Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-0427 PECTHIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY PUBLIC NOTICE A& NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of IW Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with Section 12-3-6 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail on April 27,1998, at 2:00 P.M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. In consideration of: U A request for a density variance, height variance and site coverage variance to allow fora minor exterior bay addition, located at 193 Gore Creek Drive, Lot A, Block 513, Vail Village First. Applicant: Rodney and Beth Slifer, represented by Jim Buckner Planner: George Ruther A reqt4est'for a conditional use permit, to allow for a recreational facility on the top level of the Lionshead Parking Structure, located at 395 E. Lionshead Circle/Vail Lionshead First Filing. Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Robert W. McLaurin Planner: \Mike Mollica A request for a setback variance, to allow for a revised parking lot, located at 4192 Spruce Way/Lot 5, Block 7, Bighorn 3rd Addition. Applicant: Altair Vail Inn, c/o Mary Herzig, represented by Prudential Gore Range Properties. Planner: Dominic Mauriello A request for a worksession to discuss a major amendment to SDD #4, to allow for a fractional fee club, located at 1325 Westhaven Dr., Westhaven Condominiums/ Cascade Village Area A. Applicant: Gerald L. Wurhmann, represented by Robby Robinson Planner: George Ruther The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours in the project planner's office located at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479-21,14 voice or 479-2356 TDD for information. Community Development, Department Published April 10, 1998 in the Vail Trail. PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION Monday, April 27, 1998 AGENDA Project Orientation /LUNCH - Community Development Department MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Site Visits: 1. Lionshead Parking Structure - 395 E. Lionshead Circle 2. Slifer - 193 Gore Creek Drive 3. Altair Vail - 4192 Spruce Way 4. Schmidt - 1410 Buffehr Creek Road Driver: Dominic Updated 4/21 1 lam 11:45 am 12:30 pm NOTE: If the PEC hearing extends until 6:00 p.m., the board will break for dinner from 6.-00 - 6:30 p.m. Public Hearing - Town Council Chambers 1 2:00 p.m• 1. A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for a recreational facility (skate park) on the top level of the Lionshead Parking Structure, located at 395 E. Lionshead Circle/Vail Lionshead First Filing. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Mike Mollica 2. A request for a setback variance, to allow for parking in the required 20' front setback, located at 4192 Spruce Way/Lot 5, Block 7, Bighorn 3rd Addition. Applicant: Altair Vail Inn, represented by Kenneth Holsman Planner: Dominic Mauriello 3. A request for a minor subdivision of Lot G-1 to create a new lot, located at 1410 Buffehr Creek Road, Lot G-1, Lion's Ridge Subdivision Filing 2. Applicant: Leroy Schmidt, represented by Eric Johnson Planner: Dominic Mauriello TOWN OF VA41L Updated 4/21 1 lam 4. A request for a density variance, a building height variance, a site coverage variance and a minor exterior alteration, to allow for a bay addition, located at 193 Gore Creek Drive, Lot A, Block 5B, Vail Village First. Applicant: Rodney and Beth Slifer, represented by Jim Buckner Planner. George Ruther 5. A request for an amendment to a previously approved plan for the Timber Falls Development, located at 4469 Timber Falls Court/unplatted. Applicant: RAD Five L.L.C., represented by Ams Development, Inc. Planner: Dominic Mauriello 6. A request for a worksession to discuss a major amendment to SDD #4, to allow fora fractional fee club and a change to the approved Development Plan, located at 1325 Westhaven Dr., Westhaven Condominiums/ Cascade Village Area A. Applicant: Gerald L. Wurhmann, represented by Robby Robinson Planner: George Ruther 7. Public Meeting Procedures & Discussion: • Time allocation for public input. • Closing public comment period. • Debriefing of meeting. • Effective date of any changes. 8. Information Update 9. Approval of April 13, 1998 minutes. The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours in the project planner's office located at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. Sign language interpretation available upon request vvith 24 hour notification. Please call 479-2114 voice or 479-2356 TDD for information, Community Development Department Published April 24, 1998 in the Vail Trail, 2 110 Updated 4/27 4pm PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION Monday, April 27, 1998 FINAL AGENDA Pro ect Orientation ILUNCH - Community Development Departmen 12:00 prn MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Greg Moffet John Schofield Galen Aasland Diane Golden Ann Bishop Tom Weber Brian Doyon Site Visits : 12 :45 pm 1. Lionshead Parking Structure- 395 E. Lionshead Circle 2. Slifer - 193 Gore Creek Drive 3. Altair Vail - 4192 Spruce Way Driver: George NOTE: If the PEC hearing extends until 6 :00 p.m., the board Will break for dinner from 6:00 - 6 :30 p.m. Public Hearino - Town Council Chambers 2:00 p.m. 1. A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for a recreational facility (skate park) on the top level of the Lionshead Parking Structure, located at 395 E. Lionshead Circle /Vail Lionshead First Filing. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Mike Mollica MOTION: John Schofield SECOND: Diane Golden VOTE: 7 -0 APPROVED WITH 4 CONDITIONS: 1. That the skate park be adequately secured and closed after dark to prevent use of the park at night. 2. That this approval is valid only during the months of May through October. This approval does not need to be reviewed by the PEC on an annual basis, however, should the Town receive complaints or objections about the skate park, the Planning & Environmental Commission may call this item up for review at any time. TOWN Of Updated 4 /27 4pm 3. That the applicant consider having the Town of Vail Building Department conduct a courtesy review of their plans for the skate park. Although a Building Permit is not required, the Town is willing to provide the review at no cost. 4. That the Town of Vail reserves the right to rescind approval of the skate park at any time in the future, should the Town decide to pursue plans to modify the parking structure. 2. A request for a setback variance, to allow for parking in the required 20' front setback, located at 4192 Spruce Way /Lot 5, Block 7, Bighorn 3rd Addition. Applicant: Altair Vail Inn, represented by Kenneth Holsman Planner: Dominic Mauriello MOTION: John Schofield SECOND: Brian Doyon . VOTE: 7 -0 APPROVED WITH 3 CONDITIONS: 1. That the applicant provide at least 6 new deciduous trees (i.e., Aspens with minimum caliper of 2.5 ") and 4 new evergreens (minimum 6' in height) along the frontage of the proposed and existing parking areas in order to provide screening from the roadway and adjacent properties. 2. That prior to the construction, the applicant obtain a revokable right -of -way permit for all improvements in the public right -of -way, including landscaping and the existing dumpster enclosure. 3. That the large existing pine trees, located west of the existing parking lot, be protected during construction. 3. A request for a density variance, a building height variance, a site coverage variance and a minor exterior alteration, to allow for a bay addition, located at 193 Gore Creek drive, Lot A, Block 5B, Vail Village First. Applicant: Rodney and Beth Slifer, represented by Jim Buckner Planner: George Ruther MOTION: Ann Bishop SECOND: Galen Aasland VOTE: 2 -5 (Ann Bishop and Galen Aasland in favor) FAILED - MOTION TO TABLE UNTIL MAY 11, 1998 MOTION: Tom Weber SECOND: Brian Doyon VOTE: 6 -1 (Ann Bishop opposed) DENIED 4. A request for an amendment to a previously approved plan for the Timber Falls Development, located at 4469 Timber Falls Court/unplatted. Applicant: RAD Five L.L.C., represented by Ams Development, Inc. Planner: Dominic Mauriello DISCUSSION - NO VOTE 2 118 Updated 4/27 4pm 5. A request for a worksession to discuss a major amendment to SDD #4, to allow for a fractional fee club and a change to the approved Development Plan, located at 1325 Westhaven Dr., Westhaven Condominiums/ Cascade Village Area A. Applicant: Gerald L. Wurhmann, represented by Robby Robinson Planner: George Ruther WORKSESSION - NO VOTE 6. A request for a minor subdivision of Lot G -1 to create a new lot, located at 1410 Suffehr Creek Road, Lot G -1, Lion's Ridge Subdivision Filing 2. Applicant: Leroy Schmidt, represented by Eric Johnson Planner: Dominic Mauriello TABLED UNTIL MAY 11, 1998 7. Public Meeting Procedures & Discussion: • Time allocation for public input. • Closing public comment period. Debriefing of meeting. Effective date of any changes. DISCUSSION - NO VOTE 8. Information Update 9. Approval of April 13, 1998 minutes. The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours in the project planner's office located at the Town of Vail. Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479 -2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Community Development Department 3 9 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: April 27, 1998 n SUBJECT: A request for a setback variance, to allow for parking in the required 20' front setback, located at 4192 Spruce Way/Lot 5, Block 7, Bighorn 3rd Addition. Applicant: Altair Vail Inn, represented by Kenneth Holsman Planner: Dominic Mauriello 1. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST AND BACKGROUND The applicant is requesting a setback variance to allow the construction (paving) of a new parking area on-site, a portion of which is located within the front yard setback. The Zoning Regulations prohibit parking to be located in the front setback within the Medium Density Multiple Family zone district. The applicant is proposing a new parking area containing 12 parking spaces with a new curb-cut along Spruce Way. Additionally, the proposal includes revising the existing parking lot by defining entryways and reducing the existing encroachment in the right-of-way by 4'. The applicant is proposing new wildflower seeding for the property, but no new trees. The proposal will also correct drainage problems that exist on the property. Altair Vail was platted as a condominium in 1974 under Eagle County jurisdiction at the existing density of 24 dwelling units. The applicant has indicated that the parking is extremely tight on the site. There are 24 dwelling units on-site (zoning requires 2 parking spaces per dwelling unit, or 48 parking spaces). There are currently 28 paved spaces on-site. The area proposed for the new parking is currently being used for parking but is unimproved and inefficient in its existing configuration. This proposal will increase the total number of parking spaces to 40, thereby bringing the property more into compliance with the parking requirements. If. ZONING ANALYSIS Zoning: Medium Density Multiple Family (MDMF) Lot Size: 32,650 sq. ft. S an and Allowed /Re giLed Existina Proposed Site Coverage: 14,692.5 sq. ft. (45%) 9,610 sq. ft. (29.4%) n/c Landscaping: 9,795 sq, ft, (30%) 15,210 sq. ft. (47%) 11,913 sq. ft. (36.5%) Units: 13 dwelling units 24 dwelling units n/c Parking: 48 spaces 28 spaces 40 spaces 1 T V40 MOWN OF PAIL Ill. CRITERIA AND FINDING A. Fwl Considgralign of Eactgr : Upon review of Section 12-17-6 of the Vail Municipal Code, Criteria and Findings, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the requested front setback variance based on the following factors: 1 The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The existing paved parking area on-site is currently constructed in the front setback, as is the parking in other multiple family developments on this street and in the area. The existing parking was developed legally under Eagle County jurisdiction and is nonconforming under the Town of Vail regulations. The proposed parking area will be consistent with the existing lot and neighboring developments. However, staff believes the addition of landscape material would help screen this parking area and the existing parking area from the roadway and adjacent properties. