HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-0911 PECM
N
3.
A request for a worksession to discuss a proposed amendment to Chapter 18.39 of the
Vail Municipal Code ( Ski Base Recreation) and an amendment to the previously
approved development plan to allow for the redevelopment of the Golden Peak Ski Base,
located at 485 Vail Valley Drive / Tract F, Vail Village 5th filing and Tract 8, Vail Village
7th filing.
PUM
A request for a rezoning of various properties throughout Town, (as described on the
attached Exhibit A), from their current zoning designation to the NADP, GLI, or OR Zone
Districts.
Applicant- Town of Vail
Planner: Jim Curnutte & Russ Forrest
A request for a Major SDD Amendment to the SDD #31, th*G d Peak House, to allow
for a modification to the approved density, located at 278 Hansen Ranch Road/Lots A, B,
anM C, Block 2, Vail Village 1 st Filing and a portion of Tract E.
Applicant: GPH Partners, Ltd.
PI
THIS ITEM MAY EFFECT YOUR PROPERTY
PUBLIC NOTICE
EXHIBIT A: OPEN SPACE REZONING PROPERTIES
Legal Description and
Legal Description and
Legal Description and
Legal Description and
Legal Description and
Address of Property
Address of Property
Address of Property
Address of Property
Address of Property
Unplatted parcel of land, West
Unplatted land Northeast of
Upper bench of Donovan Park
Unplatted land South of
Unplatted land south of Forest
of Lot 15, Vail Village 6th Filing,
Pitkin Creek Meadows. That
bounded by Matterhorn Village
Courtside Townhomes.
Glen Subdivision. Bounded by
Bounded on the South by
portion of land currently zoned
to the West, Glen Lyon
Bounded by Mountain
Timber Falls Condominiums to
USFS, on the North by Tract C,
Duplex, bounded by the 1-70
Subdivision to the East and
Meadows Subdivision to the
the East, Unplatted Lands to
Vail Village 2nd Filing and
corridor to the South, Pitkin
USFS to the South. Recorded
North, and by the USFS to the
the North, and West, and the
Sewer Plant, and the East by
Creek Meadows to the West,
in book number 299, page 222.
South, East, and West.
USFS to the South. Recorded
Glen Lyon Subdivision.
and USFS to the East.
Eagle County Records
Recorded in book 659, page
in book 659, page 32. Eagle
Recorded in book number 272,
Recorded in book 339, page
32. Eagle County Records.
County Records.
page 663. Eagle County
807. Eagle County Records.
Records
5175 Main Gore Drive South,
Stream Tract directly West of
Cabin tract west of Pitkin
5004 Snowshoe Lane, Vail
Unplatted land East of Katsos
Vail Meadows Filing 1. A parcel
Pitkin Creek Park, Recorded
Creek. Beginning at a point on
Meadows Filing 1. The
Ranch. Bounded on the North
of land located in the southwest
in book 300, page 925. More
the southwester;y line of Parcel
summer recreation area,
by Gore Creek and South by
1/4 of the northwest 1/4 of
particularly described as
A and the northeasterly line of
according to the plat of Vail
White River National Forest.
section 18, township 5 south,
follows: Beginning at the
Bighorn Road, from which the
Meadows, Filing 1, Recorded
Comprising of approximately 8
range 79 west of the 6th p.m.
westerly most corner of Parcel
westerly most comer of Parcel
December 9, 1966 in book 205
acres. A parcel of land lying
Bounded by lots 18,19,21, & 22,
A, thence along the
A bears N 4619'25" W, 142.75
at page 1, excepting therefrom
within the Southeast
Vail Meadows Filing 1, the
southwesterly line of Parcel A
ft.;thence along the
that portion of subject property
one-quarter of Section 2,
USFS, and Recreation Area
and the northeasterly line of
southwesterly line S 46*19'25"
conveyed to Gore Valley Water
Township 5 South, Range 80
Bighorn Road S 46*1925"E,
E, 55.0 ft.; thence departing the
District in deed recorded
West of the Sixth Principal
142.75 ft.; thence departing
southwesterly line of Parcel A
December 1, 1971 in book 222
Mandan. Recorded in book
the southwesterly line N
and along the southeasterly
at page 447, County of Eagle,
number 284, pages 468, 470,
41-22'32"E, 47.84 ft. to a point
and northeasterly line of Parcel
State of Colorado
475. Eagle County Records
on the northeasterly and
A the following two courses: 1)
southeasterly line of Parcel A;
N 41'25'35" E, 50.0 ft.; 2)N
thence along the northeasterly
48*34'25" W, 55.0 ft.; thence
and southeasterly line the
departing the northeasterly line
following five courses-1) N
S 4122'32" W, 47.84 dt. to the
48-34'25" W, 66.6 ft, 2) N
point of Beginning.
42-25'00" E, 17.25 ft. 3) N
6147'30" E, 44.5 ft. 4) N
49'12'10" E 77.45 ft. 5)
58*29'15" E, 55.33 ft. to a
point on the southwesterly line
of Interstate Highway No. 70;
thence along the
southwesterly line N 59*28'16"
W, 59.01 ft.; therrice departing
the southwesteriky line and
along the northwesterly line of
Parcel A S 56*50'09" W,
227,87 ft, to the point of
Beginning
Bighorn Park. A Parcel of land
Parcel B, West of Spraddle
Unplatted land South Of Lots
Unplatted /Mountain Bell Site,
Unplatted Tract North of Lots
situated in the BE 1/4 of Section
Creek. Bounded on north by
1-4, Block 2, Bighorn 1 st
located west of center line of
A-1, A-2, A-3. Lionsridge 1st
12, T5S, R80W of the 6th P.M.
USFS, south by 1-70 ROW,
Addition. Bounded by the
Middle Greek. Bounded by
Filing. Recorded in book
Eagle County, Colorado.
east by Spraddle Creek
USFS to the South. Recorded
USFS to the north, 1-70 ROW
number 253, pages 0180,
Recorded in book 268, page
Subdivision, and west by
in book 659, page 32. Eagle
to the south, and mountain bell
0181. Eagle County Records
847. Eagle County Records.
Mountain Bell.
County Records.
to the east.
