HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-08-20 Town Council Minutes'MINUTES
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING
August 20, 1996
7:30 P.M.
P&gular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, August 20, 1996, in the Council
bers of the Vail Municipal Building. The meeting was called to order at approximately 7:30 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Robert W. Armour, Mayor
Kevin Foley
Mike Jewett
Paul Johnston
Ludwig Kurz
Rob Ford
MEMBERS ABSENT: Sybill Navas
TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Bob McLaurin, Town Manager
Pam Brandmeyer, Assistant Town Manager
Tom Moorhead, Town Attorney
Holly McCutcheon, Town Clerk
The first item on the agenda was Citizen Participation. Howard Stone from the Vail Jazz Foundation
distributed brochures and informed Council of the upcoming Vail Jazz Party scheduled to take place at
# arriott over Labor day weekend, Mr. Stone stated the event would host workshops for young
mlMcians and intended to promote interest and education in jazz music. Mr. Stone extended an
invitation for all to attend the Introduction to Jazz on August 30 at 6:00 p.m. in the main ballroom at the
Marriott, and thanked the Council for its support, which was partly funded by the Commission for special
events, a board the Town of Vail contributes to.
Item number two on the agenda was the Maur! Nottingham Environmental Quality Awards. Town of Vail
Environmental Health Officer, Russell Forrest announced the winners of the 1996 Mauri Nottingham
Environmental Quality Award as follows:
Winner of the Business Category was the Coyote Cafe in Beaver Creek. Brian Nolan, co-owner
of the Coyote Cafe attended the celebration along with several individuals who were a part of an
ongoing effort to clean up of a 10-mile stretch of roadway along Highway 6 between Dowd
Junction and Arrowhead. The Coyote's environmental contributions will be featured on KZYR
radio throughout the month of September.
• Winner of the individual award was Byron Brown. Byron was nominated for the 96 award because
of his recycling efforts for more than 30 years in putting on the Eagle Valley Community Fund
Rummage Sale and Auction. Mr. Brown thanked his wife, Vi and his family for their contributions
to the annual sale and auction, which raised over $150,000 for charity last year. A gas fireplace,
donated by Public Service Company was awarded to Brown for his contributions, with installation
being provided by the Hearth Exchange.
• Winner of the student award was John Wright. John, a student at the Vail Mountain School was
nominated for his participation in the stream watch program, sponsored by the Colorado Division
of Wildlife and for his work at the Vail Nature Center. In recognition of his accomplishments, John
received complimentary ski school lessons from Vail Associates for the 1996/1997 ski season.
Russell Forrest recognized Rob Levine of Antlers Condominiums, the 1995 winners of the business
category, and Kerry Donovan, winner of the 1995 youth award. Also in attendance was Mauri
Nottingham, founder of the We Recycle program, to whom the award was named after. Award winners
in each category were recognized and presented with a plaque on behalf of the Town of Vail by Mayor
Bob Armour. The purpose of the environmental quality award is to encourage businesses and residents
to implement creative programs to protect the environment.
Third on the agenda was an update on the Vail Tomorrow process. Town of Vail Director of Community
D lopment, Susan Connelly introduced members of the Vail Tomorrow volunteer coordinating team
(LeVine, Monica Benderly, Kate Carey, Kerry Donovan, Rob Ford, and Levi Schofield) and stated
that because the Vail Town Council was an endorser of the project, the purpose for the update was to
keep members abreast of the continuing progress of Vail Tomorrow. Rob Levine, spokesperson for the
group reviewed the various steps that had been taken to date and encouraged everyone present to treat
Vall Town Coundl Evening Meeting Minutes August 20, 1996
themselves to the Imagine Vail Tomorrow conference, where Myles Rademan, a well-known speaker in
the Rocky Mountain West, was scheduled to speak on Friday, September 6. Rob then expressed his
thanks to Council for their participation and Mayor Armour commended the efforts of everyone who had
taken part in the process. Susan then encouraged all to participate in an upcoming conference
scheduled for Saturday, September 7 from 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. at Manor Vail when information
0enerated from more than 300 people and a series of 11 discussions would be presented.
