhance new development and redevelopment through public improvements done by private developers working in cooperation with the Town. 2 . 3 Objective: Increase the number of residential units available for short term overnight accommodations. 2 .4 Objective: Encourage the development of a variety of new commercial activity where compatible with existing land uses. 2 . 5 Objective: Encourage the continued upgrading, renovation and maintenance of existing lodging and commercial facilities to better serve the needs of our guests. 2 . 6 Objective: Encourage the development of affordable housing units through the efforts of the private sector. 3 . 1 Objective: Physically improve the existing pedestrian ways by landscaping and other improvements. 3 .4 Objective: Develop additional sidewalks, pedestrian-only walkways and accessible green space areas, including pocket parks and stream access. 4 . 1 Objective: Improve existing open space areas and create new plazas with green space and pocket parks. Recognize the different roles of each type of open space in forming the overall fabric of the Village. 5. 1 Objective: Meet parking demands with public and private parking facilities. 6. 1 Objective: Provide service and delivery facilities for existing and new development. 16 H. Illustrative Plans. 1. Land use ;Plan: a. North side of Sonnenalp site, "Mixed Use. " This category includes the "historic" Village core and properties near the pedestrianized streets of the Village. Lodging, retail and a limited amount of office use are found in this category. With nearly 270 , 000 square feet of retail space and approximately 320 residential units, the mixed use character of these areas is a major factor in the appeal of Vail Village. Since the proposal is mixed use, it fits well with this Master Plan illustration. b. South side of Sonnenalp site, "Medium/High Density Residential and Mixed Use. " Medium/High Density The overwhelming majority of the Village' s lodge rooms and condominium units are located in this land use category. Approximately 1, 100 units have been developed on the 27 acres of private land in this category. In addition, another 110 units are approved but unbuilt. It is a goal of this Plan to maintain these areas as predominantly lodging oriented with retail development limited to small amounts of "accessory retail. " Mixed Use (along Meadow Drive and Willow Road) This category includes the "historic" Village core and properties near the pedestrianized streets of the Village. Lodging, retail and limited amount of office use are found in this category. With nearly 270, 000 square feet of retail space and approximately 320 residential units, the mixed use character of these areas is a major factor in the appeal of Vail Village. The project complies with the types of uses called for in the Illustrative Land Use Plan. 2 . Open Space Plan: 17 a. "Planted Buffer" is designated on north and west side of site. b. "Plaza with green space" is designated on north side of property connecting to the Vail Village Inn and on eastern property adjacent to Swiss Chalet and VVI sculpture plaza. c. "Open Space" is designated along entire stream corridor. The proposal does not provide a ',Plaza with green space"." Though a plaza at this location would benefit the area by: Tying in with the VVI buildings, reducing the shadow cast by the structure, and providing some public open space. At this time, these goals are not addressed in a comprehensive way. 3 . Parking and Circulation Plan: a. East Meadow Drive is designated as a pedestrian street with plazas, limited or no autos and a bus route. The Gore Creek corridor is designated as a study area for a walking path. East Meadow will continue to be a pedestrian corridor; however, the proposal does not include a stream walk. 4 . Building Height Plan: a. The area along East Meadow Drive is recommended to be a maximum of two to three stories or 18 to 27 ft. high. Three to four stories (27 ft to 36 ft. ) is designated on the southern three quarters of the property. All heights exclude roof forms. As this is one of the most important components of the Master Plan, staff , discussed this item in the first section of („__the memo on page four. r 18 VI. EIR ANALYSIS A. Hydrologic Conditions The applicant will be altering the existing drainage along Vail Road significantly. Currently there is a rock lined ditch that conveys the water to Gore Creek. Curb and gutter will be installed. All drainage improvements must meet Town of Vail standards and will be reviewed for compliance at time of building permit. Drainage from the parking structure will be drained to the sanitary sewer. Details for the parking structure drainage have not been put together at this time. Staff recommends that the best possible pollution control devices, including grease traps and sediment traps, should be installed in the drainage system. The one area of concern that the Town has regarding drainage is how it will be handled during construction of the project. Dewatering any excavation pits into Gore Creek could negatively impact the creek unless the sediment is removed. The_ Environmental Impact Report completed by the applicant commits the applicant to undertake erosion and dewaterinq contr..fl1 _ me. ___ .c • jng to the best available practices tp ensure that the creek impacts are minimized. B. Atmospheric Conditions The three ways this project will impact air quality are through fireplaces, dust control , and automobile trips to the site. Concerning fireplaces, all units in the hotel are proposed to have gas burning fireplaces. The air emissions fro,u ->-- • . ' .g appliances will be negligible. There are four existing wood burning fireplaces in the .hotel which will remain. Dust is an impact that is generated from the construction process and through the sanding of the existing parking lot. During construction, the applicant in the EIR commits to undertake efforts to control the dust. y locating the parking i na underground and el i m' •. ' • •--. or sanding, air quality will be improved. The last possible impact is from automobile trips. 19 With 40 additional rooms, there will be additional trips to the site. Staff believes that this is a reasonable increase and that further documentation is not needed. The hotel 's mini-van service combines trips that some guests might otherwise make individually in their own cars. Given the benefit of gas appliance fireplaces, eliminating the sanding in the winter from the parking lot, the negative impact of the additional trips is offset. C. Geologic and Biotic Conditions The proposal does not change the impacts relating to geologic and biotic conditions. D. Visual Conditions The applicant has used seven photographs taken of the Village to show how the proposal will relate to surrounding structures. The building outline has been shown in tape. Concerning the view looking east on West Meadow Drive (#1) , the EIR consultant claims that few people will view the Sonnenalp from this point since foot traffic is minimal in the area. Staff strongly disagrees with this analysis. Since Meadow Drive is a bus and pedestrian route linking the Village to Lionshead, staff believes this view will be highly noticeable. All of the views of the building from points in the Village show that the ski slopes, the mountain, and the sky will be blocked. (3 , 5, 6 and 7) The view east from the First Bank and chapel area will be completely blocked. (#5) The views from the four way stop (#2 and 4) show that the building will not exceed the highest ridge of Vail Mountain, as it will from the vantage points in the Village. This is because the elevation of the four way stop is higher than the site of the project. Staff realizes that some view impacts are inevitable if the project is redeveloped. However, we believe the building as proposed has se - ' HO. ich are not - ' . - - a = a - - _ . 841 ' 10 areas. 20 E. Land Use Conditions The uses proposed are compatible with those around the site. This issue has been analyzed in the SDD and Vail Village Master Plan sections of the memo. F. Circulation and Transportation conditions The traffic study, done by Leigh, Scott and Cleary, Inc. , concluded that the capacity of the surrounding road network can generally handle the traffic generated by the project. The only street improvement recommended was to provide three lanes in Vail Road's existing alignment. The new-brie is for a left turn lane. The original study ' recommended that the three lanes be provided with substandard lane widths so that the street would not have to be widened. Other significant findings from the study include: At full occupancy, the proposed project can be expected to add approximately 175 entering and 175 exiting weekday vehicle trips to the surrounding roadway system. Of these, 14 will enter and 12 will exit during the evening peak-hour. The greatest concentration of project- generated traffic is expected along Vail Rcad to and from the north. Ninety-three percent of the additional traffic will pass though the four way stop. The traffic impact of the proposed project on existing and future peak season traffic will be minimal . The first traffic study, dated October 4 , 1990, was completed based on national averages of trip generation and does not accurately reflect Vail traffic patterns. (See attached report. ) The applicant and the Town did independent studies of the parking demand for the existing hotel which showed that the supply exceeds the demand. Because of this information and the general agreement on this issue between the staff and the applicant, a revised traffic study was submitted. The issue which needed clarification was the requirement for a center lane to allow left turns into the autocourt. The first study, based on 21 national standards, determined that it was needed, but that substandard lanes would suffice. Since it is not reasonable for the Town to accept substandard lanes on one of the busiest roads in the Town, the second study dated November 15 , 1990, based on local standards, was supposed to clarify the issue and determine what the new project would require. A major flaw of th second stud ' s found in the conclusion. The consultants state that "if roadwa wi• - • • •_• 's re.uired- . • • - • _ • '..e three lanes , the resultant ex��nditt�reG ark not 'us ould recommend that the operation of Vail Road remain as a two-lane ae-giqh-7, Staff discussed the study with the engineer who prepared it and found that he had no documentation of the cost which "is not justified. " Staff does not concur that the cost/benefit analysis referred to in the conclusion is an appropriate means to determine what improvements the applicant is responsible for. This is especially true when the cost, at the time the report was written, was unknown to the consultants. More importantly is the fact that a requirement to •ui • e mi.. e ane mus •e .etermine. .y amoun of demand made b the new project. If the Sonnenalp �PnPr� s the demand, they must n the impact. cast ct-,^»L d not be a factor in this dec_____isi_on. At this time, the need for the third lane is not known. What is known is that the applicant has committed to placing curb and gutter at the edge of the street for the full length of Vail Road, and that the new edge will make the roadway either wider or narrower. Because the traffic report should determine that two or three lanes is needed, placing the curb and gutter at the existing edge of pavement would not be appropriate for either solution as it does not provide proper alignment for a two lane or three lane road design. A related issue to this is the need for accurate survey information. Setting the edge of pavement (whether it is two or three lanes) must be based on accurate information. The architectural drawings used up to November 8th showed the proposed curb eight feet from where it should have been. The applicant 's solution was to shift all of Vail Road approximately eight feet to the west. 22 This shift must be verified with survey information showing both sides of Vail Road prior to any improvements being approved so that staff can verify that there are no impacts to First Bank. G. Population Characteristics The Sonnenalp currently employs approximately 270 employees during the winter season. To -_.ro•osed redevelo ment would add approximatele 26 net emp ogees per the FIR Ten of ese • •yees will be needed for housekeeping, a houseman, laundry service, and general hotel staffing. The consultants preparing the EIR assumed that 16 employees are enough to staff the additional commercial area. The applicant is assuming that no additional employees will be needed for the 4000 square feet of new conference area or for the 4700 square feet of new restaurant area. The applicant claims that the conference area requires the same staffing, regardless of size. Concerning the restaurant, the applicant has stated that he will use the existing Sonnenalp Austria House restaurant staff to serve the expanded Bavaria he,„0,01 House area. (The Austria House is by the Covered Bridge, the Bavaria House is the one under consideration. ) The Austria House restaurant will shut down when the Bavaria House restaurants are open. % /1--)� 76 5 The additional 26 em•lo_ ees will incre. _ - •.,- ,,`' total number to 296 . The • . - al• -- ‘'‘ e' •vides housin• for a••_ • . iatel 45 • • . units are owned by the Sonnenalp�rousin• '67 - ployees and 20 units . - - . . tie Sonnenalp, housing 78 empioyee A This assumes that each bedroom houses two Sonft na p emp oy- 44 '6 No . •• • - . • • .e ms—h o.ur i s hropos e d y he Sonnenal• for the -. -ve_o. i i though statements s l 01/0 in the EIR acknowledge that the housing goals of �� - the Sonnenalp are not being met. However, staff O�ic�.� 1(0 46 believes that a redevelopment of this magnitude should have some permanent employee housing. The e�gI`' �� material in the EIR states that "housing is of t potential concern to both the Sonnenalp and the Town. " Staff needs to clarify this point and state that significant resources have already been invested by the Town to address this issue. With 23 the adoption of the Town of Vail Affordable Housing Study on November 20, 1990, it is no longer a potential concern but is an issue that must be addressed formally. At this time, the report has been adopted and provides guideline for new development. At a later date, the report' s recommendations will be incorporated into the Zoning Code. Using the recommendations from the study, staff determined the amount of housing which should be deed restricted using two calculations. For "by- right" projects, housing for 15% of the em•lo ees •• 6 .- provided. For those projects with ens tins rases ._J.h% - 3 0% of e em 1p oyees should have housing provided by the employer. For example, the redevelopment will require an additional 26 employees. Since a density increase is needed for the expansion, the 30% multiplier is used: 1‘2 .- 30 A - 26 employees x . 30 = 7 . 8 _° c�u.® Assuming that two employees will share a dwelling unit, the 7 . 8 is divided by 2 , resulting a requirement for 4 dwelling units . Or, 26 employees x . 16 = 4 . 16 or 2 dwelling units. Staff believes that it is also appropriate to review the over all demand on housing that the project will generate. Given that the existing operation requires 270 employees, and meets density limits, staff believes that housing should be provided for these employees by using the 15% multiplier. i4,;61,Y 270 employees x . 15 = 40. 5 40.5 divided by 2 equals 20 By combining the "by-right" demand with that generated by the density increase, a minimum of 20 of the Sonnenalp's existing employee units s •uld P;. •e •ermanently see. res ric ed and at least four new em• • _ hould be require. or the density and retail above .- allowab e. Staff's calculations are based on the entire Sonnenalp employee demand as presented in the EIR. If a breakdown is done, showing the number of employees working at the Swiss and Austria 24 locations, the number of units to be restricted can be reduced accordingly. Staff' s calculations also do not include any additional employees for the 4700 square feet of new restaurant area. Because this does not seem plausible, staff needs more information about this area before an accurate housing demand can be done. H. Phasing The construction will take place in three phases. Phase I includes the parking structure and elevator core. Mass excavation and shoring is planned to begin May 1, 1991. The parking garage is planned to be completed by September 13 , 1991. The kitchen addition will be completed October 15, 1991. Phase II activity includes the new hotel tower and the north wing with planned occupancy for December 10, 1992 . Phase III work includes the spa building, meeting rooms and the remodel to the existing hotel which will begin May 1, 1992 . The existing east wing of the hotel will be demolished between May 1, 1992 and June 5, 1992 . At this time, the applicant plans to build a paved road around the existing loading dock (southwest corner of site) for trucks to use during the demolition of the existing east wing. Staff is concerned about the impacts to the creek, and believes that another route can be found to haul the debris away from the site. The second concern of staff is the parking for the construction workers. As the Town has seen with the construction of the parking structure and Gateway, major projects require many employees and vehicles. We would like to see a plan explaining where the construction workers will park. The applicant, in the EIR, has said that partial closures of Vail Road will be needed. The Town understands that the road will never be completely closed. In addition, the Town understands that all deliveries to the site will occur from the Talisman access road or Vail Road but will not take place via Meadow Drive. 25 VII. LAND USE PLAN The Land Use Plan refers to the Vail Village Master Plan for reviewing any requests for redevelopment in this area. VIII. CONCLUSION Although the project has positive aspects such as the lodge use, underground parking, sidewalks, and a pedestrian bridge, staff recommends denial of the project for many reasons. Using the SDI•. _ - ia, staff finds severe noncompliance with Criteria A: •esi•n com•atibilit and sensitivit to - -. ' . e 0 environment., The height, at 81 feet, exceeds the 48 foot limit beyond what is compatible with the surrounding area. The mass of the building, exceeds the allowed accessory area and common area by 54 , 250 square feet. This square footage as indicated by the height, setbacks, minimal public spaces and shadow patters, is too much for the site. riteria D, cy2iformity with applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, town policies and urban design plans, has not been met. Several plans and illustrations from the Vail Village Master Plan have . not been addressed. Specifically,_,the—oae. 1 space plan with plazas, the building height plan, the shade and sha•ow _ssues • • e _ eamwalk ha - .• •-en addressed adequately. ir Criteri. , ,,...K__.e.garding the site plan, has not been met in that the concepts for the site plan results in a building layout that lacks quality public spaces. Staff does not believe that resulting site plan, reserving most of the open space on the site for hotel guests , is the best design for the community. 0 Crite_ ' - , re•ardin• - - • ' •n s stem designed for •edestrians and automobiles, has not been met, eit z.._ A major outstanding ques ion is whether two or three lanes are needed in Vail Road4 An additional traffic study is needed, as we� 1 u - ' • .. _ 11. ion to accuratel • - - hP proposed impxoyements . The two issues discussed first are the fundamental problems with the project; however the - . - • _serous others which must be res• -. • • - me e - . The applicant has been aware of the Town' s concerns, in most cases, since the original work session. Staff believes that until they are resolved, the project 26 should not be approved. Staff asks that the applicant table the SDD request and consider ti of c• _ s. +ve believe the project has merit but additiona design changes are necessary before staff could recommend approval of the project. 27 HEIGHT ANALYSIS PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT Ridge Gable Eave (ft) (ft) (ft) Tower Above Auto Court: P77 70 60.5 Elevator Tower: 81' N/A 66.5 Tower at Corner of East Meadow and Vail Road: 57.5 N/A Ridge along East Meadow Drive 49.5 N/A 26 Tower on East End: 52 N/A 30.5 Ridge along Vail Road: 51 .5 N/A 35 Portion of Existing Building to Remain: 42 N/A 23.5 VVl COMPARISON Ridge Gable Eave (ft) (ft) (ft) Tower: 70 N/A 50 Ridge Along Meadow: 47.5 N/A 21 Corner at Vail Road and Meadow Drive: 31 N/A 18.5 Sonnenalp Exhibit B PROPOSED PARKING Sheet # Regular Spaces Compact Spaces Valet P3/P4 63 11 25 P1/P2 60 13 7 Lobby Level 4 1 1 Total 127 25 33 Grand Total: 185 (includes 13.5% compact and 17.8% valet) REQUIRED PARKING AREA PARKING USE (Sq. Ft.) CALCULATION REQUIREMENT Retail 5,760 5760/300 20 Accommodation Units 70,113 0.965x124 120 (565 sq. ft. average room size) Conference/Meeting Area 7,930 7930/15/8/2 33 Restaurant/Lounge 4,163 4163/15/8 35 Total 208 Parking Required = 208 spaces Mutiple Use Credit (5%) = (35) Non-conforming Credit = (4) Total 169 REQUIRED LOADING AREA USE (Sq. Ft.) REQUIREMENT Lodge 139,716 4 berths Retail 5,760 1 berth Subtotal 5 berths Less: Multiple Use Credit - 2 berths Total 3 berths Sonnenalp Exhibit A AU =A BREAKDOWN SITE COVERAGE Sheet A2 = Existing hotel/conference area = 19,611 sq. ft. Sheet A9 = New hotel = 20,194 sq. ft. Sheet A00 = Spa building/covered walkway = 4,518 sq. ft. Total 44,378 sq. ft. COMMON AREA Sheet A2 = Registration lobby/loading &delivery = 4,284 sq. ft. Sheet A3 = Library/offices etc. = 4,367 sq. ft. Sheet A4 = Corridors, stairs-2nd level = 1,074 sq. ft. Sheet A5 = Corridors, stairs-3rd level = 1,087 sq. ft. Sheet A6 = Display/restroom = 565 sq. ft. Sheet A6.1 = Conference area/offices/laundry, etc. = 31,201 sq. ft. Sheet A7 = Elevator/lobby/stairs = 366 sq. ft. Sheet A8 = New wing -corridor = 2,435 sq. ft. Sheet A9 = Corridor-2nd level = 2,654 sq. ft. Sheet A10 = Corridor-3rd level = 2,642 sq. ft. Sheet All = Corridor-4th level = 2,867 sq. ft. Sheet Al2 = Corridor- 5th level = 1437 sq. ft. Sheet A00 = Spa building/covered walkway = 4,518 sq. ft. Total 59,497 sq. ft. GRFA Sheet A3 = Mezzanine = 5,281 sq. ft. - 14 Rooms Sheet A4 = 2nd level = 6,120 sq. ft. - 12 Rooms Sheet A5 = 3rd level = 6,029 sq. ft. - 12 Rooms Sheet A8 = New building 1st level = 4,205 sq. ft. - 7 Rooms Sheet A9 = New building 2nd level = 16,909 sq. ft. - 28 Rooms Sheet A10 = New building 3rd level = 16,910 sq. ft. - 28 Rooms Sheet All = New building 4th level = 11,137 sq. ft. - 19 Rooms Sheet Al2 = New building 5th level = 3,522 sq. ft. - 4 Rooms Total 70,113 sq. ft. - 124 Rooms COMMERCIAL Sheet A8 = 1st Level = 5,760 sq. ft. Total 5,760 sq. ft. RESTAURANT/KITCHEN/LOBBY LOUNGE Sheet A2 = Restaurant/Kitchen/Lobby Lounge = 10,106 sq. ft. Total 10,106 sq. ft. Sonnenalp Exhibit C • Leigh, Scott & Cl' try, Inc. 1889 York Street ..fit TRANSPORTATION PLANNING t OCT n Denver.Colorado 80206 ■�I &TRAFFIC ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS ���� (303)333-1105 Offices in Denver and Colorado Springs Fax: (303)333-1107 October 4, 1990 Mr. Ken A. O'Bryan Pierce, Segerberg & Spaeh 1000 South Frontage Road West Vail , CO 80657 RE: Sonnenalp Hotel Expansion LSC # 900710 3 Dear Ken: We have completed a traffic impact and access analysis for the proposed 3 Sonnenalp Hotel project in Vail , Colorado. The project site is located along the east side of Vail Road between Meadow Drive and Gore Creek. The proposed 3 project is assumed to consist of demolition of 75 of the Hotel 's 84 existing rooms and construction of 115 new hotel units. Thus, the new Sonnenalp facility will contain a total of 124 hotel rooms including 40 more than exist on the site today. Existing Traffic Conditions Figure 1 , enclosed, illustrates the location of the site with respect to the adjacent roadway system. All access to and from the proposed facility is planned for a pair of one-way driveways located along the east side of Vail Road about 120 feet and 180 feet south of Meadow Drive. 11 Vail Road is an important access route through the central part of the Town where it connects residential areas to the south with I-70 and the east/west 10 frontage road system. In the vicinity of the site, Vail Road is about 30 feet wide and it provides for one travel lane in each direction. Four-way Stop a signs are posted at the Vail Road intersections with Meadow Drive and the South Frontage Road. Meadow Drive is an important two-lane, east/west route which serves the 31 central area of Vail . West of Vail Road, Meadow is a 1500-foot long cul-de- sac street which serves many important community facilities (fire station, ', library, hospital , etc. ) . To the east, Meadow is a limited access route which is controlled by a gate arm mounted adjacent to Vail Road. 31 Figure 1 also presents traffic count data for the nearby four-way Stop 31 intersection of Vail Road and the South I-70 Frontage Road. The data shown presents evening peak-hour turning movement counts conducted in March, 1990, and future projections of same by Felsburg, Holt and Ullevig. The future data assumes build out of all proposed development in the vicinity which has 31 already been approved by the Town. a Transnoration Sys:erns•Transit•Parking•Vehicular Access•Pecestnan&Bicycle Planning•Traffic Operations&Safety•Signal Design•Traffic Impact Studies • 30 Mr. Ken A. O'Bryan 2 October 4, 1990 Estimated Traffic Generation 3 Average weekday and evening peak-hour traffic activity expected to be generated by the Sonnenalp Hotel is shown in the following table: ESTIMATED TRAFFIC GENERATION SONNENALP HOTEL 30 40 Additional 124 Rooms Rooms Only 30 • Average Weekday Traffic (@ 8.704/Rm) 1080 350 Evening Peak Hour Traffic 30 • Entering Vehicles (@ 0.359/Rm) 45 14 • Exiting Vehicles (@ 0.305/Rm.) 38 12 As indicated, full occupancy of the hotel can be expected to generate 540 entering and 540 exiting vehicles during an average weekday. Less than a third of this traffic, however, is projected to be new to the area since the 31 net increase in hotel units is only 40. These estimates are based on Category 310 rates published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers as cited in 31 "Trip Generation", 4th edition. 31 Estimated Traffic Distribution and Assignment 31 The directional distribution of generated vehicular traffic on the roadway system providing access to and from the subject project is one of the most 31 important elements in planning specific access requirements and in determining related traffic impacts. The major factors which influence this traffic 31 distribution include the Hotel 's relative location within the community, the type of proposed land use, and characteristics of the roadway system providing access. +'S Figure 2 illustrates the percentage distribution of Sonnenalp traffic which is estimated for this analysis. As indicated, the majority (93%) of the Hotel traffic is expected to pass through the four-way intersection. Application of these distribution estimates to the previously cited generation estimates for the project's 40 additional rooms results in the peak-hour and average weekday turning movement traffic assignment which is also shown on Figure 2. As indicated, traffic to be added by the project is shown at the proposed Sonnenalp driveways as well as at the Meadow Drive and Frontage Road intersections with Vail Road. 's Traffic Impacts 1/ Figure 3 illustrates the combination of background and site-generated traffic ,, at the Vail Road/Frontage Road intersection for both existing (March, 1990) and future evening peak-hour traffic conditions. A comparative capacity 3 Mr. Ken A. O'Bryan 3 October 4, 1990 analysis has been prepared for the subject intersection using procedures presented to the Transportation Research Board during the January 1990 annual 3 meeting ( "Estimating the Capacity of an All-Way Stop-Controlled Intersection", Michael Kite) . The results of these analyses (printouts are enclosed) are as *� follows : a 3 CAPACITY ANALYSIS COMPARISONS VAIL ROAD & I-70 FRONTAGE ROAD a Volume;Capacity Assumed Traffic Ratio a Existing 119% 1) Existing + Additional Site 120% Future 140% Future + Additional Site 143% .) As indicated, the intersection with existing controls is presently 19 percent over capacity during the peak-hour and in the future, it is projected to be 40 3) percent over capacity. The additional traffic to be added by the proposed Sonnenalp project, however, will only increase these peak-hour projections 1% 30 and 3%, respectively. 30 Summary and Conclusions 30 Based on the foregoing analysis, the following summarizes our findings concerning the proposed Hotel expansion. 3) 1 . At full occupancy, the proposed project can be expected to add 3) approximately 175 entering and 175 exiting weekday vehicle trips to the surrounding roadway system. Of these, 14 will enter and 12 will exit 3) during the evening peak-hour. 2. The greatest concentration of project-generated traffic is expected along Vail Road to and from the north. Ninety-three percent of the additional 30 traffic will pass through the key Vail Road/I-70 Frontage Road intersection. 3) 3. The traffic impact of the proposed project on existing and future peak 30 season traffic will be minimal . At the key four-way' intersection, peak- hour capacity will be reduced only one to three percent. 30 4. In conjunction with this project, consideration should be given to 30 installation of painted left-turn channelization on Vail Road approximately as shown on Figure 4, enclosed. As noted, the existing ditch along the 3/ east side of Vail Road should be covered and/or protected by the installation of curb and gutter. S) • • a 7 :s Mr. Ken A. O'Bryan 4 October 4, 1990 We trust that this report will assist with further planning for the Sonnenalp Hotel project. Please call if we can be of additional assistance. Respectfully submitted, LEIGH, SCOTT & CLEARY, INC. 7 by Philip/N. Sc t, III, P.E. PNS/vb 3 Enclosures . Figures 1-4 3 Capacity Analysis (4) '// c :'� 3 a 3 3 3 3 3 3 9 3 3 3 3 ? I/P ------------ s iIy • � x , 0 1 -. 14D6. -g.It / BAVARIA HAUS 1 @- - ® -'-- �' --i L % - 3 / c, 9/ k ___1;_>--":::;- * '' / -1'- / iv, 4, 1. r 4 i ; _ _ _ ‘..‘, t / - , `i4C1w►4r s•1 roar 1 -'' / ,�...,...,,.,�� r , _/ 97// _ f �� ', / �i . / - / ‘ V - Partial Site Plan Scale: 1" = 50'-0" t------- -e,..41-r--.4z.8.4.L. - 4 ::7P'. GLV)a ate. p►.S - T'iG I GpK.IG. - \ di> a- -�� o.. .„_ 1! j !rri /11L1- .. t Y.... _ -�_ Ir _ " ' - - , -- h 1� Section 1CL1 Scale: 1" = 10,-0" Pierce Segerberg & SONNENALP HOTEL REVISION: 'ob"o.' .,o Sheet: Spseh BAVARIA HAUS D''''' p'° i--' 1 Architects P.C.*A.I.A. Vail , Colorado Der' 1i - 1-'10' 1 ■i 1_i_ ttL. . _ — _ - -1 _l_i ,• ldn...... . 15 '_, 0 11 . 41 3 F . C1 .■ ; I iI ,. A Leigh, Scott & Cleary, rm." / C • `� l ' 1889 York Street TRANSPORTATION PLANNING 1 ( > Denver,Colorado 80206 &TRAFFIC ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS (303)333-1105 Offices in Denver and Colorado Springs : I Fax: (303)333-1107 . , t November 15, 1990 Mr. Ken A. O'Bryan Pierce, Segerberg & Spaeh 1000 South Frontage Road West Vail, CO 80657 ` E: Sonnenalp Ho l Expansion LSC #900410 Dear Ken: It has been brought to our at :ntioni that recent ite-specific tra`lc data indicates that the traffic generation estima :_ used in our Octo er 4, 1990 tra ' c report for the Sonnenalp expansion project are to. high. As you ma recall,the ra =: are national averages published by the Institute of Transportation ngineers. - The proposed project is expec d to t4sult in a to al of 124 hotel • oo s. If the hotel were to generate entering traffic at a rate f half that"previously ass m , entering southbound left-turns would be hilt y to approximate wenty during 'i e peak hour. We previously recommended a painted eft-turn median a on: Vail Road o at ve t..�s •• of ,: re e t-turn traffic. The easibil'ty of such : pain =.. •• :.••:1111r.wever wa: ascumed to rest on not havin: to w .-t `' • •a•. •e onl r-•uire• = s•: Hied were 'the coverin• o an existin: ditch an. instalation of c b and : tter : •` : nt to gOnnenalp.9 It was also assumed t•:t t e •roposed th ee-lane deli: •• o d be installed within the ex'. • •: : S:..: • cross ,t_ io of a. •roxi. ately thi f-:t. e wou • ...rth_er recommend an 11-foot northbound :ne et 0-foot sou bound lane : • a s-foot left-turn median. It is our understanding that t ere i ' ome cones n bout usin• :ne id •_; z_ • g Vail Road which are less thin-in f t. The 12-foot wi th is one whic• : : been accepted as a d standard and, as such, • orks'fiery well. It should be r- • • -•, however, that the 12-foot design has been de elo•- ' • •':h se see-' state hi:h•. : ••nditions such as I-70. A IUU on of this standa • to low s•tt. urban streets .1. = desirable stan and or new construction w e e righ of-wa is s fficient but it •: o'•:n unrealistic and, in our ex.-rience, Tmnecessa . For:example, th-re are many i to of travel lanes with 10-foot widths or ess w•ich fu ction well ;long major str: -ts n Denver and virtually any other major city. Eve the Colorado Hi: way Departm-nt l?as reduced lane widths on I-70 near the Eisenhowe Tunii l to 11 feet-in order to eco•omitally allow the addition of a third travel lane. i I - i Transportation Systems•Transit•Parking•Vehicular Access•P dcstrian&Bicycle Planning•.Traffic Operations&Sa ty•Spa!Design•Traffic Impact Studies ' I Mr. Ken A. O'Bryan i 2 November 15, 1990 1 In our o.inion the recommend ad strl tin: in the vicinity of the •nn:nalp will benefit traffic flow and safety, even withou the proposed hotel e •a .'on. . owever, if oad . -- in • • •• •••- .