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without a grant of special privilege. Relief from the parking setback requirement is necessary to allow the uniformity of treatment of this parking lot with others similarly situated in the area. The proposal will allow Altair Vail Inn to become more conforming with respect to the number of parking spaces on-site. The proposal will also allow the area to be cleaned-up and managed in a more efficient manner. Staff believes that the granting of this variance will not be a grant of special privilege. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. The proposal will have little, if any, effect on these issues. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall, make the followingfindingg before, granting a variance: I That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. 2 11 • • 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. C. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other . properties in the same district. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATiON The Community Development Department recommends approval of parking located in the front setback, subject to the following findings: 1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of the Zoning Regulations. 4. That the strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. The recommendation for approval is also subject to the following conditions: 1. That the applicant provide at least 6 new deciduous trees (i.e., Aspens with minimum - caliper of 2.5 ") and 4 new evergreens (minimum 6` in height) along the frontage of the proposed and existing parking areas in order to provide screening from the roadway and adjacent properties. 2. That prior to the construction, the applicant obtain a revokable right -of- way permit for all improvements in the public right -of -way, including landscaping and the existing dumpster enclosure. F: \EVERYONE\PEG\M EMOS \98\ALTAIR.427 0 3 CoNsrgucffoy PffAwjT r. 2PRO, W4 Y MCA4 8Al2'd r - ----- --I ---- T-F- ------- tar 4 ANO A PaRnow or tar 5 oi _5 .m�� ,vs , �. a ��._ � e <��.,.. ,'ti';. r .47 4c' ONDoulIVIUM sulj.'qlwc' "A U. 111CHM11 Y NO. 6 R -0 - -W E- low free 1 01 1 I JA III., IJAt • 0 • TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: April 27, 1998 SUBJECT: A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for a recreational facility (skate park) on the top level of the Lionshead Parking Structure, located at 395 East Lionshead Circle/Vail Lionshead First Filing. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Mike Mollica 1. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant is requesting to add a skate park on the top level of the Lionshead Parking Structure. The site is zoned Parking. A skate park is considered a recreational facility in the Parking Zone District and therefore, requires a Conditional Use Permit. Last year a similar request (although only approved for September and October of 1997) was approved by the Planning & Environmental Commission. In 1997, the operation of the skate park proved to be very popular, as was evident by its high usage. No complaints were filed with the Town, and the Town's Police Department is very much in support of this use. As in the prior request, the applicant is proposing to block off an area on the top level of the parking structure to establish the skate park during the months of May through October. The skate park is intended to be used for skateboarders and in-line skaters. The area would be 232 feet long by 60 feet wide (160' x 60' was approved in 1997) and would contain approximately 12 "obstacles" and a "beginner area". The larger size of the skate park would further separate the "beginner area". Each obstacle would be constructed primarily of wood with metal supports. The area will be have Jersey-type barriers to enclose the skate park. Additionally, there-will be net fencing along the south side to prevent the occasional loose skateboard from flying out of the area. There will also be signage to indicate the rules and the responsibilities of the skaters. Because this is located on Town of Vail property, it was necessary to receive Town Council approval for the application to proceed through the process. On March 11, 1998, the Vail Town Council unanimously approved this request to proceed through the planning process. 11. ZONING ANALYSIS The subject property is zoned Parking (P). According to Section 12-913-3 of the Zoning Code, "Public or Private Parks and Recreational Facilities" can be permitted in the Parking Zone District as a conditional use. N Ot W MWVAIL R Ill. CONDITIQNAL USE CRITERIA AND FINDINGS is Upon review of Section 12-16-6, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the conditional use permit based upon the following factors: A. Consideration of Factors: 1 Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town. Staff believes that the proposed use is compatible with the existing uses within the parking structure and is generally consistent with the purpose of this zone district. Currently there are a variety of uses within the structure, including offices, a youth center and a restaurant. Staff believes that the proposed use is compatible with the existing uses on-site and in the vicinity. Use of this area as a skate park during September and October of 1997 generated only positive responses from the public. 2. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of,population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities needs. Staff believes there will.be limited impacts on the above-referenced issues. The proposed location of the skate park will temporarily eliminate 48 parking spaces on the top level of the Lionshead Parking Structure. The temporary elimination of the parking spaces has been approved by the Town of Vail's Public Works Department and the Town Manager. Staff believes that given the time of year the skate park would be in operation, this would have little impact on the supply of parking available to the public. As evidenced by its high usage in 1997, staff further believes that the addition of a skate park will enhance the Town's recreational facilities. 3. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas. Staff believes there will be limited impact on the above-referenced issues. While this skate park will interrupt the established traffic flow on the upper deck, traffic can easily flow around this use, without congestion (see attached site plan). The stairwells in the middle of the structure will remain open for use and therefore, pedestrian traffic will not be impeded. With the addition of the skate park, staff believes that pedestrian safety will be enhanced. We feel that with the park in place, skateboarders will be less inclined to use the Town's sidewalks and benches as obstacles, thereby improving pedestrian safety. 4. 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. 2 11 Staff believes that the proposal will have little impact on the character of the parking structure. The applicants are proposing to locate the skate park in the middle of the structure to limit impacts on adjacent properties. There will be no additional lighting proposed as a part of this request. Staff believes that the only potential impact on adjacent properties may be noise, however noise was not a problem during September and October of 1997. Staff continues to recommend that the hours of operation be limited to daylight hours in order to reduce this potential impact. MEEK=- The Planning and Environmental Commission, shall make the following findings before granting a conditional use permit: 1 That the proposed location of the use is in accord with the purposes of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. 2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit based on the criteria discussed above, subject to the following findings. That the proposed location of the use is in accord with the purposes of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code and the purpose of the Parking Zone District. 2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code. The recommendation is also subject to the following conditions: 1 That the skate park be adequately secured and closed after dark to prevent use of the park at night. 3 2. That this approval is valid only during the months of May through October. This approval does not need to be reviewed by the PEC on an annual basis, however, should the Town receive complaints or objections about the skate park, the Planning & Environmental Commission may call this item up for review at any time. 3. That the applicant consider having the Town of Vail Building Department conduct a courtesy review of their plans for the skate park. Although a Building Permit is not required, the Town is willing to provide the review at no cost. 4. That the Town of Vail reserves the right to rescind approval of the skate park at any time in the future, should the Town decide to pursue plans to modify the parking structure. F:\EVERYONE\PEC\MEMOS\98\SKATE.427 4 C] C0104CT TG F_i VALve CAP 'i'4' CW Tl - _ LT-YIJ I f- E: %Yk I UT MARK AT a..DS CAP 4" SAM. SEWF -R \F RE NYQRANT 117 �I T-FT II I- TT,7-i fICIIT? � i IllfTif�lfiFlii� !TIi�'Ti!i�li4���1 {�rf�i�I ��,;�' I LLL=L==Ll11_ L,�L!!L'!i tLl ;J1 C. C.Q - t FuTW2E tS` vCP -ST - AUXILIARY C'utLptVG - - - .r.. _._.. C. x. - ErtS G B vz - +fMi 'l �Ww F-44 IJW4104A - ' 6nvttG,*.T- a ollw2 : _ 4 BEST COPY 77 AVAILABLE �4 1 44 . i - ... *• ».a --ems - - � "' " Y-, F - %- a • { � 1 oc`e j Q� Q,-A A ►l e ors cV c, P • One of the more challenging—and engaging areas of practice to reemerge of late is that of skatepark design. Although the skateboarding boom spawned by the invention of the urethane wheel in the early 1970s resulted in the construction of commercial skateparks na- tionwide, most of the parks were poorly constructed and were bulldozed out of existence en masse in the late 1970s. But thanks to a renewed popularity in skate- boarding—it is the sixth-most-popular sport in the coun- try—skatepark construction is experiencing a renaissance, and landscape architects are discovering more and more opportunities in this arena. As J. William Thompson points out in his article "A Good Thrashing" the process of designing these parks is complex and extremely challenging, for they are not as straightforward in design program as, say, tennis or bas- ketball courts. Much like golf courses, skateparks are tai- lored to the needs of those in a community who participate in the sport. Anyone designing these parks must have a good grasp of what the skateboarders themselves want and require from a skatepark, and they must understand the sport. Additionally, this is one area in which one cannot as- sume that design answers will be found in existing parks: They may be more readily found in the plazas, streets, and drainage ditches where the kids love to skate. Says Alan Fishman, ASLA, of Torrance, California, "I see us taking street elements to another level of refinement." In essence what those interested in successfully de- signing such parks must do is immerse themselves in the skateboarding process and learn what makes a good skatepark. "There's more to it than just building 10,000 feet of concrete," observes Steve Rose, ASLA, whose firm, Purkiss Rose-RSI in Fullerton, California, has designed popular skateparks. But adds Michael McIntyre, ASLA, of Los Altos Hills, California, who grew up in the sport and who competed on the amateur circuit, "I can't think of another [type of sportsl facility that has such arcs, steps, transitions, and other elements that provide opportunities for sculptural beauty," MARCH 1998 1 63 1 Landscape Architecture Anne --nne - It. Elizabeth