Lots 5, 6, 7, 8, 9,10,12, Vail
Tract A, Gore Greek Park ----[TradC,
Tract ail Village 131h Filing
Lot 20A, Block 7, Vail Village
Tract A, Vail Potato Patch
Meadows. Fifinn P
•
LA
0 4 1,
F:%everyonetpee gendas1499195
1
n�
Other issues identified by staff as important„ but not for discussion at the June 1
orsession included the following:
A. residential Parking;
B. Operations Plan;
C. New Chair Alignments and On-mountain Improvements;
D. Loading and Delivery;
E. Changes to the Zoning Code;
F. Mill Creek Diversion Culvert Extension; and
G. Architecture/ u i Id i ng Mass.
6
The site plan indicates that a new "event" tent pad (40' x 80') will be located
immediately west of the bottom of the race course lanes. The area for the pad will
be regraded to be a flat surface. The event tent pad will be used for special
events in both the winter and summer.
Currently, there are two race course lanes at Golden Peak. These race courses
are used for the Ski Club Vail program, amateur racing and private races for
groups visiting Vail. The proposed redevelopment increases the number of race
course lanes to three, with the ability to have four when demand is high.
A new building is proposed to be located at the base of the race course. This
building is intended to be used for the operations of the races including public
address and timing. The building is proposed to be located approximately 130
feet to the south of the new base facility.
The three existing buildings, located near the race course, are currently used for
storage associated with the race lanes and are proposed to be removed. The
new lift operator buildings and the race finish building will provide storage for race
events.
lCreek Diversion Culvert Extension
i th iirt tril
x _ r
� � � .... ;;. : '` � ' > = �, ` �; ' it = .• � �> .. � , � �. _: - i : ,,
future The responsibility for maintenance
further defined prior to final approval of this project.
A is currently working i o establish . for all
proposed trails through the Golden Peak property to assure continued public
Base facilitv site 74-annina
MISINIMM4
8
El
MX-
WI
I
Children's Center with the skier plaza and lodge building.
ba LandscaDe Dias
1
2. RQadway i rove ents soccer field t the rounds out - The applicant has identified
several improvements to the roadway and pedestrian systems that will be completed ith
this project. The following off -site improvements have been proposed in conjunction with
the redevelopment:
Realignment of Vail Valley Drive in front of Manor Vail, to improve site
distances and to improve Manor Vail's vehicular intersection with Vail
Valley Drive.
Improve the pedestrian connection by implementing the Town's
treetscape Master Plan along Vail Valley Drive, from the Village
Transportation Center to the Golden Peak Ski Base.
In addition to the improvements identified by Vail Associates, staff will take
a comprehensive view of all improvements needed to address
neighborhood concerns. These include roadway and pedestrian
improvements leading to the Golden Peak Ski Base; from Ford Park, the
Village path, the Manor Vail side of Vail Valley Drive, connection to the
Vista Bahn, Chalet Road, the soccer field, etc.
. Parkin - Employee. Public, Managed - A discussion of haw V.A. is proposing to
address employee parking needs, the "loss of public parking" and how the 150-space
parking structure will by managed will occur at subsequent meetings.
4. Zonin Code Text Amendments - The applicant is proposing minor amendments to
the text of Chapter 18.39 of the Vail Municipal Code (Ski Base/ Recreation Zone District).
Staff will analyze the V.A. proposed code amendments and we will suggest additional
revisions to the text of the Ski Base Recreation Zone District in order to clarify some
ambiguities that currently exist and to carry out the recommendations identified in the
1991 Zoning Code Text Revision Report.
5. uildin Architecture - At this time staff has not been provided with the revise
drawings for the building and parking structure, however, the applicant has indicated that
they have made revisions in response to the comments made by the Town of Vail`s
design consultant, Jeff Winston.
6. ManagamanLElan - Vail Associates is in the process of formalizin their management
plant which will detail how they are proposing to manage the various elements of the
project during peak, and non -peak periods. Currently, the elements identified as needing
to be addressed are:
A. Managed parking structure.
13. Public skier drop -off area.
C. Employee parking.
D. Mountain operations.
F. DEVO,
F. Ski Club Vail.
G. Adult ski school.
H. Childrens ski school,
I. Loading and delivery operations.
When the management plans for addressing the operations of the above elements have been
finalized, staff will be providing more detail to the PFC for their review.
1
4
PATH
J �
ezuai c� _
- s f9tBdlb'ARlNtl
86t9 33{ _- r I f
Y_ W _ .._- ••
II f \ \
(LRB A3T3
e _
esn . �LV'H L3dd17 aIZ
.s
-
sapaag Wsodo+d ® �� if t �� �- ' �'LLJ �.. �.., ✓ /.
sapf<aDgux3:3 EED
pua�a� oza.d
`d '� 6
gtih3Dsh3ffia"lTEi7 -
ommommomemm // �_ _ "'l l 8d /!/z P �````•.`` - _ ....off f 1 B ,
an
IZ
CIffLDREN'5 N-MR
Golden Peak
Redevelopment
Parcel Plan
F
i
-
i/
VAT 17
T!Z CT F HOIJNDARY t i
j r
{
FRB - - --
- -v
/ ( r.a.. ®.®.m.a.e.em.e...._. ®..a.m 1'3ii4 BIJiLDiPvG FVl'ET.pNE -.eq.. ' \
PARIEL TtiO,
—z
�. _
LOT 19
\ y
ti
e
-- - ` tA1L S'ALLLY DRIVE
Revised Plan
ti
e
saaa-
S.k
VX,A.I.
UlEmm
-------------------------
MWA
C=111A
0 d
G=f"I"I
IY
.y 81aq�a8as.
4
A=k
0
h V
A'BNSI "ON ASS CA(A ATE S. INC.
L,20 PEArL STREET Ms kL9.
BUULDER, CO Sgllfs2 13"2p 440.9'011
VAX 639.1b 4- q-11m1 i
• • ��
®. aaa .a _ _® eje ®'1
� '' � , ,
•
3D
8
2
1
1
1 .
®_ ®___®_q ® ®- __Jt
9
1
1
e�
G
elimination of two accommodation units, would reduce the overall density of the project to a total
of fourteen dwelling units. Three of the dwelling units would continue to have approved lock
riffs.
The applicant and the staff have discussed the Town's desire to have the two accommodation
units available in the short-term rental program at the Golden Peak House. To mitigate the loss
of the two accommodation units, the applicant is proposing the following:
® Accommodation Unit #310 (220 sq. ft. of G ) will no longer be considered a "stand-
alone" accommodation unit, as there will be an internal door connecting it with adjacent
Unit #308, and therefore, Unit #310 will be considered a lock-Off ass iat dwelling
Unit #308. The applicant proposes to deed restrict this lock-off, requiring it to be
included in the short-term rental program, at comparable market rates, at all times when
the lock-off is not occupied by the owner or his or her guests.