• ect this than:- the resul.-x.:.•.'tures are not justified and we would recommen•, that the operation of Vail • .a. remain as a two-lane deaiga_ •� We trust thr.t this supplemental information will assist with fu her planning for the Sonnenalp project. Please call if we can b of addition al assistance. Respectfully submitted, LEIGH, SCOTT & CLEARY, INC. by: 1/1";Sco liv-1=:(' II, P.E. PNS/vb I � PIERCE, SEGERBERG F '757AEFI ARCHITECTS • P.C. • . .A. J 1T TL OF U QKS A CIT 1000 South Frontage Road West RECT NOV 0 _ 1990 VAIL, COLORADO 81657 DATE JOB NO. (303) 476-4433 ' ATTENTION g m s�.,wa'""sue 4 /. �."'.,�.` RE TO x T > WE ARE SENDING YOU ttached ID Under separate cover via the following items: • ❑ Shop drawings rints ❑ Plans ❑ Samples ❑ Specifications ❑ Copy of letter ❑ Change order ❑ COPIES ¢¢ DATE NO. / DESCRIPTION R l`''.: t w x THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: ❑ For approval ❑ Approved as submitted ❑ Resubmit copies for approval For your use ❑ Approved as noted ❑ Submit copies for distribution > ❑ As requested ❑ Returned for corrections ❑ Return corrected prints ❑ For review and comment ❑ ❑ FOR BIDS DUE 19 ❑ PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US REMARKS , - o- aril!°° x, s —,r `.; n E ...,. ,-. ka' 's COPY TO SIGNED: . , ..u, PRODUCT 240-3 /n e J Inc.,Groton,Mass 01471. If enclosures are not as noted, kindly notify us at once. i / 1 ffi --- . .„ /-1"/ • Y �' ,1 L O 1 - -' d ' anvaatw HAUS 1, - - - r Q_ f i 1� .: _-___-_- _-__,-. ",' I / - / -A / _ - Oil ',i.:./1 //, /.- - '_--: J 1 1/:7, -- ,0 0 0 1 - "; :- \ ' . i g ., , ;Ls , t \ _______,3\ iy _ / , , 1 vim_/�� 4G�'. 1� j / Partial Site Plan Scale: 1" = 50'-0" /A4(.1_ 2 n .a✓ �° . . \ h o./ ._ . l'j i 3 . . .1.--r\\ * 1 11> } . eA4.h 1 -C - lie->eid.1.--..1-1# A-17----re--1, \.\ 1" :711111r--- ----"iily it?.ill!--- \ /A..a.1_ G t3A•� t -.--• a► tea_ 'r 1.G7.2... 1 '- d__. l_ - / - 61-" Section 1 CL 1 Scale: 1" = 10'-0" Pierce SONNENALP HOTEL REVISION: Job r40-142....40 r40-142....40 Sheet: Segerberg& Speeh BAVARIA HAUS °""""IL A'' C L_ 1 Architects P.C.*A.I.A. Vail , Colorado 1t: i1 — 7-`e ti\ 1 PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with Section 18 . 66. 060 of the municipal code of the Town of Vail on November 26, 1990 at 2 : 00 p.m. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. Consideration of: 1. A work session on a request to rezone Lots 2 and 3 , Vail Village West Filing No. 2 . Applicant: Elmore, Vail Village West Corporation 2 . A request to establish a Special Development District for 47/ the Sonnenalp redevelopment, located at 20 Vail Road; A part of Lot L, Block 5-E, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Sonnenalp Properties, Inc. 3 . A request to amend Chapter 18 . 40 of the Municipal Code, Special Development Districts. Applicant: Town of Vail 4 . A request to amend Chapter 18 .24 of the Municipal Code, Commercial Core I (Vail Village) . Applicant: Town of Vail 5. A request to amend Chapter 18 . 66 of the Municipal Code, Administration. Applicant: Town of Vail 6. A request to amend Chapter 18 . 60 of the Municipal Code, Conditional Use Permits. Applicant: Town of Vail 7 . A request to amend Chapter 18 . 62 of the Municipal Code, Variances. Applicant: Town of Vail 8 . A request for a conditional use permit in order to establish a bed and breakfast operation on Lot P, Vail Village 2nd Filing, 141 West Meadow Drive. Applicant: Joan M. Norris 9 . A request for a conditional use permit in order to establish a bed and breakfast operation on Lot 7B, Vail Village 10th Filing, 930 B Fairway Drive. Applicant: Nancy and Paul Rondeau ALE COP �I \,--F iii L (C the Mounta? ' Bell Site located to the nth of the main Vail I-70 Inter Ige from Agricultural Open_ ace to Medium Density Multiple Family more specifically described as: Mountain Bell Site described as a tract of land in the South Half, of the Southeast Quarter, Section 6, Township 5 South, Range 80 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, Eagle County, Colorado, more particularly described as follows: 8agtnning z: a porn:' - fs 3 v4:7:Z3'15' Y a d's:anco sf - 5d6:S0 feet frcn t.1t Sout.`.tast corner of tertian S. Tavesaf; S Soar,•,Tangs 30 :es: of t_z 6t1 Prise;aI Meridian, bete, =a . 'tree :sin: of b11fosf:5; a;ie being a Saint on .`e xar'_er'r . . 2fed:-of-la; at in er;:a;r 70: tt.aes uu 23'15' Y aIo--q Wit : Zas: Tine of said Section 5 a dfs:aace of 533.10 feet: =tete ' • 3 39°3:'21' i a efte:teen of _5_.3.:5 fees is a Taint as :Ole :1st bounear, Ifne of Yail/Pala:. Pa:cn r'flie;; pence S Cu`:7•12' .alaeq said East Saundar± Tine a distance of 35:.0: fee: to : paint an a eorie, said etrve also ]tfna an wee :..:r::zr'r ;fps- . •af-;a± of Inte^:ate 70; _tens: 1TC:15 said .ar.:erTy aise-rf. Yar as tate folrawill 3 .-arson: 1i a distance at Z0_t.5: fact - alOn; '"2 �- of a carne:a rte rfcn:. said t=ree Sara; a central artsTe at CZo53'13'. a radius of 3E57.0 fee:. and a ce:rd :cartel 3 3:°3I':3' " z dl.::anc2 of Z^s.ia f--: :; E a disztnca of -:1.30 feet; 3.; - .411:"'S7' -r a�distance of 111.72 'feet 11•S 7S°Z3' E a distance of lZ;.:41 fee:: 31 5 e :•:: L a•:':ai'c± of 702 71 feet: t: S 7-`21'3=' E a ditaanc_ of . Z0:.7' feet; 7) 5 31435'2?' E 1 di- ante of 32 .:Cfee.:� .tf E 1 efsT�LZ '` 106.:0 i^a . .- _ po;.r_ acres care or :esE: _... ' • jar:::T a: an. azscri_ad {n 7a n :2e: .Jt-c-:o' -2 ffIed of r-.c.•: in ,:a of of C:e..t zRe . 1.ecor_er of Eac:. County. Cn1C∎-.-- Applicant: Town of Vail and Professional Development Corp. 11. A request to rezone the following property commonly known as the Pedotto property located to the south of Kinnickinnick Road in the Intermountain Subdivision from Primary/Secondary to Medium Density Multiple Family more specifically described as: A parcel of land in the SW 1/4 of Section 14, Township 5 South, Range 81 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, more particularly described as follows: • 3egi ni zg at a paint vhenea a bras: can sc t for a i mess corner for the West 114 of said Section 14 bc..zr3 'N 2S'23'51" 1073.28 feet; thence N 74' 05'13* 2 12.76 feet; 'thence 133.62 feet axing the arc of a ea;7e to t_`.o right vhich arc subtends a chord bearing 71 33'12'3C• 2 131.76 feet; thanes S 77'40'21' E 52.77 ?act; theft= 247.43 feet along the ere of a r_-:•e the left Which arc subtends a c::r_ bearing' N 16'26'17" 2 143.50 feat; thence N 70'52'35' F 405.55 feet; then= 54.10 feet along the Leo of a c':':e to the right v ich a:_ scbtrrd3 a otorrl bearing S 47'10'27' E 44.20 feet; then= S 14'25`31" W 110.51 feet; thence S 63'12'01' 320,00 feat; thence. f 13'07'05' w :+7_00 feet; thence $ 77'48'41" W 160.13 feet; thence S 10.32'33' X 26.43 feet: thence N 87'40'05" W 337.72 fart: thenen S 11'52'13' E 130.00 feet to the paint of beginning, c utiini.^.g 2.5006 actin, more or lass. scaring from G.L.C. Rrrrd for Scut: 1/2 of cacti= line bctwct:i Sections 14-15. Applicant: Juanita I. Pedotto, and Professional Development Corp. 7 12 . A request Y ,, rezone the following props {-y located to the north of S lay and Chamonix Lane in Vail Heights Subdivision, Lots 5-13 from Primary/Secondary to Medium Density Multiple Family. Applicant: Konrad Oberlohr, John W. and Patricia A. Rickman for John Witt, Reuben B. Knight, and Professional Development Corp. 13 . A request for off-street surface parking at the "Holy Cross parcel" described as follows: A tract of ground in the NE 1/4 of Section 12, ::ship 5 South,' Range 81 . West of the 6th Principal Meridian, lying within that parcel conveyed to the Holy Cross Electric Association, Inc. by deed recdrded at Reception No. 115128 on January 12, 1982, in the records of Engle County, Colorado, described as: Com-:er. ng at the NE corner of said Section 12; thence South 88°19'29" West, along the north line of said NE 1/4, a d1 --_ of 43.1 feet to the intersection of the prolongation of the east line of said parcel; thence South 0°01'22" East, along said prolongation, 212.2 feet to the northeast corner of said parcel which is the point of beginning; thence South 0°01 '33" East, along said east line, 222.21 feet to the southeast corner of said parcel; thence northwesterly across said parcel through the fol_ow:ng four courses: 1) North 28°36 '19" West, 53.06 feet, 2) North . • 32°112 ' West, 81.46 feet, 3) North 50°48 '25" Wes_, 63.6E fee:, and 4) South 79°49'04" West, 121.45 feet to the northwest corner of said parcel; thence northeasterly along the north line of said parcel which is a nor.-tangent (a radial to said northwest corner bears North 22°39 '28" West), 2713 foot radius curve concave southerly, 264.28 feet (central angle equals 5°24'22") to the point of beginning. This tract, as described, contains 15,940 square feet, or 0.366 acres, more or less. Applicant: Vail Associates 14 . A request for a parking variance in order to construct additions to the Christiania Lodge, 356 Hansen Ranch Road, Lot D, Block 2 Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Paul R. Johnston 15. A request for a minor subdivision in order to vacate a lot line between Lots 46 and 47, Vail Village West Filing No. 2 . Applicant: ANJA Corporation 16. A request for a height variance and a variance to the number of satellite dishes permitted in order to allow for the installation of two satellite dish antennas on the roof of . the Marriott Mark Resort, Lots 4 and 7, Block 1 Vail/Lionshead Third Filing, Lots C and D Morcus Subdivision, located at 715 Lionshead Circle. Applicant: Marriott Mark Resort/Tri-County Cablevision The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection in the Community Development Department office. Town of Vail Community Development Department Published in the Vail Trail on November 9, 1990. JAY K. PETERSON ATTORNEY AT LAW TELEPHONE SUITE 307 VAIL NATIONAL BANK BUILDING 13031 476-0092 108 SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD WEST FAX LINE JAY K. PETERSON VAIL,COLORADO 81657 13031 479-0467 MEMORANDUM TO: MIKE MOLLICA, TOWN OF VAIL €` �> J 19 FROM: JAY K. PETERSON DATE: NOVEMBER 5, 1990 RE: SONNENALP SDD Dear Mike: Pursuant to your request I have contacted the Sonnenalp Hotel regarding the commercial space in the proposed Special Development District for the Hotel Sonnenalp. At the present time it is to early to tell what the final configuration or the number of shops would be for the commercial space. It is, however, anticipated that between four and seven shops will be created, all of which would be leased to third parties. Because each shop owner will be different it is again unknown how many employees each shop will have, however, existing Sonnenalp Shops (run by the Hotel Sonnenalp) have approximately four employees per shop. This would create from 16 to 28 employees depending upon the final configuration of the commercial space. These will be general retail type spaces with no restaurants being created. If you have any further questions please contact me at my office. I h 1 SONNENALP PUBLIC BENEFITS The following public benefits will be provided by the SDD for the Sonnenalp Hotel. 1. The underlying zone district allows for the construction of approximately 34, 800 square feet of GRFA of dwelling units and a like amount of GRFA for accommodation units. This would easily translate into 58 hotel rooms and 21 "for sale" dwelling units, all within zoning. Because the Land Use Plan and the Vail Village Master Plan encourage the construction of hotel rooms, and because the Sonnenalp Hotel wants to create a true 5-star hotel for Vail, no dwelling units will be created. No other project in Vail has done this without a significant amount of square footage being allowed for dwelling units, which are ultimately sold as luxury condominiums. 2 . The proposed plan provides for 100% covered parking for all of its parking requirement. Currently 100% of its parking is uncovered and totally visible to Meadow Drive and Vail Road. Under the non-conforming use section of the zoning code, we would only have to provide for 75% of the increase in parking to be covered. Going from 100% uncovered parking to 100% covered parking is a significant increase in cost to the Sonnenalp with the major benefit to the Town of Vail. 3 . Heated walkways are provided along Meadow Road and Vail Road. Underlying zoning does not require this. 4 . A public pocket park is proposed adjacent to the Swiss Chalet and a pedestrian walkway across the Vail Road bridge is also proposed. These public amenities are set forth on the plans. 5. While Vail has once again been ranked #1 you will notice if you read the articles ranking Vail #1, that Vail is also ranked #11 in hotel accommodations. Vail does not have a luxury hotel of the magnitude and in a location to compliment the total winter experience. The proposed hotel will fill this void. In addition Sonnenalp Properties, Inc. has its own recreational amenities including golf, tennis and swimming. The proposed facility will enhance the year around occupancy of the Town of Vail which is encouraged by the Land Use Plan and the Vail Action Plan. Pierce , Segerberg & Spaeh • Architects • P. C . • A. I. A. October 25, 1 990 b OCT 301990 Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road West Vail, CO. 81657 Attention: Mr. Andy Knudtsen - Town Planner Mr. Mike Mollica - Senior Planner Re: Sonnenalp Redevelopment Dir Sirs: Please find enc6ose i the revised drawings per your request. Also the following items have been addressed per your request, FIRE DEPARTMENT COMMENTS: 1. We feel that with the revised plans, adequate fire access is provided for the '3onnenalp and the Talisman propertie c Access to the rear of the Sonnenalp can be made through the Talisman parking lot. Revisions were made at the curb cuts (east of the existing gate) along East Meadow Drive to allow for fire access to the Talisman and the Swiss irnafet. 2. Access to the Ta!i°,;mug :gill be a:surcd and as required by the Fire Department. 3. The Existing building along with all New construction will have a Fire Suppression System installed throughout. 4. Flow tests shall be taken in agreement with the Upper Eagle Valley Water ex Sanitation District to insure adequate pressure and volumes. Other means may be required such as booster pumps, main extentions, etc.. 5. All road widths shall remain as is and will not be reduced. Main Office: 1000 South Frontage Road West Vail, Colorado 81657 = 303/476-4433 Post Office Box 2313 = Beaver Creek, Colorado 81620 ° 303/949-6049 One Tabor Center 1200 Seventeenth Street, Suite 515 = Denver, Colorado 80202 0 303/623-3355 Town of Vail October 30, 1990 Page 2 6. Phasing and coordination of Talisman parking will be addressed at a • later date. 7. All existing electrical and mechanical systems shall be completely redesigned and upgraded as required to meet code. These systems shall be considered to be a part of the new construction. S. The new meeting rooms shall have exiting doors also installed in the portable walls dividing each room. These door shall meet code for all exiting and egress requirements. 9. The Mezzanine Level shall include another stairwell as required for exiting. The exact location of this stair shall be addressed at a later date. 10. The parking levels have been redesigned. Levels P 1 & P2 now have two additional stairwells leading directly to the exterior grade level. These stairwells can continue down to the P3 & P4 levels if required, but one way access doors shall be installed because these levels are for secured parking only. END OF FIRE DEPARTMENT COMMENTS. DESIGN CONSULTANT & COMMENTS TO THE STUDY PLAN (Dated: 10/25/90). 1 . An Idea was mentioned to pull the northwest corner of the building out over the plaza below. This was investigated (see study plan) but will not be proposed due to the following reasons. a. To pull this corner over the plaza below will create excessively large rooms above. This is undesirable considering the cost of construction, Town of Vail October 30, 1990 Page 3 b. The corner would encroach into the setback considerably. We have already pulled this corner back at the request of the Planning Commission. c. A plaza at this corner is a great idea and will be researched and proposed after the Town makes a design decision on the intersection issues. 2. Another design change was mentioned to create a pocket-park at the northeast end of the building by swinging the corner of the building back. Again this was investigated (see study plan) but will not be incorporated in this proposal due to the following circumstances. a. The loss of approximately thirty-nine parking spaces would be encountered. Only a small portion of these spaces could be recouped by redesign. Therefore, to comply with zoning we would have to reduce the building area, thus losing hotel units. This is unacceptable to the owners. b. Due to the building off-sets (see study plan) required to create this pocket-park, the hotel units cannot be standardized. This would not constitute good design practice considering a Hotel use group. c. The costs to construct the study plan are much higher and therefore make this proposal unfeasible. See letter from Witze-Cohen. 3. Other issues Mentioned. a. The elevator tower cannot be lowered and still function properly. b. Conversations with our mechanical engineers lead us to believe that the roof of the main tower cannot be lowered anymore than it already has, due to equipment requirements at this location. Town of Vail October 30, 1990 Page 4 c. Redesigning the roof of the "Tower" as mentioned cannot be done without losing the dormer windows into the rooms on the fifth floor. Also, if this were proposed, the Tower would seem higher. We thought this was an undersirable situation • as expressed by the Planning Commission. If the staff wishes us to address any other issues, please notify me as soon as possible. Sincerely, PIERCE, SEGERBERG & SPAEH, ARCHITECTS, P.C., A.I.A. Ken A. O'Bryan 44) KAO/l j bo enc. cc: Johannes Faessler Jay Peterson Gordon Pierce WEITZ-COHEN CONSTRUCTION CO. p es ° '3 0 19 90 899 Logan Street,Suite 600 Denver,CO 80203 303-8604800 Fax:303.860-8698 October 30, 1990 Mr. Ken O'Brian Pierce, Segerberg and Spaeh Architects, P.C. 1000 S. Frontage Road West Vail, CO 81657 WEITZ Dear Kent COHEN Re: Sonnertalp Redevelopment Based upon the sheet issued by your office and marked as "A Study", substantial cost impacts will result from the revisions if implemented. As the study includes a site plan showing a revised footprint, a revised footprint of the parking structure, and a revised layout for the north wing of the Hotel, nearly all aspects of the work may be affected. Work which would definitely be affected includes site development, landscaping, foundations, precast, interior and finishes, roof, mechanical and electrical. The project duration would also increase by four months because of the atypical nature of the construction. The total impact of all scope and duration issues is an increase of about 5% in direct cost, or $748,000.00. Should you need additional information on this study, please call me at your convenience. Sincerely, AMP • ,i K. Steven Tilton Project Manager lm cc: Johannes Faessler/Sonnenalp Properties, Inc. Leigh, Scott & Cleary, Inc. 1889 York Street TRANSPORTATION PLANNING RECEIVED O CT 0 �;?'1 Denver,Colorado 80206 &TRAFFIC ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS 49 (303)333-1105 Offices in Denver and Colorado Springs ';00�. Fax: (303)333-1107 i5 LA t i-J:1� October 4, 1990 Mr. Ken A. O'Bryan Pierce, Segerberg & Spaeh 1000 South Frontage Road West Vail , CO 80657 RE: Sonnenalp Hotel Expansion LSC # 900710 Dear Ken: We have completed a traffic impact and access analysis for the proposed Sonnenalp Hotel project in Vail , Colorado. The project site is located along the east side of Vail Road between Meadow Drive and Gore Creek. The proposed project is assumed to consist of demolition of 75 of the Hotel's 84 existing rooms and construction of 115 new hotel units. Thus, the new Sonnenalp facility will contain a total of 124 hotel rooms including 40 more than exist on the site today. Existing Traffic Conditions Figure 1, enclosed, illustrates the location of the site with respect to the adjacent roadway system. All access to and from the proposed facility is planned for a pair of one-way driveways located along the east side of Vail Road about 120 feet and 180 feet south of Meadow Drive. Vail Road is an important access route through the central part of the Town where it connects residential areas to the south with I-70 and the east/west frontage road system. In the vicinity of the site, Vail Road is about 30 feet wide and it provides for one travel lane in each direction. Four-way Stop signs are posted at the Vail Road intersections with Meadow Drive and the South Frontage Road. Meadow Drive is an important two-lane, east/west route which serves the central area of Vail . West of Vail Road, Meadow is a 1500-foot long cul-de- sac street which serves many important community facilities (fire station, library, hospital , etc. ) . To the east, Meadow is a limited access route which is controlled by a gate arm mounted adjacent to Vail Road. Figure 1 also presents traffic count data for the nearby four-way Stop intersection of Vail Road and the South I-70 Frontage Road. The data shown presents evening peak-hour turning movement counts conducted in March, 1990, and future projections of same by Felsburg, Holt and Ullevig. The future data assumes build out of all proposed development in the vicinity which has already been approved by the Town. Transportation Systems•Transit•Parking•Vehicular Access•Pedestrian&Bicycle Planning•Traffic Operations&Safety•Signal Design•Traffic Impact Studies Mr. Ken A. O'Bryan 2 October 4, 1990 Estimated Traffic Generation Average weekday and evening peak-hour traffic activity expected to be generated by the Sonnenalp Hotel is shown in the following table: ESTIMATED TRAFFIC GENERATION SONNENALP HOTEL 40 Additional 124 Rooms Rooms Only Average Weekday Traffic! (@ 8.704/Rnt) 1080 350 Evening Peak Hour Traffic s Entering Vehicles (@ 0.359/Rm) 45 14 se Exiting Vehicles (@ 0.305/Rm) 38 12 As indicated, full occupancy of the hotel can be expected to generate 540 entering and 540 exiting vehicles during an average weekday. Less than a third of this traffic, however, is projected to be new to the area since the net increase in hotel units is only 40. These estimates are based on Category 310 rates published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers as cited in "Trip Generation", 4th edition. ,. Estimated Traffic Distribution and Assignment The directional distribution of generated vehicular traffic on the roadway system providing access to and from the subject project is one of the most important elements in planning specific access requirements and in determining related traffic impacts. The major factors which influence this traffic distribution include the Hotel's relative location within the community, the type of proposed land use, and characteristics of the roadway system providing access. Figure 2 illustrates the percentage distribution of Sonnenalp traffic which is estimated for this analysis. As indicated, the majority (93%) of the Hotel traffic is expected to pass through the four-way intersection. Application of these distribution estimates to the previously cited generation estimates for the project's 40 additional rooms results in the peak-hour and average weekday turning movement traffic assignment which is also shown on Figure 2. As indicated, traffic to be added by the project is shown at the proposed Sonnenalp driveways as well as at the Meadow Drive and Frontage Road intersections with Vail Road. Traffic Impacts Figure 3 illustrates the combination of background and site-generated traffic at the Vail Road/Frontage Road intersection for both existing (March, 1990) and future evening peak-hour traffic conditions. A comparative capacity Mr. Ken A. O'Bryan 3 October 4, 1990 analysis has been prepared for the subject intersection using procedures presented to the Transportation Research Board during the January 1990 annual meeting ( "Estimating the Capacity of an All-Way Stop-Controlled Intersection", Michael Kite) . The results of these analyses (printouts are enclosed) are as follows: CAPACITY ANALYSIS COMPARISONS VAIL ROAD & I-70 FRONTAGE ROAD Volume/Capacity Assumed Traffic Ratio Existing 119% Existing + Additional Site 120% Future 140% Future + Additional Site 143% As indicated, the intersection with existing controls is presently 19 percent over capacity during the peak-hour and in the future, it is projected to be 40 percent over capacity. The additional traffic to be added by the proposed Sonnenalp project, however, will only increase these peak-hour projections 1% and 3%, respectively. Summary and Conclusions Based on the foregoing analysis, the following summarizes our findings concerning the proposed Hotel expansion. 1. At full occupancy, the proposed project can be expected to add approximately 175 entering and 175 exiting weekday vehicle trips to the surrounding roadway system. Of these, 14 will enter and 12 will exit during the evening peak-hour. 2. The greatest concentration of project-generated traffic is expected along Vail Road to and from the north. Ninety-three percent of the additional traffic will pass through the key Vail Road/I-70 Frontage Road intersection. 3. The traffic impact of the proposed project on existing and future peak season traffic will be minimal . At the key four-way intersection, peak- hour capacity will be reduced only one to three percent. 4. In conjunction with this project, consideration should be given to installation of painted left-turn channelization on Vail Road approximately as shown on Figure 4, enclosed. As noted, the existing ditch along the east side of Vail Road should be covered and/or protected by the installation of curb and gutter. 4 4 4 Mr. Ken A. O'Bryan 4 October 4, 1990 We trust that this report will assist with further planning for the Sonnenalp Hotel project. Please call if we can be of additional assistance. Respectfully submitted, LEIGH, SCOTT & CLEARY, INC. �4�,��1of4111I 1/1fl 11 ly .t) by A. • c .t;:f Philip� . Sc III , P.E. '�;y r � PNS/vb ;:: 1 bz-.) Enclosures: Figures 1-4 Capacity Analysis (4) i "ati, ' 313 109 722 90130 343 L850 1 p405 289 105 340 324 125 37280 FRO.. 440 �� 99 279 55 TAGE ROAD 27 115 30. 65 Ir 150 .' • • 0 APPROX. SCALE: 0 Cc 1' =100' Q /79 341 f } 433 405 I 510 MEADOW DRIVE 11\. SONNENALP \HOTEL N • 1 _ GORE C FIGURE 1 P.-it. --� VICINITY MAP LEGEND ••• 99 MARCH 1990 PM PEAK-HOUR TRAFFIC AND 115 FUTURE PM PEAK-HOUR TRAFFIC BACKGROUND TRAFFIC Leigh, Scott & Cleary, Inc. 1 25% 7 48% -`106■416,.. / (J85) / 3 (_ (35) 3 (40) �° 1-70 FRONTAGE 3 / 1 ROAD (40) 6 (35) N (85) 20% 7�v''� 0 A APPROX. SCALE: O 1' =100' O. /19 13 (160) 5% MEADOW DRIVE (10) - ., - 11 �1 (160) � [10) \1(1\720\) 1 0 (5) SONNENALP \HOTEL (1174 0)L I I , (5) 1 FIGURE 2 - - - - NEW GORR PROJECT-GENERATED LEGEND CREEK TRAFFIC 5% = PERCENT TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION DISTRIBUTION 12 - PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC 2% (170) - AVERAGE WEEKDAY TRAFFIC SONNENALP HOTEL Leigh, Scott & Cleary, Inc. -.1 116 722 313 370 137 343 L850 , `/// (405 ,` 289 I 340 f_108 324 128 372380 I-70 FRONT 440 �� 102 57 - AG_.. ROAD 130 118 285 67 153 336 lq il • , c I �V Q APPROX. SCALE: 0 1r 1' =100' tv, ..I V. /751 • MEADOW DRIVE 7_ \SONNENALP HOTEL ..-- -.7 GORE CREEK LEGEND • -• FIGURE 3 102 _ EXISTING + PROJECT PM PEAK-HOUR TRAFFIC TOTAL TRAFFIC 118 FUTURE +PROJECT PM PEAK-HOUR TRAFFIC Leigh. Scott & Cleary, Inc. IL .........„ \ FIGURE 4 MEADOW DRIVE PRELIMINARY LANE \ MARKING PLAN 0 VAIL ROAD Q 0 cc SONNENALP I I HOTEL 1sT- BANK 1 II TYPICAL X-SECTION APPROX. SCALE I I 1' . 50` I.•-■I-►--•Isil 10.5' 9' 10.5' II NOTE: CURB AND GUTTER IS VAIL REQUIRED ALONG EAST SIDE OF VAIL CHAPEL ROAD BETWEEN MEADOW DRIVE AND GORE CREEK BRIDGE. - Seav IC6 r \ / cR% G% \ Leigh, Scott & Cleary, Inc. ~ 4 l *-%,*-,:- .7,-n- -;-,--;, �� �**,.,1 *-F,,,t*********i,:****************************** ALL WAY STOP INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS ********************************************************************** IDENTIFYING INFORMATION -------------- ------------------- - ------------- CITY VAIL, COLORADO NAME OF EAST/WEST STREET 1-70 FRONTAGE ROAD NAME OF NORTH/SOUTH STREET VAIL ROAD NAME OF ANALYST PMY DATE OF THE ANALYSIS . . . . . . . 10/2/90 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED PM Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION EXISTING PLUS SITE GENERATED TRAFFIC VARIABLE EB WB NB SB APPROACH LANES 3 3 2 3 LEFT TURNS 324 106 102 343 THRU 372 289 285 116 RIGHT TURNS 130 722 57 313 APPROACH VOLUME 826 1119 444 772 DISTRIBUTION (%) 26% 35% 14% 24% PERCENT LEFT TURNS 39% 10% 23% 44% PERCENT RIGHT TURNS 16% 65% 13% 41% APPROACH CAPACITY 782 , 6,4,e 342 852 INTERSECTION CAPACITY 2644 V/C RATIO (%) 120% • --------------------------------------------- ------------ .. l - - �t.......: __ ^ ****** ******************************************** ****************** ALL WAY STOP INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS **************************************** *************** ************ IDENTIFYING INFORMATION _ ___________________ _ _ CITY . . . ' VAIL , COLORADO NAME OF EAST/WEST STREET I-70 FRONTAGE ROAD NAME OF NORTH/SOUTH STREET' VAIL ROAD NAME OF ANALYST PMY DATE OF THE ANALYSIS 10/2/90 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED PM Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION FUTURE PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC _ ___________ ___ VARIABLE ES NB NB SB APPROACH LANES 3 3 2 3 LEFT TURNS 380 125 115 405 THRU 440 340 330 130 RIGHT TURNS 150 850 65 370 APPROACH VOLUME 970 1315 510 905 DISTRIBUTION (7.) 26% 36% 14% 24% PERCENT LEFT TURNS 39% 10% 23% 45% PERCENT RIGHT TURNS 15% 65% 13% 41% APPROACH CAPACITY 785 668 340 854 INTERSECTION CAPACITY 2647 V/C RATIO (%) 140% _______ `' . �' � ******************************* * ** * *** ** **������ ALL WAY STOP INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS ************************************************************** ******* IDENTIFYING INFORMATION CITY. . VAIL, COLORADO NAME OF EAST/WEST STREET 1-70 FRONTAGE ROAD NAME OF NORTH/SOUTH STREET VAIL ROAD NAME OF ANALYP.T PMY ' DATE OF THE ANALYSIS 10/2/90 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED PM Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION . . . . FUTURE PLUS SITE GENERATED TRAFFIC VARIABLE ED NB NB SB APPROACH LANES 3 3 2 3 LEFT TURNS 380 123 118 405 THRU 440 390 336 137 RIGHT TURNS 153 850 67 370 APPROACH VOLUME 973 1363 521 912 DISTRIBUTION (%) 26% 36% 14% 24% PERCENT LEFT TURNS 39% 9% 23% 44% PERCENT RIGHT TURNS 16% 62% 13% 41% APPROACH CAPACITY 782 676 336 848 ' INTERSECTION CAPACITY 2643 V/C RATIO (%) 143% . WEITZ-COHEN CONSTRUCTION CO. 899 Logan Street,Suite 600 Denver,CO 80203 303-860-6600 Fax:303-860-6698 f"-pamm October 9, 1990 g Mr. Johannes Faessler RE- Sonnenalp Properties, Inc. 20 Vail Road Vail, CO 81657 OCT 9'69 Dear Johannes: CDHEN Re: Sonnenalp Redevelopment This report will address the phasing sequence and construction management for the subject project. The contents of the report is presented in the following format of items: 1. Phased construction schedule. 2. Access and egress to site. 3. Construction traffic. 4. Temporary road closures. 5. Anticipated effect on public improvements. Item 1: Phased construction schedule. The construction schedule is defined by Phase I, II and III parameters. Phase I includes the parking structure and elevator core. Mass excavation and shoring begins on May 1, 1991 and completes on July 15, 1991. The concrete foundation and precast garage structure will begin June 24, 1991 and complete September 13, 1991. The mechanical and electrical portion of work will complete September 20, 1991. The adjacent fine grading and preliminary landscaping will be completed by October 15, 1991. This phase will also allow for the kitchen addition to occur between July 1, 1991 and October 15, 1991. Phase II includes the new hotel tower and north wing. This work will proceed immediately upon completion of the parking structure. The steel frame will complete on the north wing by December 5, 1991 and the exterior skin will be enclosed by December 20, 1991. The enclosed work will consist of steel studs covered with plaster board, and windows and doors. The roof will be enclosed by December 31, 1991 for this area. With this, the building will be fully enclosed. Interior work will be underway from December 1, 1991 through August 1, 1992. Retail space will be built from January 2, 1992 through April 1, 1992. The hotel suites will be ready for occupancy on December 10, 1992. Denver•Colorado Springs•Des Moines•Phoenix•West Palm Beach Mr. Johannes Faessler Sonnenalp Properties, Inc. COHEN October 9, 1990 Page 2 Phase III includes the Spa Building, Meeting Rooms, and remodel to the existing Hotel. This work will proceed on May 1, 1992. The existing east wing of the Hotel will be demolished and properly disposed of between May 1, 1992 and June 5, 1992. The Spa Building and addition foundations will be complete by September 1, 1992. The exterior and interior work will be complete December 10, 1992. The swimming pool and site amenities will be built from August 1, 1992 through October 1, 1992. Final landscaping and gardens will be built in the Spring of 1993. Item 2: Access and egress to site. The construction site will be accessed from the Talisman access road area, and Vail Road through Phase I and II. Most traffic occurring through these phases will be material delivery trucks for the structural work. Phase III will require a 12' wide temporary road from the existing loading dock area to the Courtyard/Spa Building area. This temporary road will be removed and all grades and landscaping replaced by Winter of 1993. Item 3: Construction traffic. The construction traffic will consist primarily of material deliveries for the project. Primary traffic will be from Vail Road and from the Talisman Access Road. The bus route on East Meadow Drive will not be affected. No "worker" type traffic is planned. Item 4: Temporary Road Closure. We will request and coordinate any temporary street closures with the Town. We anticipate short term, temporary street closures on Vail Road for the utility work, kitchen shoring, and some structural erection for the Tower and Remodel. Item 5: Anticipated effect on public improvements. We anticipate no interruption of public services due to the project. Both Public Service and Holy Cross Electric are aware of the project parameters due to our initial coordination. The weights of the normal construction traffic should cause no damage to the existing roads in the awn. Sincerely, /A- K. Steven Tilton Project Manager /lm cc: Karl Faessler/Sonnenalp Properties, Inc. Gordon Pierce/Pierce, Segerberg and Spaeh Architects Ken O'Brian/Pierce, Segerberg and Spaeh Architects ins 'J` i 2 19 EMPLOYEE HOUSING DEMAND ANALYSIS Currently the Sonnenalp Hotel employs approximately 230 people in the summer and 270 in the winter. There is no projected increase except for some additional housekeeping personnel. This number is approximately 5 to 6 employees. Because of the far greater efficiencies the new hotel offers over the old, managerial staff, and all other behind the scenes functions, the number of employees will not be increased due to the new proposal. In actuality the number of employees may actually decrease due to the elimination of a restaurant and a front desk. Currently the Sonnenalp provides the following employee housing for its employees: 1. Solar Vail : 24 - 1 bedroom units housing 48 employees. This project is owned by the Sonnenalp and is located on the North Frontage Road within a 10 minute walk of the Sonnenalp. !q 2 . Bighorn Apartments: 9 - studios and 5 - 1 bedrooms housing 19 employees. This project is owned by the Sonnenalp. 