Powell EDITOR IN CHIEF 0 n downtown streets and plazas and in shopping malls all over North America ordinary kids are being ticketed and fined —and; in some cases, acquiring police records- ---for nothing more than practicing their kickflips, wal- lies, and ollie handrails. Granted, skateboarders who practice their stunts on city steps, benches, planters, and railings can be holy terrors. Res- idents of Albuquerque, New Mexico, found this out recent- ly when they unveiled their Downtown Civic Plaza, rebuilt at a cost of $9,8 million. Within a .matter of hours skate- boarders had descended on the reconstructed plaza, finding its ramps, handrails, . and deep steps ideal for practicing their moves. Within two weeks they had left their imprint on the plaza: deep gouges on the edges of the new benches and the new fountain ---the result of "grinding," a move in which a skateboarder slides his board's metal axle along a coping or a curb. They had also stripped the paint off of the newly in -. stalled handrails and marred the city logo. Among the ag- grieved, according to The Albuquerque journal, were con- struction workers who took umbrage at seeing their renovation work scarred and pitted. "They are just tearing it up," said one. "This is two weeks' damage. Multiply that by . three hundred sixty -five days. You won't have much left." Shortly thereafter, the mayor banned skaters from the plaza. Another contentious site is the San Francisco Embarcadero. ThereJustin Herman Plaza, designed by Lawrence- Halprin, FASLA, was put to an unintended use when skateboarders found its deep steps ideal for stunts until private security guards began routinely chasing them out. The current mag- net for skateboarders is the Promenade Ribbon, the two - mile -long linear art piece designed by Barbara Solomon and Stanley Saitowitz that runs the length of the Embarcadero. "The installation's series of concrete blocks and benches are so perfect for lipside kickflips and wallie five -Os that the project couldn't have been better designed by a skater," noted The San Francisco Weekly. But chips and scars in the concrete from skateboarders' skidding,and sliding have raised the ire ofcity supervisors 'who want to scotch the activity. The city arts commissionet was more pragmatic: She had stainless -steel edging installed along a portion of the Ribbon —to the de- light of the skaters, who found that the metal edges made grinding much more exciting. The designers of the Ribbon, for their part, are divided: Solomon exults in the Ribbon's use by skateboarders, whereas Saitowitz views it as a desecration. THRASFM JOSH (See "Walking the Line," Land- . Ptashne goes airborne scape Architecture, April 1996,) above the new skatepark San Francisco is tolerant of in Temecula, California._ skateboarders compared to many Designed by Alan Fish - cities, however. Washington, D.G., man, ASLA, and skate - tired of skateboarders using the boarder Kevin Thatcher, exquisite paving patterns of Free- this is the largest skatepark dom Plaza and other nationally in North America. 1 78 1 significant sites, has begun cracking down. "Skating in D.C. is now a bust,,, says skateboard manufac- turer Intensity Skates's national directory of skateparks posted on the Internet. "Cops will arrest you and they will ticket you... at any federal build- ing or monument." Instead of treating skateboarders as common hoodlums, one might ask, why not simply provide legitimate skateparks in the kids' neighborhoods, - just as we provide tennis courts, swimming pools, and soccer fields? (Washington, D.Ca typical of most U.S. cities --does not boast a single skatepark.) Why is there such a dearth of these parks? City governments view skateboarding as an inherently dangerous activity and dread liabil- ity claims from injuries sus- tained on city property. Such INSRAD Of issues have in fact plagued the sport's briefforty -year history. The skateboarding boom that followed the 1973 innovation of the urethane wheel, for ex- ample, spurred the construction of commercial skateparks nationwide. But most of these early parks —the major - ety of them built with gunite —were so poorly constructed that y became dangerous and began to suffer 'insurance and liability problems. At the end of the seventies they began to close en masse; eighty percent of them were bulldozed in 1979 alone. Many cities, concerned with safety and liability issues, even banned backyard THE BURNSIDE Project, built by the skateboarders themselves be- neath an interstate highway in Port- land, Oregon, has been designated the top -rated skatepark in the Unit- ed States by Thrasher magazine and is an example of siting a skatepark in an otherwise unused space. skate ramps. At the same time, many jurisdictions toughened ordinances against skating in plazas and on sidewalks. Left with nowhere to go, many skateboarders simply quit. Others refused to turn in their, boards and continued to skate on the street —one step ahead of the police, confirming skateboarding as a rebel, underground sport with a hard -core cult image and skateboarders as a pub- lic nuisance or, at best, children run amok. Skateboarding technique also evolved in those years on the street. The sport had been pioneered in the 1950s by surfers, and the early skateparks reflected surfers' interest in flowing, wavelike forms: skate runs, bowls, and mounds. Exploration of the possi- bilities of the street in the 19$0s produced the aerial maneuvers, 1111AIR SKATIBOARDIRS AS, COMMON HOODIR SIMP[Y PROVIDE 119111MAII SKATIPARKS IN THI KII gymnastics, and hair - .raising stunts — sliding down handrails and a jumping down flights of steps, for example —that addicted skate- boarders to such specific furnishings as planters, benches, curbs, and railings. This would have important implications for W 0 skatepark design: The parks with wavelike, free - flowing curves o have come to be labeled `old - school "; the newer, more angular 1 sa1. dangerous activity and dread the prospect of injury claims, the evi- dence is that both of these notions are largely unfounded. According to the Consumer Products Safety Commission, skateboarding has a smaller percentage of reported injuries per partici- pant (.49176) than soccer (93%6), baseball (2.2557c), and basketball (1.49176). Granted, many skateboard ing accidents are simply not reported—but thisO speaks well of skateboarders, who apparently= feel that safety is their responsibility, as are injuries when they happen. What is certain is that successful- claims against cities for public skateparks are virtually nonexistent, In The S. Park Revolution, a documentary video that TERRAIN" is errs termfor sites ,ot intended for lend themselves to e this spillway for s built by the U.S. fEngineers, "the ers of skateboard ding to Thatcher, VNV '11M 1 81 1 If [ANDSCAP[ ARCHITICIS ARE Til Bf HUME DESIGNERS Of SUCH PARKS, SIM MUST UNBIRTAKI R IIARNINC CURVE IN 11­11 BASICS Uf SKAWARK U[SK might serve as a basic primer of liability; design, and other skatepark issues (see the "Resources" list at the end of this article), one city recreation official after another in Colorado, Oregon, Nevada, Cal- ifornia, Maryland, and other states makes virtually the same state- ment: that there has never been a single claim against free public facilities in their cities, even for skateparks that have been operat- ing for several years. Furthermore, according to skatepark advocate and ramp designer Tim Payne, who coproduced The S. Park Revo- lution, there has never been a case in the United States - of anyone's being awarded a claim for a skateboarding injury. Even some insurance providers have now begun to advocate skateparks. Albert Fierro, the president of the Bay Area Govern- ments Pooled Liability Assured Net- work Corporation (ABAG PLAN), a provider of liability and property insurance to thirty cities in the San Francisco Bay area, says, "Our office does not view skateboard parks as a high risk for cities." Three of ABAG PLAN's member A CAD DESIGN fora skatepark cities have skateparks, none of which have had any in Glendale, California, shows skateboarding claims since the insurance program how a contemporary skatepark was initiated in 1986. Fierro has a few suggestions integrates "street" elements with that may help communities avoid liability claims: freestyle "snakes' and elements These include opening the park only to "free play" that include (A) the park entry, without supervision (ironically, supervision increas- (B) a bench with a steel edge for es liability) and posting abundant signage noting grinding, (C) a drop-in, (D) a rail the hours of operation and requiring the use of safe- ing, (E) transition ramps, (F) a ty equipment. Most communities post- "Skate at hip, (G) a kinked, sloped rail, Your Own Risk" signs; some, like Ocean City, (H) a bench for grinding, and Maryland, require= skaters to sign a liability waiver (I) a wall ride. The angular ele- before skating. ments permit gymnastics wbile As municipalities around the country learn how the fabric cover provides protec- ts limit their liability, more and more of them are tion from inclement weather: beginning to view skateparks as a reasonable com- ponent of their recreation services —and landscape architects are finding more and more oppomuiities for designing such parks. The date Ken Wormhoudt worked out of his Santa Cruz, California, of- fice to design in that city, in 1978, the first public skatepark in the Ountry. By the time he died last August at the age of sixty -seven e had designed a total of twelve skateboard facilities currently in use in California, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, and Alaska. The office, which he passed on to his son Zachary, a recent graduate in landscape architecture from Cal Poly Sari Luis Obispo; is currently working on the designs of twenty -one other skateparks. Steve Rose, ASLA, whose firm, Purkiss Rose -RS1 in Fullerton, California, has de- signed popular skateparks. in Huntington Beach; California, and Kent and Des Moines, Washington, says that he has four more un- der construction and :thirty more on the boards. Finally, the largest skatepark in North America —a full acre ofconcrete -was built last year in Temecula, California,to the design of Alan - Fishman, ASLA, in consultation with veteran skateboarder Kevin Thatcher, the pub- lisher of Thrasher magazine. But if the opportunity is there, the process of designing a skatepark is far more complex than one might imagine. If landscape architects are to be successful designers of-such parks, they must undertake a learning curve in the basics of skate- park design. As Rose puts it, "There's more to it than just building 10,000 feet of - concrete. G f skateboarders had their way„ they would design skateparks themselves. To a land- scape architect, this may seem a childish no- tion-- after all, skateboarders know nothing of the construction documents and specifications re- quired to get a project built in the public sector. But the skateboarders' wish is rooted in a simple truth: They know what kind of facility they want to skate on. Landscape architects — unless they also happen to be skateboarders ---do not. As a result, skateboarders have not always brimmed with gratitude at the skateparks that landscape architects have designed for them. Last September Thrasher blasted "the so- called 'land- scape architects' who design bogus parks, get paid, and never skate them," adding that "many communities set out with the no- ble goal of providing a good place for kids to skate only to discover that greedy so- called "skatepark designers' took most of the funds in fees and proceeded to design- facilities that are virtually -un- skateable." The article cites no specific facilities and probably should not be taken as a blanket condemnation of all landscape ;ar- chitects who design skateparks —but it should serve as a warning 182 1 d d a 0.90m ASPHALT I Sm ASPHALT BASKETBALL 1.2m HIGH PERIMETER BREAK 0,30m HIGH SEMI COURT CHAIN LINK PENCE PLATFORM BE Ml_ a ? 