Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPEC_results_021113_finalPage 1 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION February 11, 2013 at 12:00pm TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS / PUBLIC WELCOME 75 S. Frontage Road - Vail, Colorado, 81657 MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Bill Pierce Henry Pratt Luke Cartin Pam Hopkins Susan Bird John Rediker Michael Kurz Noon: Joint PEC/DRB meeting: Jeff Winston Presentation on Vail’s Development History DRB Members present Rollie Kjesbo Tom DuBois Brian Gillette Jeff Winston gave a power point presentation highlighting the development of Vail Village and the Design Guidelines. He spoke to the challenge of being able to keep Vail unique and special and not let it become like everywhere else, which is the tendency of development and architecture. He spoke to the facade material, stucco, being a signature of Vail architecture. Commissioner Kurz spoke to his concern about West Vail commercial area and the need to get back to creating a neighborhood with a Vail identity. Jeff Winston spoke to the planning effort that had previously occurred in West Vail and the importance of structured parking being a key to a successful redevelopment of the area. Dr. Steinberg inquired as to how much of the success of Vail is the result of having planning very early in the development of the community. Jeff Winston stated it was integral to the success of Vail. Having a plan and a direction allowed for a comprehensive approach. Joe Batcheller, resident and planner, inquired as to a viable solution to strengthen the pedestrian connection between Vail Village and Lionshead. Jeff Winston responded to the challenges and that it can be strengthened over time through design. Jim Lamont spoke to the question of pros and cons of having differing commercial cores. Pam Hopkins spoke to her biggest regret being the loss of the Eldon Beck designed steps from the Village Parking structure. Page 2 Jeff Winston spoke to the loss of the Vail Village Parking Structure steps in agreement and some of the architectural elements in Solaris that were not implemented. The more a community has mixed messages the more likely it will end up as anywhere. Jim Lamont asked Jeff to speak to the incorporation of landscaping in a commercial pedestrian village. Jeff Winston spoke to the location of planters adjacent to the buildings or in close proximity. Planters were then pulled away from the windows so customers could look into storefronts. Landscaping is an important element in the fabric. Planter placement is crucial to balance the need for softscape and to allow for window shopping. Site Visit: No site visits 1. A request for a work session to discuss the Vail Village Character Study, an initiative to examine the Town’s current regulations, design standards and guidelines applicable to Vail Village to determine whether they are sufficient to ensure the special character of Vail Village is not just maintained but also enhanced. Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Braun Associates, Inc. Planner: Warren Campbell Warren Campbell introduced the project. Tom Braun gave a power point presentation detailing the Vail Village Character Preservation. Merv Lapin, resident, spoke to the economic realities of development in the future which is more building bulk and mass, reduced setbacks, and increased site coverage. He spoke to the Special Development District (SDD) process and the need for the reviewing boards to think into the future. He is concerned about potential redevelopment outcomes in the core of the Village. There is going to be great pressure to increase height in the Village core. He spoke to his belief that the Mountain Haus, Lodge at Vail Tower and Solaris as being mistakes. The Town has maybe evolved to a point where SDDs should not be permitted in the Village. He spoke to the creation of a historic overlay over a certain area which restricts size and architecture. He spoke to his recollection of how Bridge Street got its curve (costs of building the bridge and the predetermined location of the lifts). Commissioner Kurz spoke to his concern with the outcome that occurred in Solaris. The process needs amending as the natural and built environments need to work together. It is important to keep Vail’s brand into the future. He suggested amending the Master Plan to include more salient descriptions of what we want. The Master Plan and Design Guidelines are vague and need to be more descriptive. Clear more descriptive language is needed to help the boards to accomplish the desired outcomes. He does believe a few projects have gotten away from the community. Commissioner Rediker spoke to his belief that the need to identify if there is a problem with the Vail Village Master Plan and Urban Design Guidelines. He spoke to his believe that there are tools in place and are adequately addressing the Village. He would like to get to the discussion of the perceived problems so that they can be identified if there are any. Commissioner Bird spoke to the scale of some of the new buildings and that they don’t quite fit in. Maybe a historic district overlay is appropriate. Page 3 Commissioner Pratt spoke to this effort occurring every ten years. SDDs, he believes, are appropriate and Solaris was a political statement and resulted in two stories more in height than it probably should have been. He spoke to a need to expand the extents of the Village Master Plan and Urban Design Guidelines. He added that the municipal building and medical office building were not Vail. Commissioner Cartin spoke to the difficulty in putting ones finger on the specifics of what is great about Vail. You know it when you see it. We need to admit when we make a mistake, and learn from them. He spoke to the need to look at the extents of the applicable area for the Vail Village Master Plan. Should fire Station No. 2 be included in the Master Plan area? Need to look at the long term needs of the Village and what works and there needs to be a balance between the Master Plan and Guidelines that allows for flexibility in architectural design but incorporates those elements that make a project Vail. Commissioner Hopkins spoke to the efforts over the years to address newspaper boxes and the effort now to address recycle which was not anticipated. She asked how the Town would want to address solar panels in the Village. Commissioner Pierce stated he had nothing to add but felt that his fellow commissioners had great passion which he was excited to see. Brian Gillette, DRB member, asked those in the audience to raise there hand if the Vail Village Master Plan and Urban Design Guidelines were not achieve the desired outcomes. Upon seeing the hands (approximately 1/3) he concluded that in a larger part the guidelines were working but probably needed refinement. 2. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a major amendment to a Special Development District, pursuant to Section 12-9A-10, Amendment Procedures, Vail Town Code, to amend Special Development District No. 37, Tivoli Lodge, to amend the approved development plan to increase gross residential floor area and site coverage and amend the approved setbacks, located at 386 Hanson Ranch Road/ Lot E, Block 2, Vail Village 5th Filing, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC130002) Applicant: Robert Lazier Planner: Rachel Dimond ACTION: Recommendation of approval MOTION: Kurz SECOND: Rediker VOTE: 6-0-1(Pierce recused) CONDITION(S): 1. This approval includes two amended plan sheets A4.0 and A5.4 dated February 8, 2013. 2. The applicant shall receive permission from the adjacent property owner (Vail Associates) for access for construction in conjunction with any building permits. 3. Approval of an amendment to the SDD is contingent upon the applicant obtaining Town of Vail approval of the associated design review application. Rachel Dimond gave a presentation per the staff memorandum and a power point to aid in the understanding of the request before the Commission. Staff received several amended elevations just prior to the meeting and a letter from the Villa Valhalla HOA. Commissioner Rediker inquired as to how the roof form was being amended that might affect the views from Villa Valhalla. He stated that it did not appear that the overall roof form was being adjusted. He asked if staff understood how the incorporation of dormers would affect the views. He then asked about staff’s recommendation on the roof form on the office addition. Page 4 Rachel Dimond explained the height would not be changed and views should not change as a result of the proposed changes. Robert Lazier gave a presentation on the goals he is trying to accomplish through the application. He added that the design of the dormers on the roof should not have any impact on the views from Villa Valhalla. Commissioner Kurz inquired as to the adequacy of parking and how it works for the site. Robert Lazier explained how parking works on site and stated there is adequate parking most of the time. There was no public comment. Commissioner Rediker inquired as to any needed changes to the draft ordinance based on the changes proposed by staff. Rachel Dimond stated no changes would be necessary except to amend the exhibit on the ordinance. Commissioner Pratt inquired as to what was occurring on the top of the conference space. He also inquired as to the space created by the north dormer. Robert Lazier explained a flat roof area would be on top of the conference space and that storage would be expanded by the change to the dormer. Commissioner Pratt was comfortable with the parking situation remaining as is, the north dormer appeared to dominate the architecture and there were easier ways to address snow control. He believed a there was missed opportunity to include a roof top patio for a unit above the conference space. 3. A request for the review of a conditional use permit pursuant to Section 12-7H-5, Conditional Uses; Generally (On All Levels of a Building), Vail Town Code, to allow for the construction of a public park and recreation facilities (playground) at Sundial Plaza located within the Lionshead pedestrian mall/Tract C, Lionshead 6th Filing, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC120050) Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Gregg Barrie Planner: Rachel Dimond ACTION: Approved with conditions MOTION: Rediker SECOND: Cartin VOTE: 6-1-0 (Kurz opposed) CONDITION(S): 1. The associated Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan amendments shall be adopted by the Vail Town Council prior to construction of a public park and recreation facility. 2. This conditional use permit approval is contingent upon the applicant obtaining Town of Vail approval of the associated design review application. Rachel Dimond gave a presentation per the staff memorandum. Gregg Barrie gave a presentation on the changes made to the application as a result of the previous discussions with the Commission. He discussed the outcome of a conversation that had occurred with the Vail Town Council regarding the pop jet fountain. Page 5 Commissioner Bird inquired as to the pathways and walkways. Gregg Barrie spoke to a conversation where Vail Town Council asked that the minimum amount of snow melt be incorporated. He showed which pathways would be heated. There was no public comment. Commissioner Hopkins inquired as to the railing being used to access the nests. Gregg Barrie spoke to the handrail design. Commissioner Cartin inquired as to any increased liability in the winter time when snow and ice cover the impact absorbing wood chips. Gregg Barrie stated he had spoken with the Town Attorney and the Town did not have any liability issues in the winter. Commissioner Kurz stated he is not in support of the conditional use permit as it will not enhance the character of the area because of noise from the tot lot. He clarified that a park was appropriate but not a tot lot. 4. A request