Agenda item number four was Resolution No. 15, Series of 1996, a resolution adopting the Town of
Vail/Eagle River Water and Sanitation District Joint Funding Agreement. Russell Forest presented the
item and informed Council that the Town of Vail/Eagle River Water and Sanitation District Joint Funding
Agreement would provide a partnership to address water quality, quantity, aquatic life issues in the Gore
Valley Watershed with a goal of characterizing, protecting, and improving water quality, stream flow,
aquatic life, wetlands, and riparian habitat in the Gore Creek Watershed. The agreement specified the
description of the project, its purpose and scope. The services were to be performed between the date
of the agreement and August 20, 1997. The contribution by each party was not to exceed $10,000. The
staff recommendation was for approval of Resolution No. 15, Series of 1996.
Paul Johnston moved to approve Resolution No. 15, Series of 1996, with a second from Kevin Foley.
A vote was taken and passed unanimously, 6-0.
Fifth on the agenda was an Appeal of the Design Review Board (DRB) approval of five accessible
(handicapped) parking spaces to the Vail Commons development, 2099 N. Frontage Road West, an-
unplatted parcel located north of the 1-70 right-of-way, east of Vail das Shone, south of Vail Heights, and
west of the Brandess Building. Town Attorney, Tom Moorhead reviewed the newly adopted appeals
0rocess and explained the procedure to be followed.
At that time Council member, Michael Jewett removed himself from the vote and said he would serve as
a proxy speaker for the appellant, David Sherwood, and "others."
Town of Vail Housing Policy Planner, Andy Knudtsen, then presented a diagram depicting the location
of the accessible spaces and provided the following information: In May of 1996, the Town and Warner
Development learned of standards for accessibility required by the Fair Housing Act, which exceed the
standards of ADA. Vail Commons was one of many developments in the Valley which had been recently
modified to comply with the Act. Prior to presenting the changes to DRB, the staff and architect met with
the neighbors in Buffehr Creek Park to discuss the proposal. The neighbors' comments were conveyed
to the DRB at its July 17, 1996 meeting. In addition, two neighbors and a representative of a third
neighbor appeared at the DRB meeting. Several of the neighbors' comments were made conditions to
the DRB approval (3-0). On July 26, an adjacent property owner appealed the decision of the DRB which
permitted the addition of the accessible spaces because, he said it was his understanding that the Vail
Commons project was originally approved with no access allowed from Chamonix Lane with the
exception of use by emergency vehicles.
oudy Anderson -Wright, a local expert on disability issues, said the new spaces were proposed by the
roject's developer, Warner Developments, after learning of provisions of the federal Fair Housing Act,
which requires every multi -family dwelling with four or more units to be accessible to people with
disabilities. She added that the Vail Commons project was one of many developments in the valley
which had been recently modified to comply with the act, as a result of her launching an education effort.
Judy recommended that the town's first affordable housing project should be completely in compliance
and reflect the community's intent of being accessible to those with disabilities.
Andy stated that the neighborhood was primarily concerned with increased traffic on Chamonix and that
under a worst case scenario the spaces would generate no more than 24 trips per day on the road,
representing only a 1% increase in the present traffic use. Andy told council members that the Vail
Commons homeowners' association declarations would prevent the spaces from being expanded or
connected into the remainder of the development in the future and would also provide for landscaping
and prompt snow removal.
Gary Marner, project manager for Warner Development reviewed four conditions which were
incorporated into the Vail Commons homeowners' association declarations.
Sown of Vail Police Chief, Greg Morrison explained enforcement procedures and stated there would be
a zero tolerance for violators parking in accessible (handicapped) only spaces, whether on public or
private property.
Vail Town CoundI Evening Meeting Minutes August20, 19K
Brent Alm, acting chairman at the July 17 DRB meeting, explained the considerations the DRB had taken
in coming to their decision, as well as the conditions placed upon the approval. He requested the Council
uphold the decision of the DRB.