The applicant proposes to eliminate accommodation Unit #307 (288 sq. ft. of A), and
incorporate this floor area into adjacent dwelling Unit #303. To substitute for the
elimination of this accommodation unit, the applicant proposes to deed restrict dwelling
Unit #304 (309 sq. ft. of Ci I~A), requiring it to be included in a short-term rental
program, at comparable market rates, at all times when this dwelling unit is not occupied
by the owner or his or her guests.
esi
The applicant is proposing to enclose a portion of the exterior balconies of Units 302 and 304,
which are located at the southeast comer of the building on the third floor. The request requires
the addition of 54 sq. ft. of GRFA to be added to Unit 302 and 58 sq. ft. of GRFA to be added to
Unit 304, for a total of 112 sq. ft. of GRFA. This proposed balcony inll would bring this portion
of the south elevation out flush with the building line above (on the fourth floor) and below (on
the second floor). In order to obtain the 112 s. it. of GRFA necessary to accomplish this
balcony inflll, the applicant is proposing the following:
® Convert a storage closet (common e), located in the basement of the building, to
conimcrcial storage. This would "free -u" 13.4 s. ft. of GRFA.
Convert a portion of a hallway (common area), located o the floor, r, to commercial
square footage. This would "free-up" 52.5 sq. ft. of GRFA.
® Eliminate 3.1 square feet of GRFA (ire Unit 401), located in the fourth floor, by shifting an
exterior wall slightly.
® Request an additional 43 sq. ft. of GRFA.
F:\everyone\pec\memos\gpeaksdd.911 2
The staff believes that this review criteria is not applicable to the applicant's
proposed Major SDD Amendment.
Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional
and efficient relationship throughout the development of the special
development district.
The staff believes that this review criteria is not applicable to the applicant's
proposed Major SDD Amendment.
n _IX e- a -c RQ
P ar m^mr mss°
<rer.�eas
m^ /9 °ilbl ia-0 «TYP.\ I &.9.e:fa i YcoP E+.R.i.
M4'-V' 6rrse �'n.,�t sod
' '• �w!!W �L�kG i"P M� sr �sf�NEbe�^ross /k&'P°eWS ��9
111�I
I i II
t� "Plot
lHit Ii'I I��I
'tgoP•,�nrgc� -_ - �� I�) �I IiI11! �t N� fI II Wig
III III 1 ! t1Pri1 bE °
I �
1
I
Piri+Cid {i'�ii91�"�". �.h'` i� I' �1 I�I!f l� !I� I �IiR� � �I "°J �iwY 'rt��za bUF✓Picer
II_I �a� �� I�� .'�i it 6 I� �� p�.r •m°e.%c�.ra+vm
I
i
1J I! I
1 I 1 �I ii
{
.,.^,wea .rp�w.•�. � � @ <+9++h H+ar.fta�o �.°rJ' -°'m
i
�esl2+ � 6§'d9< ®'bs3 ) 4a �e..u.m..td.m rmJi4m�� i I mn��dw e.ae oa +Nw.
J� 1 tae Ye F� .a ® ✓o PP'T/
✓r® PAP G � � �® �•6'�¢ I I as ?erwpm ..s BC Oa °.P+✓n
EASE" . LtV*A i&,
�, ,,;
�� � 4 �. .�. �. � � � .,_ ,� >
{t �� r, �; �., ..�. �
� ,. �
"� fF". `" � � ��,`. �.,���.., ��.�
.,' ,�,
i � .'�P �. �k � .'' �' `. � � � . . 4
.... � , . ,. �, � ' . �, x � . , " �. �" '. CII +� . '� ' � ... ,,,....
�:
�: � .� a6 � �'��i :�� `�"� :: , ,� � � � �. � , , �,�.. .
.: � � � a
„ _�
. �, .
s � � � �. ; a. x .::
a. � � � � �.
�,
� , � � ; r �. � � � " �, � ' , sr �� �' - ' � .. '. � » �
�. K ,� �. � �. � �. . ,
� � a � � ., � . � � � ,�, ... �,. a
�.. � i #��i� �i ��."^. �•
.»� � +
y
��
'�" # !� �:
,.
y' u
�� ' "�
�. � ti'.
Ill. ZZOMINg-ANALY
az� ......... ............ . ..... . ...... ..... .. ..
proposed redevelopment of the Golden Peak Ski Base facility, and is not necessarily to begin the
detailed review of the redevelopment project itself, staff felt that it would be helpful to include the
preliminary zoning information for the PE C and Town Council's review®
The following zoning
analysis has been prepared for the purpose of comparing the proposed redevelopment plan to
the previously approved 1984 development plan. Please keep in mind
that the numbers in the
proposed development plan column were submitted by VA and have not been confirmed by Staff.
Zoning: Ski Base/Recreation
Lot Area: 49.83 acres
All Required
kyloning 1984 develoomeni of
EM22atgDeveloamem
Height: 60% less than 35' 35'
35'
40% less than 40' 40'
40'
Setbacks: As shown on the n - 95°
n - 72'
approved development a - n/a
s - rVa
plan e - 45'
e - 43'
w - 206'
w - 36° to garage
210' io lodge
GRFA: 301% of the IoIW gross 24% or
28.4% or
square footage of the 12,894 sq. ft.
20,626 sq. ft:
main building
Common Area: Not referenced 59% or
126% or
In this zone district 12,665 sq. ft.
27,507 sq. ft.
Dwelling Units: I per 8 acres or 6 units
6 units
6 units
Site Coverage: As shown on the 25,025 sq. ft.
24,730 sq. ft. of lodge
approved development
33,060 sq. ft, of
plan
parking structure
Landscaping: As shown on the N/A
N/A
approved development
plan
Parking: As shown on the 136 spaces
168 spaces
approved development (includes 6
(includes 18
plan Residential spaces)
Residential spaces)
Total floor area: As shown on the 71,422 sq. V
72,636 sq. ft.
approved development
plan
*This number includes a calculation for GRFA that is different than the calculation used today. For fiAure PEC meetings, staff will compare the two plans
using current calculations,
5
. CRITERIA TO BE USE9 IN EVALUATING I
A. one khan e riteria.
The following criteria and indin s shall be used in the evaluation of the zone change
request.
