Loading...
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