Appellant, David Sherwood said that even without the additional accessible spaces the project itself
Id be a huge impact to Chamonix Road, and deferred again to Mike Jewett. Kevin Foley clarified the
oval was for three curb cuts which would not provide access to the project.
Mike Jewett again introduced himself as proxy speaker on behalf of Dave Sherwood and others who he
said were present at the DRB meeting. Mayor Armour pointed out that Mike had no special training or
expertise which would make him an authority on the issue, and informed him that based on laws provided
by the Secretary of State's Office, as well as recommendations from Colorado Municipal League, when
one recuse himself on an issue, it was inappropriate to speak and that individual should actually leave
the room. Mayor Armour then asked Mike Jewett to identify the "others" that he represented and Mike
declined to do so.
Mr. Jewett described comments he said Dave Sherwood and others had asked him to make, which
included that the original plans had changed; the neighborhood desired to provide an elevator to all three
floors, as it would be a long walk for anyone with a disability using the spaces; concerns relating to
snowplowing; steep slope and blind spots onto Chamonix. Mr. Jewett opposed the DRB hearing the
issue, stating the appropriate board was the PEC, and charged the developer with having made a
mistake and looking for the cheapest way out.
Rob Ford then asked Mr. Sherwood where he was employed and Mr. Sherwood told Council he'd worked
feway for the past 17 years.
W
Mike Arnett, DRB chairman, addressed concerns communicated by Jewett and alluded to his having a
conflict of interest.
Rob Ford moved the Council to make the following findings of fact: That:
1. The five accessible parking spaces are required by the Fair Housing Act and appropriate to
include as a modification of the site plan;
2. The design as approved by the Design Review Board maintains site lines for drivers using the
accessible spaces, creates minimal impacts of traffic patterns on Chamonix, meets the landscape
requirements of design review guidelines and creates no adverse impacts to living areas within
the proposed development or adjacent properties; and
3. The additional landscaping required by the Design Review Board, provides a buffer between the
proposed parking spaces and the adjacent dwelling units.
Ludwig seconded the motion and a vote was then taken which passed unanimously, 5-0.
Ludwig moved that based upon the findings of fact, Council uphold the decision of the Design
ew Board with the following four conditions:
1. The four accessible parking spaces accessed from Chamonix shall not be expanded at any point
in the future to accommodate additional parking;
2. The four accessible parking spaces accessed from Chamonix shall not be connected to any other
driveway or parking lot within the Vail Commons development at any point in the future. The only
access allowed to these four spaces shall be from two curb cuts along Chamonix;
3. The Homeowner's Association and city Market shall be responsible for removing snow promptly
from the accessible parking spaces and shall not plow snow in such a way as to block the site -
lines of the parking spaces to Chamonix; and
4. The eight Aspen and 24 shrubs to be planted around the accessible parking spaces shall not
encroach onto site -lines. Aspens shall be a minimum of twelve feet from the curb line.
Kevin seconded the motion. Mayor Armour called the matter a fair solution, one that would work in the
best interests of all. A vote was then taken and passed unanimously, 5-0.
Additional Business: Tom Moorhead asked council members for consideration to initiate a zone change
oe of two parcels of land proposed for a locals housing project on Red Sandstone Road. Andy
K dtsen stated both parcels were currently zoned general use district, and the proposal called for
changing the zoning to medium density multi -family, which was consistent with the town's Land Use Plan.
He said the land, owned by the US Forest Service, was identified to be turned over to the town in the
Land Ownership Adjustment Agreement, and that the water district had initiated a rezoning request on
Vail Town Council Evening Meeting Mlnutea Auguat20, 19g6
Land Ownership Adjustment Agreement, and that the water district had initiated a rezoning request on
its parcel as well, allowing the two parcels to be considered under one application.