3 . Timberidge: 11 - 2 bedroom units housing 44 employees. These units are rented. 4 . Brooktree: 2 - 2 bedroom units housing 8 employees. These units are rented. 5. Avon: 2 - 2 bedroom units housing 8 employees. These units are rented. 6. East Vail : ' 1 ' - 2 bedroom units housing 8 employees. These units are rented. 7 . Matterhorn: House for 4 employees. This house is rented. 8 . Eagle Bend: 1 bedroom housing 2 employees. This unit is rented. 9. Sunridge: 1 - 2 bedroom unit in Sunridge housing 4 employees. This unit is rented. The above represents housing for approximately 145 employees. The Sonnenalp currently has 60 beds available which more than meets the need for the employees to be hired for the winter season. The goal of the Sonnenalp is to own 60 to 70 units to house 60% to 70% of its employees. The remaining employees will most likely own their own housing units because of their longevity in Vail. No employees will be housed on site because it is difficult to mix off-duty staff with guests of the hotel. The hotel is a 24 hour a day operation which doesn't work with an employee trying to create a home atmosphere. The concept has been tried at the Sonnenalp in Europe and has not been successful. Currently there are no regulations requiring employee housing. The Sonnenalp has not waited to solve the problem, but has solved its problem on its own, in order to hire good employees. If the Town desires to interfere with the employee housing issue the rules should be passed which regulates the problem. The Sonnenalp will comply with those rules and regulations. 2 PURPOSE The purpose of requesting the SDD is to provide the flexibility for better site planning for a parcel of land, which along with the Vail Village Inn, will provide a gateway from Lionshead to the Village Area. The following are the areas which deviate from the underlying zone district of Public Accommodations: 1. Uses: All uses proposed for the site are permitted in the P.A. Zone District. 2 . Lot Area: The proposed conforms to the minimum lot area in the P.A. Zone District. 3 . Setbacks: The setbacks and encroachments into such setbacks are shown on the plans. The proposal does set forth small encroachments in some areas, but in other areas, a significant increase in setbacks is provided. 4 . Height: This various heights for the proposal are as set forth on the plans. The height in various places is in excess of 48 feet but in other areas is less than 48 feet to provide variety and to reduce the height along Meadow Road from a pedestrian view point. 5. Density Control: 125 new hotel rooms are being provided plus 10 existing "already renovated" hotel rooms. 100 hotel rooms are allowed on the site. No dwelling units are being proposed. The P.A. Zone District allows 49 .9% of the total square footage to be dwelling units. Density Control GRFA: All square footage figures for all uses are set forth on the plans. Because of the increased size of the average proposed hotel room, GRFA exceeds the allowed density. Commercial square footage and common area also exceed the allowable under the P.A. Zone District because of the 10% limitation and 20% limitation which are unrealistic for a quality mixed use project with group meeting facilities. 6. Coverage: Site coverage is below what 's allowed. (see plans) 7 . Landscaping: Landscaping is greater than what is required. (see plans) . 8 . Parking and Loading: All parking and loading requirements and proposed are as set forth on the plans. Because of the large size of the hotel rooms an additional parking requirement of 30 cars is created even though the same number of people are staying in the proposed rooms versus smaller rooms. The plans show a shortfall of 8 spaces but still 24 in excess of what would be the requirement for a normal sized hotel room. In addition 100% of the proposed parking is underground. Under the P.A. Zone District only 75% of the parking needs to be covered. During winter months, substantial surface parking is lost due to snow build-up and the covering of parking lines. With covered parking the project will have 100% utilization of their parking, 100% of the time. The number of loading areas are as they currently exist, but are enhanced architecturally. No increase in demand is anticipated for the proposal. • 2 5)\ town of uail ' " 75 south frontage road office of community development vail,colorado 81657 (303)479-2138 (303)479-2139 September 28, 1990 Mr. Johannes Faessler The Sonnenalp Hotel 20 Vail Road Vail, CO 81657 RE: Sonnenalp Redevelopment Dear Johannes: Thank you for submitting revisions to the Sonnenalp project on Monday of last week. You were originally scheduled before the Planning and Environmental Commission on October 22, 1990; however, the material you submitted does not address all of the concerns previously raised by the staff. As a result, you must submit a complete application addressing all of the following items before staff will schedule you for a PEC meeting. The November 12, 1990 meeting is the following PEC hearing which the project could go to. To have adequate time to review the project, staff must have a complete application addressing all the concerns that have been raised a minimum of four weeks prior to the hearing. To stay on track for November 12th, the deadline for the items on the list below is October 15th. These items have been taken from the previous two work session memos. We believe that there is nothing on this list that you are not aware of: )4c Kec�i Uec� l /o �� 90 - - 1. Traffic Analysis. 2. Employee Housing Demand Analysis and Proposed Employee /6 ,2,5. ?0 Housing. What we are looking for here is a thorough description of the number of employees to run the proposed Sonnenalp and where these employees are likely to be housed. `0.25. 90 3 . Written statement listing reasons why an SDD is necessary, and how the proposal departs from the underlying PA zone district requirements. In • l9 90 -- 4 . A written statement addressing phasing for the project and construction management. Io •19.90 -� 5. An updated view analysis, from the following areas: a. Ski Museum, future pocket park, looking toward project; b. West Meadow Drive looking east from the fire station/bank area to project; c. Bank entry looking east to project; d. 4 way stop looking south; e. East Meadow Drive looking west towards project. 6. A more detailed landscape plan indicating trees removed, added landscaping, and any landscaping on Town of Vail property. Also include water features, artwork, paths, plazas etc. per Section 18. 40. 050 (11) . At this time, a brief indication of the type of species is appropriate. We do not need detail; what is more important are the concepts. The conceptual landscape plan should indicate the purpose of certain planting groups and the goals that you are trying to achieve with landscaping at specific parts of the project. qO An EIR_addressing all the requirements listed in section 18 .56. 040 specifically: (Np. Co`- a. Drainage and all improvements along Creek. b. Air Quality, c. Visual Conditions, d. Land Use Plan, e. Circulation including Pedestrian and vehicular modes, and f. Population densities. 8 . Submit a survey including topography and the 50 ft. Gore Creek setback. f0./?• 90 9. Submit elevations of the proposed walkway connecting the spa building to the hotel. cce su6Md¢ece . 10. A title report indicating ownership and easements. !0•24.90 -S 11. Application fee of $400. 00. The SDD application is ro•a-4.9a $500.00; the file indicates that you have paid $100. 00 already and have a balance of $400. 00 left to pay. ll 2 �o 12. Submit a new, accurate address for the River House. oR 13. Please be informed that Jeff Winston, design consultant for the Town, is reviewing your project and that the cost for his review will be paid for by the applicant. --\> 14. Identify all public benefits resulting from the project. /6 , /7, 70 > 15. At a later date, staff will need 8-1/2" by 11" reduced drawings for the PEC and Town Council packets. 16. Please submit the model a minimum of three weeks prior to the PEC hearing. -ti, ,Ge o, , ' 5a / -#4/23, 17. Please find attached a summary of the staff's comments (dated September 26, 1990) with regard to your project's overall design. Although this list may appear long, staff is pleased that it is shorter then the previous list. We feel that we have made considerable progress towards a better project and we look forward to continuing to work with you. Sincerely, // r-- Andy Knudtsen Town Planner 11/1j4 /e 5 310 fr Mike Mollica Senior Planner /PP Enclosure xc: Jay Peterson Gordon Pierce Minutes of Staff Meeting with Kristan Pritz, Mike Mollica, Andy Knudtsen and Jeff Winston RE: Sonnenaip Redevelopment Date: September 26, 1990 BUILDING HEIGHT ISSUES: Overall building heights - we believe it may be acceptable to step the building up to four stories, only in certain areas, and then step it back down to three. Generally, 2-3 stories would be the accepted maximum for this building, along the East Meadow Drive area, with 3-4 stories being acceptable for the remaining areas of the property (see Vail Village Master Plan) . The proposed tower on the northwest corner of the property may be acceptable but we believe that the building would have to step back horizontally and that the facades of the building would have to vary before we could support the height of the tower at this location. We believe that the entire building is too monolithic. If the majority of the building were smaller in scale, then maybe the proposed tower could be acceptable. Perhaps make the tower more slender and more in the form of an actual tower. We believe that the proposed elevator tower is out of scale and draws too much attention to itself. We also believe that the elevator tower is too close to the larger (exclamation point) tower. We feel that one of these towers should be eliminated. Flat roofs are a concern--see Section C, page A19. Will the flat roofs be visible from the 4-way stop, or other areas surrounding the property? VAIL ROAD ISSUES: Loading Dock and Enclosure -- Staff believes that the proposed expansion of the new enclosure is too close to Gore Creek. This leaves only approximately 9-12 feet between the building's loading area and the bridge, and this corner of the building also encroaches into the Gore Creek 50 ' setback. Perhaps the loading dock area should be kept open and the use of pavers be utilized. Another concern is whether or not the proposed service and delivery area is adequate in size. Staff needs to review the loading standards in the zoning code. There is a question of how large trucks access the proposed service and delivery area. Will Vail Road be used as a turnaround area? Will trucks extend out into Vail Road when in the loading bay? 1 The applicant should identify the square footage of the existing outdoor dining deck that would be lost with the proposal, specifically the areas for the Bully III restaurant. Vail Road Sidewalk--Staff believes the proposed 5 ' width for the sidewalk would not allow for a positive pedestrian experience. The applicant should make this sidewalk wider, at least in places, and seating areas should be added. A serpentine walk would be much more acceptable. Question whether the applicant should redo the model. Before investing money into a model which will have to be changed later, staff and the applicant should have a basic agreement. Staff can be flexible on the timing noted in #16. We will need the model in order to address our concerns regarding the height and the mass and bulk of the proposed tower. EAST MEADOW DRIVE ISSUES: The primary concern with the East Meadow Drive facade is that we believe it to be too uniform and formal, given the Village's context of undulating walkways, plazas, and buildings. We feel that the applicant should rework the landscaping, the hardscape, the plazas and the architecture to create more interest and relief along East Meadow Drive, in what would be a relatively tight pedestrian corridor. Staff would like to see a much better solution than what the Lodge has done on Gore Creek Drive. The North Elevation--The landscape separation is not positive along the pedestrian areas. The applicant should reverse the proportions of paving versus landscaping, with the goal of tieing it in with the Vail Village Inn plazas. The proposed plaza areas should unify the building with East Meadow Drive. Generally, the building facade on this elevation should be broken up much more. Arcade and columns vs. integration with the VVI--Staff believes that some of the retail shops should be brought out closer to East Meadow Drive. Where there are columns, ensure that there is adequate room between the shop fronts and those columns. Perhaps the northeast wing of the proposed structure should be rotated more to the south, possibly 10 to 20 feet. This would allow for more room between the VVI and the Sonnenalp building, which would subsequently allow for a plaza to be created in this area. The tower at the northeast corner of the building could be left in the proposed location, helping to actually anchor the plaza, and creating a variety of 2 public spaces (small & large) . It appears that the proposed building relationship, along the north elevation (i.e East Meadow Drive) , could be improved by redesigning it so that the ratio of the height of the building, to the width of public space (streets) , is approximately 1:2. The staff has a question regarding sheet number A17, section B; what is the use of the attic space? Should the applicant cut back the roof and tapper it down, and actually treat this as a dormer? The tallest volume of the building should be constructed the furthest from the street. The Parking Structure Ventilation--This is shown in a proposed pocket park at the northwest corner of the property. Is this part of the ventilation system, or an electrical transformer of some type? Staff believes this location to be very inappropriate. Sun/Shade -- Staff needs to verify the applicants proposed sun/shade analysis. The applicant needs to indicate the angles used for the sun and the time of year the analysis was completed for. STREAMWALK: Streamwalk--The Vail Road Bridge is proposed to be rebuilt within the next few years. Staff will verify with Greg Hall as to the exact time table. The applicant's proposal calls for a pedestrian walkway along the existing bridge. Consideration should be given to locating the streamwalk under the new and expanded bridge. In addition, consider where a pedestrian bridge, or bridges, could be placed to achieve the best alignment possible for a streamwalk. Willow Bridge may also be replaced in the near future, allowing a path under the bridge, or allowing a stair to be built up to the road. Given these opportunities, design alternatives for the streamwalk should be pursued. We believe this to be the applicant's opportunity to propose a streamwalk with the least impact on all adjacent properties, as well as the proposed Sonnenalp garden. TALISMAN/SWISS CHALET ISSUES: Propose granting a new easement, or some type of access agreement, to the Talisman so that the access easement on East Meadow Drive can be vacated. 3 • Are the property lines which are adjacent to the Talisman legal property lines? We need to obtain a letter from Craig Snowdon, representative of the Talisman, on their opinion regarding the proposal. Staff to request that the applicant close off the eastern most access at the control gate (Sonnenalp Swiss Chalet) ; see the Urban Design Guide Plan. Perhaps we can create a plaza in this area. Remove all Swiss Chalet surface parking. • Rebuild the tie planter at the Swiss Chalet, use a stone planter. SITE PLAN/LANDSCAPE ISSUES: The proposed swimming pool is too close to the south property line, and is also too close to Gore Creek. Staff believes that there is no need for a setback encroachment in this area. We have some concerns regarding the wall for the Ludwig deck. Is this wall bermed up on the south side? And we also believe the wall around the pool may be too hard. Perhaps a softer finish around the pool would be more appropriate, specifically the use of landscaping and gentle sloping of the grades towards the creek. The applicant needs to provide information on the slopes of the grades around the King Ludwig deck. A cross section through this area is needed to fully understand what is planned here. - A conceptual landscape plan needs to be submitted; this does not need to be a final planting design. Design intent should be indicated. The pocket park design, shown to the southeast of the Swiss Chalet, may not be feasible if the Town, or the applicant, does not own the property. The applicant should research ownership of this parcel. MISC. ISSUES: There is some question as to why there are so many chimneys shown on the building, when in fact all the units will have gas fireplaces or gas logs. Are these just architectural features? All elevation drawings should show any and all building lines behind the foreground elevation. The staff should cut and paste all the west elevation drawings so that we have a continuous elevation for this part of the building. 4 Pierce , Segerberg & Spaeh Architects • P. C . • A. I. A. September 24 , 1990 Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission 75 South Frontage Road West Vail , CO 81657 Attention : City Commissioners and Planning Staff Members RE : Sonnenalp Remodel and Proposed Special Development District at 20 Vail Road , Part of Lot L , Block 5-E , Vail Village First Filing Dear Sirs : Enclosed is a condensed explanation addressing all of the City Commissioners ' concerns regarding the above-mentioned project . The issues are being identified in writing as well as graphically ( see drawings with a revision date of September 12, 1990 as submitted ) to clearly convey our intent . Please note that all of the Town ' s goals and objectives have been met or satisfied with little or no compromise to the Staff ' s position on the Town ' s Master Plan . Sincerely, PIERCE , SEGERBERG & SPAEH , ARCHITECTS, P . C . , A. I . A. ,Z2-- (21 64/1 . Ken A. O ' Bryan KAO/ Irt enc . cc : Karl Faessler - Sonnenalp Properties , Inc . Johannes Faessler - Sonnenalp Properties , Inc. K. Steven Tilton - Weitz-Cohen Dan Meek - Weitz-Cohen Jay Peterson - Attorney at Law Gordon Pierce - Pierce , Segerberg & Spaeh Ray Story - Pierce , Segerberg & Spaeh Main Office: 1000 South Frontage Road West = Vail, Colorado 81657 e 303/476-4433 Post Office Box 2313 ' Beaver Creek, Colorado 81620 e 303/949-6049 One Tabor Center 1200 Seventeenth Street, Suite 515 • Denver, Colorado 80202 ® 303/623-3355 The following list of items are revisions that were made to the drawings after the August 24 work session with the Planning and Environmental Commission . These revisions reflect the concerns and comments of the Board members and were completed in order to satisfy same . Building Height Issues : 1 . The roof at the corner of Vail Road and East Meadow Drive was lowered over three feet . Dormers were added to maintain the ceiling heights on the fourth floor as well as incorporating natural light through the use of aesthetically-pleasing windows . 2. The elevator shaft and the eave of its roof was lowered eight feet . The roof was redesigned lowering its average height by four and one-half feet . Dormers were added to maintin the required area for the elevator over-travel and equipment . 3. Grade at the garden level was raised by over three feet , therefore, effectively lowering the height of the roof by - - three feet . "/".:;J-1- 4 . The structure ' s average roof height is now 44 ' -6" above grade . Delivery Area Design : 1 . Internal design changes and eqipment changes allowed for a 4 better shipping/receiving area ( see revised drawings ) . , ? 2. The roof over this area was extended so that overhead doors could be closed to conceal the view of this area . - S 3 . Due to the redesign and equipment changes , during most deliveries the overhead doors could be lowered . Setback Encroachments : 1 . The setback encroachment on the commercial level at the northeast corner of the structure was reduced by approxi - mately four and one-half feet . Therefore, the setback encroachment is now only twenty-one feet long and encroaches from zero to four feet at its widest point . 2 . At the commercial level near the intersection of Vail Road and East Meadow Drive , the structure under the arcade was moved back three and one-half feet in order to create a more pleasing experience for the public . - 1 - 3 . Small arcades were created along East Meadow Drive to enhance the public view and encourage pedestrian circulation as supported by the Town ' s Master Plan . 4 . Due to existing interior circulation , 211122/ a portion of the dining deck can be preserved and the " bu i i d i ng i of i I I " is 14sw the kitchen expansion area which will not encroach any 7 further into the setback than the existing building does . 5 . Including all existing conditions , there are a few areas that still encroach the setbacks , including overhangs starting at the second level . The total percentage of setback encroachment area versus total area above grade is only 4 . 4%. z",„.....4 5. 7 Parking and Traffic Contro l : 1 . The parking along the garage ramp located at the northeast corner of the site has been removed . 2 . A parking plan including traffic circulation for the Talisman Condominiums has been studied and is indicated on the site plan . — Arteir4 . e . ,(ae.A- 3 . A traffic study will be completed and submitted as soon as possible . Consultants have been advised that this study be ,4 n ®® submitted by the first week in October . AaA/J) 4 . The ramp at the northeast corner of the property has been revised and shall be "one-way each way" with associated \A\\,,,_ traffic control devices . 5 . Neither control gates along East Meadow Drive will be moved . ' 6 . A _Darkinq study is in progress to verify the numbers of actual parking spaced needed versus the number required by zoning . Miscellaneous Items : 1 . An agreement between Sonnenalp Properties , Inc . and the Talisman Condominium Association has been discussed and is underway. 2 . The building facade along East Meadow Drive has been revised to offer more relief and interest at the ground level . 3 . A pocket park is being proposed along Willow Bridge Drive just south of the Sonnenalp Swiss Chalet . However , discussions with the Public Work ' s Department may effect th i s proposal . __ 7/ 4„..-4-e4 ? - 2 - 7 - -7 4 . A pocket park is being proposed at the northeast corner of the new hotel along East Meadow Drive . 5 . A pedestrian bridge is being proposed in joint venture with the Town along the Vail Road bridge . However , discussions with the Public Work ' s Department may effect this proposal . 6 . The echo situation along East Meadow drive shall be handled by landscaping along with the building shape itself . The following items are related to the Vail Village Master Plan and associated goals , objectives and policies including the illustrative plans . 1 . Sub-Area #1 -3 : We have provided the commercial infill with second and third floor lodging to enclose Meadow Drive and improve the quality of the pedestrian experience . We have designated walkways and plazas with green spaces . The pedestrian walkway with incorporated arcades will encourage pedestrian circulation removed from West Meadow Drive . The building mass will not create a shadow pattern on Meadow Drive during the summer months but will create some shadow patterns for a couple of hours during the winter . Keep in mind that the shadow studies reflected are taken at the worst time of day on the worst day of the year . The landscaped green space ( as asked for in the Master P l a n ) w i l l cast s a..v ur - r i n o as 72 Meadow Drive during both summer and winter than the proposed building will . 2 . Sub-Area #1 -5 : The decorative paver walkway as proposed will be separated from the bus route and accented by a strong landscaped area. This will encourage pedestrian circulation . The loss of parking has been relocated on site , below grade , with open stairs for easy access to the commercial storefronts . 3 . Objective 1 . 2: Our proposal strongly supports the upgrading and redevelopment of residential and commercial facilities . 4 . Objective 1 . 3 : Through our proposal , public improvements will be done by private developers working in cooperation with the Town . (See Miscellaneous Items #3 , 4 and 5 . ) - 3 - 5 . Objective 2. 3 : Incorporated in our proposal is an increase of residential units available for short-term accommodations . 6. Objective 2 . 4 : The proposed commercial /retail development can provide a variety of activity which wi l l benefit the existing land uses across East Meadow Drive . This proposal may also solve the existing parking problems of these same retail areas across the street , providing easy access from underground parking to the commercial areas at ground level . 7 . Objective 2 . 6: We feel that Johannes Faessler addressed the issue of employee housing to the satisfaction of the Town ' s objective . : �� 4p, 8 . Objective 3 . 1 : The existing pedestrian ways as proposed will be greatly improved . This will be accomplished by a number of ways : first , by replacing a parking lot with an aesthetically- pleasing building ; second , by complying with Objectives 1 . 3 , 3 . 1 and 4 . 1 ; third , by complying with Sub-Areas #1 -3 and #1 -5 ; and four , by enhancing the street scape by all methods noted above, plus creating parking below grade where it cannot be viewed . 9. Objective 3 . 4 and 4 . 1 : Additional walkways for pedestrians have been incorporated in this proposal to separate foot traffic from the bus route and to provide additional pocket parks for the Town ' s benefit . A ,7 stream access via a pedestrian bridge has been proposed but W the details of a ' oint venture need to be researched . Wt.-ee.e7 Additional coordination between the Pub is uor s •epartment and the Planning Staff is require. . e Public Work ' s Department indicates that both bridges in question are going t75 -e replaced and u. . raded . 10. Objective 5 . 1 : Parking demands have been met as can be seen by the parking study. - 4 - 11 . Objective 6 . 1 : Per the revised proposal , the delivery area has been upgraded both physically and aesthetically to support the new development . 12. Illustrative Plans : 1 . The "mixed use" area on the north side of site will be maintained per the Vail Village Master Plan . 2. The medium/high density residential area on the south side of the site shall be maintained during the phase of construction and later , shall become a medium density open residential area which is considered an accessory use to the main use . Other phasing studies are now being considered due to the lengthy approval process . 3 . The open space plan and building heights have been adhered to as much as possible considering a development of this magnitude . 