for the review of amendments to a conditional use permit for a “public and private parks and active outdoor recreation areas, facilities and uses”, pursuant to Section 12-16-10, Amendment Procedures, Vail Town Code, to allow for the construction of various improvements at Ford Park (Gerald R. Ford Amphitheater social courtyard, box office improvements, Betty Ford Way improvements, Betty Ford Alpine Garden expansion, new Betty Ford Alpine Gardens Alpine Education Center, nature trail, riparian restoration, playground restrooms) located at 530, 540, and 580 South Frontage Road East/ Unplatted, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC130004) Applicant: Vail Valley Foundation, Betty Ford Alpine Garden and Town of Vail, represented by Zehren & Associates Planner: Rachel Dimond ACTION: Tabled to February 25, 2013 MOTION: Kurz SECOND: Cartin VOTE: 7-0-0 Rachel Dimond gave a presentation per the staff memorandum highlighting the elements of Phase 2 of the ford Park Improvements and some initial concerns of staff. Pedro Campos, representing the multiple applicants, gave an overview of Phase 1 which is underway and the elements that will be discussed during the presentation. He spoke to the multiple improvements proposed in conjunction with Phase 2. A 3D model was utilized to depict the Social Courtyard. West Betty Ford Way Comments: Commissioner Cartin asked about loading and delivery from Phase 1 and the impacts of a truck driving through a Ford Family Tribute. Harry Frampton, Vail Valley Foundation, stated that there were approximately 5 trucks a year that would need to drive through. Page 6 Diana Donovan, Vail resident, inquired as to whether or not the retaining wall was going to be finished on East Betty Ford Way. She spoke to a need to keep the nature center bridge in a Vail style, adding that the bridge does not need to be gussied up to match the amphitheater. Commissioner Hopkins stated that she agreed with the bridge remaining simple in design. Dr. Steinberg, Vail resident, felt as though the sides of the bridge obstructed views to the creek. He believed that it should be improved. He added some history to the purchase of Ford Park and the abuses that have occurred over time. The worst thing the Town did was remove the most beautiful wild flower area in town (slope from Gore Creek up to the existing parking lot) by dumping snow and gravel on the slope. He objects to more buildings being added in the park. He regrets allowing the old school house being moved into the park as it has created a situation where more buildings are requested. Commissioner Bird inquired as to the need for a BFAG building as there is a nature center already across the bridge. She spoke to the fact that there was a natural beach below the nature center bridge and the need to keep access for runners to soak their feet. Social Courtyard comments: Commissioner Rediker asked for an exhibit showing how the tensile covering of the courtyard impacts views to the east when walking through the park. He inquired as to the longevity of the material and tendency of the material to become stained. He cited DIA as an example of stained covering which does not appear to be standing the test of time. Commissioner Hopkins spoke to a concern with the covering material not allowing for air flow and becoming a heat trap. She is concerned about an element in the center of the courtyard dividing the space and the impacts to events being held in the tent. Pedro Campos stated he would return with some layouts for events. He added more analysis is necessary and the comment was appropriate. Commissioner Kurz inquired as to the current use of the AIPP cottage. Pedro Campos clarified that the cottage is used for storage. Kurz continued that the Ford Family Tribute needs to be prominent and it seems insignificant in the social courtyard. Todd Oppenheimer spoke to the AIPP recommendation to Vail Town Council of keeping the art shack and figuring out a use for it. Commissioner Cartin spoke to a concern with pedestrian congestion in the area of the Social Courtyard when an event is occurring. Pedro Campos spoke to how access to the amphitheater would occur. Commissioner Cartin spoke to the color of the tensile fabric. He felt white would stick out. The color should be a muted neutral color. Commissioner Hopkins inquired further into access to the amphitheater and the provision of a covered area for those waiting for a lawn seat. Commissioner Kurz inquired as to the number of events the Foundation would be holding in the courtyard. Page 7 Harry Frampton spoke to the Social Courtyard not being for donor events (that was interior to the amphitheater); it was for the general public attending events. Commissioner Pratt spoke to the importance to review how the tensile structure impacts on the garden to the west. He expressed a concern about the negative visual impacts to the garden caused by the tensile structure. He does not believe the Ford Tribute is appropriate in the Social Courtyard. It is too much for the space. He stated that the tensile cover does not cover the cueing area for the bag checkers into the amphitheater. He added that those covers tend to only come in white which he did not have a problem with. Diana Donovan, Vail resident, questioned the purpose of the cover and whether its impacts outweighed what it was trying to accomplish. It is a good enough reason to say no to the tensile covering because it was described as what they have at Aspen and Sun Valley. She added that if this happens we have lost the park. It will become a city park not a Vail park. The park is becoming very structured. These improvements are a “land grab” and an intrusion into the park. The hard surface of the amphitheater should be restricted to what is existing and not be expanded. Commissioner Pierce spoke to a need to ensure that the tensile cover does not shed water where the public enters the courtyard. Box Office Expansion comments: There was no Commissioner or public comment. Ford