4 a PLATFORM QURTER PIPE BANK WIROUND, METAL AL- COPING _ i re BAN CUM� NSIT iON SPINE WfMETAL PARKING V REINFORCED RIDGE Low C a 'CONCRETE K 0.60M Hld4, 0 CONCRETE -APRON ASPHALT APRON PYRAMID 0.45 x0.80 A 3.00m PAVEMENT TRANSMON ..... TO GRADE CONCRETE LEDGE DOUBLE RAMP . . 0 80 x 060 x 300M X P WrCORRES I WALL AND I 'CONCRETE LEDGE L SQUARE METAL RAIL BANKt STEPPED es TACLE A, ANA k;UfqNU q4 004 R W1 AIL CURS w ja DOUGLAS ,§TRUr wrtis FIRIASPEN I i FUN WYJ "If FOREST zl GRIND BOX STING 12m HIGH A !�EAIMETERCHAI 0.60 X6,46m HIGH �,4 0 1 2 3 4 6 10 CO esRETE WALL BOTH - METER$ UMP 100mm SQUARE 7 METAL RAIL LINDSAY GowLMs design WiWmni I 00 RAIL for a skatepark in V, , Surrey, British Columbia, incorporates an "old-school" SHALLOW RAMP W10.60M JMPANDMQURL bowl while addin U " N g contemporaiqy ASPHALT'.-,, EEXTENT street" elements, right and below. SKATEBOARD PAVEMENT TING VVL - MUS BO -Although X'W'KALI Note the asphalt base. QUARTER PIPE W 'EME A BANK W/ROU concrete is smoother and more durable, t4COPJNG wY it also has expansion joints and is b 0.80m HIGH PRECAST i CONCRETE BARRIERS, relatively expensive. Asphalt, al. , K�, though not as smooth as concrete, expensive. needs no joints and is less expensive, It works wellfor skateboarding in the = EXTENT OF EXISTING EXISTING 12m HIGH ASPHALT PAVEMENT Canadian climate; Warmer, climates PERIMETER CRAIN would soften the asphalt, LINK PENCE that skateparks are not as straightforward a design problem as tennis and basketball courts. First, the landscape architect will not find comprehensive skatepark dimensions in Timesaver Standards or any other desk ref- erence; the sport is simply too new, and skateparks, too few, to have generated design standards. Like a golf course, each skatepark is a unique design tailored to the needs (and the budget) of a com- munity-'s skateboarders. Moreover, the configuration ofa skatepark . CONCRETE STEPS F I.- - - 500" WJAAt METAL COPW r OP ,r- 60MM SOJW Mtrg- C M RENMeto wwtcm sa 150(m AEWF0kXD CONCRETE 1 83 1 AMM "114W WP To *& AW W"M 00 MCIAL " At a.&" 4009 Clio" - 80mm 00 METAL RAIL CH 32-4M RAW demands many technical nuances of which most designers are unaware because "the designers don't understand the users. Skateboarding is something that most landscape architects [as nonskateboard- ersl can't relate to," says Michael McIntyre, ASLA. McIntyre is one of the few who can relate: He grew up in the sport, competed on the amateur circuit in the early 1980s-, and built the Page Mill Ramp, the --rated ramp in Califor- nia, in his Los Altos Hills backyard. Now a landscape ar- chitect with the Tempe, Ari- zona, office of Design Work- shop, he is currently designing a public skatepark near down- town Albuquerque (that city, to its credit, decided to con- struct a legitimate facility after declaring its civic plaza off limits) and another for the Phoenix suburb of Chandler. 0 McIntyre and virtually every other knowledgeable skatepark designer insist that there is one absolute require- THE SKATEPARKS in Palo Alto, California, shown here, and Santa Rosa, opposite, were designed by the late Ken Wormboudt and represent the "old-school"skatepark designs distinguished by wavelike, flowing curves. More recent parks by his son, Zachary, include "street' elements. meat for designing to meet the he needs of each skateboarding community: Involve the kids. In fact, this might be stated as the first command- ment of skatepark design: Involve the users as early as possible and throughout the design process. To the greatest extent possible, incor- porate their suggestions to the letter. Rose, who follows this approach, says, "It's de- ceptive" to say that we design skateparks because the users have such a heavy involve- ment." Johnson is more blunt:, Involving skateboarders, he says, is "an absolutely crucial requirement for any design- er---or don't get into this." Ken Wormhoudt evolved a technique (being perpetuated by his son) ofletting the skate- boarders mold clay models that he used as the basis of his design. Lindsay Gowler, a landscape architect in British Columbia, encourages the users to draw the' features they 1 84 1 want as accurately as possible. The resulting "idea" sketches are remarkably legible and de- tailed and were very helpful to Gowler in developing his con- struction drawings for a park that has just been built in Sur- rey, British Columbia. Involving the users in the design process is a familiar ap- proach to most landscape ar- chitects, but skatepark design seems to push user involve- ment to the point at which the users are actually dic- tating the form of the project. "You really have to lis- ten hard to what the kids want, and that can be hard for a landscape architect," says Deane Lawrence, a landscape architect in Redmond, Washington, who found out the hard way that the kids really knew what they wanted. When designing his first — skatepark he dutifully listened to them, then went back to his draw- ing board and put his own design spin on it. When he took his 1 drawings to the next city council meeting, however, he found twen- ty-five kids waiting for him. "I got nailed," he remembers. "I walked into a hornets' nest." The kids, he found out, were very vocal--and very emphatic—about getting exactly what they had asked for. GRARM are common phe- nomena in skateparks, except in cities that actively prohibit tagging. "I personally think it looks great to see all the color, says Zachary Wormhoudt. Lawrence learned quickly: He went back to the drawing board and modified his draw- ings, and the skatepark has since been built in downtown Redmond. Today skateparks are the backbone ofLawrence's practice, but he still remem- bers that first encounter. "It's a humbling experience to build a skatepark," he admits. If users' ideas are incorpo- rated this rigorously, is there still room for the landscape architect's creativity? Absolutely, says McIntyre. "I can't think of another facility that has such -arcs, steps, transitions, and oth- er elements that provide opportunities for sculptur- al beauty—a lot more opportunity than tennis or handball courts, for sure." In fact, McIntyre believes — that the landscape architect's role is to transform the skateboarders' technical requirements into sculptural effects while integrating the skatepark as an element in a park master plan. But what ofskateboarder's infatuation with the mundane elements of the street: boring steps, railings, and curbs? It is difficult to imag- ine how such elements could be used creatively, but Fishman believes they can be. "I see us [landscape architects) taking street elements to :1 another level of refinement," he says. "To me it's an endless three-D adventure— there's no end to the manipulation of those forms! The best parks are yet to come." Obviously, the landscape architect must also bring to the table a technical competency in the design ofskatepark el- S hents; the kids can tell the designer That they want but not how to build it. "The skateboarders have a really good idea of what they want from looking at skate- boarding magazines," says Gowler. "My role is to take their rough ideas and evolve a design that can be built. They need someone at the level of a registered land- scape architect to draw up the proper con- struction documents." Of all the skills a landscape architect can bring to skate- park design, Gowler says that a knowl- edge of the properties of concrete is most important, since this is the preferred ma- terial for skateparks. But knowing how to design with concrete is only a begin- ning in understanding the technicalities of skatepark design. Lawrence believes that aspiring designers should seek this understanding in a very direct way: They should learn to skate. I think anybody who designs skate- parks really does have to skate well enough to know what the kids are talking about." Lawrence, following his own advice, has spent the last year and a half teaming to skate—no mean feat in his case: Lawrence is fifty-seven. He uses inline skates rather than a skateboard (most facilities will ac- commodate both modes). TEMECULA!S SKATEPARK incorporates features for beginners, at top, and those adepts like James Holmes, at right. Above, a thrasher grinds on steps copied from Lawrence Halprin's steps at the Embarcadero. At l� a skateboarder goes airborne off a pyramid. "The first word I think of is 'pain- fill,"' he says of the learning process. "You take some serious spills. The one I took off a six-foot ramp made a believer out of me." However painful, Lawrence appar- ently feels such training was necessary. "To get on top of the curve [of skatepark design) you have to immerse yourself," he says. Aspiring designers must also famil- iarize themselves (Continued on Page 100) 1 86 1 A Good Thrashing (Continued from Page 86) with the physical elements on which skateboarders elect to skate. They should not, however, limit themselves to visiting existing skateparks. In fact, simply copying existing facilities can be a recipe for a mediocre, outdated design, as many skateparks have failed to incorpo- rate such contemporary features as blocks, handrails, curbs, and steps. With this in mind Thatcher, McIntyre, and others for- mulate the second commandment of skate- park design thus: When searching for design ideas, don't assume that existingskateparks willgive you the answers. Begin by studying the places where the kids are skating. plazas, streets, swimming pools, and drainage ditches. The venues cited above constitute what Thatcher terms "natural terrain"—paved areas that because of their configuration are ideal for skateboarding, although not de- signed as such. Thrasher is fii.11 of images of such sites, as are the skateboarding videos available at your local skateboard shop. A contemporary approach is to incorporate ele- ments of favorite skateboarding sites into skateparks: Fishman and Thatcher replicated the steps of Hatprin's Justin Herman Plaza at Temecula, and Thatcher helped McIntyre carefully measure Halprin's steps, as well as the Promenade Ribbon, to be replicated in McIntyre's projects in the Southwest. Thatcher has even proposed that cities simply cordon off areas that skaters have adopted and dub them "skateparks." He ad- mits that this idea has little chance of suc- cess--can you imagine Freedom Plaza or the Embarcadero being designated skateparks? Nevertheless, Thatcher insists that skate- boarding should be integrated into the fab- ric of the city. "Don't put us in the boon- docks—some fallow field or waste dump," he says. "We want to be in the action." Mention of site selection brings us to the third commandment of skatepark design: Site skateparks in centralizedpla.