4 . The S. D. D. is necessary because the Vail Village Master Plan was constructed with the idea that the existing Sonnenalp Hotel would remain and only be expanded . Closing Statement As stated in the cover letter , we feel that all of the issues and concerns of the Town have been addressed . Together as a team and with the Planning Commissioners ' expertise , advice and recommendations , we feel that this proposal has evolved into the type of development that will enhance public experiences greatly while setting a high standard of quality control for the Town which w i l l be beneficial to its thriving success in the future . We appreciate your support towards this project and ask for your recommendation of approval to the Town Council . - 5 - PEC 8/27/90 2 because he felt it was best for that area and he would also vote for HDMF on the rest of the area. Kathy Warren agreed with Jim and repeated that HDMF on Tract 1 was down zoning and was also the direction given by the Council. Dalton wondered if this action was really necessary and Kristan explained that it would be very helpful to the staff and the Planning Commission. The original application did not have underlying zoning in the request and it was made in the new request to clarify the underlying zoning per PEC request. Ludwig agreed with Jim. Diana said at first she questioned the zoning, then when the staff did the research on the original zoning, she was 100% for it. Jay reminded the board that the existing SDD allows for a request for timeshare. A motion to approve the request to apply underlying zoning per the staff memo was made by Kathy Warren and seconded Dalton Williams ‹e°44 VOTE 5-1-1 WITH CONNIE KNIGHT AGAINST AND CHUCK CRIST ABSTAINING coo . Item No. 5: A request for a work session on the Sonnenalp remodel and proposed Special Development District at 20 Vail Road, Part of Lot L, Block 5-E, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Son a alp Properties, Inc. Kristan Pritz reminded the board that they had a work session on June 25, 1990 and since that time, the applicant had made many changes. The most significant was that they had pulled most of the building out of the 20 ft. setback along Meadow Drive and that the height of the tower along Vail Road had been decreased. The King Ludwig deck had also been built into the hillside facing Gore Creek. Kristan felt that the applicant had worked in the direction that the staff had asked them, though staff still felt more work needed to be done. Particularly, the height needed to be decreased. The memo listed the various concerns of the staff. Besides the height, coordination between the existing Sonnenalp and the Talisman was necessary. Jay Peterson, Johannes Faessler, Gordon Pierce, and Ray Story 7 Minutes PEC 8/27/90 were present representing the applicant. Jay explained that the accommodation units now totaled 124 and that the dwelling unit had been removed. Jay added that there would be a fireplace in the lobby and not in any other rooms. Jay stated the reason they were asking for a greater percentage of common area than is allowed under PA zoning was that the allowable common area for the PA zone for hotels was simply not enough. He reminded the board that they were putting in no condominium units and no dwelling units and almost 100% of the parking was underground. He also added that the motel rooms were 500-600 sq. ft. compared to a typical hotel room of 300 sq. ft. Regarding setbacks, Jay said that they had adhered very closely, encroaching only in minor areas. Jay then discussed the heights. He said the height along Meadow Drive was significantly lower than allowed in the PA zone and that the Master Plan envisioned an infill project with the existing building remaining, rather than removing some of the existing building as they were presently proposing to do. He also stated that they were below the allowable site coverage area. Jay compared the Vail Village Inn building on West Meadow Drive across the street from the Talisman. He said that the lower side of the Vail Village Inn buildings were on West Meadow Drive and the rest of the buildings of the Vail Village Inn were higher. Regarding the stream tract, he felt this area was not conducive to a pedestrian way. It was a very private area. Discussion followed on how the height on the proposed building related to the Vail Village Inn building. Ray Story and Gordon Pierce showed elevations and sections. Jay then spoke about a future greenbelt where the ski museum used to he. Gordon explained the screening of the loading area with walls and added that they were well within the 20 ft. setback on two sides and they would be further back from the Talisman than they were presently. Dalton stated that to him, a 20 ft. setback means 20 ft. back. With overhangs, the building was actually closer. Kristan said that 4 ft. overhangs into the setback are allowed for roofs. Gordon stated that the neighbor across the street was well into their setbacks, actually up to their property line, and he felt that the Sonnenalp project was reinforcing the pedestrian walk. Gordon added that he had designed many hotels and never had seen a hotel as complicated or difficult to build because of the shape of the lot and Zoning constraints. Diana asked for a rationale behind the request for setback 8 Minutes PEC 8/27/90 variances and a discussion followed of the plans. Kathy Warren stated the applicant was asking for 23% more GRFA than allowed by the Public Accommodation zoning. She felt that the building could be brought back to meet setbacks and still build the amount of GRFA that they were requesting. She felt the building could be brought back toward the inner court instead of toward Meadow Drive. Kathy also felt it would be nice if the building had more ins and outs on the facade. Gordon replied that there were so many things going on already that a couple of feet in one area didn't make much difference. Johannes Faessler asked why they could not be on the property line when the buildings across the street were. Diana replied that the building across the street would not have been passed if it came before the board today. Gordon said that the shape of the property made it difficult to deal with the building on the northeast side. Dalton asked about the auto court and Jay explained and went on to floor plans regarding rooms and halls. Gordon said that they were told to reduce the height of the tower and cut back and so they had lost the dwelling unit for the Faessler's plus some rooms. Dalton questioned the setbacks near the Talisman and Jim Wear, representing the Talisman, responded. He said that there were 16 owners at the Talisman. They were concerned about some issues and they had retained Craig Snowdon to respond to these. Craig Snowdon was present and he discussed the setbacks. Craig said they were not as concerned about the setback as much as the massing. They were concerned about parking and access to Meadow Drive. Craig explained that the Sonnenalp and Talisman had some strange legal agreements. One of them was that there should be 20 ft. between the buildings and Jay responded that they were simply treating the property line next the Talisman as another side setback. Diana said that they would like to have the two properties resolve the issue of access and parking. Johannes said that they would have an agreement with the Talisman and the issues would be addressed. Craig stated that they were open to discussion and that there was 9 Minutes PEC 8/27/90 no final agreement as yet. They were concerned regarding the landscaping being traded for their parking spaces at the top of the ramp, the legal ramifications regarding the access, and the construction process. Craig said that they would rather see the building farther back but did not have any objections because it was based on the no-setback requirement. Jim Wear stated that there may be some individual property owners with concerns. Jim Shearer was in favor of pulling the loading/delivery area forward and enclosing the trucks. He thought it was a good building. He favored a walkpath along the stream and pointed out that if the building did come forward it would hide the open spaces behind it with the exception of some of the doorways through the building. He felt that there should be formal documents between the Talisman and the Sonnenalp. There should be planting in front of the Swiss Chalet without losing parking on the east side of the property. Johannes spoke about employee housing. He believed that employee housing was a very important issue because you could not run a business without employees. He felt that if the Town needs to interfere with the employee housing requirements, they should come up with a clear idea and make rules for everyone. He didn't feel that it should start without some guidelines, that it was not fair or the right way to address the issue. He was not in favor of having employee housing on-site because it is the most expensive type of housing. Johannes said that at the present he could house 187 employees. Jim Shearer continued his comments, stating that he was content with the amount of retail and commercial space and felt that the common areas were a plus. He was glad that the land led up to the Ludwig deck. He felt that the glass walkway should be left open to the courtyard. He agreed with Craig regarding the parking spaces. He would like to see the parking spaces at the top of the ramp removed and have that area landscaped. He was concerned with four areas; the height, setbacks, number of units, and the amount of GRFA. Kathy Warren stated that her concerns were the same as last time. 10 Minutes PEC 8/27/90 She was not comfortable with what was going on. The building was encroaching on all four setbacks. She wanted to see a sun/shade analysis. Since it was under on site coverage, it didn't make since to her to encroach on the setbacks. She felt it would be better if they had more varied setbacks on Meadow Road. Regarding the height, there were two significant areas over on height, particularly the northwest corner. She would rather have seen the corner be lower than the rest of the building rather than higher. Kathy felt that a 23% overall increase in square footage was a significant overage even though some of it was underground. She felt that the 11 parking spaces on the ramp should be placed underground. She was comfortable with the number of units per acre but she was sorry to see one dwelling unit being removed. She was concerned with the parking spaces being slightly under what was required. Kathy felt that the employee housing needed to be addressed on this project and preferred to see units on site. The delivery situation needed to be addressed. She felt that the Town of Vail is not receiving anything in exchange except for a sidewalk. Kathy felt that an SDD should give something in exchange. Chuck Crist liked the project. He felt that the area needed development and was glad to see that it was stepped back on Meadow Drive. He would like to see more indentations on the building, but felt that the design was good. He had some concern about mass and bulk. He liked the concept of the tower. Chuck felt that this part of Town needed architectural interest and wanted the staff to present a comparison with other towers in Town. He felt the elevator tower needed work. Regarding the stream walk, he was not in favor of having it in this location but suggested a pocket parks near the Swiss Chalet and on the west end with benches. Chuck did not have concerns about the commercial space, GRFA, or the number of accommodation units. Regarding employee housing, he agreed with Johannes. Dalton liked the project and agreed with Jim. Regarding the loading area, he suggested moving it back and the doors forward so that there would be more room for a loading dock. He liked the stream walk and proposed an alternative on the west side extending the sidewalk to the bridge and building a pedestrian bridge next to the auto bridge. He was still concerned with the canyon effect on Meadow Drive with two high buildings and buses, crowds, and noise. He felt that perhaps there could be some design that would help absorb the noise. Dalton felt that the tower looked like a "Darth Vader" design and added to the mass. He stated that the elevator tower should not try to make an architectural statement and perhaps there could be an unobtrusive cap on it. He agreed with the comments Johannes had stated on employee housing. Dalton had problems with the heights, density, 11 Minutes PEC 8/27/90 and GRFA. Regarding setbacks, he felt that some of his concerns had been explained away. Ludwig discussed setbacks. He said that he could understand some of the reasons for an infringement. He felt that they could change the structure above ground from underground and he was concerned that there was encroachment on all sides. He had no problem with the GRFA or the Commercial area. He felt that the tower could be lower. He stated the tower really read more as a building than a tower. Ludwig felt that it was too bad that the building could not be designed within the allowable GRFA, heights, and without setback variances. The courtyard space may need to be expended to reduce setback encroachments. He felt that they were going in the right direction with the loading docks. He could understand wanting the privacy. Ludwig wanted to see cooperation between the Talisman and the Sonnenalp. Connie Knight spoke next. She stated that she had been an advocate of the stream walk but now she had changed her mind. She was not happy with a setback encroachment or the height of the building. Concerning employee housing, she felt that Johannes had made a great point and he did provide a lot of employee housing. She asked about the kitchen and wondered if it couldn't be put on a north/south direction in order to maintain the Bully Restaurant and deck. She asked if the delivery area was adequate. Diana was concerned about loading for the commercial part of the building. She felt that the figures needed to be justified to determine adequate loading would be available. The Common Space and Commercial Space can not be double. The Master Plan, along Meadow Drive, called to separate people from the buses and the extended landscaped berm should be kept. She felt that there were too many towers on the building. Some architectural statement may be warranted. Regarding the stream walk she said "you know how I feel about stream walks. By not putting in the stream walk, you are using public land for private benefit by pushing your building out to the property line. " She asked the applicant to find some way to mitigate this impact. She felt that the concept of Johannes' s employee housing was alright but she felt that he must come up with more employee housing. She felt that the ramp parking spaces should be taken out and landscaping added in that area. She also agreed with the possible idea of a pedestrian bridge. She agreed with the concerns of the staff found within the memo. Gordon Pierce felt that there was a conflict between the idea of having a separate pedestrian area and also having pocket parks. 12 Minutes PEC 8/27/90 Jim Shearer was concerned about the columns on the corner. He felt they were very close to the building and Gordon discussed opening that area up more. Dalton discussed the parking requirements and wondered if with larger rooms, they would not necessarily need to have more cars. Kristan said that they could try to get more parking numbers from studies on parking mitigation completed last year. Jim Shearer said that he would like to know, excluding the Austria House, the number of employees now and the number that there would be later. Johannes said that he had 250 employees now and did not anticipate needing more employees, because 35 of them were used at the golf course in the summer only. Chuck Crist said he would also like to see parking calculations. Gordon said that when the parking ordinance was written, there were no "Vans to Vail and that was how many people traveled to Vail which has reduced on site parking demand by guests. Item No. 6: Eagle County referral--645 ' tall transmission tower located 2 . 3 miles N.W. of the West Vail I-70 interchange. Applicant: Global American sites Item No. 6 was postponed until after Item No. 7 Item No. 7: An appeal of a staff decision concerning GRFA for Lot 3 , Block 2 , Vail Potato Patch (754 Potato Patch Drive) . Applicant: Mike Lauterbach Kristan gave the history regarding this item. Dalton asked Mike Lauterbach why he made changes without Town approval and Mike responded that every step of the way he was told he had additional GRFA remaining. He was told he had 200 sq. ft. on the east side so he could transfer this to the west or larger side. Kristan replied that when the project was approved there was no 60/40 zoning split. So the 60/40 split was not an issue. Dalton said that the Board talked a few weeks ago regarding changes and needing to come back with changes, and Mike Mollica responded that minor changes can usually come back just to the staff. 13 TO: Planning and Environmental CommissL .. FROM: Community Development Department DATE: August 27, 1990 RE: A request for a work session on the Sonnenalp remodel and proposed Special Development District at 20 Vail Road, Part of Lot L, Block 5-E, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Sonnenalp Properties, Inc. I. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST On June 25, 1990, a work session was scheduled with the Planning Commission on this project. Attached to this memo are comments from the Commissioners. The applicant has made several changes to the project. The most significant is that the building for the most part has been pulled out of the 20 ft. setback along Meadow Drive. The height of the tower along Vail Road has also been decreased. Presently, the tower has a proposed height of 78 to 80 ft. The King Ludwig Deck has also been built into the hillside facing Gore Creek. Details on other changes will be explained by the applicant at the work session. Staff has revised the previous work session memo. However, many of our previous comments still pertain to the proposal. Below is a summary of the request: ` Establish SDD with underlying Public Accommodation Zoning. Please see attached zoning analysis for comparison of SDD to PA requirements. Increase accommodation units from 72 to 128 units. ` Decrease 10 dwelling units to 1 dwelling unit. ` Increase commercial space from 5, 396 sq. ft. to 14,287 sq. ft. Maintain all units as lodge units except for 1 dwelling unit. Underground all parking. Access to structure will be from Vail Road and East Meadow Drive. Existing control gate on east end of Meadow Drive will be moved to the west to allow access. Surface loading will remain on southwest corner of property. Addition of spa, conservatory and pool amenities inside courtyard. Construct sidewalk along east side of Vail Road. ` No wood-burning fireplaces are requested except for one lobby fireplace. 1 II. ZONING ANALYSIS The project departs from the PA standards highlighted in bold type. SONNENALP PRELIMINARY ZONING ANALYSIS UNDERLYING ZONING EXISTING PROPOSED PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION PROJECT* SDD* Site Area: 2. 024 acres or Same Same 88, 165.44 sq. ft. Setbacks: 20 feet all sides N=Meadow Dr: 20 ft. N = 12 ft. W=Vail Road: 13 ft. W = 3 ft. S=Gore Creek: 4. 2 ft. S = 4 ft. E=Talisman: 0 ft. E = 5 ft. Height: 45 ft. mansard roof **** 77 '-80 ft. Max 48 ft. sloping roof approx. GRFA: 70, 532 sq. ft. 30, 122 sq. ft. 72, 716 sq. ft. Units: 25 units per acre, or 46 units 65 units 50 units for the site. (72 a.u. & 10 d.u. ) (.14NR- a.u. & _ , 1E14 Site Coverage: 55% of site or 17 ,984 sq. ft. 45, 685 sq. ft. 48 ,491 sq. ft. or 20 % or 52 % Landscaping: 30% of site or **** **** 26,450 sq. ft. Parking and Per Town of Vail Required: 105 Req. : 211** or Loading: parking standards Provided: 101 207*** Prop. : 159 spaces 37 valet 196 Total Accessory: 10% of total GRFA 5, 396 , 7 Retail, or 7 , 053 sq. ft. ez, {c�'O Eating,Drinking, ) °��^°'' Rec. , sq. ft. )4:16g Common Area: 20% of Allowed GRFA 20% or 37% rig I or 14, 106 sq. ft. 13,862 sq. ft. 26, 163 sq. ft. * All existing and proposed calculations will need to be verified by staff. ** Required parking includes 5% credit for mixed use development per Town of Vail parking Code Section 18.52. 120. *** Allows for non-conforming parking credit. **** Information unavailable at this time. 2 III. PRELIMINARY STAFF COMMENTS, GOALS AND OBJECTIVES Height: It is positive that the height of the tower along Vail Road has been reduced from approximately 102 ft. to 77 '-80 ft. However, staff strongly encourages the applicant to reduce the height even more. We understand that a certain number of rooms must be obtained in order to construct a project of this magnitude. However, the Vail Village Master Plan calls out for a maximum height of 36 ft. on the southern portion of the site (Please see building height plan) . The PA zoning allows for a maximum height of 4 ft. for sloping roofs. The proposal needs to comply wreh these heights as much as possible. As mentioned in the previous memo, height should terrace down to Vail Road and East Meadow Drive to respect pedestrian areas as well as views from public areas. Talisman/Sonnenalp Coordination--Control Gate: Coordination between the proposed Sonnenalp SDD and Talisman is necessary. Staff encourages the two owners to work together on access, landscaping, and parking for the two projects in a comprehensive manner. The issue of access to the Sonnenalp property and the question of whether or not the control gate will be removed is also very critical. GRFA Density/Uses: The project still contains 99% of the units as lodging. This is very positive. In addition, the mix of lodging and commercial is very appropriate and supports the Vail Village Master Plan. Landscaping/Pedestrian Areas: Accessible greenspace areas including pocket parks and stream access per objectives 3 .4 and 4 . 1 of the Vail Village Master Plan should be included in the project. Staff also believes that the pool area and Ludwig Deck could be pulled back away from the creek area to open up the Town of Vail stream tract for public access. 3 Setbacks: Staff believes it is ver •._' _;.ve thatthe applicant has rie• 0 61111 t e ui • •._, ._rw. • Meadow •rive. We believe the •uilding could actually meet the 20 ft. setback on the north side of the property. Staff would like to see the dining deck preserved on the west side of the property. From the drawings, it appears that a portion of the deck will be removed for a building infill. p vee Housing: The owner is asked to address the employee housing issue by describing employee demand and including employee units within the project. Parking: All parking should be provided on site. It is very positive that underground parking is proposed. Traffic A traffic study is absolutely critical. The Town Engineer has indicated his concern that this information be submitted as soon as possible. The plan should also address loading and delivery. Vail Village Master Plan: In general, the project should respond more to the Vail Village Master Plan. The last memo listed many areas where the project could comply more with the plan. In most cases, the previous staff comments apply to the revised proposal. A Planning Commissioner at the first work session did mention that Sub-Area Concept 1.5 Willow Bridge Road Walkway should be addressed through the proposal. This section states: "A decorative paver pedestrian walkway, separated from the street and accented by a strong landscaped area to encourage pedestrian circulation along Meadow Drive. Lots of parking will be need to be relocated on site. " Staff also agrees that this was a good suggestion and should be considered in other future work on the project. 4 III. OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS 1. Fire Department: The building must be equipped with fire sprinklers throughout. Access to the Talisman must be assured as per UFC 10-207 and UFC 10.207 The existing building must have access per UFC 10.207 or sprinklers Fire flows must be provided in agreement with Upper Eagle Valley Water and Sanitation District via a letter completed. ' 2 . Public Works: Traffic anal sis will be required for access poin s, Val 'oad, and the Four Way Stop must be submitted as soon as possible. e T Osman parking area does not function as designed. Sidewalk width of 6 ft. minimum on Vail Road will be required for the full length of the project. The modifications to Vail Road are a concern at this time. owever, the Town Engineer is willing to sit down with the applicant to understand exactly what is being proposed. Drainage improvements along Vail Road and East rive will be needed. Stream walk could be easily accommodated with appropriate screening form the pool and deck area on the Sonnenalp property. 3 . Landscape Architect: The stream walk should be shown on the site plan. The applicant will need to submit a revised landscaping plan if proposed changes to Vail Road re oved. u . 'ntenance of landsca• -.•_ - . s and sidewalks should •e e owner's responsibility. 5 ` The conceptual landscape plan appears to be acceptable. A detailed planting and irrigation plan should be submitted for review. IV. VAIL VILLAGE MASTER PLAN A. Sub-Area #1-3 . Sub-Area #1-3 states: "Commercial infill development with second floor residential/lodging to enclose Meadow Drive and improve the quality of the pedestrian experience. Designated walkways and plazas with green space should interface with those of the Vail Village Inn. A pedestrian walkway (possibly arcade) should be provided to encourage pedestrian circulation physically removed from West Meadow Drive. Mass of building should not create a shadow pattern on Meadow Drive. Development will require coordination and/or involvement with adjacent property owners. Existing and new parking demand to be provided on site. " B. Sub-Area #1-5. Sub-Area #1-5 states: "A decorative paver pedestrian walkway, separated form the street and accented by a strong landscaped area to encourage pedestrian circulation along Meadow Drive. Loss of parking will need to be relocated on site. " C. Emphasized Goals & Policies. 1. 2 Objective: Encourage the upgrading and redevelopment of residential and commercial facilities. 1.3 Objective: Enhance new development and redevelopment through public improvements done by private developers working in cooperation with the Town. 2.3 Objective: Increase the number of residential units available for short term overnight accommodations. 2.4 Objective: Encourage the development of a variety of new commercial activity where compatible with existing land uses. 6 2. 6 Objective: Encourage the development of affordable housing units through the efforts of the private sector. 3 . 1 Objective: Physically improve the existing pedestrian ways by landscaping and other improvements. 3 .4 Objective: Develop additional sidewalks, pedestrian-only walkways and accessible green space areas, including pocket parks and stream access. 4 . 1 Objective: Improve existing open space areas and create new plazas with green space and pocket parks. Recognize the different roles of each type of open space in forming the overall fabric of the Village. 5. 1 Objective: Meet parking demands with public and private parking facilities. 6. 1 Objective: Provide service and delivery facilities for existing and new development. D. Illustrative Plans. 1. Land Use Plan: a. North side of site, "Mixed Use. " This category includes the "historic" Village core and properties near the pedestrianized streets of the Village. Lodging, retail and a limited amount of office use are found in this category. With nearly 270, 000 square feet of retail space and approximately 320 residential units, the mixed use character of these areas is a major factor in the appeal of Vail Village. b. South side of site, "Medium/High Density Residential. " The overwhelming majority of the Village's lodge rooms and condominium units are located in this land use category. Approximately 1, 100 units have been developed on the 27 7 acres of private land in this category. In addition, another 110 units are approved but unbuilt. It is a goal of this Plan to maintain these areas as predominantly lodging oriented with retail development limited to small amounts of "accessory retail. " 2. Open Space Plan: a. "Planted Buffer" is designated on north and west side of site. b. "Plaza with green space" is designated on north side of property connecting to the Vail Village Inn and on eastern property adjacent to VVI sculpture plaza. c. "Open Space" is designated along stream corridor. 3 . Parking and Circulation Plan: a. East Meadow Drive is designated as a bus route, and Gore Creek Corridor is designated as a study area for a walking path. 4. Building Height Plan: a. The area along East Meadow Drive is recommended to be a maximum of two to three stories or 18 to 27 ft. high. Three to four stories (27 ft to 36 ft. ) is designated on the southern three quarters of the property. (All heights exclude roof forms. ) Please note PA zoning also allows a maximum height of 48 ft. for sloping roofs. V. LAND USE PLAN The Land Use Plan refers to the Vail Village Master Plan for reviewing any requests for redevelopment. VI. ADDITIONAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS 1. Sun/Shade Analysis on East Meadow Drive and Vail Road. 2. Traffic Analysis. 3. Employee Housing Demand Analysis and Proposed Employee Housing. 8 4 . Written statement listing reasons why SDD is necessary and depart from PA zone district requirements. Zoning analysis for SDD compared to PA standards. 5. Written statement comparing proposal to Vail Village Master Plan Goals and Policies, Sub-Areas, and Illustrative Plans. 6. Written statement addressing phasing for the project and construction management. 7 . Revised plans excluding Talisman improvements unless proposal from Talisman is to be reviewed simultaneously. 8 . A vicinity plan showing all adjacent properties and buildings particularly WI, Vail National Bank, Ski Museum Site and Intersection, Talisman, Gore Creek, and Chapel at a minimum scale of 1"= 50 ' . 9. Additional view analyses from: a. Ski Museum pocket park looking toward project (SE) b. Meadow Drive looking East from fire station/bank area to project. c. Bank entry looking east to project. 10. A more detailed landscape plan indicating trees removed, added landscaping, any landscaping on Town of Vail property, water features, artwork, paths, plazas etc. per Section 18. 40. 050 - 11. 11. EIR should address 18.56. 040 requirements below: a. Drainage and any improvements along Creek. b. Air Quality c. Visual Conditions (per request in # 9 of staff list) d. Land Use Plan e. Circulation Pedestrian and Vehicular f. Population densities (per request in # 3 of staff list) . 12 . Survey should indicate 50 ft. creek setback and creek centerline. 13 . Height Analysis using roof plan on survey indicating roof elevations and existing and finished grades. Base elevations must be verified by a surveyor. Existing and finished grades must be indicated on elevation drawings. 9 14. Site Coverage Analysis for existing and proposed development completed by red-lining survey and proposed site plan. 15. Indicate 20 ft. setbacks on all sides of property on site plan. 16. Square footage-redlined drawings for GRFA, retail, accessory and back of house uses. 17. South elevation drawing and interior courtyard elevations. 18. Identify public benefits resulting from Project. 19. 8-1/2"X11" drawings are required for PEC and Town Council. 20. Title report showing ownership and easements. 21. Application fee of $500. 00 22 . Outside consultant shall be required per Section 18. 40. 130, fees for this project. Jeff Winston will work with the staff on the SDD. The specific amount for the consultant fee will be determined by staff. 10 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION JUNE 25, 1990 Present Staff Chuck Crist Kristan Pritz Diana Donovan Mike Mollica Ludwig Kurz Shelly Mello Jim Shearer Andy Knudtsen Kathy Warren Penny Perry Dalton Williams Members Absent Connie Knight In the interest of time, work sessions were held prior to the public hearing beginning at 12 :40 p.m. A request for a work session on the Sonnenalp redevelopment and proposed Special Development District at 20 Vail road, Part of Lot L, Block 5-E, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Sonnenalp Properties, Inc. Kristan Pritz explained that the request was for the redevelopment of the Sonnenalp property and a proposed Special Development District. She gave a brief summary of the request and reviewed the zoning analysis. She reviewed those items related to the project found within the Vail Village Master Plan including Sub-Area #1-3, emphasizing Goals & Policies, and Illustrative Plans. She also provided corresponding preliminary staff comments. Kristan then relayed comments made by the Fire Department and Public Works. This was a work session, so no recommendation was made. Jay Peterson, representing the applicant, explained that they were before the board on a preliminary basis and simply wanted comments and suggestions so they could move ahead with the design process. Irene Westby, manager of the Talisman, explained that the owners had discussed the proposal, though not in depth, regarding coordination with the Sonnenalp on landscape and parking. As the manager, she would encourage the board to move faster. They do have concerns with parking, landscape and fire access. Jay explained that he had met with the president of the association and the Sonnenalp had offered access through the Sonnenalp structure. Marilyn Fletcher, a Talisman condominium owner, felt the proposal was very nice looking. She was concerned about the setbacks and ingress/egress. 1 Kent Rose, speaking for himself as a Council Member, felt that the zoning analysis found within the memo was well prepared. In the future, he would like to see a comparison of the SDD with the Village Master Plan as well. He suggested to Kristan to add this comparison to the present chart. He stated that the additional comparison could help him lean more favorable toward the project. As it was currently depicted, the project looked too large. Larry Eskwith explained that he would prefer that the Council members not participate in the PEC meeting. The Council is a quasi-judicial board and he felt their participation could cause legal problems. Diana asked if they could speak in a general sense or at a minimum ask questions, and Larry said "yes. " Mery Lapin felt that page 2 of the memo was the key. When an SDD is proposed, there should be trade-offs. He wanted to know what these trade-offs were. He felt that staff presented the trade- offs in respect to the Marriott project well. Regarding the Marriott project, he felt that too much time was spent comparing the original application to the current proposal . Mery agreed with Larry Eskwith, that the Council 's comments should be limited at this point. The Council was in a quasi-judicial role. Kristan explained that the Planning Commission simply wanted general comments and issues that the Council felt needed to be addressed. Lynn Fritzlen asked if staff could restate the purpose of applying underlying zoning and Kristan explained that there were basically two reasons. The first was to identify the uses possible on the site and the second was used to compare the proposal with the underlying zoning requirements which PEC and Council always request staff to do. Jay Peterson addressed the trade-off issue. He stated that the Sonnenalp building could meet the PA criteria, however, the building design would become a terrible bulky mass in the middle of the lot. He also felt that the proposed use of 99% hotel rooms was a trade-off. Also, the proposal was not far over GRFA. The current proposal was at 32 units per acre compared to the 25 units per acre called for under PA zoning. Peggy Osterfoss stated that it would be helpful if all parties concerned had a copy of the Vail Village Master Plan. Jim Shearer felt it was extremely important for the Sonnenalp to work with the Talisman regarding parking and landscaping. He was concerned about the Ludwig deck and its impact on the creek area. He also wanted to see the employee housing issue addressed. He was very concerned about the height creating a crowded feeling on 2 Meadow Drive. He understood Jay's comments regarding the bulk in the middle of the lot, but felt that the mass could be pulled off of Meadow Drive and a more attractive walk created. He felt the approach would create more interest for the retail area. Jim also felt a phasing plan was needed. Jim liked the increase in lodging units, underground parking, and felt that the Faesslers were good managers. He had some concern about the amount of retail space and density. He prefered the tower as an architectural feature as opposed to a "building" providing living area in the tower. Kathy Warren asked if the staff could total all the sq. footage calculations (GRFA, Accessory etc. . ) on the charts in the future. From what she could quickly calculate, the proposal was over PA zoning by 25%. Kathy felt she could not support setback variances for Vail Road, Meadow Drive or the Stream and she felt that the heights called for by the Master Plan should be adhered to. Though slightly under on site coverage and over on landscaping, the landscaped area is private and should be opened up and more inviting to the public. Creek access is important. Kathy felt employee housing was necessary and would like to see it on site. The Talisman parking should also be addressed. No variances on parking should be given. Lodge use is very good. She is looking for the public good in respect to the project. Kathy felt that, because it was a hotel, she was not as concerned with units per acre as she was with GRFA. She did not see much in the way of benefits for the Town. Jay, in response to the employee housing issue, stated that the Faesslers own 24 units in Solar Vail as well as some units in Bighorn. Chuck Crist stated that he had always wanted to see the site developed. He had concerns about the tower. He stated that he was not as concerned with setbacks with the exception of Meadow drive. The mass on Meadow Drive needs to be broken up. The loss of landscaping is a problem. He also would like to see employee housing incorporated into the project on site. He felt that the Town would be losing green space and the stream would be blocked from the public and he liked the amount of retail space proposed. He liked the underground parking. Dalton was very concerned with the setbacks as they related to the transfer of open space from public areas to private areas. The 20 foot setback must be maintained. The berm, per the Vail Village Master Plan, should be kept. He felt that the building, along Meadow Drive, should be stepped back in order to avoid a "canyon" affect. He did not feel he could approve the requested setback variances. The parking for the entire project including Talisman and Swiss House must be addressed. 