Mountain Village Design Review Board Questions Rec Center Development Mass, Scale

By Peter Kenworthy
The Telluride Watch - 2/28/06

They say the third time’s the trick, but for Monument Realty, developer of the proposed condominium project on Lot 161CR, adjacent to the Gondola Plaza in Mountain Village and possible future home of a recreational activity center, round three of its conceptual plan review with the Mountain Village Design Review Board did not end with the green light that was hoped for. But it was not a red light, either.

The DRB agreed that the Monument team was bringing substantially more public benefit to the table than previously, primarily owing to inclusion of the proposed rec center, and that gestures toward attenuating the condo project’s imposing mass and scale had been taken. The board’s consensus, however, was that more and bigger gestures were needed to justify the significant height and density variances that Monument is seeking for its project. Such variances can be approved in Mountain Village in return for provision of public benefits.

The proposed project comprises 70 condominium units averaging approximately 3,700 square feet each and housed primarily in two four-winged towers that rise significantly above the 60-foot maximum height allowed by right by the Mountain Village Land Use Ordinance. In addition to the rec center, which would occupy some 34,000 square feet, the project includes approximately 39,000 square feet of mixed-use commercial and retail space, including almost 6,000 square feet of space that could be used for future expansion of the rec center, as well as a large and prominent public plaza that would adjoin the Gondola Plaza. Plans also call for 318 parking spaces of which 40 would be dedicated to the rec center. Two affordable housing units are contemplated.

Inclusion of the proposed rec center, a major and unexpected change from plans first submitted by Monument, follow the failure of negotiations between Mountain Village and the Telluride Ski and Golf Company’s principal owner Chuck Horning that would have transferred a Telski-owned parcel for the facility. To accommodate the rec center, Monument has eliminated approximately 16,000 square feet of previously proposed residential development, made up roughly evenly of free market and affordable housing space.

But more sacrifices may be required in order to advance the conceptual review to the Mountain Village Town Council.

“I’m not convinced you don’t need to take some square footage out,” said DRB member and architect Ken Alexander of the revised application. Alexander was, generally, not an enthusiastic proponent of the project’s high-rise architecture and recommended, instead, a lower, wrapping, lodge-style approach that he said would be “a pill that a lot more people would swallow.”

Boardmember John Burchmore disagreed, contending that, “spreading it across the site would make it much less interesting.” New DRB member Cath Jett called the soaring tower design “far-reaching and futuristic.” She said she liked the design but questioned whether the mass and scale was “too much.” Jett compared the project to “putting ten pounds in a five-pound bag.”

During public discussion, both detractors and supporters of the project spoke up. Neighbors Fred Kittler and Mark Strom were in the former camp. Kittler said the project threatened to irreparably alter the essential character of Mountain Village. It would, he said, change the town “from a beautiful Italian village to Miami Beach or Las Vegas.”

Strom was equally disparaging. “Telluride’s going downhill fast with this kind of development,” he said.

Jeff Proteau, speaking on behalf of Telski, expressed concern about the project’s mass particularly in light of its designated use as residential condos that, he said, in all likelihood would not be rented out. Proteau said his company’s fear was that the extra-large buildings would often sit empty and dark and contribute little in the way of liveliness or dynamism to the Mountain Village center. “We’re open to variances, as long as their impacts are positive to economic vitality,” said Proteau. It was hot beds, Proteau said, not cold beds, that could promote such vitality.

Speaking on behalf of the project, Mountain Village homeowner Mike Salamon, a real estate broker, said he regularly received phone calls from prospective buyers inquiring about the rec center. Salamon said the perception of Mountain Village is that it “is not very family-oriented.”

Real estate investor and developer Steve Cram, former owner of the concerned lot, warned against trying to restrict the size of the project because of the potential impact downsizing might have on its economic viability.

Regarding variances, Cram said, “The issue is, What’s the trade-off? And is it worth it?” As for hot beds, Cram said, “I think that’s a pipedream.”

Doug Carter, from the architectural firm Davis, Carter, Scott, responded to comparisons of his company’s tower design to Miami Beach and Las Vegas with mortification. “It’s absolutely the opposite of what we’re trying to do,” he claimed.

Responding to a request by Monument executive Bill Krokowski for conditional approval in order to be able to take the conceptual review to town council, DRB was firm that more work needed to be done to scale the project back and reduce its massing.

“Take this information and massage it further,” advised Mountain Village Town Planner John Adler.

Pointing out that there would be two council meetings in March, DRB boardmember Randy Edwards told Krokowski that by shooting for the second meeting rather than pushing for the first, “You cost yourself two weeks but get three weeks to prepare.”

With no DRB green light showing, and a red light possible, Krokowski seemed happy enough with the orange light option.