Rob moved to initiate a zone change of the parcel of land currently owned by the U.S. Forest Service
which was being considered in the Land Ownership Adjustment Agreement for transfer to the Town of
V ' and being further considered for locals housing. The .4 acre parcel, located along Red Sandstone
opposite the Potato Patch Club and immediately north of the Aspen Tree Condominiums, and
c rently zoned General Use and should be considered as Medium Density, Multi -family. Kevin Foley
seconded the motion, and a vote was taken and passed unanimously, 5-0.
Item No. Six on the agenda was a report from the Town Manager. Bob McLaurin announced the last
two open house forums to narrow recommended improvements to the West Vail interchange would be
held at the West Vail Lodge on August 21, 6:00 and August 22, 12:00 noon.
Kevin Foley then thanked all members of the Cycling coalition for their work on the North Trail
construction project over the weekend and said the trail was fantastic.
Paul Johnston congratulated the Gerald R. Ford family for their sponsorship of the last of 20 successful
years of hosting the Jerry Ford Invitational Golf Tournament.
There being no further business a motion was made for adjournment and the meeting was adjourned at
approximately 9:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
kobert W. Armour, Mayor
ATTEST:
ft4C IA P iLc
Holly cCutcheon, Town Clerk
Minutes taken by Holly HcCutcheon
(*Names of certain individuals who gave public input may be inaccurate.)
LL]
Vail Town Council Evening Meeting Minutes August 20,1996
FILE C��
V410 i�
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
0 FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: August 26, 1996
SUBJECT: A request for a major amendment to Special Development District (SDD) #21,
located at 12 Vail Road (Gateway Building, Unit #5)/Part of Lot N and part of Lot
O, Block 5D, Vail Village 1 st Filing.
Applicant: Steve Riden, representing Vail Apartments Inc.
Planner: George Ruther
1. PR=CT OVERVIEW AND BAC—KGROUND
On April 5, 1988, the Vail Town Council approved Special Development District (SDD) # 21,
(Ordinance # 9, Series 1988), authorizing the construction of the Gateway Building in accordance
with the approved development plan. The Gateway Building was constructed in 1990, and
contains a mix of retail, restaurant, and residential uses. The SDD approval allowed for the
construction of twelve dwelling units, consisting of not more than a total of 13,000 sq. ft. of
GRFA. The developer chose to construct only seven dwelling units, with a total square footage
of 11,999 square feet to date. Thus, 1,001 square feet of the approved GRFA, and 5 dwelling
units, were not constructed.
In the fall of 1995, the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC), and the Design Review
Board (DRB) approved an interior remodel of Unit No.5 that converted vaulted areas over the
dining room and bedroom, into usable floor area, and removed the ceiling over the living room
creating a new vaulted area. The floor area calculations confirm that this interior remodel added
356 square feet to the unit. Thus, the total GRFA contained within the building is now 12,355
square feet.
The applicant is now proposing to enclose a portion of an existing exterior deck, along the
east side of the upper level of Unit No. 5. The applicant wishes to extend an existing gabled
roof to the east (out over the deck), install new walls and windows to produce an "atrium -
like" addition to the unit. The proposed addition results in 460 square feet of new GRFA.
Thus, the new total GRFA for the Gateway project would be 12,815 square feet.
. The applicant has staked out the proposed addition. The staking is visible from the south end of
Craig's Market parking Iot and from the western half of the south roundabout at the main Vail
interchange.
F:%veryone\peclmemosxSa reway 1.826
lI. ARIA TO BE USED IN EVALUATING THIS PROPOSAL
The proposed amendment described in Section I of this memorandum, is considered to be major
amendment to the approved SDD #21. According to the Town of Vail Municipal Code, a major
amendment is defined as:
"any proposal to change uses; increase gross residential floor area; change the number of
dwelling or accommodation units; modify, enlarge or expand any approved Special
Development District (other than minor amendments as defined in subsection
18.40.020B)."
Since the applicant's proposed addition involves an increase in gross residential floor area, the
proposal is required to follow the major SDD amendment procedure. The PEC shall provide a
recommendation to the Town Council regarding the proposal. The Town Council shall review
the proposal via two readings of an ordinance.
III. SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT CRITERIA
As provided for in Chapter 18.40 of the Municipal Code, there are nine SDD review criteria
which are to be used to evaluate the merits of a proposed major SDD amendment. The review
criteria, and the staffs analysis of the proposal's compliance with the review criteria, are as •
follows:
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.
Two main issues will be discussed under this criteria. The first is related to the impacts of
the proposed addition on views of Vail Mountain from the roundabout area. The second
is related to the compatibility of the proposed addition with the architecture of the existing
Gateway Building.
The view issue was discussed during the PEC and Council reviews of the initial Gateway
Building proposal in the late 1980's. The impacts of the building's roof line on the view of
Vail Mountain from the original four -way -stop were the subject of much discussion. A
view analysis was requested by staff and provided by the developer. That analysis
compared the impacts of the roof lines proposed at the Gateway Building with the
approved development plan for Phase IV of the Vail Village Inn. As a result of the view
analysis, the roof line of the Gateway Building was modified. The eastern -most ridge line
was lowered and the gap or "notch" between the eastern ridge and the western ridge was
widened. Lowering the eastern ridge had a positive effect on views, and the notch
between the two main ridges also improved the view of Vail Mountain from the four-way
stop. A copy of the view analysis is attached to this memorandum.
F;lawryonel m1mamm*taway1.826
The Town recently completed the construction of a modern roundabout at the main Vail
interchange. The roundabout effectively replaced the 4-way stop. The geometry and
function of the roundabout is dramatically different than the 4-way stop. Thus, staff re-
visited the view impacts of the Gateway Building related to the proposed addition. The
addition will encroach into the notch between the two main ridge lines on the building.
Staff did both a drive -by and a walking analysis of view impacts from the south
roundabout area. We concluded that although the addition encroached into the notch
between the ridge lines, the impacts on views to Vail Mountain are relatively insignificant.
The majority of the ski mountain remains visible over the top of the Gateway Building.
The view through the notch is very small and is visible only for a few seconds when
driving around the western half of the roundabout. Given the fact that cars in the
roundabout are continuously in motion, staff feels that visitors to the Town of Vail will be
more intent on watching what is happening with other cars, or trying to determine which
exit to take, rather than attempting to look through the notch on the Gateway Building to
see Vail Mountain.
The second issue regarding this criteria has been adequately addressed by the architect,
with one exception. The addition will extend the existing gabled roof form over the deck,
and the architect has chosen materials and colors to match the existing finish materials on
the building. A large section of windows have been incorporated into the south roof line
to allow light and air in the addition and to take advantage of the southern solar exposure.
This will give the addition a significantly different look than the remainder of the building.
Staff is concerned with the architectural compatibility of this element of the design. The
Vail Village Design Guidelines states that designs should:
"...avoid roofs which tend to stand out individually or distract visually from the
overall character {of the building)."
Staff believes that the window/roof design of the addition is distracting to the overall
character of the south elevation of the building.
Staff feels that the addition will not add significantly to the mass and bulk of the building.
The proposed addition will not extend the building height above its existing maximum
height of 54' (south elevation). Elevations and sections of the proposed addition are
attached to this memorandum for reference. Staff feels that the proposed addition will
have little, or no impact on surrounding properties, buildings and views. The proposed
addition is in harmony with the existing structure in regard to architectural design, scale,
bulk and building height, with the exception of the large, "greenhouse type" windows on
the south elevation.
FAewryo oe%pe6memw*Mway 1.826
Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable
relationship with surrounding uses and activity.
SDD # 21 authorized a mixed -use development including residential dwelling units. The
original approval allowed up to twelve dwelling units with a maximum GRFA of 13,000
square feet. If this proposal is approved and constructed, the Gateway Building will
contain 12,815 sq. ft. of GRFA within the seven existing dwelling units. Since the original
SDD anticipated a mix of uses including residential uses, and since the proposed addition
will not exceed the allowable GRFA authorized in the original SDD, staff feels that the
proposed use and density are compatible, efficient and workable with the surrounding uses
and activities.