3 Dalton continued by quoting the Vail Village Master Plan Sub-Area #1-5 Willow Bridge Road Walkway as stating: "A decorative paver pedestrian walkway, separated from the street and accented by a strong landscaped area to encourage pedestrian circulation along Meadow Drive. Loss of parking will need to be relocated on site. " Dalton felt that the ingress/egress should be on the east side of the Sonnenalp by Village Center (Swiss House) and the planter along Meadow Drive must stay. Dalton also felt that the building should be pulled back to buffer noise from bus traffic. He felt that the gate should be moved east and felt that the mass and bulk was not compatible with East Meadow Drive. Dalton felt that the 48 foot height requirement should be strictly adhered to, a 101' tower was out of the question and the King Ludwig deck should be stepped down towards the creek. The deck creates too much of a wall. Dalton felt that the employee housing should be on-site and that the proposal was taking open space and landscaping away from the public. The applicant should put in public spaces, like a stream walk. He commended the Faesslers for being excellent hoteliers. Ludwig complimented the Faesslers for running a "class operation. " Ludwig Kurz felt the proposal needed a comprehensive parking plan as well as an access study. He felt he could give some leeway with the height and mass, however, the building still needed work. Ludwig felt that the walkway and loading area were in conflict and need a better interface. Jay stated that the loading area was located by default. Ludwig also felt that the internal open space was maximized at the sacrifice of areas along Meadow Dr. and Vail Road. Diana stated that the proposal disregarded the Vail Village Master Plan. She questioned whether parking for commercial would be accessible and reserved for commercial . Jay said space would be made available to customers. She felt that the building was beautiful but would be more appropriate on large acreage. Diana felt that a streamwalk should be proposed and the parking situation concerned her. Jay explained that he felt the parking regulations pertained to smaller hotel rooms. The proposed parking would work similar to Crossroads and the gate would be relocated. Diana felt that the loading needed to be either moved away from the creek or improved. Parking for Swiss House and Talisman needs to be figured out. The role of the Talisman also needs to be defined. Employee housing must be addressed - perhaps permanently restrict what Sonnenalp already has for employee units. She felt it was important to know what the Talisman's intentions were soon and what would be done. Diana also had concerns regarding the setbacks along Meadow Drive and Vail Road. She didn't have a 4 problem with a variance for an architectural statement, however, the height in general must be reduced. Diana was concerned whether an SDD was realy necessary. She questioned the benefit of the project to the public and stated more general public improvements were needed. Kathy Warren felt that the trash situation needed to be addressed and that the applicant needed to soften the approach at the pedestrian level. She also felt that new employee housing units needed to be addressed in addition to those already owned. She felt the commercial square footage also contributed to employee housing demand. Jay felt that an additional employee unit requirement would be penalizing the applicant for having the foresight to purchase the units. The applicant purchased the Solar Crest units with the intention of completing the redevelopment currently proposed. Tom Steinberg commented that he felt the proposal was going in the correct direction. He also agreed with Diana that he was not sure an SDD would be needed. A request for a work session for an exterior alteration, a site coverage variance, a height variance, a landscape variance and a floodplain modification for the Covered Bridge Building, located on Lot C and Lot D, and the southwesterly 4 feet of Lot B, all in Block 5-B. Vail Village 1st Filing, 227 Bridge Street. Applicant: Hillis of Snowmass, Inc. and Bruce Amm & Associates. Mike Mollica explained that the applicants were proposing a major redevelopment of the Covered Bridge Building. The proposal called for major modifications to the front entrance of the existing commercial spaces, the creation of lower level commercial spaces, infill on the north and northwest sections of the existing structure, the addition of an elevator, and the addition of two upper floors. The request involved 5 separate applications, an exterior alteration request, a site coverage variance request, a height variance request, a landscape variance request, and a floodplain modification request. Mike reviewed the applicable zoning considerations and gave preliminary staff comments. Since this was a work session, no staff recommendations were made. Kathy Warren asked what the allowed GRFA was and Mike explained that the survey was not finished and therefore calculations were not made with regard to GRFA. Ned Gwathmey, project architect, felt that they would be within what was allowed. Ned explained the changes that were made since the staff memo was written. The only issue he felt that the PEC might be concerned about was the height of the new roof line. The new proposal did, however, eliminate the flat roof design. He explained that the 5 adjacent properties were built prior to the enactment of the height restrictions and most were above the height of the present Covered Bridge Building. Ned stated that the proposal would be in line with the surrounding properties, and that the design did not negatively affect adjacent properties. In fact the proposal could enhance the adjacent properties, for example, the new roof would screen "Pepi 's wall. " Tom Steinberg, sitting in the audience, said he felt he would have no objections to the height variance due to the fact that the roof would screen Pepi 's wall. Dalton Williams encouraged working with the pocket park and extending the stream walk down to the end of the property line, if at all possible, so that it could be continued in the future. Chuck Crist asked if they would be increasing common space and Ned answered "no. " However, there would be no decrease in common space either. Chuck asked how the height related to the grade found on Bridge Street and Ned answered that Bridge Street is 6' higher than the grade used to calculate height. Ned also wanted Chuck to bear in mind that the building was stepped back, hence the highest point would be 50' off of the street. Chuck explained that he liked the proposal. He would like to see more flower boxes and perhaps a more Tyrolean look. Ludwig Kurz felt the project looked good. He questioned whether there was any opposition to the project and Mike explained that the proposal had not formally been published since this was simply a work session. Mike explained that he did have one letter at that time from Rod Slifer in favor of the proposal. Kathy Warren asked, if they removed the building area by the park, highlighted in yellow on the plans, including the rear stair, if the project would be in compliance with site coverage. She also stated that she was not comfortable with the height variance but if the Town could end up with a more usable public park she could consider the height variance. She was not comfortable with the site coverage variance. Kathy felt she could not object to the exterior alteration, it was a much needed improvement. Kathy questioned whether the pocket park was identified in the Vail Village Master Plan and Mike explained that it was not addressed. Kathy was concerned about the Bridge Street access to the park and wanted to see more detail. Jim Shearer felt the project was good looking. He liked the roof lines and would like to see more planter boxes. He stated that the reason behind a variance is to improve the property. He would like to see improvements to the streamwalk and to see all evergreens saved or 4 put in for the 2 taken out. He felt there 6 TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: June 25, 1990 RE: A request for a work session on the Sonnenalp redevelopment and proposed Special Development District at 20 Vail Road, Part of Lot L, Block 5-E, Vail Village 1st Filing. (Site Visit #1, 10:30 a.m. ) Applicant: Sonnenalp Properties, Inc. I. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST Below is a summary of the request: Establish SDD with underlying Public Accommodation Zoning. Please see attached zoning analysis for comparison of SDD to PA requirements. Increase accommodation units from 72 to 128 units. ` Decrease 10 dwelling units to 1 dwelling unit. Increase commercial space from 5,396 sq. ft. to 14,287 sq. ft. Maintain all units as lodge units except for 1 dwelling unit. Underground all parking. Access to structure will be from Vail Road and East Meadow Drive. Existing control gate on east end of Meadow Drive will be moved to the west to allow access. Surface loading will remain on southwest corner of property. Addition of spa, conservatory and pool amenities inside courtyard. Construct sidewalk along east side of Vail Road. No wood-burning fireplaces are requested except for one lobby fireplace. 1 II. ZONING ANAL. IS The project departs from the PA standards highlighted in bold type. SONNENALP PRELIMINARY ZONING ANALYSIS UNDERLYING ZONING EXISTING PROPOSED PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION PROJECT* SDD* Site Area: 2 .024 acres or Same Same 88, 165.44 sq. ft. Setbacks: 20 feet all sides N=Meadow Dr: 20 ft. N = 0 ft. W=Vail Road: 13 ft. W = 0 ft. S=Gore Creek: 4.2 ft. S = 0 ft. E=Talisman: 0 ft. E = 0 ft. Height: 45 ft. mansard roof **** 102 ft. Maximum 48 ft. sloping roof GRFA: 70, 532 sq. ft. 30, 122 sq. ft. 72, 716 sq. ft. Units: 25 units per acre, or 46 units 65 units 50 units for the site. (72 a.u. & 10 d.u. ) (128 a.u. & 1 d.u. ) Site Coverage: 55% of site or 17 ,984 sq. ft. 45, 685 sq. ft. 48 ,491 sq. ft. or 20 % or 52 % Landscaping: 30% of site or **** **** 26,450 sq. ft. Parking and Per Town of Vail Required: 105 Req. : 211** or Loading: parking standards Provided: 101 207*** Prop. : 159 spaces 37 valet 196 Total Accessory: 10% of total GRFA 5, 396 14, 287 Retail, or 7, 053 sq. ft. Eating,Drinking, Rec. , sq. ft. Common Area: 20% of Allowed GRFA 20% or 37% or or 14 ,106 sq. ft. 13 , 862 sq. ft. 26, 163 sq. ft. * All existing and proposed calculations will need to be verified by staff. ** Required parking includes 5% credit for mixed use development per Town of Vail parking Code Section 18.52 . 120. *** Allows for non-conforming parking credit. **** Information unavailable at this time. 2 III. VAIL VILLAGE MASTER PLAN A. Sub-Area #1-3 . Sub-Area #1-3 states: "Commercial infill development with second floor residential/lodging to enclose Meadow Drive and improve the quality of the pedestrian experience. Designated walkways and plazas with green space should interface with those of the Vail Village Inn. A pedestrian walkway (possibly arcade) should be provided to encourage pedestrian circulation physically removed from West Meadow Drive. Mass of building should not create a shadow pattern on Meadow Drive. Development will require coordination and/or involvement with adjacent property owners. Existing and new parking demand to be provided on site. " Preliminary Staff Comments, Sub-Area #1-3 : The heights of the building along Vail Road and particularly East Meadow Drive need to be reduced to allow for a more reasonable enclosure of the street. The quality of the pedestrian experience is not enhanced by the proposal due to the lack of landscaping on East Meadow Drive, 0 setback for the building and roof overhang on Town of Vail property, lack of interface with the VVI plaza areas, shade impacts, and concern for snow shedding on pedestrian ways. Simply stated, the mass and bulk of the building overwhelms the smaller scale pedestrian areas on Meadow Drive. More sensitivity to public spaces by using plazas, landscaping, and seating areas is necessary. Although the arcade concept is mentioned in this sub- area, the proposed design creates a barrier to pedestrians trying to reach the commercial areas along East Meadow Drive. It is very positive that the proposal calls for undergrounding all of the surface parking. Staff would like to see all required parking provided on site. Additional loading docks are appropriate as well as more screening and landscaping for loading areas. 3 More coordination between the proposed Sonnenalp SDD and Talisman is necessary. At this time, the Talisman has not submitted a proposal for formal review for any of the access and landscape improvements shown on the Sonnenalp plans. Staff encourages the two owners to work together to address these issues in a comprehensive manner. The pedestrianized area of East Meadow Drive will be negatively impacted by moving the control gate to the west to allow for access to the parking structure from the Talisman. Staff realizes the Talisman has an access easement located in the center of East Meadow Drive. However, it is felt that Talisman access can be improved without moving the gate as far west as is presently proposed. Other options should also be studied which would avoid decreasing the size of the pedestrian mall. This project has the potential to be an exceptional redevelopment that will improve the existing pedestrian experience along East Meadow Drive. However, the reduction of building mass and bulk and more sensitivity to public spaces and landscaping needs are essential to the projects "fitting into" the character of the surrounding area. B. Emphasized Goals & Policies. 1.2 Objective: Encourage the upgrading and redevelopment of residential and commercial facilities. 1.3 Objective: Enhance new development and redevelopment through public improvements done by private developers working in cooperation with the Town. 2.3 Objective: Increase the number of residential units available for short term overnight accommodations. 2.4 Objective: Encourage the development of a variety of new commercial activity where compatible with existing land uses. 2. 6 Objective: Encourage the development of affordable housing units through the efforts of the private sector. 4 3 . 1 Objective: Physically improve the existing pedestrian ways by landscaping and other improvements. 3.4 Objective: Develop additional sidewalks, pedestrian-only walkways and accessible green space areas, including pocket parks and stream access. 4.1 Objective: Improve existing open space areas and create new plazas with green space and pocket parks. Recognize the different roles of each type of open space in forming the overall fabric of the Village. 5. 1 Objective: Meet parking demands with public and private parking facilities. 6.1 Objective: Provide service and delivery facilities for existing and new development. Preliminary Staff Comments, Goals & Objectives: j The physical public improvements to the project need to be more significant. The sidewalk along Vail Road is a very good idea. It also appears that a sculpture is proposed on the northwest elevation. More design work is needed to create public spaces. 99% of the units will be lodge units which is very positive. This approach is in concert with objective 2 .3 . The mix of lodging and commercial is also appropriate and supports Objective 2.4. Staff believes it is appropriate to request that the owner address the employee housing issue by describing employee demand and including employee units within the project (Objective 2 .6) . I Physical improvements to pedestrian ways and landscaping are lacking in this proposal. "Accessible green space areas, including pocket parks, and stream access" per objective 3,4 and 4. 1 should be included in the plan. Parking and loading requirements should be met on site (5. 1 and 6. 1) . 5 C. Illustrative Plans. 1. Land Use Plan: a. North side of site, "Mixed Use. " This category includes the "historic" Village core and properties near the pedestrianized streets of the Village. Lodging, retail and a limited amount of office use are found in this category. With nearly 270, 000 square feet of retail space and approximately 320 residential units, the mixed use character of these areas is a major factor in the appeal of Vail Village. b. South side of site, "Medium/High Density Residential. " The overwhelming majority of the Village's lodge rooms and condominium units are located in this land use category. Approximately 1, 100 units have been developed on the 27 acres of private land in this category. In addition, another 110 units are approved but unbuilt. It is a goal of this Plan to maintain these areas as predominantly lodging oriented with retail development limited to small amounts of "accessory retail. " 2. Open Space Plan: a. "Planted Buffer" is designated on north and west side of site. b. "Plaza with green space" is designated on north side of property connecting to the Vail Village Inn and on eastern property adjacent to VVI sculpture plaza. c. "Open Space" is designated along stream corridor. 3 . Parking and Circulation Plan: • a. East Meadow Drive is designated as a bus route, and Gore Creek Corridor is designated as a study area for a walking path. 6 e 4. Building Height Plan: a. The area along East Meadow Drive is recommended to be a maximum of two to three stories or 18 to 27 ft. high. Three to four stories (27 ft to 36 ft. ) is designated on the southern three quarters of the property. (All heights exclude roof forms. ) Please note PA zoning also allows a maximum height of 48 ft. for sloping roofs. Preliminary Staff Comments, Illustrative Plans: The uses proposed support the Land Use Plan and will add to the vitality of the area. As stated before, additional improvements are necessary to comply with the open space plan. The building must be pulled back form the property to allow for plaza and green space areas, particularly along East Meadow Drive as well as Vail Road. Access to the creek should be studied. The King Ludwig Deck and private pool should be pulled back from the property line along Gore Creek. At present the improvements are within 4 ft. of the property line. In respect to the Building Height Plan, reductions in height are absolutely necessary before staff could (consider supporting this proposal. A 102 ft. high `tower anywhere on this site is unacceptable and out of character with the surrounding area. Heights must also be lowered along Vail Road and East Meadow Drive. Heights should terrace down to Vail Road and East Meadow Drive to respect pedestrian areas as well as views from public areas. IV. SDD CRITERIA Rather than go through all of the criteria for the SDD, staff would simply reiterate that many of the concerns raised through the Vail Village Master Plan analysis directly tie to the design criteria used for any Special Development District. Another item that was not addressed by the Vail Village Master Plan is phasing for the project. We are requesting that the applicant submit a phasing plan and a construction management plan so that it can be determined if a "workable, functional and efficient relationship throughout the development of the Special Development District will be maintained. " 7 V. LAND USE PLAN The Land Use Plan refers to the Vail Village Master Plan for reviewing any requests for redevelopment. VI. OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS 1. Fire Department: There is inadequate fire access to the Sonnenalp and Talisman given this plan. The entire parcel will need to have fire sprinklers including the Talisman Condominiums due to the proposal. Water mains in the vicinity will need to be increased in size to handle the project. Phasing and coordination of Talisman parking needs to be defined and shown in detail. Existing construction will require fire sprinkling. Under the existing proposal there is no access to the highest portions of the new building for fire protection. The East Meadow Drive road width should not be reduced to allow for emergency vehicle and bus access. 2. Public Works: Traffic analysis will be required for access points, Vail Road, and the Four Way Stop. More study is needed concerning Talisman access and impacts on East Meadow Drive. Talisman access and parking plan is required. Building is too close to East Meadow Drive for several reasons: -out of scale with pedestrian area -not sufficient room for landscaping--trees will grow up against building -canyon effect will be created -severe icing problems 8 Drainage will have to be addressed Concern about feasibility of excessive valet parking Sonnenalp will be required to maintain all landscaping to edge of East Meadow Drive via license agreement. Streamwalk--Creek access should be considered. VII. ADDITIONAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS Sun/Shade Analysis on East Meadow Drive and Vail Road. 4E10 Traffic Analysis. Employee Housing Demand Analysis and Proposed Employee Housing. Ali Written statement listing reasons why SDD is necessary and depart from PA zone district requirements. Zoning analysis for SDD compared to PA standards. Written statement comparing proposal to Vail Village Master Plan Goals and Policies, Sub-Areas, and Illustrative Plans. AIP Written statement addressing phasing for the project and construction management. Revised plans excluding Talisman improvements unless proposal from Talisman is to be reviewed simultaneously. 0 A vicinity plan showing all adjacent properties and buildings particularly VVI, Vail National Bank, Ski Museum Site and Intersection, Talisman, Gore Creek, and Chapel at a minimum scale of 1"= 50 ' . lop Additional view analyses from: a. Ski Museum pocket park looking toward project (SE) b. Meadow Drive looking East from fire station/bank area to project. c. Bank entry looking east to project. (10) A more detailed landscape plan indicating trees '�-- removed, added landscaping, any landscaping on Town of Vail property, water features, artwork, paths, plazas etc. per Section 18.40.050 - 11. 9 EIR should address 18.56.040 requirements below: a. Drainage and any improvements along Creek. b. Air Quality c. Visual Conditions (per request in # 9 of staff list) d. Land Use Plan e. Circulation Pedestrian and Vehicular/f f. Population densities (per request in # f staff list) . /712. Survey should indicate 50 ft. creek setback and creek centerline. 41010 Height Analysis using roof plan on survey indicating •1 roof elevations and existing and finished grades. Base elevations must be verified by a surveyor. Existing and finished grades must be indicated on elevation drawings. 14 . Site Coverage Analysis for existing and proposed development completed by red-lining survey and proposed site plan. $1t -Oak — c�Y,�- bo t.�b-��s al ;r,l�cs,.w�c0 54e cw �9. U U 15. Indicate 20 ft. setbacks on all sides of property on site plan. SD c ∎ '' h Square footage-redlined drawings for GRFA, retail, accessory and back of house uses. South elevation drawing and interior courtyard elevations. 18. Identify public benefits resulting from Project: -�-{\D ), • 19 8-1/2"X11" drawings are required for PEC and Town }10,0- Council. 20 Title report showing ownership and easements. aApplication fee of $500.00 22 . Outside consultant shall be required per Section 18.40.130, fees for this project. Jeff Winston will work with the staff on the SDD. The specific amount for the consultant fee will be determined by staff. IAD 10g\L- 10 • • K i a Yc • 1 Y A .fly .t..• _ ," �f � k� l ,• • . ' . R J �.wr > R F' W �,t x ♦ ti b T• - yY •.r• • ':1. �r ! + * F - ,.. -.4 t:1Y, • ■ A OP r. 1 .. . . „.... . . . . . , r 1 rt!,.. . • • . , .. ......., r;Jr R f �� r r�:� � a o f;lhl ,.f „, • • . r Y titer 4 k � -t-�,�+�rj T� Wre laid �. r n: w R `A "- ' 9{.. • •'•. S4a ca ry xy4 5 3: - .-'� mow:.. 3, _ � .?�T[7 _^� x.,� �y4_a':.. _ - i,'ti`.,2 'r.-';a:�'� • y � s.�_ •{ Tktw"_K'ni�,,`A..-�;'• r,,�. ;, ' ..,.. Anl* :r v +"1, ...�,.tmay }'r ,r - ,'-',,. ;a ., a: a ,' ;*Rs`, t. D. � � .awk� � R � .e• �� J __ � � � � •�'• �..y:`+,y,.�,�,,. ''� � ���.. "'N, ,"tic a.v :.,fib' .:�.:'� : �• .�,Vim, �•r .. .r,„...1„,..,...;-. ;�» � i.: , .. ��w`' M"e''•����� �t ,.�- s. xal". r ',° ' "� - .- - .a�.nk�?.:w�ti��r ��. .� x, y • . k +� :er. �' I. -.,�y *a.+s .7 f.y,r A'Y':�, t - - - ifi't AT^K,y `���aQ:..-e • .t• ,....4-N.,:• .t,,p, . ,."�^_ ',. `� �,U. y, ry l,,( " i L'a X. , .,,N�c"�+i`14614.^ ?% M •N ■ .,, MC. : s.. tic'�e6A.�'h�• 'w'X.- .i. '',r:,o- oi-.'•<f�•.'a'�:41,44,', .. . • ,✓.. i' - - r a t - v?�.>- k 1,`'rS t "eyf,�q �7. ';9F.".r•- r ..�..u;!„. _ trh. . ;°' � . : .?fi...?r..a,.:L�!►.L - �x3.-z�"-.:�4c�:.:f ,v .a��" .. �t", VIEW LOOKING SOUTH FROM FOURWAY STOP i. !�S� _. ;• ; ..-.�. fi_ n tf gy p, ' ..' ti r:: , ` _.•. : x, v �•-':7 i ti iA.,._.�.1 i :]Fi .°..:y�? 1 a =x i';;J '7 1' =-• r f >* :'` .1;b Ar.Xr r4.tc i ;V., 5 4,1.,.d:�•Lx£„e Ed :s"���.t.:.,i,., . • }•.y�. -: 1: t. .^.sS• � i.i3 3 =:.7,,43 kCiyY Ygsyh;. r ".41.3 kk-:"_.'..:.r'ye. :.y � ^ , .+ 'rs..r'` ;."......;-;::,y..::..,;;;;...'.•:',,, •y'.'a i•f. '�qT tt F� .k. Sr T 'f, = i a ;�.�. y. tl�J.e 1}:'tai:: 3 :KS:j„�,.;i3,a'''[i��'yta. •1�.:r .�r:�.T"-r3 .•_f,;:=K: e_ a.i _ .�j ;,� .: .474.- ! . .. ,x ::>,,:•J�..^.. .�S ' . YT ?V:i i.e::i i i 1 ..a: ._ . / ._ ..:.r:».: -14-4. 1E.• is/,� . _p . • ` ¢t �+• * 'ti;yi§.02:0£Sfi`i1. .�.' ` •U"r :x '' v .it r i,: j tir T& �� t ~^ '• s i + , p• , ! Y.. �,i ,if �i �t , ;! r ‘7,1,,,-:,,T is. �Yi'•��C,+s� � 4 �. al' �.- ��• .....k...4:1.:14-. y � � �"�4 1-, - `,. � ;, � k 5r �.� ��i r ` 6 it Xv f''.TWF i 1 . m , � 'yr'A 1 "ti r - - ....... ..,. ..,,,,,:-_,.. . „ - ..,: ,....., ', ..,,,.,..,0.,„...-. ... • ..14 ■ _ . .._ . .iir-IA—, U. -'' • • , •*':';•.'e r.'''".....h‘. t 1:::...1'.''...:4 4:7.:.41:::.:?.'..1..';:7:::1'('::4 i ..V,', • }t ig �.t 'fw s - ' }s -''--.,‘'''''-,?;'''1,... .. +{'l. A•LT _ .. 2 yr. �' ♦, w... . . P 4 VIEW LOOKING WEST ON EAST MEADOW DRIVE BISHOP PARK RIVER HOUSE CONDO ASSOC. VAIL VILLAGE INN 63 WILLOW PLACE C/O Steve Simonett 68 S. FRONTAGE ROAD E VAIL, CO 81657 P.O. Box 3459 VAIL CO 81657 Vail, CO 81658 TALISMAN CONDOMINIUMS FIRST BANK OF VAIL HOLIDAY INN OF VAIL 62 EAST MEADOW DRIVE 17 VAIL ROAD 13 VAIL ROAD VAIL CO 81657 VAIL CO 81657 VAIL CO 81657 VAIL INTERFAITH CHAPEL HOLIDAY HOUSE CONDOMINIUMS VAIL VILLAGE INN PLAZ 19 VAIL ROAD 9 VAIL ROAD CONDOMINIUM ASSOC. VAIL CO 81657 VAIL CO 81657 100 E. MEADOW DRIVE VAIL CO 81657 J.A.M.M. VAIL VILLAGE INN PLAZA CRAIG SNOWDON VAIL VILLAGE INN PLAZA 100 EAST MEADOW DRIVE SNOWDON & HOPKINS 100 E. MEADOW DRIVE VAIL CO 81657 201 GORE CREEK DR. VAIL CO 81657 VAIL, CO 81657 � c _ Riverhouse Condominium Association c/o Steve Simonett P.O. Box 3459 Vail, CO 81658 9 PUBLIC NOTICE TO: Adjacent Property Owners and Interested Parties FROM: Community Development Department, Town of Vail DATE: August 16, 1990 RE: A request for a work session on the Sonnenalp remodel and proposed Special Development District at 20 Vial Road, Part of Lot L, Block 5-E, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Sonnenalp Properties, Inc. Please be advised that a work session on the Sonnenalp remodel will be held at the Planning and Environmental Commission meeting on August 27, 1990. dWii, oe gaj je i , PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with Section 18.66. 060 of the municipal code of the Town of Vail on September 10, 1990 at 2: 00 p.m. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. Consideration of: 1. A request for an amendment to the approved ccess plan for Lots 5 and 6, Block 7, Vail Village 1st Fi iri, 46 and 126 Forest Road. Applicant: Ron Byrne COPy --4 2. A request for a work session on the Sonnenalp redevelop ent and proposed Special Development District at 20 Vail Road, Part of Lot L, Block 5-E, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Sonnenalp Properties, Inc 3. A request for a conditional use permit in order to construct a remediation system at the Vail Amoco Service Station, 934 S. Frontage Road. Legal Description as follows: A PART OF THE NE1/4 NE1/4 OF SECTION 12. TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE 81 WEST OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE POINT OF INTERSECTION OF THE EAST LINE OF SAID SECTION 12 WITH THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF U.S. HIGHWAY NO. 6. SAID POINT BEING 634.15 FEET SOUTHERLY FROM THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 12: THENCE WESTERLY ALONG THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF SAID HIGHWAY, A DISTANCE OF 240 FEET. MORE OR LESS. TO A POINT ON THE EAST HIGH WATER BANK OF RED SANDSTONE CREEK; THENCE SOUTHERLY. ALONG THE SINUOUSITIES OF SAID EAST HIGH WATER BANK. 200 FEET. MORE OR LESS. TO ITS INTERSECTION WITH THE NORTH HIGH WATER BANK OF GORE CREEK; THENCE EASTERLY. ALONG THE SINUOUSITIES OF THE NORTH HIGH WATER BANK OF GORE CREEK. 245 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO ITS INTERSECTION WITH THE EAST ONE OF SAID SECTION 12: THENCE NORTHERLY, ALONG SAID EAST LINE. 160 FEET, MORE OR LESS. TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. Applicant: Chevron U.S.A , Inc. 4. A request for a minor subdivision on portions of Lots 7 and 8, Block 6. Vail Village 7th Filing, 1107 E. Vail Valley Drive. Applicant: Thomas Rader 5. A request for an exterior alteration and a landscape variance on Block 5C, Vail Village 1st Filing, 225 Wall Street. Applicant: American Angler/American Ski Exchange 6. A request for an exterior alteration in order to construct a 30 sq. ft. expansion on Lot 1, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 3rd Filing, 610 W. Lionshead Circle. Applicant: Landmark-Vail. Condominium Association 7. A request for a major change to existing development approval for the Valley, Phase VI: Applicant: Edward Zneimer OTTO, PETERSON & POST ATTORNEYS AT LAW VAIL NATIONAL BANK BUILDING FREDERICK S.OTTO (303)476-0092 JAY K.PETERSON POST OFFICE BOX 3149 WILLIAM J. POST VAIL,COLORADO 81658.3149 FAX LINE WENDELL B.PORTERFIELD,JR. (303)479-0467 MEMORANDUM TO: KRISTAN PRITZ FROM: JAY K. PETERSON DATE: MAY 29, 1990 RE: PROPOSED SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT FOR SONNENALP PROPERTIES, INC. Dear Kristan: Attached you will find an application for Special Development District for Sonnenalp Properties, Inc. Because you were on vacation prior to the submittal deadline we were unable to have the recommended staff conference prior to our submittal deadline. As always, however, I welcome the opportunity to go over our submittal with you and to provide any and all additional information which you request. I would assume that our meeting with Jeff Winston would be in order and if he is unable to travel to Vail we will be more than willing to make the trip to Boulder to meet with him with all appropriate material, including the model. If you have any questions please contact my office. Li; APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT FOR SONNENALP PROPERTIES, INC. A. NAME OF APPLICANT: SONNENALP PROPERTIES, INC. ADDRESS: 20 Vail Road Vail, CO 81657 PHONE: 476-5656 B. NAME OF APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE: JAY K. PETERSON ADDRESS: Suite 307, Vail National Bank Building 108 S. Frontage Road West Vail, CO 81657 PHONE: 476-0092 C. AUTHORIZATION OF PROPERTY OWNER: ADDRESS: Suite 307, Vail National Bank Building 108 S. Frontage Road West Vail, CO 81657 PHONE: 476-0092 D. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: 20 Vail Road Vail, Colorado 81657 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: See Attached Survey ADDENDUM 1. ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS: A list of the names of all adjacent property owners and their mailing addresses is attached. 2 . DEVELOPMENT PLAN: In response to the Town of Vail 's goal to increase the bed base for destination guests in appropriate locations the Sonnenalp proposes to redevelop their entire site as set forth in the attached plans and specifications along with the attached summary sheets setting forth appropriate statistics of the development plan. The development is proposed to occur on the entire site with only a small portion of the existing improvements being integrated into the new project. A portion of the existing lobby, the Bully III Restaurant and seven accommodation units will be incorporated into the project. All parking will be placed in underground facilities. At the present time negotiations are being conducted with the Talisman Condominium Association to also place their parking underground and also for us to allow access through our project to their underground parking structure. While their proposal is not part of this development plan, at the present time, negotiations will continue in hopes that a separate application will be made by them. 3 . SURVEY: The survey indicating the existing conditions of the property is attached. 