1® Suitability of the proposed zoning.
. is the amendment proposal presenting a convenient workable
relationship among land uses consistent with municipal objectives?
m Does the rezoning proposal provide for the growth of an orderly and
viable community?
® Is the proposed rezoning consistent with the Vail Land Use Plan?
B. v ! eat Plan tan ar nd criteria
The development plan for the Ski Base Recreation zone district shall meet each of the
following standards or demonstrate that either one or more of them is not applicable, or
that a practical solution consistent with the public interest has been achieved:
1. The developer will provide a buffer zone in areas where the Ski
Base/ Recreation district boundary is adjacent to a residential use district
boundary. The buffer zone must be kept free of buildings or structures and
must be landscaped, screened to protect it by natural features so that
adverse effects on the surrounding areas are minimized. This may require a
buffer zone of sufficient size to adequately se rate the proposed use from
the surrounding properties in terms of visual privacy, noises adequate light,
air, air pollution, since and other comparable potentially incompatible
factors.
. A circulation system designed for the type of traffic generated, taking into
consideration safety, separation from living areas, convenience, access,
noise, and exhaust control. Private internal streets may be permitted if they
can be used by police and fire department vehicles foremergency pur oses.
Bicycle traffic shall be considered and provided when the site is to be used
for residential purposes;
Functional open space in terms of: optimum preservation of natural features
(including trees and drainage areas), recreation, views, convenience, an
function;
. Variety in terms of: housing type, densities, facilities and open space;
. Privacy in terms of the needs of: individuals, families and neighbors;
, Pedestrian traffic in terms of: safety, separation, convenience, access to
points of destination, and attractiveness;
® Building type in terms of: appropriateness to density, site relationship, an
bulk;
. Landscaping of the total site in terms of: purposes, types,
maintenance, suitability, and effect on the neighborhood.
6
Although additional items may be discussed at the joint worksession, staff has identified
believe we to the j r issues associated it the r redevelopment of the
Golden a Ski Base. Attachment #2 includes other issues which will be discussed at
subsequent PEC worksessions, and is provided for informational purposeses only at this time.
TA L TNT
A. Transportation/Circulation and Parking
1. Privatized Parking Structure
. Employee Parkin
3. Skier Drop-off/Pick-up Areas
. Roadway/Pedestrian Improvements
B. Neighborhood Issues
C. Employee Housing
D. Review Schedule
A. f E� T i II
There are significant transportation/circulation and parking related issues and opportunities
associated with the proposed redevelopment of the Golden Peak Ski se. The interface
between, and among, Town of Vail buses, private shuttles and vans, private vehicles and
pedestrians must be carefully reviewed. Our task will be to accommodate the variety of
sometimes conflicting uses and users in the most safe and efficient manner possible, taking
into account the interests of the neighborhood as well.
(ail Associates has hired TDA Inc. of Denver (a transportation planning firm) to con du ct n
analysis of the transportation operating characteristics of the Golden Peak Ski Base. This
analysis identifies the number of skiers arriving by the various modes of transportation,
documents existing access and circulation conditions, provides future design day arrival
volumes, and presents an operations plan to insure appropriate use of the facility and
minimal traffic congestion. Vail Associates has also hired RRC Associates of Boulder (a
research, planning and design firm) to perform a Golden Peak Ski Base portal analysis and
facilities survey. This survey polled 527 skiers regarding information related to their current
and expected uses of the Golden Peak Ski Base facilities. A copy of the TA and
reports are contained in the submittal application. Since each of the board members have
received a copy of the complete application it is not necessary to repeat the information
contained in the reports, in this memorandum. However, for the benefit of those members
of the public who have not had a chance to review the "public copy" of the application,
located in the office of the Department of Community evelo ent, staff believes that it
would, be helpful to highlight the more salient points contained in the two reports:
TDA Anal sis
- Existing conditions base data was compiled by several methods. Automatic traffic
count recorders were placed along Mail Valley Drive from Wednesday, December
28th through Friday, the 30th, Christmas week, 1994. Manual counts and video
observations were recorded on Friday, the 30th during the morning (8-15-10:15 am)
and afternoon ( :1 -5:00 m). All vehicular and pedestrian _ movements to and from
the Golden Peak Base Facility were recorded during these peak periods. On
Saturday, January 21,1995 and Saturday, April 1, 1995 data as recorded in order
to observe traffic conditions during a typical DEVO Saturday.
9
1
11
levels, to range of 20 to 28 percent of the visitors and locals on any given day.
- Currently, many visitors complain about the length of time it takes to migrate across
the mountain and to and from the Two Elk/China Bowl area from the Lionshead or
Vail Village portals. This issue will clearly be mitigated by the opportunities afforded
by the upgraded of en peak base area. However, this increased e an for the
use of Lift 6 would balanced realistic access and skier processing/lift capacity
limitations at Golden peak, which would make it highly unlikely that the estimated
demand would be exceeded. Also, countering the projected increased a n for
Lift 6 is the situation that skier loads and levels of congestion at the Vail Village an
Lionshead pods will be reduced the incremental shift to Golden Peak. This will
create a continuing draw to the Vista Bahn and Lions head and will help to maintain
a reasonable balance between the three primary portals to Vail Mountain.
- It should also be noted that the current use of the Golden Peak portal includes
any ski school students and nursery children (and their parents who drop them off)
who do NOT use Lift 6. The portal is also used by Vail Associates employees,
currently numbering about 500. In light of the decision to expand the Children's Ski
Center at Lionshea , it is not anticipated that either ski school students or the
number of VA employees bas -a olden Peak will expand significantly. Given the
variety of uses at the Golden Peak area, while demand for Lift 6 might be tripled over
the current (rather low) levels, total access to the pod might only be expected to
increase by about half that amount, due to the anticipated relatively constant level
of use and lack of future growth in demand by both the Golden Peak Children's
Center and by Vail Associates' employees based at that location.
- Indications are that most of the shift access to Golden peak would be absorbed y
increased use of the shuttle buss Such usage would increase dramatically based on
the survey data (46 percent would use the shuttle bus to access the Golden Peak
area). This would place some increased demand not only on the Town bus system,
but also on the passenger loading and unloading areas at Golden Peak as well.
Currently, many skier passengers who unload from the bus at Bridge Street will
continue instead to ride the bus to the Golden Peak stop. A certain proportion of this
increased In-Town bus demand for Golden Peak can be absorbed within the existing
capacity of the system.
