HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-12-19 Town Council MinutesMINUTES
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
constructing 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
of 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'-611 and the
kitchen expansion and Bully Pub encroached 1s 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 building height
diagram, and felt that the project severely deviated from the Master Plan
with regard to height. Sub -area 41-2, the Vail Road/Meadow Drive
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 41-3 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 41-4 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 41-9 - 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 be
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
pocket park, and the project would add vitality to Vail.
On the negative 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 therti 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. 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 cave 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
isbe a continuation of that effort. He wondered if perhaps his proposal was
not right for Vail, but if this building were not constructed, something
else would be constructed on the property. !He felt that Vail must continue
improving --"to stand still was to move back." Not much had happened in
the past 5 years in the Village. He asked that the Council consider the
message they would be sending out if they did not approve the project as it
was proposed.
Jay Peterson asked that the project be tabled to January Sth 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.
is 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
public access 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
to visual conditions, the height of the building affected the views. off -
site employee units would be acceptable to Peggy. With regard to
construction access to the project from 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 effect could 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,
�'z
Kent R. Rose,*Ma r
ATTEST:
Pame �a,",.)Brandmeyer', Town Clerk
Minutes taken by Betsy Rosolack
TOWN OF VAIL
75 south frontage road
vall, colorado 81657
(3031479.2136
office of the town clerk
PUBLIC NOTICE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Vail Town Council will meet at a
Special Evening Meeting on Wednesday, December 19, 1990, at
7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building,
75 South Frontage Road West, Vail, Colorado. To be considered at
this meeting is the following:
I. Ordinance #44, Series of 1990, a first reading. 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 First Filing.
Applicant: Sonnenalp Properties, Inc.
At this meeting you are encouraged to attend and be heard.
TOWN OF VAIL
Pamela A. Brandmeyer
Town Clerk
a