-es where they are highly visible and accessih1e, "Site selection is the hardest and the most important thing that we as skatepark de- signers do," says Rose. This is because, in part, the siting of skateparks must balance several requirements. Skateparks must be accessible--on bus or rapid-rail lines (re- member that many skateboarders are too young to drive). Ideally, they should be near other recreational facilities---certainly near telephones in case of accidents. Visibility from the street is important so that parents and others can easily monitor the skate- boarders. Ideally, McIntyre, believes, a skatepark should be masterplanned as a component of a park and, in fact, the park's focal point, complete with an amphitheater or other seating. Skateparks should be sited on land that is unsuitable for any other use, according to The S. Park Revolution. This guideline is a double-edged sword, however. On the one hand, it has certainly worked in Portland, Oregon, where skaters themselves con- structed The Burnside Project—the top- rated skatepark in the county, according to Thrasher—beneath an interstate highway interchange. On the other hand, too many skateparks have been relegated to leftover, unattractive, hard-to-reach sites. Old park- Simply copying existing facilities can be a recipe for a mediocre, outdated design, as many skateparks have failed to incorporate such contemporary features as blocks, handrails, curbs, and steps. ing lots and defunct basketball courts are commonly foisted on s ' kateboarders and, most advocates agree, are bad choices. Other important criteria include the size of the skatepark. The S. Park Revolution rec- ommends a minimum of 10,000 square feet; but some designers consider even this dan- gerously small. Remember that most facili- ties already suffer from overuse: Gowler notes that a small skatepark he designed in British Columbia "is basically at capacity twenty- four ' hours every day. Between four and eight A.M. there might be a slow period." Obviously, the above criteria are only a beginning; where does an aspiring designer go for further information? Most encourag- ing, perhaps, is that some cities that have built skateparks will share the- documenta- tion of the project with interested parties (see "Resources"). Even with the best infor- mation available, however, it will be up to the landscape architect to work with the users to design the most contemporary Landscape Arcbitecture 1 10,0 1 MARCH 1998 skateparks possible: safe, skateable facilities that lure the kids away from the perils of t* street. In this regard it is well to keep in mind a statement by veteran skateboarder Thatcher: "Ifyou don't give us a place, we'll find it anyway." LA RI; 0 U "City-Run Skateparks Are Not a Recipe for Disaster" by Matt Rankin. Parks & Rwreation, July 1997. Albert Fierro, ABAG PLAN, (510) 464-4900. 0 Build a Skatepark" by Jake Phelps and Kevin Thatcher. Thrasher, September 1997. This four-page article includes some ba- sic design standards and a prototype design by Alan Fishman, AsLA_ It is available free upon request from High Speed Productions, 1303 Underwood Avenue, San Francisco, California. (415) 822-3083; FAX (415) 822-8359. Deane Lawrence: (dslawrence@junoxom). Michael McIntyre: (skater@designworkshop. com). Tim Payne, ramp designer and skatepark ad- vocate: (407) 695-8215 or E-mail: (cpain 123@aol.cam). The S. Park Revolution by Tim Payne and MorAft gan Stone. Groove Productions, 1996. Th1 video introduces the viewer to liability, de- sign, and other issues related to building a skatepark. Available for $7.00 from S. Park Video, P.O. Box 1217, Grand Rapids, Min- nesota 55744-1217. Intensity Skates's national directory of existing skateparks: (http://uww.intensity,comllparks. htm�. Alt. Culture's "Skate Talk," an Internet home page, includes a brief history of skateboarding together with video footage of star skate- boarders at (http:11www:,skatsta1k. comlindex. html). Representative Skatehoard Parks of the Lower Mainland by Lindsay Gowler (self-published). This brief study of nine skateparks in British Columbia contains photographs of design de- tails and some design criteria. Available for $39.50 (Canadian) from (lindsay@axionet. com) or (604) 980-9070; FAX (604) 980-9605. "Skateboarding at the Pacific Rim" by Kevin Thatcher. California Coast & Ocean, Autumn 1996, City contacts: A list of those cities that may be willing to send out an information packet * their planning process may be obtained from (bthom pson Qasla. org) or *in 1.23 @aot tom). Wormhoudt Landscape Architecture: (408) 426-81424; FAx (408) 426-0894. TO: FROM: DATE: MEMORANDUM Manning and Environmental Commission Community Development Department April 27, 1998 SUBJECT: A request for a minor CC1 exterior alteration, a building height variance, a site coverage variance and a density variance to allow for a bay addition to the penthouse unit in the Core Creek Plaza Condominiums, located at 193 Core Creek Drive /Lot A, Block 5 -B, Vail Village 1 st Filing. Applicant: Rodney & Beth Slifer, represented by Jim Buckner Planner: George Ruther 1. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUESTS The applicants, Rodney and Beth Slifer, represented by Jim Buckner of Slifer Designs, are requesting a Minor CC1 Exterior Alteration, a building height variance, a site coverage variance and a density variance, to allow for a bay addition to the penthouse unit in the Gore Creek Plaza Condominiums, located at 193 Gore Creek Drive. The applicants are proposing to construct an 18 square foot bay addition to their residence. The addition would be constructed on the west side of the building between the Gore Creek Plaza. Condominiums and the Sitzmark Lodge. The bay addition is intended to provide additional dining room space within the penthouse. Pursuant to Subsection 12 -7B -7A (Exterior Alterations Or Modifications, Subject To Review) of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, "the construction of a new building, the alteration of an existing building which adds or removes any enclosed floor area; the alteration of an existing building which modifies exterior roof lines, the replacement of an existing building, the addition of a new outdoor dining deck or the modification of an existing outdoor dining deck shall be subject to review by the Planning and Environmental Commission." Furthermore, in part, "Applications for the alteration of an existing building which adds or removes any enclosed floor area of not more than one- hundred (100) square, and applications which alter exterior roof lines, shall be minor exterior alterations. Minor exterior alterations area . reviewed by the Planning and Environmental Commission at any of its regularly scheduled meetings" The applicants are requesting approval of three variances in accordance with Chapter 17 (Variances) of the Municipal Code; Pursuant to Subsections 12 -17 -1 A & B (Purpose), f:l everyone \peclmemost98\slifer.427 TO{4Nt1l��A�i 1�+ 'A. Reasons For Seeking Variance: In order to prevent or to lessen such practical difficulties and unnecessary physical hardships inconsistent with the objectives of this Title as would result from strict or literal interpretation and enforcement, variances from certain regulations,may be granted. A practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship may result from the size, shape, or dimensions of a site or the location of existing structures thereon; from topographic or physical conditions on the site or in the immediate vicinity, or from other physical limitations, street locations or conditions in the immediate vicinity. Cost or inconvenience to the applicant of strict or literal compliance with a regulation shall not be a reason for granting a variance. B. Development Standards Excepted. Variances may be granted only with respect to the development standards prescribed for each district, including lot area and site dimensions, setbacks, distances between buildings, height, density control, building bulk control, site coverage, usable open space, landscaping and site development, and parking and loading requirements; or with respect to the provisions of Chapter 11, governing physical development on a site." The applicants are proposing to add an 18 square foot addition to their residence in the Commercial Core I Zone District. The Gore Creek Plaza Condominiums already exceed the building height limitation, the site coverage limitation and the total allowable GRFA limitation. Therefore, a minor exterior alteration, building height variance, site coverage variance and a density variance must be approved by the Planning and Environmental Commission. The minor exterior alteration and variances shall be reviewed in accordance with the provisions prescribed in Chapters 12 & 17 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code. In reviewing the applicant's proposal, staff relied upon the goals, policies and objectives outlined in the various Town of Vail planning documents, The following is a summary of staff's review of the Town's planning documents: Municipal Code According to Section 12-713-1, the purpose of the Commercial Core 1 Zone District is intended to: "provide sites and to maintain a unique character of the Vail Village commercial area, with its mixture of lodges and commercial establishments in a predominately pedestrian environment. The Commercial Core I district is intended to insure adequate light, air, open space, and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of buildings and uses. The district regulations, in accordance with the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations prescribed site development standards that are intended to insure the maintenance and preservation of the tightly clustered arrangements of buildings fronting on pedestrian ways and public greenways, and to insure the continuation of the building scale and architectural qualities that distinguish the Village. The following is a partial summary of the recent development history of the applicant's property and the Gore Creek Plaza Condominiums, as it relates to the current requests: 11 f.\everyone\pec\memos\98\slifer.427 2 [A On July 10, 1989, the Planning and Environmental Commission granted an approval of a building height variance, to allow for the construction of the penthouse. On July 27, 1992, the Planning and Environmental Commission granted an _approval of a site coverage variance allowing for the expansion of the outdoor dining deck at Blus. On August 1, 1990, the Town of Vail Community Development Department issued a building permit, to allow for the construction of 125 square feet of GRFA in Unit #3, of the Gore Creek Plaza Condominiums. No allowable GRFA remains available for the property after this approval. On February 14, 1994, the Planning and Environmental Commission granted an approval of a minor exterior alteration and a site coverage variance to allow for an enclosed trash and grease, dumpster at the southwest corner of the building. On March 23, 1998, the Planning and Environmental Commission granted an approval of a conditional use permit allowing the applicant to internally connect Unit #2 to the penthouse unit, thus eliminating one dwelling unit in the building and increasing the size of the penthouse. Ill. ZONING ANALYSIS The following summarizes the zoning statistics relevant to the applicant's requests: Zoning: Commercial Core I Lot Area: 0.1734 acre /7,553 square feet Site coverage: Allowed - 6,043 square feet or 80% Existing - 6,084 square feet or 80.6% Proposed - 6,102 square feet or 80.8% Height: Allowed - 33-43' up to 40%, 33' or less 60% Existing - 33'-43' (11%), 33' or less (17%), greater than 43' (72 %) Proposed - 3343' (12%), 33' or less (16.5%), greater than 43' (71.5%) Density: Allowed - 6,043 square feet or 80% Existing - 6,043 square feet or 80% Proposed - 6,061 square feet or 80.2% IV. MINOR CC1, EXTERIOR ALTERATION The review criteria for this proposal are prescribed in Section 127B-7 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code. The criteria include the compliance of the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan, the Vail Village Urban Design Considerations, the Vail Village Master Plan and the Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan. The Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan, includes three elements, which establish the review criteria for the applicant's requests. The first of these is referred to as the guide plan, which includes a number of sub-area concepts, many of which identify potential areas for future development and other improvements. Secondly, the Urban Design Considerations express the large-scale, land use planning and design considerations. Finally, the Architectural/Landscape Considerations, which will be reviewed by the Design Review Board, establish the criteria for evaluating detailed design considerations of a minor exterior alteration proposal. f:\everyone\pec\memosX98\slifer,427 3 The Vail Village Master Plan and the Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan address specific goals pertaining to the enhancement of the walking experience throughout the Village. Upon review of the applicant's request for a minor CC1 exterior alteration, to allow for the construction of a bay addition on the west side of the Gore Creek Plaza Building, staff believes