This analysis is based upon responses to a more comprehensive capital facilities
survey, completed y a random sample of skiers interviewed at all of the various on-
mountain restaurants at Vail.
Mail Associates proposes to alleviate congestion, now experienced on and around the
property, by (1) formalizing and improving the general skier drop-off, (2) reducing vehicular
traffic with the removal of the present public parking lot and by "privatizing" the on -site
parking, () redefining the Children's Center drop-off area, and (4) making improvements to
the major pedestrian ways leading to the site.
Staff's interest is in ensuring that the proposed design and operations o, in fact, improve
the existing situation,
1
1 m IV°f1Z® ill T" Tl1T° i�
In the Ski Base/ Recreation zone district "off-street parking shall be provided in
accordance with Chapter 18.52 (Off-Street Parking and Loading) and /or as specified
on the approved development plan." The previously approved 1983 development
plan included 136 surface parking spaces, 130 of which were to be available to the
general public, with the remaining 6 set aside for the residential units. In 1985, the
applicant received approval of an amendment to this development plan which, anon
other things, allowed them to asses a fee for parking on the site.
The current proposal includes a 150 -space parking structure, to be partially buried
into the hillside. 120 of the 150 parking spaces would be condominized and available
for sale, while the remaining 30 would be reserved for employees and handicapped
spaces. There is proposed to be no long-term ublic parking on this site. If the
concept of a privatized parking structure is approved, there would be a loss of 130
parking spaces that are currently available to the public.
Providing parking on the site encourages vehicular traffic on Vail Valley Drive. The
desire to minimize vehicular traffic must be balanced, however, against the desire to
provide for guest convenience and skier services.
_;
1
1
analysis includes peak day use of the Children's Center and their report indicates that
on the days sampled, the number of users ranged from 420-497, with an historical
high of 962 daily users. Staff is concerned out providing a sufficient number of
parking spaces to adequately serve the Children's Center, and more importantly, we
are concerned about pedestrian safety and potential conflicts with vehicular
congestion, such as cutting-off access to the bus lane, children having to cross the
bus lane to access the Children's Center, other vehicles dropping-off or picking up
skiers on-site, etc.
�
M-11199= �05* 0?11
15
I C l I !J
Should there i t drop-off/pick-up at Golden r ui
it located? Staff believes that it is appropriate to provide this type of service and
convenience for skiers. The Vail Transportation Master Plan also supports the idea.
®Is the proposed e ri , for the Children's Center in t
possible location? I r e be a greater separation between the i
Center r area Town's i t u s lane? Staff strongly
recommends that the Children's Center drop -off be relocated. The staff would
recommend a location to the east of the Children's Center Building. This may also
allow for a solution to Ski Club il' arkin g problems. Would Ski Club it
willing to participate and thereby resolve their existing parking ro le s as well? The
applicant's preliminary response to the suggested relocation is; "The area behind
or to the south of the Children's Center by covenant is only r itte for underground
parking and it is the applicant's belief that it is counter productive to put an
underground parking structure in that location at this point in time and bring additional
traffic farther into the neighborhood and through other circulation patterns to reach
a structure at this location. In addition, to incur the additional substantial e ens
of such a structure at this location the applicant would be forced to seek a greater
number of parking spaces at this location which would likewise adversely impact
traffic conditions around Golden Peak ".
Should r i small parking structure east side of the Children's'
Center it in co t it needs?
Should there be a dedicated bus lane(s) on Vail Valley Drive ii its t the
potential for buses to involved in the congestion?
- Is the r s us r op-off location properly sited, or should it be switched
with the skier drop-off area?
For safety and efficiency, as well as convenience, staff recommends separating the
bus drop -off, the skier drop -off and the Children's Center drop-off areas.
4. R ® AY /PF F TRI N IMPROVEMENT
The redevelopment proposal has identified several improvements to the roadway and
pedestrian systems that should be completed with this project. The following off -site
improvements have been proposed in conjunction with the re evelo ent-
eali nment of Vail Valley Drive in front of Manor Vail, to create a "four-way"
intersection.
*Improve the pedestrian route and implement the Town's Streetscape Master
Plan along Vail Valley Drive, from the Village Transportation Center to the
Golden Peak ski base.
Construction
of a sidewalk east to the soccer field parking lot, along the
south side of Vail Valley Drive.
16
Vail Associates has stated that they will participate with the Town of Vail in the '
funding of these improvements. Ho ever, when staff requested a more detailed
description of their proposed level of participation, they responded "The applicant is
not prepared at this time to provide a more detailed description of its funding
commitment to off -site expenses, but feels this is a subject for future dialogue with
the Town.`®
In addition to the improvements identified by Vail Associates, staff will take a
comprehensive view of all improvements needed to address neighborhood concerns.
These include improvements to the pedestrian connections lead Ing to the Golden
Peak Ski Base, ie., Ford Park, the Village path, the Manor Vail side of Vail Valley
Drive, connection to Vista Bann, Chalet Road, one way alternative for Vail Valley
Drive, etc.
B. I
Staff recognizes the importance of the issues and concerns raised by residents in the
neighboring areas. The issues, in outline form, are as follows:
*Chalet Drive-Should the road ROW be vacated and a pedestrian connection
be created?
*Manor Vail sidewalk-Who should be required to provide the connection?
ill Creek Circle-Should this be a gated neighborhood?
orthwoo s /Ski Club Vail - The proposed sidewalk and bike path will interfere with
their existing parking. Should we take this opportunity to solve their parkin
problems with this redevelopment project?
EMPLOYEE C.
The Town Council has directed staff to prepare regulations that would require new
commercial development and redevelopment to provide housing too -set some
portion of the impact on the housing market generated by new employees. At this
time, VA is not proposing any employee housing in association with this
redevelopment.
191 1tJEo
Should VA provide I housing in ci ti with i redevelopment?
If yes, where and how much?