Family Tribute comments: Commissioner Pierce summarized comments previously heard and the inappropriateness of the tribute being located in the courtyard. It has negative impacts on the space. Commissioners Cartin and Pratt spoke to the impacts of the large heavy trucks driving through a Ford tribute. Jim Lamont, Vail Homeowners Association, asked for an explanation on why there was a need for Ford Family Tribute when the park, amphitheater, and garden are all named after the Fords. Harry Frampton spoke to the goal of creating an element to convey the Ford Family story and its impacts on Vail. It would help visitors understand the importance of the Fords in Vail. Betty Ford Gardens Education Center comments: Commissioner Kurz spoke to a concern about the underutilized nature center and a general concern to the addition of yet another structure. The educational center adds congestion to an area that is become even busier. He believed other options should be explored verses construction of a new building. Commissioner Bird agreed and spoke to a need to improve on facilities that currently exist. Pedro Campos spoke to several covenants impacting what can be done at the nature center. Commissioner Rediker inquired as to comments on the plan referencing the riparian areas to be improved. He asked who would be in charge selecting the appropriate approach to the restoration. Page 8 Pedro Campos spoke to the involvement of the Town’s Floodplain Coordinator and the Army Corps of Engineers. Commissioner Rediker spoke to the tree house idea as being interesting. He spoke to a need to maintain the buffer against the creek and has concerns about the tree house crossing the preservation line. He stated the slope adjacent to the parking lot should be explored for remediation. The town needs to lead the way and protect and restore the areas around Gore Creek. Nicola Ripley, executive director of the Betty Ford Alpine Gardens, spoke to the education center becoming the heartbeat of the park every day as there are no other facilities open. She said this will not be just another building. After 25 years it is time for the Betty Ford Alpine Garden to have a building and a home. No other botanical garden operates without a building. The nature center has no plumbing or heating. The VRD has stated that there is no room at the tennis center for offices and the BFAG needs localized space. Commissioner Pratt inquired as to parking for the facility. Nicola Ripley stated the garden employees will park in the tennis center parking lot. Commissioner Pierce spoke to the general sentiment of the Commission and several members of the public to find ways to consolidate functions and uses into existing structures. Commissioner Cartin spoke to the apparent uncoordinated and disjointed uses and activities occurring in the park. He believes there needs to be more coordination of uses and functions in the park. Nicola Ripley spoke to the Master Plan amendments and how unfortunate it would be for the Gardens to not obtain a building. Susan Milhoan, Vail resident, spoke to Ford Park being a jewel. She spoke to Betty Ford’s dream that the garden reached full ambiance and a building would help achieve that dream. She added she highly supports a new education center. Playground restroom comments: Commissioner Cartin thought the relocation was a positive. Commissioner Pierce spoke to a concern that this was another stand alone building and could it be sited differently into a hillside or wall. Commissioner Pratt expressed concern about the architecture and it not being Vail. Several other Commissioners agreed. Jim Lamont spoke to his concerns about the construction occurring in the Phase 1 project not being distinctive. Tom Steinberg spoke to the need to look at the river, not just the riparian areas. He pointed out several areas where gravel has collected causing the creek to become wider. Page 9 5. A request for the review of amendments to a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12-16- 10, Amendment Procedures, Vail Town Code, to allow for the redevelopment of the Vail Golf Course Club House (i.e. accessory buildings, permanent and temporary, and uses customarily incidental and accessory to permitted or conditional outdoor recreational uses, and necessary for the operation thereof, including restrooms, drinking fountains, bleachers, concessions, storage buildings, and similar uses), located at 1775 Sunburst Drive/Lot 3, Sunburst Filing 3 and Unplatted Parcels (a complete metes and bounds description is available at the Community Development Department Office), and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC120036) Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Greg Hall Planner: George Ruther ACTION: Tabled to March 25, 2013 MOTION: Kurz SECOND: Rediker VOTE: 7-0-0 6. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a prescribed regulations amendment, pursuant to 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to allow for amendments to Title 12, Zoning Regulations, to amend the development review process, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC120010) Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Rachel Dimond ACTION: Withdrawn 7. Approval of January 28, 2013 minutes MOTION: Kurz SECOND: Cartin VOTE: 7-0-0 8. Information Update 9. Adjournment MOTION: Cartin SECOND: Bird VOTE: 7-0-0 The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend the project orientation and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Community Development Department. Times and order of items are approximate, subject to change, and cannot be relied upon to determine at what time the Planning and Environmental Commission will consider an item. Please call (970) 479-2138 for additional information. Sign language interpretation is available upon request with 24-hour notification. Please call (970) 479-2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Community Development Department Published February 8, 2013 in the Vail Daily.