the request is in compliance with the criteria prescribed for minor exterior alteration requests. Specifically, staff believes that the proposed bay addition is architecturally compatible with the existing building, that the addition will not adversely impact adjacent property owners, that the design of the bay addition is in compliance with the Urban Design Considerations, and that the proposed minor exterior alteration will have no impacts on the Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan. Furthermore, staff believes that the proposed bay addition is in conformance with the intent of the purpose of the Commercial Core 1 Zone District. V. VARIANCE CRITERIA & FINDINGS Upon review of the Criteria and Findings for variances, contained in Section 12-17-6 of the Vail Municipal Code, the Community Development Department recommends denial of the requested building height variance, site coverage variance and density variance, based on the following factors: A. Consideration of Factors: 1 The relationship of the requested variances to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. Staff believes there is a negative relationship of the requested variances to other potential uses and structures in the vicinity of the Gore Creek Plaza Condominiums. If approved, the variances would permit the Gore Creek Plaza Condominium building to further exceed building height, site coverage and to increase the density (GRFA) beyond the maximum allowed. Unlike other variances granted in the Commercial Core I Zone District, there are no physical hardships, practical difficulties, extra ordinary circumstances or unique conditions warranting a variance approval. As stated in Subsections 12-17-1 (A), inconvenience is not a criterion to be evaluated by the Planning and Environmental Commission when reviewing a variance request. Staff believes that the granting of any or all of the variances would result in a grant of special privilege. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve, compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. Staff believes that the requested variances are not warranted, and therefore, no relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of the building height, site coverage or density regulations is needed to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the Commercial Core I Zone District. In reviewing the applicant's requests, staff believes there are no physical hardship or practical difficulties impacting the applicant's site as required by Subsection 12-17-1 (A), (Reasons for Seeking a Variance), of the Zoning Code. The fact of the 40 f-.\everyone\pec\memos\98\slifer.427 4 matter is that all of the allowable development potential (height, site coverage, GRFA, etc.) has been constructed on the site and no available development potential remains. No remaining development potential is not a physical hardship, practical difficulty, extraordinary circumstance or unique condition. Staff believes that the granting of the requested variances would result in a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the objectives of the Zoning Code. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. The requested variances will have little or no effect on this criteria. B. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a variance: 1 That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. C. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. V1. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Minor CC1, Exterior Alteration The Community Development Department recommends approval of the applicant's request for a minor CC1 exterior alteration, to allow for the construction of an 18 square foot bay addition on the west side of the Gore Creek Plaza Building, located at 193 Gore Creek Drive. Staff's recommendation of approval is based upon our review of the criteria outlined in Section IV of this memorandum. Staff recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission make the following findings: 0 f:Xeveryone\pec\memos\98\slifer.427 1. That the minor exterior elteratkon is in compliance with the criteria prescribed in Section 12-7B~7of the Municipal Code. 0 Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose 1P grant an approval of the minor exterior alteration request, staff would recommend that the Planning and Environmental Commission make the following conditions part Qf the approval: That a building height variance, site coverage variance and a density variance be approved in accordance with Chapter 17of the Municipal Code. Variances The Community Development Department recommends denial of the applicant's request for building height variance, site coverage variance and a density variance, to allow for the construction of a 18 square foot bay addition to the west side of the Gore Creek Plaza Building. Staff's recommendation for denial is based upon our review of the variance criteria and findings outlined in Section V of this memorandum. Staff would recommend that the Planning and Environmental Commission make the following findings: That the granting of the variance will constitute a grant Qf special privilege inconsistent with the building he|Qht, site oJVe[aQe and density |irndaUoDs on other properties classified in the Commercial Core 1 Zone District. 2. That the granting ofthevehaMmawiUbedethnnenta|hoUlepub|kzheolth. safety or vvelfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity of the Gore Creek Plaza Condominiums. 0 3. That the variance io not warranted for the following reasons: a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the building height, site coverage and density regulations do not result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with `the objectives ofthe Zoning Code. b. There are no exceptions or extraordinary circumstances orconditions applicable to the site of the variance that do not apply generally toother properties |n the Commercial Cora 1 Zone District. C. The strict interpretation 0[ enforcement of the building height, site coverage and density regulations does not deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the Commercial Core 1 Zone District. ' � i W-1 lmmmmmlmlml�- UNIT 2 f/4"=i'-O` PENTHOUSE Shier Designs AM. KAfAt0 a YYOtbAtt r5 P4 0 0 ����7°���� rte` -�F� 1 �,,` A EENTHOUSE 1PROpD5ei=� Designs mww/� FAMx r T ,F tvem er migm it ��1 Cd 2 -A-202 pqf1pall" lad t_t�: ao IT !LT i1� .C" �t`.i�G ✓, -�` jF�� Cirjrr EFi� it �i 4f IF it � ` t F , F� [f 14r rfit t� t� �rf�� rfsj_ ^t ! f�ft,( k�IE._ffkf f tF GXt/f�'�►jiiir + F ili f fi t��i i�i��r��fr� F4kl' ���i cCciY,Jtae i T3GraJFzc'/ t iF� i =tai :uf.t +` r r k I.IIF lilt LUU t'¢'a '(F f V r it: it fill . �> SOUTH , ,-" b. rj --ct G�:�..�,,c.'ai ,►,tom ;may f:'. :fir ,�. F� iii _ ; ff t� _ ✓XFH i ;h*(A �'"�+�.- .?� -+Go E? ° �z� _ _ - ! t ! L-L- __J IMMW It i� i� jilt !rt IF Al" f WEST ,, �1- i f�.• 1 f =�y!( ft _ �.�.`. °_`f 4' "-'- /'CND "' '� %Q1r}t(.` t i t , t fllf 1 t " � Y 'r-�i' . ! , f �t F 4 i _.�. -_ .i`°� `. . i, r`i,_.��. . --•-i` - --'"•i v.t��� i- -I- t °' i t ;7��-�• { f� fIt f P t�(�i� lit tl '4 O } T 0 � 0 MEN19RAN ©UM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: April 27, 1998 SUBJECT: A request for an amendment to a previously approved development plan for the Timber Falls Development, located at 4469 Timber Falls Court/unplatted. Applicant: RAD Five L.L.C., represented by Greg Amsden Planner. Dominic Mauriello Attached is a copy of a letter forwarded by the Community Development Department to the applicant, Greg Amsden, summarizing the PEC's action on this item at the April 13, 1998 meeting. The applicant is questioning whether this letter is an accurate reflection of the PEC action. Therefore, staff would like the PEC to review this letter and provide necessary direction to the staff so that we can properly direct the applicant with regard to this property. Also included is some material provided by the applicant for your review. 0 F :\ EVERYONE \PEC\MEMOS\98 \TIMBFALL.427 r C TOWN OF FAIL PAX 91U-419-24,)2 April 16, 1998 Greg Aden AMS Development, Inc. 500 S. Frontage Road East, Suite 112 Vail, CO 81657 TM RE: Timber Falls-Application for an amendment to a development plan Dear Grea: Z�l The Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC), at its April 13, 1998 meeting, found that Phase X (Building #19) of Timber Falls has a vested development right for one structure in the exact form, size, density [6 dwelling units], and configuration as Building #18 and that anything in addition to or different than specifically that, will require a PEC review and approval of an amended plan (see attached development plan). Any change to the development plan will require evaluation of the proposal by the PEC in accordance with all development standards of the Low Density Multiple Family (LDMF) zone district based upon the lot area and buildable area for Phase X, Building #19 (alone) as presented by you (i.e., the site improvement survey prepared by Inter-Mountain Engineering, Inc, dated 3/31/98, entitled "Site 19, Timber Falls, Town of Vail, Eagle County, Colorado;" site area of 34,052 sq. ft.). Also, this PEC decision makes it clear that the development plan controls development in the Timber Falls development and not the development standards of the LDMF zone district, and therefore, once Building #19 is constructed there will be no available Gross Residential Floor Area or density remaining for the balance of the Timber Falls development. In order to proceed with an amendment to the development plan you will need to provide a complete submittal as if you were applying for a DRB approval (i.e., stamped survey of Building #19 site with a surveyor's calculation of buildable area, site plan, easement for access, hazard report for site 19, landscape plan, grading plan, building plans and elevations for all buildings, etc.). Please note that the survey submitted does not have a complete calculation of buildable area, as it must include the red avalanche hazard area and floodplain, in addition to the areas of Page I of 2 RECYCLED PAPER TIMBER FALLS c Nt MS_tUF __•_:• CREEK -. °-- u, Gj(y3� {G(r &yam ' - « LU �y.}Y.+' ,er � • � � 1..� � ,� n GaUUON Aq FALLS- tMftlER CIRCtt ` rl f a ���.1. ENf TjS i Q l J FtlltttlR t 1� ` tt✓ t —� / 19 «t .REVr;EOTM,�t�T � : � �•� � t�I� ,,. � � � ' � }� j/ f7 �c� (° ' "' «''FUFURE\ t 4 i (f LP HA 'Y4 , . }?,fl t^ ly, alt. �; t�.t•� USE r rl 7 ti d E f crF` Uhf �y /xEA'..�' g t.. 17 r 00 f.� G0NUON AREA APPROVED BY TORN OF VAIL t. �7. Pf/ tt 'i t t A _ f2 �. "' 14,.r f•` c (f qty 5 1f r Q vi .., . 0 E��I AMS Development, Inc* April 22, 1998 Dominic Mauriello c/o Town of Vail Planning Dept. 75 South Frontage road Vail, CO. 81657 Re: The Chalets at Timber Falls Dear Dominic: I am in receipt of your letter dated April 16, 1998, regarding my application for an amendment to the Timber Falls development plan. After reviewing the letter, I am still confused about the following issues: 1. The first sentence in Paragraph 2 indicates that any change in the development plan will be subject to all development standards of the LDMF zone district and shall be specific to Site #19 only. Please understand that Site 419 is part of the overall Timber Falls development and cannot be separated from the development solely on staffs interpretation. The next sentence then states that the development plan controls, not the standards for the LDMF zone district. These two sentences contradict each other. Please clarify. 2. In the last sentence of Paragraph 2, you state that the PEC decision dictates that the development plan controls, not the development standards of the LDMF zone district. Since the existing development plan does not define GRFA, the amount of GRFA available to Site #19, and the entire project, is in question. A. Present day LDMF zoning, given a current survey indicating net buildable area, would show approximately 38,000+/- square feet of GRFA, B. In measuring the plans for Building #20 on file at the Town of Vail, the GRFA shown is 7,325 square feet. This plan does not indicate whether the GRFA for the entire project was utilized to it's fullest extent. C. The applicant is requesting 9,500 square feet and is willing to relinquish any remaining GRFA in question for the development. 