D. I L
Since this application involves amendments to the text of ha ter 18.39 (Ski Base
Recreation), as well as an amendment to the previously approved development plan,
it will go before the Town Council for two Ordinance readings, in addition to the three
PC meetings currently anticipated. The schedule that the applicant has suggested
is very aggressive and may need to be modified depending on the magnitude oft the
convents and the number of revisions which must be made the plan to respond to
above listed issues. Due to the complexity of this project, staff will require a
minimum of three weeks to review any revised drawings, prior to farther scheduling
before the PFC. The current scheduled is tentatively described as follows-
17
June 1 - - Joint worksession
July 1 C/ - Joint worksession
July 24 - P - final public hearing
August 1 - TC ® worksession
August 1 - TC - 1st reading of ordinance
August 29 - TC - 2nd reading of ordinance
September - DRB conceptual review
September 2 final review
VII. STAFF RECOMMENDA-
ince this is a worksession, no formal staff recommendation `ll be made at this time. Staff requests
that the above-listed issues be discussed in detail, so the applicant an staff have clear direction on
how to proceed with the proposed redevelopment planet
1
MEMBERS PRESENT MEM13ERS ABSENT TOWN COUNCIL STAFF PRESENT:
4. That staff would monitor the use and if a trash problem occurs, the item
would be 'called-up".
George .Ruther made it clear that Staff would monitor the area to make sure trash was not a
problem.
Jeff Bowen suggested that be a condition for granting the request and made a motion to grant the
request.
Greg offet seconded the motion.
All voted unanimously in favor, with a vote of 6 ®0a
2. A request for a joint worksession with the Town Council and the Planning and
Environmental Commission to discuss a proposed amendment to Chapter 16;39 of the Vail
Municipal Code ( Ski Base Recreation) and an amendment to the previously approved
development plan to alloy for the redevelopment of the Golden Peak Ski Base, located at
465 Vail Valley give /Tract F, Vail Village 51h filing and Tract B, Vail Village 7th filing.
Applicant: Vail Associates, Inc., represented by David Corbin
Planners Jim Curnutte and Lauren Waterton
Bob Armour gave an overview and said that he would like to see the discussion follow the
memorandum which include
A.Transportation /Circulation and Parking
1. Privatized Parking Structure
2. Employee Parking
3. Skier Drop-off/Pick-up Areas
4. Roadway /Pedestrian Improvements
R.Neighborhood Issues
.Employee Housing
D- Review Schedule
Bob Armour stated that Jim Curnutte and Lauren Waterton would make the initial presentation.
Bob Armour again stated he wanted to follow the discussion items listed in the memorandum and
reiterated that he wanted to narrow down the discussion today to the major policy issues identified
in the staff memo and stated the applicants would be back for future discussions®
Before beginning the presentation, Jim Curnutte stated that Larry Grafel, Greg Hall and Mike
McGee were present and available for questions.
Jim Curnutte reminded everyone that we were discussing an amendment to a plan that had
previously been approved in the early 0's. Jinn pointed out that the text amendments were located
in attachment No. 1 of the memorandum and the second element of the application, revisions to the
previously approved plan, were really the focus of todays discussion.
Jim Curnutte stated that page 2 of the memo had the most substantial changes® They include:
The proposed program for the Golden Peak Ski Ease facility calls for a building of
approximately 73,000 s. ft., located virtually in the same location as the previously
approved building site. The residential portion of the building (6 condominiums) is
considerably larger than the original plan, expanded from approximately 13,000 sq.. ft. of
RFA
to approximately 24$500 sq. ft. of GRFA in the new plan® The residential units are
and then make a profit by selling the on -.site parking spaces.
Dave Corbin asked Mery if the employee parking was resolved, would condominiumized parking be
acceptable?
Mery stated by having designated parking® bringing cars in will be encouraged, not discouraged.
Mery was reasonably pleased with how VAS addressed its employee housing.
eneral overview of the architecture was presented by Gordon Pierce.
There were four criteria that related a building to an environment:
1. neighborhood scale
2. easily understood by skiers
3. windows
4. interior
Gordon then explained the interior of the building, including the condominiums and their layout.
The drawings showed landscaping, balconies, pitched roofs with dormers and some flat roofs. The
roofs would be slate colored the and the building would be mustard colored stucco. The stonework
would be similar to that at Mill Creek Circle.
Jim Lamont spoke representing the East Village Homeowners Association. He gave a brief
overview of his Associations involvement over the past two years. it consisted of a volunteer group
of property owners. This group communicated with all the condominium associations in the area.
They lobbied to place Golden Peak on a high priority list for redevelopment and asked that it be
ahead of the Lionshead area. Each property owner communicated with VA during the fast two
years before it cane to Council. The neighborhood desires redevelopment. There are three
entities involved with redevelopment. They are Vail Associates, Town of Vail and the Homeowners
Association. An investment is being made from Vail Associates and must also be made by the
individual property owners and the Town of Vail because this investment increases useability and
also the sales tax. The (iinci al concerns of the Homeowners Association were the traffic
congestion. Jim pointed dut that the HCA wished to install gate posts to identify individual
residential neighborhoods, not gated neighborhoods. The question of the Homeowners Association
was whether or not to be a part of the Vail Village pedestrian precinct.
Bob Armour started the discussion with the first question, should there be any parking on the site at
all?
Jeff Bowen said it didn't make sense to talk about one item at a1i e.
Sybil Navas agreed,
Bob Armour agreed with Sybil, but also said the discussion needed to start somewhere.
Jim Curnutte stated what was being proposed was 150 privatized spaces in a substantially
underground structure.
Henry Pratt said parking was a necessary evil and didn't see how you could increase a portal
without increasing the parking. The Children's Center continues to drive the activity at Golden
Peak and was the only portal where children could be dropped off close in. Henry lieved the
Children's Center needed parking but what was shown didn't seem to work.
Kevin Deighan agreed with the necessity of parking.
Jeff Bowen had no further comments.
Greg offet agreed with parking.
Tana Donovan thinks this project should be hold accountable for the 130 lost parking spaces
important in the years to cane.
Jim Lamont thought management solutions should be addressed, ie® four persons to a car. He also
pointed out that whatever ultimately gets approved will need on-going monitoring.
Diana Donovan thought the oast end of Vail would become elitist and the east end will get busier.
We keep forgetting that skiers come from a lower altitude and don't want to walk too far, since they
are not acclimated®
e gy Osterfoss thinks that converting Vail Malley Drive to one-way might work®
Greg Moffet suggested burying the bus lane.
Chris yrnan said typically there are four weeks, of very heavy use and Saturday and Sunday an
that makes up the busy usage of Golden Peak. A tiered management, ie® to have children
staggered for race arrivals, devo etc. is an option. Destination guests, children and specialty
program children having drop offs in separate areas would be an example of tiered management,
event,
Jim Curnutte asked if the bus drop off is appropriate at this location.
Bob Armour said he is concerned with children intermingling with bus traffic.