C. Compliance with parking and loading requirements as outlined in Chapter 18.52.
Parking requirements for SDD #21 were based on the Code requirements in the Off -Street
Parking section of the Zoning Code. Based on the current mix of retail, restaurant, and
residential uses, the parking requirement is 95 spaces. A multi -level parking garage was
constructed underneath the Gateway Building that accommodates 95.parking spaces. The
additional square footage being requested by the applicant does not increase the parking
requirement for Unit 5, since this unit is already at the maximum parking requirement of
2.5 spaces. Thus, no additional parking is required by the proposed addition and the
project meets the current off-street parking requirement. The proposal does not impact the
loading requirements for the building. •
D. Conformity with applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, Town policies
and Urban Design Plans.
The goals contained in the Vail Land Use Plan are to be used as the Town's policy
guidelines during the review process for new or amended development proposals. The
staff considered the following Land Use Plan Goals/Policies during the original review of
the proposed SDD, Staff believes that these goals and policies continue to be applicable
with regard to the current major SDD amendment proposal:
1 11 Vail should continue to grow in a controlled environment, maintaining a
balance between residential, commercial and recreational uses to serve both
the visitor and the permanent resident.
J ,U Vail should accommodate most of the additional growth in existing
developed areas (infill areas).
4,2 Increased density in the core areas is acceptable so long as the existing
character of each area is preserved through implementation of the Urban
Design Guide Plan and the Vail Village Master Plan.
F:\averyone\pedmemos\gateway I. B26
Overall, the staff believes that the proposed major SDD amendment application meets the
goals and policies of the Land Use Plan as described above.
is y-AIL VILLAGE MASTER PLAN
The Gateway Building is located at the northwest comer of the area considered in the Vail
Village Master Plan. On the Master Plan map, the Gateway is part of Area P, the
"periphery/surrounding area" of the Village area. The land Use Plan, completed after
SDD #21 was approved, acknowledged the SDD approval noting that the Gateway site
would be developed as a mixed -use project. The Gateway Building is noted as Study
Area 1-11, the Gateway Site, in the Land Use Plan. Study Area 1-1 l ofthe Land Use
Plan states:
"If existing approval expires (SDD #21), this site should be studied to determine
best use. Preservation of the view corridor from the 4-way stop to Vail Mountain
(relative to the Vail Village Inn Final Phase), is essential, as is a substantial
plaza/green space area on the northwest comer."
As discussed in Criteria A above, staff has reviewed the file and attached a copy of a View
Analysis that compares the approved Gateway roofline with the approved Vail Village Inn
Phase IV expansion. Staff feels that the construction of the roundabout has changed the
area of the 4-way dramatically and that the roundabout has created a more efficient traffic
. flow. Staff feels that the area in and around the roundabout is not conducive to
pedestrians lingering and viewing the mountain and feels that views of Vail Mountain,
through the notch in the Gateway Building, are not as important as they may have been
when the Land Use Plan was originally approved. Staff believes that significant views are
still available over the top of the existing Gateway Building, and that the proposed
addition would have little, or no impact on the overall view.
The Building Height Plan shows the Gateway Building at 5 stories, and indicates that it
does not conform to the plan (story height at 9 feet). The elevation of the existing ridge is
54 feet above grade along the south elevation. The applicant wishes to extend this ridge
line approximately 28 feet to the east. This will raise the height of the building in the
notch area. Staff believes that the additional height is not detrimental given the mass, bulk
and height of the entire building.
E. Identification and mitigation of natural and/or geologic hazards that affect the
property on which the special development district Is proposed.
This criteria is not applicable.