3. The applicant agrees to prepare and submit a complete (as if submitting to DRB) review package including all items described in Paragraph 3. Prior to making the financial commitment to preparing this detailed submittal package, the applicant needs direction from the PEC regarding the following items: A. The applicant is proposing to change the development format from condominiums to single-family residences. Is this acceptable to the PEC? (1970),476,8610 500 South Frontage Road East,, Ste. 112 f970),,476.,8637 ffax) Vail, Colorado 81657 B. Given the past history of Timber Falls and the applicant's intent to lower the density on Site #19 from the original building (6 units) to a lessor number of units, what number of units are appropriate for the site under consideration? C. Lastly, what is the maximum GRFA to be considered for the site under consideration? Attached is a set of "red lined" plans showing the 7,325 sq.ft. of GRFA in Building 920. Please include this memorandum in the agenda for this Monday's PEC meeting (April 27th) I will be attending the meeting with the sole purpose of answering the above questions and tabling the actual development presentation until May 11, 1998. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to call me at 476 -8610. Thank you for your cooperation regarding this application. cc: Richard P. Rosen Marty Fowler Ron Riley President MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE. April 27, 1998 SUBJECT: A request for a worksession to discuss a major amendment to Special Development District #4, Cascade Village, to allow for the construction of ten fractional fee club units, fifteen accommodation units and twenty -one employee housing units, to be located at 1325 Westhaven Drive, Westhaven Condominiums /Cascade Village Area A. Applicant: Gerald L. Wurhmann, represented by Robby Robinson Planner: George Ruther 1. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant, Jerry Wurhman, is requesting a major amendment to Special Development District #4 (Cascade Village) pursuant to Title 12, Chapter 9A of the Town of Vail Zoning Regulations. The major amendment is intended to modify a 1995 major amendment approval for the Westhaven Condominiums; located at 1325 Westhaven Drive (the "Ruins "). The applicant is proposing to amend the 1995 Westhaven Condominium approval to allow for the operation of a fractional fee club. The new fractional fee club is proposed to include: ten, two - bedroom, fractional fee club units, • fifteen, one - bedroom accommodation units, and • twenty -one, one - bedroom employee housing units. The 1995 approval allowed for the construction of fourteen free - market condominiums and seventeen employee housing units. At this time, only minor alterations are anticipated to the exterior of the building and all the other development standards are proposed to remain substantially unchanged. The purpose of this worksession is to discuss the following issue: • How the proposed fractional fee club will be operated and the ownership structure of the club. 1 TOWN OF I1. BACKGROUND On April 19, 1995, the Vail Town Council approved a major amendment. to Special Development District #4. The amended development standards approved by the Town Council are compared to the original SDD approval and the 1998 proposal, and are listed below: DF=VEILQPMENT STATISTICS Lot Area: 0.85 acres or 37,026 sq. ft. Zoning: SDD #4 (Cascade Village) Development Standard Original SDD Approval 1995 Approval Height: GRFA: Free Market: Accommodation: Fractional Fee: EHUs: Total: Common Area: Density: Free Market: Accommodation Fractional Fee: EHUs: Setbacks: Site Coverage: Landscaping: Retaining Walls: Parking: 55' 22,500 sq. ft. 0 sq. ft. 0 sq. ft. 6,400 sq, ft, 28,900 sq. ft. (78%) 10,115 sq. ft. (35% 20 du's 0 au's 0 ffu's 10 EHU's 30 total units (27.4 du's/ac) no 35% (12,959 sq. ft.) 50% (18,513 sq. ft.) 376 75% shall be enclosed 44 total spaces Md 1998 Proposal 55' 25,644 sq. ft. 0 sq, ft 0 sq. ft. 9,554 sq. ft. 0 sq. ft. 13,013 sq. ft. 8,296 sq. ft. 10,279 sq. ft, 33,940 sq. ft. (92%) 32,846 sq. ft. (89%) 3,417 sq. ft. (11.8%) NYD 14 du's 0 au's 0 ffu's 17 EHU's 31 total units (23.2 du's/ac) 24' 0 du's 15 au's 11 ffu's 21 EH, 47 total units (25.49du's/ac) 0m, • Im 36.7% (13.598 sq. ft.) 36.7% (13.598 sq. ft.) 47.9% (17,767 sq. ft.) 47.9% (17,767 sq. ft.) none proposed none proposed 82% shall be NYD** enclosed 45 total spaces Employee Housing: minimum of 8 units; 17 EHUs, similar to 21 EHUs, similar minimum of 648 sq. ft. each; Type IV restrictions to Type IV should not count towards restrictions density or GRFA. 9 for density calculation purposes, accommodation units are 0.5 du's, employee units are 0.333 du's and fractional fee club units and free market units account are 1 du. each. ** NYD - Not Yet Determined A complete analysis comparing all the development standards will be provided at a ;later date. On March 3, 1998, the staff met with the Vail Town Council to discuss the proposed development review process and to provide the Council with an opportunity to provide initial feedback and direction to the applicant, staff and Planning and Environmental Commission regarding the major amendment request. The Council provided the following direction and feedback. 1, What is the anticipated construction timeline? If the site is not to be developed in a reasonable time period, the existing improvements needs to be removed. 2. The parking requirement for the development shall be provided on -site. 3. A detailed plan outlining the proposed fractional fee club ownership pattern and operation shall be provide for review and consideration. 4. The proposed review process is acceptable. rm n DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS Pursuant to Section 12 -9A -2 of the Municipal Code, in part, 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." Since the applicant proposes to change the uses and change the number of dwelling and accommodation units, staff has identified the applicant's request as a major amendment. In accordance with Section 12 - -9A -4 A -C of the Municipal Code, an approved development plan shall be required prior to construction. The approved development plan shall establish requirements regulating development, uses and other activities in the special development district. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall conduct the initial review of the amendment to the special development district. The review shall take place at a regularly scheduled meeting. Following the Planning and Environmental Commission's review, the Community Development Department shall forward a report to the Town Council stating the PEC's findings and recommendations on the amendment request. The Town Council shall then review the application based upon the information submitted. An approval of the application by the Town Council shall require two readings of an ordinance. 3 IV. DISCUSSION ISSUE The Community Development Department has identified a number of issues which we believe the applicant, staff and Planning and Environmental Commission should discuss prior to a final review. The staff has identified the following issue: 1. According to Section 12-2-2 of the Municipal Code, a Fractional Fee Club is defined as, "A fractional fee project in which each condominium unit, pursuant to recorded project documentation as approved by the Town of Vail, has no fewer than six (6) and no more than twelve (12) owners per unit and whose use is established by a reservation system. Each of the fractional fee club units are made available for short-term rental in a managed program when not in use by the club members. The project is managed on-site with a front desk operating twenty-four (24) hours a day, seven (7) days a week providing reservation and registration capabilities. The project shall include or be proximate to transportation, retail shops, eating and drinking establishments, and recreational facilities." The staff believes it would be beneficial for the staff and the Planning and Environmental Commission to have the applicant discuss how the proposal is in compliance with the above-described definition of a fractional fee club. On March 9, 1998, during the applicant's first workession meeting with the Planning and Environmental Commission, the PEC expressed their interest in having the applicant make a presentation on the proposed operation/ownership of the Westhaven/Cascade Fractional Fee Club project. In response to the PEC's request, the applicant has submitted information outlining how the club Will be operated and the ownership structure of the club (see attached). The applicant has also provided a written statement indicating how they have respond to each of the PEC's concerns identified at the previous worksession. V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION As this is a worksession to discuss the proposed request fora major amendment to Special Development District #4, staff will not be providing a recommendation at this time. Staff will provide a recommendation and complete evaluation of the proposal at the time of final review. The applicant's's request is tentatively scheduled for a final PEC recommendation on the major SDD amendment request on May 11, 1998. • M • n �sryt- /�'u A4 r;- 13, ,* PROPOSED MODE OF OPERATION /OWNERSHIP FOR WESTHAVEN /CASCADE F .ACTIONAL FEE CLUB The Westhaveca/Cascade Club will fu coon as fractional fee club and consist of 132 members each of whom will own a interest in one of the eleven (11) club condominium units. Membership in the club shall include`. a. Guaranteed use of a club unit 28 nights per year. b. Unlimited additional use on a "space available" basis. c. Under building parking while in residence. d. Storage for skis/bikes and golf clubs. e. Priority and discount benefits for lodging in the Westhaven/Caseade accommodation units. f Guest privileges for utilization of Vail Cascade Hotel amenities g. Membership in the Cascade Club on an individual basis providing use of their facilities including fitness center, indoor /outdoor tennis, swimming pool, gyre, etc. h. Benefits of club affiliations to be made for any available Vail Valley;. activities, i. "Concierge" service for reservations and tickets to Vail. Valley facilities and functions. Various classes of membership will be offered in the club including Platinum/Gold/ Silver/Bronze and each will have designated benefits and privileges with respect to utilization of the club and priorities for reservations of club units. The Club will operate through an elected Board of (Directors who will oversee and monitor all functions of the Club. This will include its management which will be implemented through Destination Hotels and Resorts Inc. (IDH&R) which owns and operates the Vail Cascade Hotel and Cascade Club. Their proposed activity is summarized in attached Exhibit B. The Club will be a sub - association and part of a Master Condominium Association for the Westhaven/Cascade project which will also consist of sub- associations for operation and separate ownership of, a) the employee and manager housing units and b) the accommodation unit. The Master Association will be controlled by the Club, but will provide for equitable consideration of the interests of the other two sub - associations with respect to rules/ regulations, usage, maintenance, pro - ration of expenses for shared casts and assessments, Each of the sub - associations will govern itself and be a cast center for sharing in the expenses of the Master Association, COMMENTS ON MARCH 9s 1998 WORKSHOP SESSION lei OF VAUL PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION I. Comments on Issues Raised: A. Compliance with Fractional Fee Club Ordinance: In accordance with the proposed mode of operation as outlined in attached Exhibit A: 1. There will be no more than 12 owners per unit. 2. Club members! use of said Club units will be determined by a fixed reservation format including a priority system based upon various classes of membership. 