Jim Curnutte asked if buses should have their own lanes on Vail Valley Drive. If there is a
dedicated bus lane, is it properly sited?
Henry Pratt thinks it is a good location and does not feel a dedicated bus lane is necessary until
problem arises.
Greg Moffet suggested bases underground®
Kevin Deighan suggested the bus lane on the inside lane and children being dropped off on the
outside lane or the opposite of what's shown.
Dave Corbin said it physically doesn't work with buses on the inside lane, because of the lack of
turning radius,
Bob Armour reminded everyone that this meeting is to bring up concerns even if Dave Corbin has
already addressed these concerns.
Kevin Deighan said we needed to address the safety issue.
Jeff Bowen stated the prospect of a child running in front of a bus is an issue®
Greg Amsden is OK with the bus location.
Sybil Navas agrees that bus safety needs to be addressed and is concerned that parking is
insufficient for the Children's Center.
Jan Strauch said it is necessary to separate these two uses. He was led to believe Chair 6 was
moving
west.
Chris Ryman said Chair 6 found its way naturally back to this location.
Peggy Osterfoss said it would be desirable to separate the bus and Children's Center uses.
Busses going around the curve at Manor Vail is not desirable. Perhaps the busses should move
east.
U
z
J
0
T
CO
cr
•
TO.-
FROM-
DATE-
SUBJECT:
W-
(jap"al tan-71711nis on OTM—e ZUn—ing Al�Trfl ra
issuance of a building permit, located at 5040 Main Gore Place #A3/Sundial
Townhomes (Phase 11).
According to Section 18.66.030 of the Zoning Code, the applicant has the right to
appeal an administrative decision of the Zoning Administrator to the Planning an4i
Environmental Commission. The Commission, after receiving a report from the
roning Administrator, may confirm, reverse, or modify the action of the
Administrator (see attached Code citation).
F:\everyone\pec\memos\landmark.710
O
Bob Armour said his fellow commissioners had no problem with the proposed lift alignment, but
that the loss of trees would need to be mitigated. The alignment and need for the chairs is not a
concern. A
Bob Armour stated that it is difficult to discuss the number of trees that may be lost until the
alianments are staked.
Responding to Jim Lamont, Dave Corbin stated that the poma lift is moving to the south of th6
Children's Ski School and will provide easy access to Northwoods and Pinos Del Norte.
Tom Allender said the existing catwalk through the race course is a safety issue and it will be
closed with the relocation of the poma.
Dave Corbin said the view analysis was done from the Johnson residence. VA will not obstruct
the views of the Gore with this redevelopment. However, relocating trees in this location might
obstruct views to the east. VA has worked with homeowners in the Mill Creek Circle area and will
provide landscape or softscape to deal with the trespassing issue. The homeowners don't want a
landscape barrier, since they enjoy the access.
Dalton Williams said any removal of trees within the Town must be approved by the Town. He
-P..sked if the top of the poma could provide some access to the soccer field parking.
Jim Lamont mentioned that Northwoods already has the ski-in ski-out privilege and stated that it
is the crossing of private property that is a concern.
0
1201 ill
Dalton Williams asked if we are just granting permission to erect a tent or does it require a
Conditional Use Permit for a tent pad.
Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes
September 119 1995
2
kill
Chris Ryman mentioned the school programs, devo etc. He mentioned that a new plan is being
worked on for cheaper lift tickets if skiers Ski the fret side of the mountain only.
Greg Moffet asked if any trees would be removed with the race coarse expansion and ghat kind '
of increase would there be in traffic.
Torn Allender Said there would be removal of Some trees with the race curse expansion.
Chris Ryman Said this will be a better managed area and this area is overbooked right now. VA
wants to bring in different groups during the slower season. There will be no new programs
coating in with the redevelopment.
Greg Moffet said we should look at the 5-10 year scenario. He thinks the race course use is
bound to increase within the next 5-10 years.
Chris Ryman said this would be a better organized arena to handle the increased numbers and
will distribute the pressure of this increase. Golden Peak is not the only place to share the
increased race events. Beaver Creek and Bachelor Gulch are corning on line to help handle the
increase in race events.
Dalton Williams said it is essential to clear the line of trees around the race course because of
the potential for accidents. He reminded the applicant that for every tree that is takers out, one
must be planted.
The PEC again stated that the trees proposed to be removed must be mitigated.
Mill Creek Diversion-
Bob Armour Stated that the Division of Wildlife has no objections to the culvert extension.
Jim Lamont mentioned that the adjacent property owners would grant to make Sure that flog in
the diversion is equal to what they have now.
Dave Corbin said approximately 300° of additional area would be buried. The diversion has been
reviewed by staff and Alpine Engineering and is acceptable. They do not propose to change the
way the water is diverted today and the culvert will not affect flows downstream. The existing
culvert ends in the middle of the proposed Chair 6 maze, and therefore, needs to be moved in
order for the mountain to operate correctly,
Bob Armour stated that the P C has no problem with the culvert extension.
Debris floes-
Study-Bob Armour said a Site Specific plan must be done by a professional geologist.
Jim Curnutte Said that the actual extent of the debris flow needs to be determined and the
analysis should be done right now. Mitigation will be required if the flow goes into the building.
Dave Corbin said Alpine Engineering revised the debris flow. A site specific study is now out for
bids.
Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes
September 11, 1995
Jim Cura tte mentioned another change is the loading facility now having a new separate area.
Dave Corbin said the loading deck, for trash or service, is now a service bay out of street view.
Jim Curnttte said as we get into more detail, staff will determine what the loading berth
requirements are for a building of this type.
Henry Pratt likes the Children's Center parking, but has serious concerns about snow removal.
He also wants 35 parking spaces. The condo parking entrance needs improvement as it is very
inconvenient for such expensive condos. He would recommend it happen at the other end of the
drop-off area. He would also like to know the function of the landscape island in the general skier
drop -off zone.
Jim Curn tte clarified that the Fire Department needs staging.
Henry Pratt thinks that the island in the general skier drop -off area provides an obstruction, rather
than having any landscape benefit. If the Fire Department requires the fire lane at the front of the
budding, the island serves no purpose.
Dalton Williams said the Children's Center drop -off is fine, but he too wants to see 35 parking
spaces. What is the barrier that separates the drop -off from the bus lane. Calton doesn't mind
the island. He stated that "up to" 6 people to manage the area also leaves zero as a possibility.
