Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPEC120036 Maslak_received at PEC hearing_111212Lu Sam Maslak Comments PEC Meeting 12-Nov-2012 E q,J 1LCJ' I v i (v There has been inadequate notice for this meeting. The slides presented to the PEC at the October 22, 2012 meeting have yet to be published, and the application materiats for the CUP were only posted after 4:30 PM on Friday, November 9, 2012—yesterday's business day. The Operating Plan cannot be used as a substitute for meeting actual parking standards: In 1986, when requested to modify the Conditional Use Permit to add an occasional meeting room of approximately 500 sq. ft., the PEC required the addition of 4.8 additional parking spaces. Today, a request to add 7,000 sq. ft. of interior banquet and meeting space plus 5,000 sq. ft. of banquet lawn space (12,000 sq. ft. total) provides only 9 additional parking spaces. Linear scaling would require 115 additional spaces. The new use is NOT occasional, with a plan for 100 events in the high seasons, implying 4-5 events per week. If a dubious operating plan is accepted as an alternative to actual parking spaces, the PEC can expect every future applicant to demand equal treatment. For example, a hotel could claim its operating plan requires 30% of its guest to use public transportation. The so-called estrictions in the Operating Plan are outrageous examples of self-dealing and are not restrictions at all. The Town of Vail, as the applicant for the CUP, agrees to various restrictions in the Operating Plan. But, this same Operating Plan grants the same applicant the authority to exempt itself from the restrictions. Examples of such self-exempted restrictions are: use of tents, parking on Sunburst Drive, and hours of operation of the Event Center. Perhaps the most accurate paragraph in the Operating Plan reads (on page 7) "the Club House is located on a municipal public golf course and within a residential neighborhood and witl be required to agree to respect the quiet enjoyment of the neighboring properties". The CUP application and the self-exempted Operating Plan restrictions are in complete conflict with those words. The PEC is required to consider the "effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses." The PEC must deny this attempt to hijack the Club House and convert it to an Events Center. If there is any doubt about the intention to hijack the Club House, consider the architect's testimony at the November 8, 2012 DRB meeting. The DRB had several questions regarding signage and wondered how people would know which entrance to the building to use. The building architect said no one could mistake the Pavilion entrance. There would be a small door with a small sign saying "Golf Entrance" and a large, prominent gabled entrance with a large sign saying "Events Pavilion". There is no doubt that this CUP is a hijacking of the Golf Club House and of the 18th hole to create a re-purposed Event Center, including authorization for tents, bleachers, concessions and restrooms that does not fit the neighborhood and is not an accessory use of the golf course. The CUP must be denied.