4 . EXISTING PLANS AND CONDITIONS: No plans are available for the existing facilities as the current owner did not construct the existing project. 5. ZONING ANALYSIS: A complete zoning analysis of existing and proposed development including square footage breakdowns of all proposed uses, the parking to be provided, and proposed densities is attached. 6. SITE PLAN: A site plan showing the locations and dimensions of all buildings and structures and all principal site development features is attached. 7 . BUILDING ELEVATIONS: Building elevations in sufficient detail to determine floor areas, circulation, location of uses and general scale and appearance of the proposed development is attached. 8 . VICINITY PLAN: A vicinity plan has been constructed and incorporated into our model showing all adjacent properties in relation to the proposed improvements. This model is available and is located at the Sonnenalp Hotel for review. Addendum Page 2 9 . VISUAL ANALYSIS: A visual analysis by photograph of the proposed development is attached. 10 . MASSING MODEL: A massing model depicting the proposed development along with adjacent properties has been constructed and is available. The model is located at the Sonnenalp Hotel. 11. PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN: A preliminary landscape plan showing proposed landscaping and landscape site development features is attached. 12 . ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT: An environmental impact report has not been provided as a small increase in density (i.e. 28 accommodation rooms plus one dwelling unit) is not of such magnitude to require an Environmental Impact Report. In addition, no wood burning fireplaces are proposed accept for one wood burning fireplace which will be located in the lobby area. All parking is also located within the improvements and therefore no sanding or snow removal will be necessary which would cause further environmental concerns. The existing project has large areas of exposed parking which would be removed by the proposed development. 13 . ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: The Vail Village Master Plan calls for a commercial infill project to be constructed along East Meadow Drive on the Sonnenalp Properties. This Master Plan envisioned the existing Hotel to remain in its existing configuration along with much of the surface parking. In reviewing the entire site, however, Sonnenalp Properties, Inc. has decided that rather than keeping the outdated existing facility along with a new commercial infill building it was better to redevelop the entire site in order provide an entirely new facility for the guests to the Town of Vail. While this project could be developed with 50% of all square footage being devoted to dwelling units and sold off as second homes the owners have decided that all square footage with the exception of one dwelling unit for Johannes and his wife would be used for hotel rooms and would run as a hotel under a single ownership. I think it is important that the proposal be placed on a Work Session with the Planning Commission and the Town Council in order to discuss the proposal as there is a small density Addendum Page 3 increase being requested. If this small density increase is not looked upon favorably by the Town Council or the Planning Commission then we would rethink our proposal in order to stay within the requirements of the public accommodation zone district. That zone district, however, allows 50% of the square footage to be used as dwelling units which could be sold off as second homes with the remaining square footage being utilized and to run as a small lodge. We do not feel that that would be the best proposal and look forward to providing a major hotel facility for the Town of Vail. SITE COVERAGE ( . 55 X Site Area) ALLOWED: 48,481 SQ. FT. PROPOSED: 45,685 SQ. FT. 5/21/90 COMMON AREA USES GRFA CALCULATIONS REQUIRED BY T.O.V. PROPOSED HALLWAYS 11,878 ELEVATORS 112 STAIRWAYS 1 ,069 LOWER 2 ,000 LOBBY & RESTROOMS MEZZANINE 1 ,124 CONFERENCE OFFICES LOBBY/ 2 ,789 REGISTRATION MEETING ROOM 972 LEVEL CHECK-OUT FACILITY LOBBY/ 3,004 LOUNGE SPA 3 ,215 TOTAL 26 ,163 26,163 .20% .37% 70 ,498 5/28/90 HOTEL BACK OF HOUSE 13,537 SQUARE FEET FACILITIES TO INCLUDE FOLLOWING: HOUSEKEEPING MAINTENANCE CAFETERIA LAUNDRY SERVICE LOBBY CHAIR AND TABLE STORAGE FOOD AND BEVERAGE SALES AND RESERVATIONS FILES PERSONNEL EMPLOYEE LOCKERS AND REST ROOMS KITCHEN AND GENERAL STORAGE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES MECHANICAL SERVICE ELEVATOR HOTEL ROOM LEVEL STORAGE 5/28/90 ACCESSORY USES USES GRFA CALCULATIONS REQUIRED BY T.O .V. PROPOSED BULLY PUB 1,400 W/B A R KING 2 ,799 LUDWIG' S RESTAURANT KITCHEN 2,261 RETAIL 10,088 SPA 3,663 BUILDING 19,503 19 ,503 .10% .28% 70 ,498 ALLOWABLE GRFA 5/28/90 PARKING ANALYSIS PARKING REQ'D BY PARKING USES QUANTITY GRFA CALCULATIONS T.O.V. PROPOSED RETAIL 6 SHOPS 10,088 10,088 33.63 300 SQ. FT. A.U. 'S 128 ROOMS 70,047 .4�x 128 = 51.2 ,,51:'2£ J (Approx. 560 sq.ft. 700 x . 1 = 70.0 70.0 per room) D.U. 1 CONDO 2,669 Per T.O.V. 2.5 MEETING 4 ROOMS 6,828 6,828 = 455 ROOMS 15 (O.L.) r , , r ; 455 = 56 56.0 8 (S) RESTAURANT BULLY PUB 1,400 1,400 = 93 15 (O.L.) 98 (S.) = 11.6 11.6 KING LUDWIG 1,140 = 72,799 = 76 (0.L.) 186 = 9.50 23.3 8 (S.) PARKING P1,P2,P3,P4 159 REG. 3{)-3-5- VALET 258 194. ry^(0 :ii . ' w 5/28/90 CREDITS FOR PARKING PARKING REQUIRED BY T.O.V. 258 JOINT USE CREDIT (3% x 258 = 7) - 7 CREDIT FOR NON-CONFORMING EXISTING CONDITIONS (105 REQUIRED -101 PROVIDED= 4) * - 4 CONVENTION FACILITY CREDIT -28 ROOM SIZE CREDIT .75 x 128 = 96 121 - 96 = 25 -25 TOTAL ADJUSTED 194) *Note: See November 21 , 1986 Zoning Statistic Report SONNENALC= BONING STATISTICS AS OF BLDG I. AIT DRAWINGS November 21, 1986 SONNENALP WEST PART OF LOT L Site Area: 2.023 acres or 88,122 sf GRFA: .80 allowed: 70,498 existing 30,755 proposed 30,122 Density: (25 units/acre) allowed: ' 50 units existing: 72 a.u. + 12 d.u. = 48 proposed: 72 a.u. * 10:d,u. (decrease of 2 d.u.) 10%Accessory Uses: ( .10 x total existing GRFA) allowed 3,076 sf existing: rest. bar 4,490 (3578 rest & bar +912 kitchen) proposed rest/bar 5,396 (2798 rest, 2028 kitchen) *Actual restaurant space decreases due to loss of bar in the lobby 20% Common Area: (20% of allowable GRFA) allowed: 14,100 sf existing: halls/lobbies/access office 12,326 recreation 403 12,729 proposed: halls/lobbies/access office 13,459 , recreation 403 13,8§2` Site Coverage: (.55 x site) allowed: 48,467 sf existing: 15,550 proposed: 2,434; Total 17,984 sf remaining: 30,483 sf • SONNENALP WEST PART OF LOT L (con't) PARKING EXIST/REQUIRED BY CODE REMODEL Sonnenalp NW 67.4 59.7 Sonnenalp W - 45.9 45. 1 ... 114.0 105.0 Existing parking 93 spaces Proposed parking 1©1 spaces With restriping. Net Gain 8 spaces Net decrease iw.required spaces due to addition: 9 spaces TOWN ENGINEER'S Conditions of Approval for Sonnenalp SDD 1. Provide a left turn lane into the new entrance of the Hotel. These improvements will be accommodated by widening the asphalt on the east side of Vail Road. The total width of the paved section will be 36' wide to accommodate (3) 12 ' lanes; The Vail Road Frontage on the east side shall contain a Type II-B curb and gutter section or 4 ' concrete drainage pan to handle storm water runoff and delineate the road section from the pedestrian areas. The sidewalks shown shall at a minimum be 6' in width. The left turn lane shall have a storage length of 60 ' and provide appropriate tapers in and out as determined by accepted design standards. Any work necessary as far as modification to drainage facilities, utility relocations or other incidental work to accommodate these improvements will be the responsibility of the developer. 2 . Drainage from the site will be handled in a way that no discharge is allowed onto the public right-of-way on the north and west of the site, unless it is discharged directly to a storm sewer system. Drainage discharged to the south of the site will be done in a manner that provides an environmentally sound way and doesn't flow across the Public Stream Tract in concentrated flows. 3 . The proposed construction access, across the Public Stream Tract is in violation of the covenants of the subdivision which state no man-made improvements are allowed in the open space. If formal landscaping is established in the Stream Tract, this should also include the introduction of a pedestrian walkway to be built by the developer. If use of the Stream Tract is allowed as an access roadway,' the developer shall build the pedestrian walkway after construction is over, and contribute up to 1/2 the cost of the pedestrian bridges to connect the trail with the Stream Tract land adjacent to Lot 3, if in the future this is determined the best alignment of the stream walk pedestrian trail between Willow Road and Vail Road. Landscaping and layout of the pool area should be provided in a manner to screen the site from the proposed stream walk if it is desired by the applicant to provide a private patio setting for their guests. 4. Acquire for the Town a long term lease/purchase to the Tract of land south of the Swiss Chalet if the applicant proposed to landscape it. M ONN 'NALP 1989 Lodge Occupancy and Parking Lot Occupancy Compared 100.00% - \ / \ 90,00% - �. / / \� 1 \ _ / 80.00% N./ 70.00% 60.00% \ 50.00% - • 40.00% -" 1 30.00% - 1 1 / 20.00% - 1 / 1 / 10.00% - ^ / 0.00% 1 I 1 I 1 1 I I 1 I I I I 1 1 1 17,a 11/00>6[I/06-Inl& 1/16 mF: I/7e TeIL 1/29 761E 1/71 IeIG.2/2 TIME 1/S te�.3/7 t1E: 7/to 1 7/7!!I1 7/M 1 4/I 1 1/2 1 4/20 20E 0/s nee 0/s. INL 5/4 Ma- Il -30 k1P-7.10 610-79e &27-9 724-711 efl5-7S0 45-62) E0I:ID 6fl0-7 69-7i 1A6-5.O 540-770 &10-133 045-7'10 6.40-7:ID 2S.-1i5 7: 737 TW Qt6 P aw_. pin w� un -uw pm wn w7 aw °m w7 an — am pn wn This chart illustrates Sonnenalp Lodge use — Upancy unit and parking lot occupancies on a sample of study days spread between December and June, 1989. The capacity of the parking lot is 112. Note the following: Parking lot occupancy • During the March period • The parking lot is being never exceeds 91%, and when occupancies are ex- used by employees even during most of the busy tremely high parking lot when lodge occupancies winter season is in the occupancies are in the are low. range of 50% to 65%. middle range. This illu- strates the low use of automobiles by Sonnenalp patrons: over half are visiting without cars during winter months. TO: Town Council FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: December 19, 1990 SUBJ: PEC Recommendation - Sonnenalp Redevelopment The Planning and Environmental Commission, at their December 10, 1990 Public Hearing, made a motion to deny the Sonnenalp project based on the following findings: 1. The project is not in compliance with Criteria A regarding design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment, neighborhood and adjacent properties. 2 . SDD Criteria C, requiring that the proposal meet the loading standards of the Town, is not met. 3 . The project fails to meet SDD Criteria D regarding conformity with the applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, Urban Design Plans, and specifically the Vail Village Master Plan. 4. The project does not meet SDD Criteria F regarding the site plan, in that the site plan lacks quality public spaces. 5. SDD Criteria H is not met, as there is not adequate open space on the site. 6. SDD Criteria I is not met regarding the phasing plan, as there may be a conflict with the construction of the project and the weekend activities at the Vail Interfaith Chapel . The PEC, after making the above findings of the SDD criteria, summarized their specific concerns about the project, which are listed below: 1. The swimming pool should be moved out of the rear (south) setback. The patio adjacent to the pool should be allowed to encroach, only 10 feet into the rear setback. 2 . The building is too high. 3 . More relief on Meadow Drive is needed. 4 . Ideally, Vail Road should bend at the intersection of Meadow Drive and Vail Road. Because the traffic generated by this project will require widening Vail Road, there should be some mitigation to reduce the "thoroughfare" appearance of Vail Road. This bend in the road should be done in conjunction with moving the Ski Museum. Sub-area concept 1 2 of the Vail Village Master Plan needs to be addressed. 5. The land VA owns by the Swiss Chalet should be turned into a pocket park. The improvements to this parcel should be very informal. The natural character of the site should be maintained. 6. The applicant should permanently restrict 11 employee housing units. 7 . The noise and construction activity should be limited so that it does not impact the chapel activities on Saturdays, Sundays or holidays. 8 . All construction should occur on-site. The construction activity should not affect Gore Creek, particularly with erosion or sediment disturbance because of construction. 9 . The applicant should construct the proposed pedestrian bridge across Gore Creek at the existing Vail Road Bridge. This work should be coordinated with Public Works. 10. The applicant should ensure that the Talisman access easement onto East Meadow Drive is vacated. This paperwork needs to be finalized. 11. The applicant should build a planted median in the center of Vail Road south of Meadow Drive per the traffic study. 12 . The accommodation units the applicant will be building should all be restricted permanently as lodge rooms so that no conversions to condominiums will be allowed in the future. 13 . The loading bays should be expanded in size to meet the Town's minimum size requirement. 14. The applicant should provide public access to Gore Creek through green space or pocket parks. 15. The required setbacks along Meadow Drive should be met. The motion was made by Kathy Warren and seconded by Connie Knight. The vote was 3-3 (one member was absent) . The PEC agreed that all members shared the concerns listed above. They differed in that the individual board members weighted these common concerns differently. The weighting difference resulted in the 3-3 tie. Diana Donovan, Kathy Warren and Connie Knight voted in favor of the motion to deny. Dalton Williams, Jim Shearer and Chuck Crist voted against the motion. The following information is included in the Sonnenalp packet: 1. Cover memo, December 19, 1990 2 . PEC memo, December 10, 1990 - with attached letters from Art Abplanalp and Rev. Ricks and Rev. Stitt and traffic study. 3 . PEC comments staff and applicant responses to PEC issues raised at November 26th PEC meeting. 4. Ordinance No. 44 for the SDD TO: Planning- and Environmental Commissiun FROM: Community Development Department DATE: December 10, 1990 RE: A request for a Special Development District for the Sonnenalp redevelopment, located at 20 Vail Road; A part of Lot L, Block 5-E, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Sonnenalp Properties, Inc. I. INTRODUCTION Changes to the November 26, 1990 PEC memo are indicated in bold print. Johannes Faessler, of Sonnenalp Properties, Inc. has filed a request to apply a Special Development District to his property located at 20 Vail Road. The applicant proposes a mixed use hotel complex. The reason the applicant is applying for an SDD is that variations from the Public Accommodation (PA) underlying zoning are needed for: a 26 percent density increase, a height variance allowing 81 feet where 48 feet is the maximum height, setbacks (on all four sides) , the proposed loading berths do not meet the Town' s required minimum size of 12 ' x 26 , an increase in the amount of accessory hotel floor area (23% of the GRFA where 10% is allowed) , and " an increase in the amount of common area (85% of the GRFA where 20% is allowed) . Section III of this memo (Zoning Analysis) has a detailed comparison of the proposed SDD to the Public Accommodation zone district requirements. II . DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Listed below is a summary outline of the proposed redevelopment request: A. Bavaria Haus Hotel (immediately east of First Bank) Establish SDD with existing, underlying Public Accommodation zoning for the hotel redevelopment. Increase accommodation units from 72 to 126 units. Eliminate 10 existing dwelling units. Maintain all units as lodge units. Install gas burning fireplaces . No additional wood- burning fireplaces are requested. There are currently four wood-burning fireplaces in the building, one in the lobby and three in hotel rooms at the mezzanine level of the existing structure. Add 4000 square feet of conference space for a total of 7930 square feet. Construct the redevelopment to the following heights: West side: 51 - 81 ft. North side: 49 - 59 ft. East side: 52 ft. South side: 24 ft. B. Landscaping Construct a pedestrian walkway, attached to the east side of the existing Vail Road bridge, over Gore Creek. Remove the existing surface parking and construct a pocket park northeast of the Swiss Chalet and adjacent to Willow Bridge Road. Construct a sidewalk along the east side of Vail Road, and construct improvements such as planters and sidewalks along E. Meadow Drive. Install landscaping along the north and west elevations. C. Parking and Loading " Construct a parking garage with 210 spaces regular spaces: 127 compact spaces: 25 valet spaces: 58 Remove the existing exterior surface parking lot. Locate all parking underground. The primary access to the parking structure will be from Vail Road, adjacent to the First Bank Building " The primary surface loading/delivery will remain at the southwest corner of the property, however, an additional loading berth is proposed to be added in the auto court. D. Other Construct retail commercial space of 5,713 square feet. ` Expand the existing restaurant and lounge area for a total of 6, 657 square feet. 2 III. SONNENALP ZOiNNG ANALYSIS - The project ' s departures from the PA zone district standards are highlighted in bold type. UNDERLYING ZONING: EXISTING PROPOSED PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION PROJECT SDD Site Area: 2 . 024 acres or Same Same 88, 165 sq. ft. Setbacks: 20 feet all sides N=Meadow Dr: 20 ft. N = 10 ft. W=Vail Road: 13 ft. W = 2 ft. S=Gore Creek: 4 ft. S = 0 ft. E=Talisman: 0 ft. E = 5 ft. Height: 45 ft. flat roof 42 . 0 ' - ridge 81. 0 ' - ridge 48 ft. sloping roof 23 . 5 ' - eave (maximum) GRFA: 70, 532 sq. ft. 30, 122 sq. ft. 69, 989 sq. ft. Units: 25 units per acre, or 46 units 63 units 50 units for the site. (72 a.u. & 10 d.u. ) (126 a.u. ) Site Coverage: 48,491 sq. ft. 17,984 sq. ft. 44 , 378 sq. ft. or 55 % or 20 % or 50 . 3 % Landscaping: 30% of site or 29,926 sq. ft. 40, 363 sq. ft. 26, 450 sq. ft. or 33 . 9 % or 45 . 8 % Parking: Per Town of Vail Required: 105 Required: 194* parking standards Provided: 101 Proposed: 127 spaces 25 compact 58 valet 210 Total Loading: Per Town of Vail Required: 3 berths loading standards Proposed: 3 berths** Accessory Uses: 10% of the 18% or 23% or Commercial, constructed GRFA 5,396 sq. ft. 15,819 sq ft. Restaurant, or 7, 053 sq. ft. Lounge: Common Area: 20% of Allowed GRFA 20% or 85% or or 14 , 106 sq. ft. 13,862 sq. ft. 59,271 sq. ft. Gross Floor Area: N/A 49, 380 sq. ft. 145, 079 sq. ft. (does not include structured parking) *Required parking includes a 5% credit for multiple use parking facilities per Town of Vail parking code, Section 18 . 52 . 120 . Also allows for non-conforming parking credit (see exhibits for breakdown) . **Does not meet the minimum size requirements per the Town code. 3 IV. SDD CRITERIA r" In order to avoid too much repetition of Staff comments, we have tried to list our comments under the most appropriate criteria heading. This is not to imply that many of the comments do not relate to several headings or planning documents. Upon completion of the submittal requirements, the following review criteria will be used to assess the merits of the Sonnenalp redevelopment: A. Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment, neighborhood and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, identity, character, visual integrity and orientation. Height: Staff strongly objects to the maximum height of 77 feet for the Vail Road building elevation and 81 feet for the elevator tower given the Vail Village context. The heights of the surrounding buildings are 47 . 5 for the Vail Village Inn (VVI) ridge, 70 for the VVI tower, and 20 for the ridge of the chapel. Though the VVI tower is tall, it is an architectural accent to the rest of the building. Its slender proportions are such that it is a tower. The "tower" above the auto court is designed with proportions which make it appear quite massive (i.e. "a building") and should not be labeled as a tower. Staff acknowledges that a certain number of rooms must be obtained in order to construct a project of this magnitude. However, the Vail Village Master Plan calls out for a range of heights between 27 ' and 36 ' , plus a roof, on the southern portion of the site. The mass above the auto court and the elevator tower are proposed in this same area, at 45 to 50 feet above the limit recommended in the Master Plan. The applicant did respond to the height issue by lowering the ridge between the Vail Road corner tower and the building above the auto court. The ridge was lowered 6' by removing a hallway, reconfiguring the staircases and relocating one accommodation unit to the mezzanine level. At the request of the staff, the applicant also raised the roof of the tower at the Vail Road intersection by 2 ' . The intent of this increase was to accentuate the tower. By lowering the ridge line and raising the tower peak, the proportions of the building work much better. Along East Meadow Drive, the Village Plan recommends heights of 18-27 feet plus a roof: Proposed heights in this area range from 49 .5 ' to 59' The PA zone district allows for a maximum height of 48 ft. for sloping roofs. Staff believes that the Sonnenalp proposal needs to come more into compliance with these recommended heights. It is positive that the height of the building along Vail Road has 4 been reduced prom the originally proposea height of 102 feet, down to 77 feet. As mentioned in the two previous work session memos, height should terrace down to Vail Road and East Meadow Drive to respect pedestrian areas as well as views from public areas. Character In staff' s analysis, a significant deviation from the character of the Village is the formal, unbroken facade of the building along East Meadow Drive. The arcade extends 165 feet with little relief, though there are a variety of dormer treatments in the north facing roof. Over the past two weeks, staff has worked on the Meadow Drive problems with the applicant, trying to break up the linear appearance of the arcade and roof line. The Town suggested that the applicant accentuate the existing large dormers to break up the mass of the elevation. The applicant responded by "grounding" these dormers; bringing the mass all the way to the ground. As a result, the arcade bends in and out from the building where the dormers have been brought down. In staff's opinion there are several design changes which the applicant should include in the facade design to further break up the facade along Meadow Drive. Staff requested that materials, such as rock and stone be used to emphasize the changes in the plane of the building. Secondly, it was recommended that the applicant bring landscaping up to the base of the elements to accentuate the differences from the surrounding arcade and walkway. Thirdly, it was suggested that the applicant change, the shape of the first floor archway openings. Instead of the triple radius arches used along the entire length of the 165 foot arcade, different openings, similar to the balconies above, were suggested. This would have made the element tie in with the forms above instead of the arches on either side. Although staff realized this would add slightly to the mass and bulk, the benefit of breaking up the long, symmetrical arcade and creating vitality and interest along Meadow, Drive would have compensated for the increased mass. The overall intent of the staff' s recommended changes was to make some visually interesting breaks in the arcade. Plazas would also help accomplish this. The Village Master Plan calls for two "plazas with green space" along this section of Meadow Drive. Tying both sides of the street together will be accomplished with a plaza area, which the applicant has added to the plans over the past two weeks. The design of this plaza area will be refined during the Village Streetscape Improvement Plan. The overall architectural style generally is of high quality. However, the mass of the building is too large in relation to the site and surrounding properties; the building does not fit the scale of the Village. More relief from the formal architectural style is still needed on Meadow Drive. 5 B. Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. Density, GRFA and Uses: The proposal, though all lodge rooms, will have a density 26% greater than the allowable. Staff supports the plan to have lodge rooms only, but is concerned that the density, in conjunction with the height, is too much for the site. The applicant does comply with the GRFA limitation for the site; however, the GRFA calculation only counts the residential areas. The accessory uses exceed the allowable by 13% and the common area exceeds the allowable by 65%. As a result, the mass of the project is much larger than what the zoning code allows. (The specific breakdown of the accessory area and common area can be found in Section III. Briefly, what PA zoning allows is 10% of GRFA for accessory and 20% for common. What is proposed is 23% and 85%, respectively. ) It has been common for the staff to support increases in common area above the allowable. In this case, the common area, in conjunction with the accessory use increase, is causing the building mass to become excessive. Concerning uses, the mix of lodging, commercial and conference space is appropriate and supports the goals of the Vail Village Master Plan. C. Compliance with parking and loading requirements as outlined in Chapter 18 . 52. Parking: All parking will be provided on site. 58 spaces (28%) will be valet. 25 spaces (12%) will be compact. A positive aspect of this proposal is that all the existing surface parking will be placed underground. There will be no surface parking except for five spaces in the auto court. The Town' s parking analysis indicates that the redevelopment would provide a surplus of 16 parking spaces. The staff has strongly recommended that the 13 existing surface parking spaces for the Swiss Chalet (adjacent to Willow Bridge Road) be incorporated into the new underground parking structure and that the surface spaces be removed. The applicant has agreed to this recommendation and the 13 surface parking spaces have been incorporated into the parking structure. A pocket park has been designed for this area As this is a specific goal of the Vail Village Master Plan, staff provides more details on this issue in that section. Loading: The Zoning Code requires three berths. Staff has been concerned that if loading spaces within the auto court were not specifically designated for loading, the delivery trucks would try to use Meadow Drive or the area adjacent to the southwest corner of Crossroads for loading. 6 The applicani.-has modified the loading bay area and is now proposing a total of three loading berths. Two berths would be located at the southwest corner of the property and one berth would be located in the auto court. However, the proposed loading berths do not meet the minimum size requirements of the Town's municipal code. The code requires a minimum size of 12 ' wide by 25' in length. The proposed berths are approximately 8 ' wide by 25' in length. D. Conformity with applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, Town policies and Urban Design Plans. Because of the many different goals, policies, and illustrative plans that pertain to this proposal, a separate section of the memo discusses the compliance of the project with the Vail Village Master Plan. The intention to maintain all of the units as accommodation units fits well with the Town policies. Any conversion of these lodge rooms to condominium units in the future should be prohibited. E. Identification and mitigation of natural and/or geologic hazards that affect the property on which the special development district is proposed. The floodplain is the only hazard which could affect the site. The applicant is not proposing any construction in the 50 foot Gore Creek stream setback or the floodplain. F. Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions designed to produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural features, vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community. Site plan/Setbacks The building will encroach into all setbacks. PA zoning requires 20 foot setbacks on all sides of the property. The applicant has relocated the building to meet the setback line in many cases, which is an improvement over previous proposals but still has ten areas of encroachment. The specific points of encroachment in each setback, starting with the compactor area on the southwest corner of the site are: West 1. The compactor area encroaches 15' -6 ' into the Vail Road setback; 2. The new kitchen expansion and Bully Pub encroach 18 '-0" into the Vail Road setback; 3. The rooms above the auto court entry encroach 12 ' - 0" into the Vail Road setback; 4. The tower on the corner of Meadow Drive and Vail Road encroaches 9 '-0" into the Vail Road setback and 8 '=0" into the East Meadow Drive setback; 7 North 5. The roof over the commercial arcade encroaches into the Meadow Drive setback 10 '-0"; 6. The tower on the east end of the project encroaches 13 '-0" into the east side setback; East 7 . The eastern most corner of the new hotel wing encroaches 18 ' -0" into a setback abutting the Talisman site; South 8. The swimming pool/whirlpool encroaches 7 '-0" into the rear setback. The patio around the swimming pool area encroaches 19 '-0" into the setback; 9. The King Ludwig deck (above) and the conference room area (below) encroach 4 ' -0" into the rear setback; and 10. The loading/delivery area encroaches 20 ' 0" into the rear setback, creating a zero rear setback situation. The encroachment which concerns staff the most is the one required for the kitchen expansion and compactor area on the southwest corner of the property. Staff has worked with the applicant in reducing the mass and bulk of the building on this corner as much as possible, but believes that it still has the most impact of all the encroachments. Another encroachment of major concern is the swimming pool/patio area. The Zoning Code allows recreational amenities to encroach into the setback if the Design Review Board determines that the location is not detrimental environmentally or aesthetically. Staff believes that in this case, the Gore Creek corridor should be maintained as natural as possible to preserve its aesthetic appeal. Staff does not support the pool/patio in this location and would recommend that the pool/patio be pulled back out of the setback. The two tower encroachments on either end of the building along Meadow Drive are not problems in staff's opinion. Staff believes that undulating the building along Meadow Drive and allowing the towers to come out closer to the street gives more definition to the public space and is a benefit. The Village Master Plan calls for plazas in two locations on either side of the tower locations. Though the appliant is providing a plaza, there is not enough undulation and variety to the Meadow Drive "facade. Natural Features The site is generally flat with Gore Creek running along the south side of they property. Significant landscaping also exists along East Meadow Drive, in the center of the parking area, and adjacent to the Bully III deck. The applicant has taken advantage of the beauty of Gore Creek and has located the spa and garden along the creek. Staff believes that adding a streamwalk along the creek would allow more guests in Vail to enjoy this natural feature. 8 G. A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and off-site traffic circulation. Talisman/Sonnenalp Coordination: Coordination between the proposed Sonnenalp SDD and the existing Talisman Condominiums is necessary. Staff encourages the two owners to work together on access, landscaping, and parking for the two projects in a comprehensive manner. The Town Fire Department has now approved the design of the Sonnenalp redevelopment, with specific reference to emergency vehicle access to both the Sonnenalp and the Talisman properties. Traffic: This will be discussed in the section of the memo dealing with the Environmental Impact Report. Pedestrians: The design of the project has provided some improvements for pedestrians. The applicants will provide a sidewalk along Vail road from the corner of Meadow Drive to Gore Creek. At that point, they will construct a pedestrian bridge over the creek so that pedestrians can continue to walk south of the creek. Staff supports the idea of the pedestrian bridge; however, at this time, we do not have specific design drawings of the proposal. Along East Meadow Drive, the design could be improved for pedestrians by providing a stronger interface between the pedestrian street and the store fronts. What is also missing from the project is the streamwalk. H. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and functions. The proposal has provided an optimal garden area in the center and south side of the site. Though this is good preservation of open space, it is limited to the hotel guests. The hotel has been designed so that the building is located close to Vail Road and Meadow Drive. By not providing open space west or north of the building, the public does not benefit from the open space on-site. Staff recommends that the applicant create a plaza/planting area across from VVI, to provide some public open space. This has been discussed during the review process since it is called out for in the open space plan of the Vail Village Master Plan. Not only would it provide some open space on the site which the public would benefit from, it would break up the hard line of the Meadow Drive facade. It would also allow for a concentration of l andscaping, and would create a space where the VVI, the Sonnenalp, and the pedestrian way are brought together. The applicant has redesigned this area and has included a pedestrian connection/plaza as 9 recommended b/ the staff. Final details of this plaza will be coordinated with the on-going Village Streetscape Improvement Plan. I. Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional and efficient relationship throughout the development of the special development district. See discussion under the EIR analysis. J. Outstanding concerns from other departments: 1. Fire Department: The applicant has received conceptual approval of the Fire Department, however, some landscaping will be lost (at the northeast corner of the site) due to the Fire Department' s required access. The proposed landscape plan must be amended to reflect this change. 2 . Public Works: A minimum sidewalk width of 6 feet, on Vail Road, will be required for the full length of the project. Drainage improvements along Vail Road and East Meadow Drive will be needed. 3 . Landscape Architect: The stream walk should be shown on the site plan. The applicant will need to submit a revised landscaping plan if proposed changes to Vail Road are approved. Maintenance of landscaped areas and sidewalks shall be the owner's responsibility. The conceptual landscape plan appears to be acceptable. A detailed planting and irrigation plan should be submitted for review. 10 V. VAIL VILLAGE MASTER PLAN In general, the staff believes that the Sonnenalp project should be much more responsive to the Vail Village Master Plan. The previous two work session memos listed many areas where the project could comply more closely with the Village Plan. In most cases, the previous staff comments apply to the revised proposal since the applicant has failed to address the concepts of the plan. Staff believes that one of the most important parts of the Master Plan is the conceptual building height diagram. The portion of that plan which includes the Sonnenalp project is shown below. The corner treatment for Vail Road and Meadow Drive should be 2-3 stories. The rest of the site is called out at 3-4 stories. The project severely deviates from the Master Plan as it is 4 stories on the corner and rises up to 6 stories above the auto court. _ -_ • . ,..... -., - -.."'• - '‘a ...-- ..---7..7., -...._____ • .., .','` ‘ ,;.,, ,.. --,. . `.. ----Z-T ,--27 1-` 41evfla V 7 - ■ .... iT • ' ,,,,=116" -1; l'X,,, 1, ',; v.*:'..)7. ' 1111r ..... is ,,,, ,-,,,,z ----.#;:::--A. ,, ..4' --• "':;.....' ,ik :-4 , e: ,. -„ ,,,, .ts , .,... .,44t... ...-..\. - - r, ,,,. --',-•'.,:4,,s- 't.;t•'- ... tt., ,. ....,„ \‘.4.... ,.. ,.., , _ v,,,...• --_-2,3,- r-- '' :...;, -k- -•- ; ,_ ,...----..,--z-,sic, , -- ,‘ ----- - — P1_4-____ "". -,C ':..t-r. t-• F':•-'7:-.4-7:-.:':.--....:-.* s 1.-1.°: 1,1 .1k \ ,... r'-..._ _ 0, ,,,,,';.-'-''r 1-:?-1111,1 ' --"------22 --i..- --.".",,-....,...._,,f, - -,-...---.-----,-,7,---- -1, 'r- - "'' ,.....,,, -:,, !__.11,,,,., , ,,,s , - -: ' Z- ''- ' c''' 11":-;:j--A--..=- ---/ CONCEPTUAL , - -=-, BUILDING .. HEIGHT PLAN During the review, it has been mentioned that the master plan is not applicable to a demo/rebuild such as this. The master plan, by definition, cannot address the aspects of every construction project. But the policies and objectives of the plan do apply to all projects. When the plan was developed, the appropriate scale for redevelopment was established with consideration of surrounding properties and the overall streetscape. The principle design concepts are relevant and applicable even if a i demo-rebuild is proposed. . . . . • . The specific goals, objectives, and sub-area plans which pertain this . to this project are listed below. Important points of the Master Plan text are underlined. Staff comments are below the Master Plan excerpts. 11 A. Sub-Area #1-2 - Vail Road Intersection • vumbe • "1":401 111 HO MUSE 1_2 it f.' �I i .�!*+ nRMING ' R.Rq,NG \ 9\yC W.f.Y , I,i1L/ I uf1M` , • Sub-Area #1-2 states: "Possible realignment of intersection in conjunction with relocation of the Ski Museum. Focus of redesign should be to establish a small park and pedestrian entry for the west end of the Village and to provide a visual barrier to discourage vehicular traffic from heading south on Vail Road from the 4-way stop. Specific design of Ski Museum site to be included in West Meadow Drive pedestrian improvement project. The pedestrian connection both north and south along Vail Road should also be improved. " Staff Response: The project does provide a six foot wide sidewalk along the full length of the west side of the property. The sidewalk will be made out of pavers and will extend from the northwest corner of the site to the pedestrian bridge that the applicant will install over Gore Creek. These improvements serve to implement this concept. Because the Sonnenalp redevelopment will require additional widening of Vail Road, we belive that mitigation will be necessary to discourage vehicular traffic from heading south on Vail Road. The staff is recommending that three planted medians be installed along Vail Road. Two medians would be located near the Vail Road/South Frontage Road intersection (4-way stop) , and one median would be located on Vail Road, immediately south of Meadow Drive. Final designs would need to allow for fire access and public works needs for snow removal. 12 B. Sub-Area #1-3 - Sonnenalp (Bavaria Haus) Infill rte_"'°_• f 4. 40, ________ ,.� t ` �, •1-2 l f____ -----j1 Sub-Area #1-3 states: "Commercial infill development with second floor residential/lodging to enclose Meadow Drive and improve the quality of the pedestrian experience. Designated walkways and plazas with green space should interface with those of the Vail Village Inn. A pedestrian walkway (possibly arcade) should be provided to encourage pedestrian circulation physically removed from Meadow Drive. Mass of building should not create a shadow pattern on Meadow Drive. Development will require coordination and/or involvement with adjacent property owners. Existing and new parking demand to be provided on site. " Staff Response: Meadow Drive will be completely shaded in the winter. The ridge along Meadow Drive will cast a shadow which will extend 67.3 feet from the north wall of the building at noon on December 21st. This shadow will completely cover Meadow Drive. Even on the equinox dates (March 21 and September 21) , the shadow cast will be 27 .5 feet from the northern wall of the building. Staff understands that some shadow will be cast by any' redevelopment that occurs along Meadow Drive; however, the mass of this proposal and the way the roof line is designed makes the shadow impact worse than alternative designs that were discussed in the review process. In the EIR, the applicant claims that the building will shade the street for only a short period of time without specifying the length. Staff believes that this statement is misleading and more information is needed on this impact. Staff is also very concerned about the possible icing of East Meadow Drive, given the location and height of the new building. Please 13 see comments on project design, parking, circulation, and landscaping under SDD criteria. Staff recalculated the shadow lenths and drew them in both plan and section. These drawings will be presented at the hearing on December 10. The shadows were calculated from several points in the roof to determine which ridge caused the worst impact. All shadows were calculated for both the equinox (March 21/September 21) and the winter soltice (December 21) . C. Sub-Area #1-5 - Willow Bridge Road Walkway_ 1 .�,4 i .N Sub-Area #1-5 states: "A decorative paver pedestrian walkway, separated from the street and accented by a strong landscaped area to encourage pedestrian circulation along Meadow Drive. Loss of parking will need to be relocated on site. " Staff Response: The diagrams in the Master Plan show the area discussed in the paragraph above and the area along Willow Bridge Road blending into one another. The applicant has expressed an interest in removing the parking that exists there now and converting the space into a pedestrian area. The parking garage that will be built in this proposal has 16 extra spaces. There are 13 spaces in front of the Swiss Chalet. f Because the applicant is proposing to consolidate the front desks for these two buildings, the parking can be located in the garage of the main building. Staff had recommended that the applicant redesign the space and convert it into a pedestrian area according to the Master Plan. The applicant has now redesigned this 14 area and has removed the 13 surface parking spaces. A pocket park is now proposed for this section of the property, as previously discussed in Section IVH of this memo. The applicant studied the pedestrian routes through this area and designed a combination of planters and walkways that accomodates the existing pedestrian traffic patterns. D. Sub-Area #1-4 - Sonnenalp East (Swiss Chalet) Infill Sub-Area #1-4 states: Li 1 f I li -4 '�'i J . 4. Alk. -4 ■ "Commercial infill of north facing alcove of existing structure to provide shops and pedestrian activity. A plaza with greenspace shall be developed in conjunction with the adjacent plaza at the Vail Village Inn. Fire access and on site parking are two issues to be addressed in the design and development of this project. " Staff Response: Two issues in this sub-area recommendation pertain to the proposal. One is to develop a plaza for pedestrian activity outside the Swiss Chalet. This area is intended to relate to the VVI as well as Willow Bridge Road. This improvement relates directly to the recommendation for the Willow Bridge Road walkway, which is discussed in the paragraph above. The second issue involves fire access. The Town's Fire Department has given conceptual approval of the fire access to the f Sonnenalp/Talisman. 15 E. Sub-Area #1-9 - Study Area: Village Streamwalk Sub-Area #1-9 states: (..,.....,),(1 , T•' . / e))1 r 4 I .\)-_,..:.,.1.....___:.. ::. • ,4:1-9 • 9 / - 1 • `3-\ (t 'A_______ n. .RLM.N KO.. _ 4110 • . M - ''c' Y , 200011 7/%2 "Study of a walking only path-alonq >Gore Creek between the Covered Bridge and Vail Road, connecting to existing streamwalk, further enhancing the pedestrian network throughout the Village and providing public access to the creek. Specific design and location of walkway shall be sensitive to adjacent uses and the creek environment. " Staff Response: Staff believes that a streamwalk is in the best interests of the Town. Expanding the existing popular recreational amenity is worthwhile, especially since staff believes it can be designed in a way that is sensitive to the hotel proposal. Benching a walkway down near the stream appears to be feasible. Additional landscaping is another way to buffer the walk from the hotel 's garden area. Developing pedestrian-only walkways and stream access fulfills Objective 3 .4 of the Master Plan, which reinforces the goal of this sub-area. Because a streamwalk is an effective way to provide a natural experience within the Village, and because it could be built sensitively to the hotel, staff believes the applicant should incorporate it into the site plan. F. Emphasized Goals &Policies Below is a list of the specific objectives of the Master Plan. With the exceptions of the objectives dealing with ` employee housing and the streamwalk, the proposal generally meets the list below. Staff believes that the project' s primary positive aspects include its provision of accommodation units, the parking plan, the pedestrian bridge and the fact that this is a good site for a mixed use redevelopment. 16 1.2 Objective: Encourage the upgrading and redevelopment of residential and commercial facilities. 1.3 Objective: Enhance new development and redevelopment through public improvements done by private developers working in cooperation with the Town. 2 .3 Objective: Increase the number of residential units available for short term overnight, accommodations. 2 .4 Objective: Encourage the development of a variety of new commercial activity where compatible with existing land uses. 2 .5 Objective: Encourage the continued upgrading, renovation and maintenance of existing lodging and commercial facilities to better serve the needs of our guests. 2 .6 Objective: Encourage the development of affordable housing units through the efforts of the private sector. 3 . 1 Objective: Physically improve the existing pedestrian ways by landscaping and other improvements. 3. 4 Objective: Develop additional sidewalks, pedestrian-only walkways and accessible green space areas, including pocket parks and stream access. 4 . 1 Objective: Improve existing open space areas and create new plazas with green space and pocket parks. Recognize the different roles of each type of open space in forming the overall fabric of the Village. 5. 1 Objective: Meet parking demands with public and private parking facilities. 6. 1 Objective: Provide service and delivery facilities for existing and new development. 17 H. Illustrative Plans. 1. Land Use Plan: a. North side of Sonnenalp 'site, "Mixed Use. " This category includes the "historic" Village core and properties near the pedestrianized streets of the Village. Lodging, retail and a limited amount of office use are found in this category. With nearly 270, 000 square feet of retail space and approximately 320 residential units, the mixed use character of these areas is a major factor in the appeal of Vail Village. Staff Response: Since the proposal is mixed use, it fits well with this Master Plan illustration. b. South side of Sonnenalp site, "Medium/High Density Residential and Mixed Use. " Medium/High Density The overwhelming majority of the Village' s lodge rooms and condominium units are located in this land use category. Approximately 1,100 units have been developed on the 27 acres of private land in this category. In addition, another 110 units are approved but unbuilt. It is a goal of this Plan to maintain these areas as predominantly lodging oriented with retail development limited to small amounts of "accessory retail. " Mixed Use (along Meadow Drive and Willow Road) This category includes the "historic" Village core and properties near the pedestrianized streets of the Village. Lodging, retail and limited amount of office use are found in this category. With nearly 270, 000 square feet of retail space and approximately 320 residential units, the mixed use character of these areas is a major factor in the appeal of Vail Village. Staff Response: The project complies with the types of uses called for in the Illustrative Land Use Plan. An all lodge room redevelopment, with support commercial, is a very positive land use type for this site. 18 2 . Open Space Plan: a. "Planted Buffer" is designated on north and west side of site. b. "Plaza with green space" is designated on north side of property connecting to the Vail Village Inn and on eastern property adjacent to Swiss Chalet and VVI sculpture plaza. c. "Open Space" is designated along entire stream corridor. Staff Response: The proposal does not provide a "Plaza with green space" . Though a plaza at this location would benefit the area by: Tying in with the WI buildings, " reducing the shadow cast by the structure, and providing some public open space. At this time, these goals are not addressed in a comprehensive way. 3 . Parking and Circulation Plan: a. East Meadow Drive is designated as a pedestrian street with plazas, limited or no autos and a bus route. The Gore Creek corridor is designated as a study area for a walking path. Staff Response: East Meadow will continue to be a pedestrian corridor; however, the proposal does not include a stream walk. 4 . Building Height Plan: a. The area along East Meadow Drive is recommended to be a maximum of two to three stories or 18 to 27 ft. high. Three to four stories (27 ft to 36 ft. ) is designated on the southern three quarters of the property. All heights exclude roof forms. Staff Response: As this is one of the most important components of the Master Plan, staff discussed this item in the first section of the memo on page four. 19 VI. EIR ANALYSIS A. Hydrologic Conditions The applicant will be altering the existing drainage along Vail Road significantly. Currently there is a rock lined ditch that conveys the water to Gore Creek. Curb and gutter will be installed. All drainage improvements must meet Town of Vail standards and will be reviewed for compliance at time of building permit. Drainage from the parking structure will be drained to the sanitary sewer. Details for the parking structure drainage have not been put together at this time. Staff recommends that the best possible pollution control devices, including grease traps and sediment traps, should be installed in the drainage system. The one area of concern that the Town has regarding drainage is how it will be handled during construction of the project. Dewatering any excavation pits into Gore Creek could negatively impact the creek unless the sediment is removed. The Environmental Impact Report completed by the applicant commits the applicant to undertake erosion and dewatering control measures according to the best available practices to ensure that the creek impacts are minimized. B. Atmospheric Conditions The three ways this project will impact air quality are through fireplaces, dust control, and automobile trips to the site. Concerning fireplaces, all units in the hotel are proposed to have gas burning fireplaces. The air emissions from these gas burning appliances will be negligible. There are four existing wood burning fireplaces in the hotel which will remain. Dust is an impact that is generated from the construction process and through the sanding of the existing parking lot. During construction, the applicant (in the EIR) commits to undertake efforts to control the dust. By locating the parking underground and eliminating the need for sanding, air quality will be improved. The last possible impact is from automobile trips. With 54 additional accommodation units, less 10 20 dwelling units, there will be additional trips to the site. Staff believes that this is a reasonable increase and that further documentation is not needed. The hotel ' s mini-van service combines trips that some guests might otherwise make individually in their own cars. Given the benefit of gas appliance fireplaces, eliminating the sanding in the winter from the parking lot, the negative impact of the additional trips is offset. C. Geologic and Biotic Conditions The proposal does not change the impacts relating to geologic and biotic conditions. D. Visual Conditions The applicant has used seven photographs taken of the Village to show how the proposal will relate to surrounding structures. The building outline has been shown in tape. Concerning the view looking east on West Meadow Drive (#1) , the EIR consultant claims that few people will view the Sonnenalp from this point since foot traffic is minimal in the area. Staff strongly disagrees with this analysis. Since Meadow Drive is a bus and pedestrian route linking the Village to Lionshead, staff believes this view will be highly noticeable. All of the views of the building from points in the Village show that the ski slopes, the mountain, and the sky will be blocked. (3 , 5, 6 and 7) The view east from the First Bank and chapel area will be completely blocked. (#5) The views from the four way stop (#2 and 4) show that the building will not exceed the highest ridge of Vail Mountain, as it will from the vantage points in the Village. This is because the elevation of the four way stop is higher than the site of the project. Staff realizes that some view impacts are inevitable if the project is redeveloped. However, we believe the building as proposed has severe view impacts which are not supportable given the scale of the surrounding areas. 21 E. Land Use Conditions The uses proposed are compatible with those around the site. This issue has been analyzed in the SDD and Vail Village Master Plan sections of the memo. F. Circulation and Transportation conditions The traffic study, done by Leigh, Scott and Cleary, Inc. , concluded that the capacity of the surrounding road network can generally handle the traffic generated by the project. The only street improvement recommended was to provide three lanes in Vail Road's existing alignment. The new lane is for a left turn lane into the project. The original study recommended that the three lanes be provided with substandard lane widths so that the street would not have to be widened. Other significant findings from the study include: At full occupancy, the proposed project can be expected to add approximately 175 entering and 175 exiting weekday vehicle trips to the surrounding roadway system. Of these, 14 will enter and 12 will exit during the evening peak-hour. The greatest concentration of project- generated traffic is expected along Vail Road to and from the north. Ninety-three percent of the additional traffic will pass though the four way stop. The traffic impact of the proposed project on existing and future peak season traffic will be minimal. The first traffic study, dated October 4 , 1990, was completed based on national averages of trip generation and staff believes does not accurately reflect Vail traffic patterns. (See attached report. ) The applicant and the Town did independent studies of the parking demand for the existing hotel which showed that the supply exceeds the demand. Because of this information and the general agreement on this issue between the staff and the applicant, a revised traffic study was submitted. The issue which needed clarification was the requirement for a center lane to allow left turns 22 into the auto court. The first study, based on national standards, determined that it was needed, but that substandard lanes would suffice. Since it is not reasonable for the Town to accept substandard lanes on one of the busiest roads in the Town, the second study dated November 15, 1990, based on local standards, was intended to clarify the issue and determine what the new project would require. A major flaw of the second study is found in the conclusion. The consultants state that "if roadway widening is required in order to [provide three lanes], the resultant expenditures are not justified, and we would recommend that the operation of Vail Road remain as a two-lane design." Staff discussed the study with the engineer who prepared it and found that he had no documentation of the cost which "is not justified. " Staff does not concur that the cost/benefit analysis referred to in the conclusion is an appropriate means to determine what improvements the applicant is responsible for. This is especially true when the cost, at the time the report was written, was unknown to the consultants. More importantly is the fact that a requirement to build the middle lane must be determined by the amount of demand generated by the new project. If the Sonnenalp generates the demand, they must mitigate the impact. Cost should not be a factor in this decision. The applicant has committed to place curb and gutter at the edge of the street for the full length of Vail Road. The Town' s traffic engineering consultant, Arnie Ullevig, reviewed the traffic studies and concluded that three lanes is the better alternative because of the high number of left turn movements at peak demand (45 turns per hour at 4:00 P.M. ) and the potential for traffic congestion to worsen without the left turn lane. In his review, he also said that the left turn lane should extend only to the auto court and that a median south of Meadow Drive would be helpful for traffic flow. A related issue to this is the need for accurate survey information. Setting the edge of pavement must be based on accurate information. The architectural drawings submitted by the applicant show the proposed curb eight feet from where it should have been, according to Town records. The 23 applicant's solution was to merely shift all of Vail Road approximately eight feet to the west. This shift must be verified with survey information showing both sides of Vail Road prior to any improvements being approved so that staff can verify that there are no impacts to the First Bank Building. G. Population Characteristics The Sonnenalp currently employs approximately 270 employees during the winter season. The proposed redevelopment would add approximately 26 new employees per the EIR. Ten of these employees will be needed for housekeeping, a houseman, laundry service, and general hotel staffing. The consultants preparing the EIR assumed that 16 employees are enough to staff the additional commercial area. The applicant is assuming that no additional employees will be needed for the 4000 square feet of new conference area or for the 4700 square feet of new restaurant area. The applicant claims that the conference area requires the same staffing, regardless of size. Concerning the restaurant, the applicant has stated that he will use the existing Sonnenalp Austria House restaurant staff to serve the expanded Bavaria House area. (The Austria House is by the Covered Bridge, the Bavaria House is the one under consideration. ) The Austria House restaurant will shut down when the Bavaria House restaurants are open. The additional 26 employees will increase the total number to 296. Of the total, the applicant states that 94 employees work at the Bavaria Haus. The Sonnenalp currently provides housing for approximately 145 employees. 33 units are owned by the Sonnenalp, housing 67 employees and 20 units are rented by the Sonnenalp, housing 78 employees. This assumes that each bedroom houses two Sonnenalp employees. No additional employee housing is proposed by the Sonnenalp for the redevelopment, though statements in the EIR acknowledge that the housing goals of the Sonnenalp are not being met. However, staff believes that a redevelopment of this magnitude should have some permanent employee housing. The material in the EIR states that "housing is of potential concern to both the Sonnenalp and the 24 Town. " Staff needs to clarify this point and state that significant resources have already been invested by the Town to address this issue. With the adoption of the Town of Vail Affordable Housing Study on November 20, 1990, it is no longer a potential concern but is an issue that must be addressed formally. At this time, the report has been adopted and provides guideline for new development. At a later date, the report' s recommendations will be incorporated into the Zoning Code. In addition, the Land Use Plan calls for employee housing by stating: 5.3 - "Affordable employee housing should be made available through private efforts, assisted by limited incentives, provided by the Town of Vail, with appropriate restrictions. " It should also be mentioned that most SDD' s in the past have provided some number of employee housing units within the proposal. Using the recommendations from the Affordable Housing Study, staff determined the amount of housing which should be deed restricted using two calculations. For "by-right" projects, housing for 15% of the employees should be provided. For those projects with density increases, 16% - 30% of the employees should have housing provided by the employer. For example, the redevelopment will require an additional 26 employees. Since a density increase is needed for the expansion, the 30% multiplier is used: 26 employees x . 30 = 7 . 8 Assuming that two employees will share a dwelling unit, the 7 .8 is divided by 2 , resulting a requirement for 4 dwelling units. Or, 26 employees x . 16 = 4 . 16 or 2 dwelling units. Staff believes that it is also appropriate to review the over all demand on housing that the project will generate. Given that the existing operation requires 94 employees, and meets density limits, staff believes that housing should 25 be provided for these employees by using the 15% multiplier. 94 employees x . 15 = 14. 1 14. 1 divided by 2 equals 7 .05 By combining the "by-right" demand with that generated by the density increase, a minimum of 7 of the Sonnenalp' s existing employee units should be permanently deed restricted and at least four new employee units should be required for the density and retail above the allowable. This results in a total of 11 employee restricted units. Staff' s calculations do not include any additional employees for the 4700 square feet of new restaurant area. Because this does not seem plausible, staff needs more information about this area before an accurate housing demand can be done. H. Phasing The construction will take place in three phases. Phase I includes the parking structure and elevator core. Mass excavation and shoring is planned to begin May 1, 1991. The parking garage is planned to be completed by September 13, 1991. The kitchen addition will be completed October 15, 1991. Phase II activity includes the new hotel tower and the north wing with planned occupancy for December 10, 1992 . Phase III work includes the spa building, meeting rooms and the remodel to the existing hotel which will begin May 1, 1992 . The existing east wing of the hotel will be demolished between May 1, 1992 and June 5, 1992 . At this time, the applicant proposes to build a paved road around the existing loading dock (southwest corner of site) for trucks to use during the demolition of the existing east wing. Staff is concerned about the impacts to the creek, and believes that another route can be found to haul the debris away from the site. The second concern of staff is the parking for the construction workers. As the Town has seen with the construction of the parking structure and 26 Gateway, major projects require many employees and vehicles. We would like to see a plan explaining where the construction workers will park. The applicant, in the EIR, has said that partial closures of Vail Road will be needed. The Town understands that the road will never be completely closed. In addition, the Town understands that all deliveries to the site will occur from the Talisman access road or Vail Road but will not take place via Meadow Drive. VII. LAND USE PLAN The Land Use Plan refers to the Vail Village Master Plan for reviewing any requests for redevelopment in this area. VIII. CONCLUSION Although the project has positive aspects such as the lodge use, underground parking, sidewalks, and a pedestrian bridge, staff recommends denial of the proect for many reasons. Using the SDD criteria, staff finds severe noncompliance with Criteria A: design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment. The height, at 81 feet, exceeds the 48 foot limit beyond what is compatible with the surrounding area. The mass of the building, exceeds the allowed accessory area and common area by 53,931 square feet. This square footage as indicated by the height, setbacks, minimal public spaces and shadow patterns, is too much for the site. Criteria D, conformity with applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, Town policies and urban design plans, has not been met. Several plans and illustrations from the Vail Village Master Plan have not been addressed. Specifically, the open space plan with plazas, the building height plan, the shade and shadow issues, and the streamwalk have not been addressed adequately. Criteria F, regarding the site plan, has not been met in that the concepts for the site plan results in a building layout that lacks quality public spaces. Staff does not agree that the resulting site plan, reserving most of the open space on the site for hotel guests, is the best design for the community. 27 Criteria G, regarding a circulation system designed for pedestrians and automobiles, has not been met, either. Additional survey information is needed to fully address and to accurately locate the proposed improvements. The two issues discussed first are the fundamental problems with the project; however, there are numerous others which must be resolved prior to approval, as identified in the main body of the memorandum. The applicant has been aware of the Town' s concerns, in most cases, since the original PEC work session. Staff believes that until all outstanding issues are resolved, the project should not be approved. Staff asks that the applicant address the Town's issues more thoroughly. We believe the project has merit but additional design changes are necessary before the staff could support and recommend approval of the project. 28 P.ROPOSEa PARKIN Sheet # Regular S aces Com act Spaces Valet P p p • P3/P4 P1/P2 „ i4 :27 Lobby Level 0 0_ 5 Total 127 25 58 Grand Total: 210 (includes 12% compact and 28% valet) REQUIRED PARKING AREA PARKING USE (Sq Ft ) CALCULATION• REQUIREMENT 19614i l 5,713 , 57,13/300 19 Accommodation Units 69`,989: 0.955x126 121 (555 sq. ft. average room size) Conference/Meeting Area; 7,930` 7930/15/8/2 ;33 Restaurant/Lounge 4;,163; • 4163/15/8 35 Total .. , 208 Parking Required = 208 spaces Mutiple Use Credit (5%) = (10) Non-conforming Credit = (4) Total 194 REQUIRED OD 1G AREA`:' USE (Sq Ft ) REQUIREMENT Lodge Retail 5,713;: 1 berth Subtotal 5 berths` Less: Multiple Use Credit - 2 berths Total 3 berths • Sonnenalp Exhibit A HEIGHT ANALYSIS PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT Ride Gable Eave,. (ft)..: . {ft) (ft) Tower.;Above Auto Court: ;;: 77 . 