He wants to see a minimum number of 6 people available to manage the area. He also has
problems with the walls surrounding the condo plaza.
Gave Kenyon said the purpose of the wall is to provide privacy and a private garden. It also
helps to bring down the scale of the building.
Dalton Williams said we don't allow more than a T tall wall in the front setback and wants the
impact of the wall reduced.
Jeff Bowen said the new layout "is wonderful". He agrees that the island needs to go away. The
wall surrounding the condo entry needs to be reduced substantially. The pedestrian connections
seem difficult and needs to be revisited.
Greg Moffet is not comfortable with getting kids to the Children's Center by walking across the
bus lane. The parking solution as presented is not adequate. He wants to see how the
mitigation plan is going to impact the landscape plan.
Greg Amsden agreed with Greg offet's comments. He stated that the Town of Vail employees
should not be policing this area.. Snow removal is a concern. Doubling the number of skiers will
have a significant effect on the drop -off. Where will those cars go after dropping off? He sees a
very snarled area with the corning of the Super Bowl expansion. There will be much more
pressure in this area and alternate parking should be required. More "excitement" is needed on
the elevation of the building.
Jeff Bowen likes the landscape plan and agrees that if trees need to be removed for the new lift
alignments, then they need to be relocated. Jeff would like larger trees for a more mature
landscape plan. The snow removal plan has not been well thought through. More snow melt in
the area might be a suggestion. The building massing and roof line are too boxy. More angles
are needed on the building.
Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes
September 11, 1995
It is the Commission's responsibility to confirm, reverse or modify the action of staff.
The Town changed it's GRFA definition in 1991 so that crawlspaces exceeding 5' in height could
no longer be constructed unless the space was counted as GRFA. Shelly Mello wrote a staff
interpretation, dated September 22, 1992, that could potentially lead to staff granting density
variances Staff and the Town Attorney reviewed the September, 1992 staff interpretation and
determined that the interpretation was incorrect. Pre-existing (prior to the 1991 GRFA rule
change), l'egal crawl spaces were never intended to be considered as GRFA and should not be
treated as such. Any conversion of such crawl space would indeed create new GRFA. Thus, a
FA analysis is needed to demonstrate that GRFA is available for use before any crawl space
can be converted to livable area. Shelly's staff interpretation was revised accordingly on
December, 13, 1994.
Mr Scill an presented his argument, Mating that he relied on a letter written by staff to the
Sundial Condominium Association stating that crawl spaces at Sundial could be converted to
usable space. Staff confirmed that a letter was seat to the Association stating that the crawl
spaces could be converted, but staff also noted that the change to Shelly hello's staff
interpretation had occurred after the letter was seat to the Association. Thus, the letter was no
longer valid. Mr. Schillman stated that he relied on staff's letter to the Condominium Association
and contracted for blueprints and a builder at significant cost.
Tom Moorhead stated that the PEC can make a decision that applies specifically to hr.
Schillrnarr and not to the remainder of Sundial. Tom felt that hr. Schillrnan's reliance on staff's
letter was reasonable under the specific circumstance. The letter did indeed state staff's position
that Sundial owners were entitled to finish crawl spaces without a GRFA analysis. Since staff
sent the letter to the Association, staff should also have sent a follow -up letter to the Association
noting the change in the staff interpretation. Tom further stated that the PEC ruling should be
particular to hr. Schillman only and that the Association needs to be put on notice regarding the
revised staff interpretation.
Mike Casino, a resident of Sundial, acquired his property in July of 1995. He felt that he was
assured that his crawlspace could be improved. In light of what Tom said, he feels he is going to
be cut out.
Greg hoffet stated that he is in favor of granting hr. Schiliman's appeal.
Henry Pratt said that Shelly hello's September, 1992 interpretation was an extremely poor
interpretation by Staff and he thinks hr. Schiilman should be allowed to proceed. The fact that
the crawl space height is over or under 5` is irrelevant. He agreed with the current staff's
interpretation and stated that Sundial may have been given staff variances to increase density in
the past when those spaces were converted,
Henry Pratt said that future conversions should not be allowed unless extra. GRFA remains within
the project. He stated that the PEC might want to grandfather hike Casino and then slam the
door.
Torn Moorhead suggested the decision today be specific to hr. Schilirnan. He stated that the
current staff interpretation needs further clarification.
Calton Williams stated that he was on the Zoning Code Revision Task Force when the GRFA
rules were rewritten in 1991. They were changed so that people would not build crawl spaces
greater than 5' in height and later excavate and convert it to liveable area without obtaining a
Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes
September 11, 199
Jeff Bowen agrees with Henry Pratt and will not agree to lose any AU's. He doesn't want to give
extra GRFA.
Greg Moffet agrees with Henry and Jeff. This location needs AU's, not lock -offs. He is not in
favor of converting AU's.
Greg Amsden agrees with Greg Moffet. We need to maintain AU`s. He agrees with Dalton
Williams regarding expansion.
Bob Armour feels we can keep the AU's and move the wall out.
Henry Pratt said we should ask the applicant to table this to a future meeting and come back with
a different mix of AU's.
Clark Willingham explained that with a changed ownership, he just wants to put doors between
the two units. He explained that we are getting the same equivalents.
Henry Pratt asked the difference between an AU and a lock -off:
Craig Snowdon said an AU can't be connected. He explained that you have more versatility with
a lock -off.
Greg Moffet said with two AU's you have a code requirement. This falls under a deed controlled
scenario.
Mike Mollica said there is nothing in the code that requires the units to be rented.
Dalton Williams said he doesn't want to give up rental space in the Village,
Craig Snowdon said we are loosing density on a technicality. What we are exchanging is
equivalent.
Dalton Williams did agree that we are getting better rental units,
Mike Mollica said staff has a problem with the additional GHFA. By the time the building permit
was issued, the deck was actually 75% enclosed. Additional GRFA is a problem.
Craig Snowdon, the architect, stated this was their only choice. The expansion became suitable
for the new owner. There was no intent to sneak around the process and he proceeded to give
the history regarding the additional request.
Mike Mollica said it was a dangerous precedent to eliminate common area and change it into
commercial. He advised the board, if you truly believe it is architecturally acceptable, then
approve it.
Henry Pratt asked why we are eliminating 2 A's . To make an AU, you have to take out the
kitchen.
Dalton Williams said he would rather see a dwelling unit rented out,
Henry Pratt stated that we are not reducing number of rental units.
Planning and Environmental commission
Minute
September 11, 199