• 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.
r Ae v eryme\w\m emm\ptc"y 1. 826
The applicant proposes to extend the existing western -most ridge line of the Gateway
Building approximately 28' to the east. Extending this ridge line would cut into the
notched out area between the western and eastern ridges. Staff feels that this will not
adversely impact the aesthetic quality of the building or the community in general, even
though a minor portion of the view of Vail Mountain would be eliminated. After
reviewing the case files including the Planning and Environmental Commission and Town
Council memos and minutes from the original public hearings on SDD # 21, staff believes
that much of the discussion over views was related to a concern of a very large building
replacing a very small building.
During the discussion of the original SDD, an Amoco Station was present on the site.
This was a one-story building that allowed for significant views over its roof from the area
of the 4-way stop. Phase IV of the Vail Village Inn had not been constructed, and views
of the lower portion of the mountain still existed. The PEC and Council members were
reacting strongly to the significant loss of views resulting from the approval of Phase IV of
the Vail Village Inn. The Town officials simply did not want to loose any more of the
mountain view from the 4-way stop. Thus, it is understandable that the building height
and its impacts on views was thoroughly discussed at that time.
Staff feels that the change in conditions at the main Vail interchange (i.e. roundabout
construction) combined with the existing location of the Gateway Building and its roofline
have made the view issue clearer. Staff feels that the notch between the eastern and the
western ridges on the Gateway Building is no longer as important a view as it was
considered during the original SDD discussions. Thus, staff feels that the proposed
addition does not significantly alter the building design or significantly impede views of
Vail Mountain from the entryway to Town.
G. A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and
off -site traffic circulation.
This criteria is not applicable at this time.
H. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and
preserve natural features, recreation, views and functions.
This criteria is not applicable.
Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional and
efficient relationship throughout the development of the special development
district.
This criteria is not applicable to the request.
FAeveryonelpmWema ptow yl.826
IV. $JAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Community Development Department staff recommends approval of the applicant's
request for a major amendment to SDD #21, to allow for an exterior addition to Unit No.
5 at the Gateway Building. Staff believes the proposal meets the review criteria for major
SDD amendment applications, as detailed in Section III of this memorandum. The major
SDD amendment request is in compliance with the goals and objectives of the Vail
Comprehensive Plan, as well as the purpose section of the SDD overlay Zone District.
Staff is concerned that the south elevation of the proposed addition is not architecturally
compatible with the remainder of the building. Staff recommends that:
The PEC require the Design Review Board to closely review the proposed south
elevation of the building and insure that the addition is architecturally compatible
with the remainder of the building.
Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to recommend approval of
the applicant's major SDD amendment request to the Vail Town Council, staff would
recommend that the PEC make the following findings:
1. That the requested major amendment to Special Development District #21, has
been reviewed in accordance with Chapter 18.40 of the Town of Vail Municipal
Code, and that, the proposed amendment is in conformance with the review
criteria evaluated in Section III (Special Development District Criteria) of this
memorandum, dated August 26, 1996.
P:Ieveryonelpec\nemoe�ga[ew y1.826
4I2] V EVEN ) A M E S• R I D E FAX 949-U3U4
POST OFFICE SOX 3238
VAIL, CO. 81658
G � be
Charles & Irmgard Lipcon
430 N. Mashta Drive
Miami, FL 33149
January 22, 1996
Re: Vail Gateway Unit #5
Dear Mr. & Mrs. Lipcon,
On behalf of Mr. Karl Kerhman we are enclosing a proposal to enclose a portion of the
roof deck of Unit #5 at the Vail Gateway Building. The Town of Vail is requesting each
Owner of a unit within the building agree that they have no objection to the addition. We
are also enclosing for your convenience a form letter, should you care to use it. Please note
that the addition has no effect on any other unit in the building and in no way compromises
the status of the existing property.
If you need any further assistance or explanation on this matter, please feel free to contact
me at your convenience.
Sincerely,
Ste�James.I.A.
Enclosures: 2
0
• MEMBER OF AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS -
(970)949-4121 V I EVEN • J A M E S. - R I D E FAX949-0304
POST OFFICE BOX 3238
VAIL, CO. 81658
• Planning & Environmental Commission
Town of Vail
I I 1 S. Frontage Rd, W.