70 .60 5 Elevator Tower. . 81 : N/A 66:5 Tower at Corner of East Meadow and Vail Roa 59 d : : N/A . 42 Ridge along East Meadow Drive 49 5 N/A 26 5 Tower_on East End. 52 • N/A 30 5 : Ridge along Vail Road: 51 .5 < N/A 35 Portion of Existing Building to Remain 42 �N IA:; 23 5 . WI `COMPARISON Ridge Gable Eave. {ft) ' >: (ft) {ft) Tower: 70 N/A 50. Ridge Along Meadow: . 47 5 N/A 21 Corner at Vai 1 Road < ..and Meadow Drive . . 31 . N/A 185 Sonnenalp Exhibit B AREA BREAKDOWN SITE COVERAGE Sheet A2 = Existing hotel/conference area = 19,611 sq. ft. Sheet A9 = New hotel = 20,194 sq. ft. Sheet A00 = Spa building/covered walkway = 4,518 sq. ft. Total 44,378 sq.ft. COMMON AREA Sheet A2 = Registration lobby/loading&delivery = 4,244 sq. ft. Sheet A3 = Library/offices etc. = 3,818 sq. ft. Sheet A4 = Corridors, stairs-2nd level = 1,074 sq. ft. Sheet A5 = Corridors, stairs-3rd level = 1,087 sq. ft. Sheet A6 = Display/restroom = 565 sq. ft. Sheet A6.1 = Conference area/offices/laundry, etc. = 31,201 sq. ft. Sheet A7 = Elevator/lobby/stairs = 366 sq. ft. Sheet A8 = New wing - corridor = 2,435 sq. ft. Sheet A9 = Corridor-2nd level = 2,654 sq. ft. Sheet Al 0 = Corridor-3rd level = 2,642 sq. ft. Sheet Al 1 = Corridor-4th level = 3,230 sq. ft. Sheet Al2 = Corridor-5th level 1437 sq. ft. Sheet A00 = Spa building/covered walkway = 4,518 sq.ft. Total 59271 sq. ft. GRFA Sheet A3 = Mezzanine = 5,830 sq. ft. - 15 Rooms Sheet A4 = 2nd level = 6,120 sq. ft. - 12 Rooms Sheet A5 = 3rd level = 6,029 sq. ft. - 12 Rooms Sheet A8 = New building 1st level = 4,205 sq. ft. - 7 Rooms Sheet A9 = New building 2nd level = 16,909 sq. ft. - 28 Rooms Sheet A10 = New building 3rd level = 16,910 sq. ft. - 28 Rooms Sheet All = New building 4th level = 10,774 sq. ft. - 18 Rooms Sheet Al2 = New building 5th level = 3,212 sq. ft. - 6 Rooms Total 69,989 sq. ft. - 126 Rooms COMMERCIAL Sheet A8 = 1st Level = 5,713 sq. ft. Total 5,713 sq. ft. RESTAURANT/KITCHEN/LOBBY LOUNGE Sheet A2 = Restaurant/Kitchen/Lobby Lounge = 10,106 sq. ft. Total 10,106 sq. ft. Sonnenalp Exhibit C DEC 7 '90 15:51 PAGE.002 FELSBURG HOLT & U L L E V I G • December 7, 1990 Mr. Andy Knutsen Town of Vail. Community Development 75 South -Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 RE: Vail Transportation Plan Ff13 Reference No. 89- 091 Dear Mr. Knutsen This letter is in response to your request to review the sonnenalp site redevelopment. Specifically addressed are the following: o Review of trip generation and traffic assignments for reasonableness. o The need for left turn lanes along Vail Road. o General design characteristics of Vail Road. These items are discussed in the subsequent sections of this review. ri Gen ation and Traff'c Assi ernt A traffic impact analysis addressing this redevelopment spe- cifically evaluated the number of trips generated by the site, their distribution onto the roadway network, and the traffic impact on the 4-way stop intersection. The analysis was done assuming the site would contain 40 additional hotel rooms beyond that which currently exists, and the analytical process that was documented appears to be reasonable. 5peiiaHzing in Transportation end Civil Engineering 5299 DIG Boulevard•Suite 400 Englewood,Colorado 60111 (303) 721-1440 DEC 7 '90 15:51 PAGE.003 December 7, 1990 Mr. Andy Knutsen Page; 2 However, the Environmental ,Impact Report for this project indicates that in addition to 40 additional hotel rooms, the redevelopment will also contain an additional 7,155 square feet of meeting space and approximately 5,800 square feet of new commercial space. If these areas are indeed expansions and are open to general public use, it would be advisable to include them in the analysis. Left Turn Lane Along. Vail Road The traffic impact study indicates 45 inbound trips during the P.M. peak hour in which 93 percent (42 trips) would be left turning vehicles from the north. Given the amount of south bound through traffic (estimated to be 250 to 300 vehicles per hour during the P.M. peak) , a left turn lane should be provid ed. in addition, if the meeting space and commercial space are included the projected number of left turning vehicles into the site will be greater than that indicated, thus making a left turn lane even more necessary. Further, the need for a left turn lane is not solely determined by absolute volume. The provision of an exclusive left turn lane, even for small turning volumes, is often beneficial in terms of safety and the elimination of traffic stoppages. Such stoppages could create queues which might obstruct other nearby access points and intersections which may be critical to overall Town circu- lation. Under either condition, we .suggest that an exclusive left turn lane be implemented. General Design Characteristics Two basic aspects of the design characteristics are discussed here: the cross-section of Vail Road, and the operating char- acteristics of the center left turn lane. The traffic study illustrated a three lane cross-section in which the two through lanes were each ten and one-half feet, and the center lane was only nine feet in width. These dimensions are less than the standard lane width of 12-feet. Providing 12 feet for all three lanes would be desirable, and at a minimum, eleven feet should be provided. It is recognized, however, that these widths may be difficult to obtain due to existing physical limitations. If these physical limitations are • deemed to be critical, we agree with the conclusion that Vail Road operations might as well remain as a two-lane design rather than attempt to force 3 substandard lanes into 30 feet. DEC 7 ' 99 15:52 PAGE.004 Veceaber 7, 1990 Mr. Andy Knutsen Page 3 several center lane operation options exist which include striping it as a two-way left turn lane (to also serve the bank and the chapel on the west side) and striping it to be an exclusive left turn lane for the Sonnenalp. Left turns into the back and the chapel will be infrequent relative to left turns into the Sonnenaip because much of their inbound traffic will also come from the north. As such, it would probably be desirable to lay out a striping plan which utilizes the center lane for left turning vehicles into the Sonnenalp, and have left turning vehicles into the bank and chapel make their movement from the northbound through lane. Left turn lanes would probably not be needed at the Meadow Drive intersection. If you have questions concerning this information, please call. Sincerely, PELSSORG BOLT ULLZVXG • -(iNtfple,gpes, /776GLifA*) Arnold J Ullevig, P. Christopher Fasching Principal Transportation Engineer CF/co ** a - -- E.004 Kale L' ., ;99 Iii Ai - ,,,k l�s sup g n The Vail Religious Foundation 4 December 1990 Ms. Kristan Pritz Town of Vail Department of Community Development Vail, Colorado 81657 HAND DELIVERED RE: Application for Special Development District Designation of Sonnenalp Hotel Dear Kristan: The Vail Religious Foundation has requested that I communicate to the Town of Vail the concern of the Foundation in association with the Vail Interfaith Chapel, regarding the rezoning of the Sonnenalp Hotel. The Vail Religious Foundation is strongly opposed to the rezoning request which is before the Town of Vail and to the redevelopment plan which is associated with that rezoning request. The application has no relationship to present zoning, the Town Master Plan or the guidelines which affect the property in question. It is apparent that the owners of the Sonnenalp Hotel purchased a property which was half the size they wanted, but the lack of planning on the part of the property owners serves as a justification neither for the rezoning which they request or for the wholesale waiver of zoning limitations which is the crux of the request now before the Town of Vail. The Foundation begins with the premise that the zoning which applies to the Sonnenalp Hotel and the surrounding properties was applied for a reason. In the opinion of the Foundation, that reason was to provide some degree of certainty regarding what would be developed on the land, and, when redevelopment was necessary, a reasonable degree of assurance regarding what would be developed when existing structures became obsolete or, for any reason, required demolition and replacement. Unfortunately, the Special Development Districts 19 VhII Rood• Vail,Colorado 81657 permitted under the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail can be used to frustrate and to circumvent the purposes and protections created by good zoning practice. That is exactly what is occurring in the case of the Sonnenalp application. The present owners of the Sonnenalp Hotel knew what they were receiving when they purchased the property. There existed at the time of their purchase, and there now exist, limitations on that property which insure that its use will be, to some extent, consistent with the surrounding properties. The purposes of Special Development Districts are clearly listed in Section 18.40.10, and need not be repeated verbatim in this letter. It is sufficient to note that the goals of promoting the appropriate use of land, improving the design character and quality of new development, facilitating the adequate and economical provision of streets and utilities, preserving open space areas, and furthering the overall goals of the community may all be accomplished within the framework of the Public Accommodations Zone District in which the Sonnenalp hotel is presently located. What cannot be accomplished within that zone district are increases in building height, density, and accessory and common area GRFA, and the elimination of setbacks which are being requested by the present owners of the Sonnenalp Hotel. The request might generously be interpreted as an attempt to obtain blanket variances where no basis exists to obtain any variances whatsoever. As to the merits of the application, it is inconceivable. that an eighty-foot residential structure sticking up in the middle of Vail could do anything to enhance the attractiveness of the Town of Vail. The Town of Vail has been able to preserve, to some extent, the atmosphere of an alpine village through the zoning which is fundamental to its land use planning. It should be the goal, if there is such a goal, to remind the visitor of Interlaken or Garmish, not Zurich or Munich. To permit the intensity of development which is requested by the Sonnenalp would be inconsistent with the goals which the Vail Religious Foundation believes to be those of the Town of Vail and the residents of the Town. Those goals may not necessarily be those of developers who purchase property governed by reasonable and appropriate limitations and then attempt to create appreciation of their investment by requesting special rights which violate the expectations if not the rights of the residents and the guests who are impacted by the proposed development. With regularity, and particularly during the winter season, the Interfaith Chapel is troubled by the use of its limited parking facilities by the employees of the Sonnenalp Hotel and those individuals using the Sonnenalp restaurant facilities. Despite requests made of Sonnenalp management and the positioning of the signage required by the Town of Vail to limit unauthorized parking, that use continues on a daily basis. If the development proposed by the Sonnenalp were to be permitted, that unauthorized use of the Chapel ' s parking facilities would be aggravated by that fact that the Sonnenalp parking which now is reasonably visible would be less visible and less accessible, and a greater number of individuals who use the Sonnenalp facilities would use the Chapel's limited parking. The visual impact of the Sonnenalp project on the Interfaith Chapel and its environs would be dramatic and undesirable. Where the Town of Vail now has a focal point which, for many years, has been identifiable to the Town's residents and visitors, the visibility of the Chapel would be dramatically decreased. The Foundation suggests that the many postcards of the Chapel indicate its importance to the image of the Town of Vail. The Sonnenalp Hotel, currently an attractive facility consistent with the Town's image, would be no greater asset to the Town's image were the redevelopment plan approved. In fact, because of the mass and impact of the proposed redevelopment, it would almost certainly be an edifice to avoid, and a blight on the views of the Gore Range and Vail Mountain which people identify with the Town of Vail. Even the existing loading dock operated by the Sonnenalp Hotel creates problems in the operation of the Interfaith Chapel. That facility, across Vail Road from the Chapel, is far from an attractive feature of one of Vail's central streets, and the one which bears the Town's name. A proposal which doubles the number of rooms in the facility must bring with it the recognition that the use of the loading bay(s) will increase dramatically. That use will further disrupt the services and functions conducted at the Chapel and will detract from the appearance, not only of the Chapel, but of the street as a whole. Even under present circumstances, delivery vehicles must deal with the pedestrian and vehicular traffic on Vail Road in a manner which is inconsistent with safe practice. An aggravation of this problem should not be permitted. Beyond the deficiencies in the proposed project on its merits, there are also operational problems with the construction of the project. If the set-backs are to be waived, as requested, or significantly reduced, the work on the project must be conducted in the public right-of-way. This project is not one which would be accomplished during a single construction season. Not only the Chapel, but the Town as a whole would suffer for several construction seasons with traffic disruption, noise and a scar on the village. The functions of the Chapel, which occur on every day of the week, would be disrupted by the noise and the construction activity, including but not limited to vehicular traffic. The Vail Religious Foundation appreciates the existence and the quality of services offered by the Sonnenalp Hotel. This letter is written only after considerable discussion regarding the merits and demerits of the proposed redevelopment plan. It is, however, written upon the unanimous vote and authority of the ten members of the Vail Religious Foundation who considered the question. It is also written with the conviction that the approval of the plan would be a serious problem for the Vail Interfaith Chapel, to those who use the facility, and to the thousands of people to have seen, and expect in the future to see, an environment in Vail which reflects some regard for the visual and psychological experience of those who seek relief, recreation and renewal during their visits in our community. The development of the Town of Vail into islands of concentrated density and mass rivaling the cities from which our visitors escape will do no more for those visitors than to send them elsewhere, seeking the experience which they formerly identified to be that of Vail. Respectfully, VAIL - IGIOUS , . D. " ON / / /. By- 'i 1//g 1, iL President • (RDuEC 1 0 1990 MICHAEL E. RICKS, P.C. CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT 0100 W. BEAVER CREEK BLVD, SUITE 226 POST OFFICE Box 863 AVON, COLORADO 81 620 MICHAEL E. RICKS, C.P.A. (303)949-5364 December 10, 1000 Ids. Kristan Fritz Town of Vail Department of Community Development Vail , CO 81657 Hand Delivered Re: Application for Special Development District Designation of Sonnenalp Hotel Dear Kristan: I have just received a copy of the letter which was written and delivered to you by Art Abplanalp on behalf of the Vail Religious Foundation. David Stitt and myself are members of the Board of Directors of the Foundation and were two of the ten members that were present when the Board took action to register with the Town certain concerns that we had regarding this impending project . Fr. Stitt and I discussed our recollections to this meeting and he requested that I prepare this letter to express that we do not agree that the letter submitted by Mr. Abplanalp clearly indicates the action taken by the Board as we understood it . I have taken the additional action of calling several of the other Board members who were available this morning to ask their recollection of our discussion and action, and they have generally concurred with my understanding which follows. At the December meeting of the Board of Directors of the Vail Religious Foundation, it was brought to our attention that the Sonnenalp project was proceeding through the approval process and that our Board had not previously discussed the possible impacts of such a project on the Vail Interfaith Chapel . A lengthy discussion followed during which we reviewed some of the documentation from the Town of Vail regarding this project. A number of specific concerns were raised regarding the project as it might impact the Chapel . These related to the size of the project in relation to the Chapel and the distance between the two buildings as proposed, possible aggravation of an already Ms. Kristan Pritz - Page difficult parking situation for the Chapel , traffic and noise concerns related to additional service vehicles using loading docks opposite the Chapel , concerns regarding restriction of the road width during construction and impact of construction noise during the rather extended construction period. I believe that these concerns have been clearly expressed in the letter you previously received. However, Fr. Stitt and I want to make it very clear that we believe that it was never the Board's intent to cast any personal aspersions on the owners' of the Sonnenalp, nor did the Board make any decisions regarding any prior motivation that the owners' might have had as they purchased this property. In fact , it was noted by the Board that the owners have usually been very sensitive to the concerns to the Vail Religious Foundation and have maintained a good relationship with them. Further, the Vail Religious Foundation has always been very careful to conduct its actions only in relation to its purpose, that primarily being the ownership and operation of the Vail Interfaith Chapel . Therefore, the Board has always been careful to never presume to take any action which might be interpreted as an attempt to speak on behalf of either the member churches which relate to the Chapel or on behalf of the community as a whole . The Board has expressed in the past that we do not believe that this is our role . I do realize that Mr . Abplanalp, as President of the Board, was attempting to relate the Board's concerns as I have discussed. Due to time constraints the Board members did not have opportunity to review the final draft of the letter the Mr. Abplanalp submitted. Therefore , I want to make it clear that Mr. Abplanaip did not have the benefit of any response from the Board members regarding the letter in its final form, and I am sure that he did his best to carryout his duties on behalf of the Board. It is because of this close time constraint that I have written this letter on behalf of Fr. Stitt and myself , rather that seeking to have Mr. Abplanalp revise the original letter. Both Fr. David Stitt and myself would be happy to answer any questions regarding this letter. Sincerely, )7)0)°(1;04"-e- et)Wiek, Rev. Michael E . Ricks Rev. David W. Stitt Associate Pastor Pastor, Episcopal Church Vail Baptist Church of the Transfiguration LAW OFFICES COSGRIFF, DUNN & ABPLANALP A.PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION VAIL NATIONAL BANK BUILDING PETERCOSGRIFF SUITE 300 IN LEADVILLE JOHN W. DUNN COSGRIFF, DUNN & BERRY 108 SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD WEST ARTHUR A.ABPLANALP,JR. P.O,BOX 11 VAIL, COLORADO 81 657 TIMOTHY H.BERRY LEADVILLE,COLORADO 80461 ALLEN C.CH RISTENSEN (719)486-1885 LAWRENCE P.HARTLAUB TELEPHONE: (303) 476-7552 TELECOPIER: (303) 476-4765 11 December 1990 Kristan Pritz Town of Vail Planning Department 75 S. Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 Re: Sonnenalp Special Development District Dear Kristan: One of the principle assets of an attorney practicing before either a court or a municipality is the attorney's credibility. It is my perception that I have some credibility with the Town of Vail . Because of that fact, I feel that the letter directed to you by Michael Ricks and David Stitt and dated the 10th of December, which questions the accuracy of the representations relating to the Sonnenalp project contained in my letter of the 4th of December and my authority to make those representations, requires some response on my part. I will let you decide whether this letter should become a part of the record relating to the Sonnenalp, but if the Ricks/Stitt letter is given any weight, then it is my feeling that this letter should also be included. The Sonnenalp project was first brought to the attention of the Vail Religious Foundation several months ago. At that time, members of the Foundation were invited over to the Sonnenalp to view the model which existed at that time. Several of the members of the Foundation, including me, accepted that invitation. At that time, although those members viewing the model expressed concern regarding its size, there appeared to be no consensus within the Foundation regarding what, if any, position should be taken by the Foundation. After the consideration of the Sonnenalp project by the Planning and Environmental Commission in November, a member of the community asked the Vail Religious Foundation to reconsider the question of the impact of the Sonnenalp property on the Interfaith Chapel. At that time, I obtained a copy of your staff report circulated in association with the November meeting. Based upon previous comments of members of the Foundation regarding the Sonnenalp project, I also prepared a draft letter and copied the THE PROFESSIONAL. CORPORATION IS DUNN &ABPLANALP, P.C..IN VAIL. page of your report comparing the authorized, actual and proposed uses for circulation to the members of the foundation. , At the VRF meeting on the 4th of December, the members of the Foundation reviewed your summary analysis of uses authorized in the zone district, the actual uses, the proposed uses under the SDD which was before the Town, and the probable impact of the Sonnenalp project on the Interfaith Chapel. The comments of the members of the Foundation were virtually identical to those which I had discussed in my draft letter, although some additional problems were identified. Subsequent to the initial discussion, I circulated my draft letter among the members. The letter was approved with several modifications, and I was directed to deliver a modified letter to you. The modifications discussed and directed by the members of the Foundation, including, Mr. Ricks and Rev. Stitt, were incorporated into the letter, and it was delivered to your office. Early on the morning of the 10th of December, I received a telephone call from Mr. Ricks asking that I :fax to him a copy of the letter sent to the Town of Vail. He indicated at that time that he was receiving pressure from a member of his congregation that the Vail Religious Foundation should back off from its opposition to the Sonnenalp project. According to Mr. Ricks, that concerned constitutent was Gordon Pierce, the architect of the Sonnenalp project. Although Mr. Ricks and Rev. Stitt both signed the letter to the Town of Vail dated the 10th of December, I am uncertain whether Rev. Stitt was aware that the motivating force for Mr. Ricks ' concern was the architect for the applicant. I faxed to Mr. Ricks a copy of the letter previously directed to the Town of Vail, and the next word which I had from him was his letter of the 10th of December signed by himself and by Mr. Stitt, when you handed it to me during the Planning and Environmental Commission meeting Monday afternoon. Although Mr. Ricks ' letter did not clearly allege that I had no authority to take the position communicated to the Planning and Environmental Commission on behalf of the Vail Religious Foundation, it is clear that their letter is an attempt to create some uncertainty on the part of the Town of Vail regarding the position of the Vail Religious Foundation at the least, and, if totally successful, to render that position ineffective. By this letter, I unequivocally state that my letter of the 4th of December was an accurate statement of the position of the Vail Religious Foundation, and that the position contained in that letter was one which was approved by the ten members present on the meeting of the 4th of December, including Mr. Ricks and Rev. Stitt. I have confirmed this fact with other members of the Vail Religious Foundation who were present at the meeting. It is unfortunate that a member of a congregation with an interest in a proceeding pending before the Town can attempt to render ineffective the position of the Vail Religious Foundation, and T hope that effort, which resulted in the action on the part of Mr. Ricks and Rev. Stitt, is not successful in that regard. Should you have any further questions regarding, either the assertions of Mr. Ricks or Rev. Stitt, or regarding the position of the Vail Religious Foundation in association with the Sonnenaip project, you may, of course, contact me. s:ncerel, 44011 COSGRIFF/ DU ip ' A P " ,r/ Arthur A. Abplan: 1p, Jr AAAJr:j xc: Mr. Michael Ricks Rev. David Stitt TOVPLNG5 f MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development RE: Sonnenaip Redevelopment DATE: December 10, 1990 SECTION I. INTRODUCTION This memorandum summarizes the Planning and Environmental Commission's major comments from their November 26, 1990 Public hearing on the Sonnenalp redevelopment. Listed below are the PEC' s comments, the applicant' s response to those comments, and the staff's response. Please note that the attached staff memorandum dated December 10, 1990, is esentially the same as was reviewed by the PEC at their November 26, 1990 public hearing. There have been some modifications to the development plan and those modifications are addressed and highlighted in bold type within the body of the memorandum. SECTION II. ANALYSIS 1. MEADOW DRIVE A. PEC Concerns - The PEC suggested that more relief is needed along the facade of the proposed building in the Meadow Drive area. They suggested that additional design work focus on the streetscape interface, and the connection with the plazas of the Vail Village Inn to the north. Also, additional public green space should be included in this area. The concern expressed by the most Commissioners regarded a need for a break in the facade. B. Applicant's Response - "Additional relief is indicated and proposed along East Meadow Drive as requested. This was accomplished in a manner similar to suggestions by the staff. See Sheets A0, A8 and A16 for this revision. Also, a connecting plaza to the VVI is being proposed as suggested; see Sheets A0, A00 and A8. " C. Staff Response - In an attempt to break up the facade 1 of the building along East Meadow Drive, the applicant has carried the cantilevered portion of the building down to ,the ground at two locations. To accomplish this, it was required that additional columns be placed approximately 6 feet further north and closer to Meadow Drive. This change was as requested by the Planning staff, however we feel that the applicant could have gone even further in the redesign to break up this facade. More relief on this elevation could be achieved by some variation in the use of materials, the arcade design, and landscaping. Each of these components are described in detail in the memo. Additional recommendations by the Planning staff included adding dormers along the flat roof portion of the structure. The applicant was unwilling to include this as a part of the project. The applicant has proposed a pedestrian connection between their project and the VVI to the north. We do have some concerns with regard to the design of the paver connection between the two properties, however, the applicant has indicated a willingness to redesign this area, in conjunction with the on-going Village Streetscape Improvement Project. We support the concept for the plaza connection. 2 . SWISS CHALET PARKING A. PEC Concerns - The PEC recommended that this surface parking area be removed and a plan to landscape and redesign this area into a pedestrian plaza should be developed. Reference Vail Village Master Plan Sub-area Concepts. B. Applicant's Response - "As suggested, the surface parking in this area has been removed and a pocket park is being proposed. See Sheets AO and A00 for this conceptual revision. " C. Staff Response - We believe that it is extremely positive that the applicant has agreed to incorporate the 13 surface parking spaces adjacent to the Swiss Chalet into the proposed new Sonnenalp Hotel parking structure. The staff is very supportive of the applicant' s pocket park design, given that this is a conceptual design at this phase of the project only. Additional work would be needed to determine exactly how this pocket park relates to the intersection of East Meadow Drive and Willow Bridge Road. This area will be studied as a portion of the on-going Village Streetscape Improvement Plan. 2 3 . VAIL ROAD TRAFFIC STUDY A. PEC Comments The issues regarding traffic on Vail Road should be finalized (i.e,. , turn lanes, width of lanes, sidewalks, and landscaping) , with the recommendation that the area be restudied at peak periods (Saturdays) . Additional survey information is needed for both sides of Vail Road. In addition, a plan to mitigate the construction traffic and parking on Vail Road needs to be presented. B. Applicant' s Response - "As agreed to in our November 29, 1990 meeting with the staff, the Town' s consulting engineer will help arrive at a conclusion regarding this issue. If the complexity of the issue exceeds the time Arnie Ullevig can spend on it, additional studies will be provided by the applicant. " C. Staff Response - The traffic study was forwarded to the Town' s consultant, Arnie Ullevig, and Ullevig' s report is included as, an attachment to this memo. Generally, he recommended that a center left turn lane be provided by the applicant. He firmly stated that the lanes should not be substandard. His comments are discussed in detail in the memo. As indicated in one of the Sub Area concepts of the Vail Village Master Plan, traffic along Vail Road is to be discouraged. Because the applicant' s proposal requires additional widening of Vail Road, we feel that mitigation of this widening is necessary. The staff recommends that should the PEC recommend approval of the Sonnenalp redevelopment, that the following condition be placed upon said approval: - That the applicant be required to construct two median planters on Vail Road. Said planters would be located adjacent to the Vail Gateway Plaza Building, up near the 4-way stop. The intent of locating the median planters in this area is to discourage unnecessary vehicular traffic from entering onto Vail Road. It should also be required of the applicant that an additional median planter be located immediately south of Meadow Drive, on Vail Road. This planter median would assist in the channelization of traffic as it enters the left turn lane for the Sonnenalp. 4 . FIRE DEPARTMENT CONCERNS A. PEC Concerns - All concerns of the Fire Department need to be addressed. 3 B. Applicant's Response - "We feel that the revised plans, Sheets AO and A00, have addressed this issue. " C. Staff Response The applicant has met with members of the Fire Department and as of the date of this memorandum the Fire Department has signed off on the conceptual design for the Sonnenalp. Modifications have been made to the Talisman parking and to the northeast corner of the Sonnenalp property which would facilitate fire truck access. 5. SWIMMING POOL A. PEC Concerns - The proposed swimming pool needs to be relocated out of the rear setback area. B. Applicant's Response - "The swimming pool has been revised; see Sheet A00. It has been pulled back, but due to the swim-through location, a very small portion of the pool still encroaches into the setback. Also, the whirlpools have been relocated. " C. Staff Response - We believe that it is positive that the applicant has pulled a portion of the swimming pool out of the setback, however, we feel that the entire pool should be completely out of the rear setback area and that the patio should also be pulled out of the setback. We feel that there is adequate room within the interior courtyard/garden area to accommodate the swimming pool and associated patio. The staff feels that there is no justification for allowing any encroachments into the rear setback for the pool and patio. 6. LOADING AND DELIVERY AREA A. PEC Concerns - This area should be restudied, as it was determined by the PEC that the proposed loading dock was not adequate to handle all loading for the facility. Access from this loading dock to the Meadow Drive commercial shops needs to be shown that it is in fact feasible. B. Applicant's Response - "The loading area has been restudied; see Sheet A2. For deliveries to the commercial spaces, see Sheets A2 and A8, indicating two loading/delivery spaces. C. Staff Response - The applicant' s redesign has included an additional loading berth at the southwest corner of the building, for a total of two loading berths in this 4