Vail, Colorado 81657
•
August 14, 1995
Re: Proposed office/greenhouse and deck addition of Gateway #5
Dear Members of the Commission,
The proposed office or greenhouse addition of the Gateway Plaza Unit #5 involves the
expansion of ilk sq. ft. onto the existing deck. The roof line will match existing rooffine.
The office will not block any views of other units. The existing sliding glass door and
adjacent window will be replaced with a larger window to allow fight to the living room
below.
Best regards,
�Itvelames Riden AIA
Architect
• MEMBER OF AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS
Dear Mr. Riden,
I have reviewed the documents you sent me and have no objection to the proposal to
enclose a portion of the deck indicated adjacent to Unit #5, Vail Gateway Building, Vail,
Colorado.
Date --M, f'
Name
E
Unit # K Vail Gateway
Vail, Colorado
i
L
Dear Mr. Riden,
I have reviewed the documents you sent me and have no objection to the proposal to
enclose a portion of the deck indicated adjacent to Unit #5, Vail Gateway Building, Vail,
Colorado.
Date � '(f `
Unit # _— Vail Gateway
Vail, Colorado
0
E
07/22/96 09:23 FAX 3034705151, LIPCON
TOO'd TVZT'QN XTI/X3, U£M 96/ST/LO
To'd _U1D1
oo.Mponv mnEuewopuOD daua3tto
aw PA 09430 o ` 1 Z
Vp =ple uowu ffn osojoua a7 ojq*jjvAv aftooj wvnu
3o acn Wp "%OTte Aqanq I ' aca of pvsumud se Isusodaid aip a1 ua.pa{go ou aneq
itm mop IN-doid aLp Ion *A" I 'S# 3u113o ptA4 xoddn oq3 oa au=ejpe sale
nx►p how Sa.m— mpjo aopiod a osotma o1 `S# 1!ufl do mamo •ouI sUmmtnr v pvA
ua�rB '9-M - pwoud" `negenea m apuvD'(-- eD }!!A a p ppoWq ad .
To'd vma 676 £6£ ?ki HiH n4=nrjv C:�V."p mwmf
.<r 000r�rr- u
49001
•
•
Encroachment of Approved VVI Phase 4
WO
Encroachment of Initial Val Gateway Submftal
Enqroachmei of G Y
we 3128188
'lift
-4,
41-t.
M
Or
iv a wwnr -s® ri .i �
'x g
YA.tLI�[ne ♦ilw Y{L �1}_
YIRJr tw.� 4nYP �F
4���s_-_-_-_
_^G�
SECTION
r
My twtmr rweuNs venom o0
�m:v<mww
— rtat
e l..
O In
res w bYwen m w
,�. I[t �.�.. may{— � 1�-• a
rar
�'. O r
O3 PARTIAL ELEVATION
Vr•,• 4 � P .
IMP
w rr E h t
. /wtYw meoa omR /gym .�to .amtmrrim�/ U'
_ m i
.r..
------------
ADDITION
C SOUTH ELEVATION
A.6
Q sovTH ELEVATION
v►.r�
In, I roa - — - -- ---
I
-----------
r---
1 I i z
a0
141.
<o0
a'.3
0
0
<O�
s-<
� w
2 TEST GABLE VNIT r,
„ram ----- - - --- ----------
L 1 L ----- J L_l
I�
r.am�� mun.I ...w.a(a �� .�❑ /r w�uKaa.a• ma.
icaarrm..ccs L�—J L�--.---L —
NORTH DORMER UNIT �I - ��.a.�- � -
- —
nn
C EAST ELEVATION MCc�PARTIA
L ELEVATION- SW DORMM UNIT K
A4
a'k"! ilgi��� GATEWAY PLAZA UNIT etv�ti.
S 11 ROUTN DRONTACY LOAD
� VAIL, OOLORADO 81657
u � ■ � ' 777