3. Each of the fractional fee club units will be made available for short term transient public renters when not in use by club members through our club management program by Destination Hotels and Resorts Inc, (DII&R) which owns and operates the adjacent Vail Cascade Hotel and Cascade Club. This will be implemented as outlined in attached Exhibit B. 4. The project will be operated on-site with a five-in manager and front reception desk in the entryway. It will be operating 24 hours per day, 7 days per week with direct staffing during prime times and with telephone access for the manager or the Vail Cascade Hotel front desk during other times. Both registration and reser- vations will be handled in this manner. S. The project is proximate to transportation, retail shops, restaurants and recreational facilities. B. It is recognized that the proposed project has three distinct different uses in the forum of 1. Fractional fee owned club units. 2. Short term accommodation units. 3. employee housing units. However, we feel patronage of club units and accommodation units will be similar since both will be used for "transient lodging" by a compatible clientele and as such, will be less impacted or concerned with the on-site "employee" tenants. This is unlike the presently approved plan for residential condominiums which affected our sales success in attempting to market upscale, wholly owned primary/secondary units in conjunction with rental employee housing. Insofar as the employee housing units are concerned, we feel it would be desirable to be able to have "owner" employee occupants feeling it would create a more responsible tenant than only permitting rental tenants. As such, on would like to -request permission to sell the employee units to individual unit owners. 10 39Vd svisiA SV_1 Z6019Z60L6 16:Z1 8661/6 160 ! . C 91 C. As requested, we are submitting herewith the following information to complete our application: 1 Written statements as outlined herein and in Exhibit A re: "Mode of Club Ownership and Operation: and Exhibit B re. "Mode of Club Management 2. Topographic survey of site. 3. Updated site plan for project proposed. 4. Updated building elevations and floor plans for revised uses. 5. Vicinity map ,sho wing adjacent buildings. 6. Previously presented massing model is available as needed. 7. Previously submitted landscape plan with supplement to show revisions proposed. 8. Retails of fractional fee club ownership, operation and manage- ment are defined in Exhibit A, Exhibit B and herein: D. The previously approved project was designed to be compatible with the existing Cascade Village in aesthetics and use and we feet that the revised uses in the project as now proposed, without changing the exterior aesthetics of the building, will retain this compatibility. Pedestrian circulation has been provided to permit our tenants to conveniently access the proximate adjacent amenities with the sidewalk. system we will be constructing. Also, we will pursue the "skywalk" overpass to interconnect the Cascade Club building if, in fact, their owners concur as it obviously would be a benefit to our tenants. E. All parties agree the present appearance of the site is NOT desirable and we want to assure you of our desire to obtain your approval for our revised project and proceed expeditiously to get3,it under way and completed. The projected timeline for this will require a reasonable time after approval to permit pre - construction marking and project development completion. We feel a one -year window from the time of final approval would be reasonable for this and would commit to doing so or "capping" the parking structure, restricting controlled access and providing some landscape enhancement on Westhaven Drive could be implemented. Comments on Council Concerns A_ Construction= timeline per item I E. herein. B. Parking requirements for the project should be provided on -site with the proposed 47 spaces available. These will be utilized as: 1- Eleven (11) surface spaces on site for short-term parking and for registration of guests. 2. "Thirty -six (36) spaces in building garage to be used for assigned parking of Twenty (24) employee units and manager, plus transient use of club members and accommodation unit tenants "in residence ". SViSIA SV I Z6019ZGOLG 16 :Zti , 8661 /£TJ90 Our management company has had extensive experience with "parking considerations" in their operation of the Vail Cascade Hotel in con- junction with their ownership and use of the Cascade parking garage therewith and feel strongly that we will only see approximately 50% of � the transient lodging guests utilize cars and parking. As such, they feel the twenty -five (25) available spaces in our project (i.e. 47 less 21 assigned EHU/Mgr.) will be more than ample to accommodate the twenty -six (26) (11 plus 15) "transient lodging" guests we will have in residence at any one time. Although we recognize your parking for "residential' use would call for two (2) cars for each of our eleven (11) club units, we trust you will acknowledge that said units will NOT be used as t 4ical whole owner - ship condominiums as primary or secondary homes! Rather there will be twelve (12) fractional owners per unit which will a document. restricted for "transient lodging" use and, therefore, � eel they should be considered as accommodation units requiring a lesser parking demand. Based on .7 space per accommodation unit would require (.7 x 26) twelve (12) spaces and with the 21 dedicated spaces for EHU/Mgr. totals on thirty -seven (37) spaces vs. the forty -six (46) provided should permit us to satisfy parking requirements. The proposed operating, plats for the fractional fee club is outlined herein and Exhibits A and B. I • 0, 60 39vd SVISIA SV-1 Z60i9Z60L6 t£:Zt 8661/81190 I. # f =� March 14, 1998 Mr. Jerry Wuhrman c/o Robby Robinson Slifer, Smith, Frampton 230 Bridge Street Vail, Colorado 91637 Dear Jerry: After our recent discussions regarding the management of Westhaven Condominiums, you asked me to pert together an informational letter on some of the management plans and programs that we intend to implement. Here are some thoughts on how we anticipate the property mianagetnent program would be implemented: Resident Manager We anticipate housing on site will be available for a resident :manager. The resident manager would likely have Clay to day property management responsibility for the employee units, for the club traits, and for the accommodation units. That responsibility would, by example. include maintenance, housekeeping, customer and owner relations, club management etc. Other Oat Site Staff There will probably be a need for a limited number of additional staff on site, to handle club management responsibilities such as checking in arriving club members, and handling other building management responsibilities. Off site Staff We expect the property to be managed by Vail Cascade Condominiums (VCC). The VCC administration office would, by example, handle the short term reservation processes (non club reservations), accounting efforts, raid term and long term planning, etc. The marketing and sales efforts in relation to the short term rental of accommodation and available curb units, will be handled by the VCC administration staff. This will likely include both group business and the vacation traveler market segments. On Site Office We anticipate the need for an office or common gathering area on site to serve the Club members wbiie they are on the property, and potentially to service the Club membership reservation program. Amenities We expect that the following amenities at the Vail Cascade Hotel and Club would be male available to the Westlutvcn Condominium Club and accommodation unit users, as part of the negotiated Management agmcment(s) between VCC and the owners of those entities: • Shuttle service • Hotel pool and hot tub usage • Cascade Club discount access • Fulling privileges at outlets Room service • Meeting space as available • Front desk services 1476 WcSthavr:ri ! )rive- + Vail, Colorado 81657 - 970.47& 6106 F1(7C1.543.41101 Fax 9711.476.4946 dC)(3: SC) 86-w9L --AVW ZO' d Page 2 Westhaven 3/16/98 We have considered the parking demand placed on the Westhaven property by it's occupants, based on our hotel and condominium customer experience in Cascade Village. This experience leads us to believe that somewhere in the neighborhood of half of the building's winter season customers will bring their own vehicles, while in the summer a slightly higher percentage of visitors will have parking needs_ Please let me know if I can provide additional information. Sincercly, Don MacLachlan General Manager C dO0 =5b 86- 9t- ..�t'W STANDARD PUBLIC HEARING PROCEDURE • OPEN PUBLIC FEARING • STAFF PRESENTATION • APPLICANT PRESENTATION • PUBLIC TESTIMONY IN FAVOR IN OPPOSITION • PLANNING COMMISSION QUESTIONS STAFF APPLICANT PT TRT ,TC. • CLOSE THE PUBLIC HARING • PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION, FINDINGS, AND DECISION 0 TIPS FOR BETTER MEETINGS M .. .... *DEFINE MEETING PURPOSE* *DEVELOP AN AGENDA* *DISTRIBUTE THE AGENDA* *PREPARE THE MEETING SITE* STARTING /CONDUCTING *START ON TIME* *REVIEW /AGREE ON THE AGENDA* *STICK TO THE AGENDA* *INVOLVE ALL PARTICIPANTS* *SUMMARIZE AGREEMENTS* *KEEP A WRITTEN RECORD* END OF MEETING *END ON TIME* *RECAP HIGHLIGHTS* *ASSIGN RESPONSIBILITIES* *DEBRIEF THE MEETING* *SET NEXT MEETING DATE, TIME, PLACE* *THANK PARTICIPANTS* AFTER THE MEETING *TALLY DEBRIEFING EXERCISE* *PREPARE/DISTRIBUTE MINUTES* *COMPARE AGENDA WITH MEETING RESULTS* *MONITOR FOR ASSIGNED DUTIES AND TASK* • PROD FOR MOTIONS • BALANCE MEETING NEEDS FOCUS V. BRAINSTORMING RETICENT V. DOMINEERING MEMBERS • REMEMBER YOU ARE DEALING WITH PEOPLE 0 STANDING RULES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION NO PERSON SHALL ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION WITHOUT FIRST BEING RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIR. + ALL QUESTIONS AND REMARKS SHALL BE ADDRESSED THROUGH THE CHAIR. AFTER BEING RECOGNIZED, EACH PERSON FORWARD TO THE PODIUM AND STATE THEIR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. + WHEN A GROUP OF CITIZENS IS PRESENT TO SPEAK ABOUT AN ITEM, A SPOKESPERSON SHALL BE SELECTED BY THE GROUP TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION. + EACH PRESENTATION BY A SPOKESPERSON SHALL BE LIMITED TO TEN MINUTES. + ANYONE FROM A GROUP MAY BE RECOGNIZED IF THEY HAVE SOMETHING NEW OR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION TO ADD TO AN ITEM. THIS ADDITIONAL PRESENTATION SHALL BE LIMITED TO FIVE MINUTES. + INDIVIDUAL (NOT REPRESENTING A CITIZENS GROUP) PRESENTATIONS SHALL BE LIMITED TO FIVE MINUTES. • ALL REMARKS SHALL BE ADDRESSED TO THE PLANNING CONIlMIISSION AS A WHOLE AND NOT TO ANY INDIVIDUAL MEMBER. • NO PERSON OTHER THAN MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE PERSON HAVING THE FLOOR SHALL BE PERMITTED TO ENTER INTO ANY DISCUSSION, EITHER DIRECTLY OR THROUGH A MEMBER OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION, WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE CHAIR. +► ONCE THE QUESTION IS CALLED FOR OR A PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED, NO PERSON IN THE AUDIENCE SMALL ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THE MATTER WITHOUT FIRST SECURING PERMISSION TO DO SO BY A MAJORITY VOTE OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. • ANYONE WISHING TO SUBMIT EXHIBITS FOR THE RECORD SHALL PROVIDE THE CLERK WITH COPIES FOR EACH PLANNING COMMISSIONER, ONE FOR THE RECORD, AND ONE FOR THE PLANNING DIRECTOR. • ANYONE WISHING TO MAKE A STATEMENT ON THE RECORD SHALL FIRST STATE THEIR NAME AND ADDRESS AND SAY` "I WISH THE RECORD TO SHOW..." AND THEN SPEAK VERY CLEARLY. • ANYONE WISHING TO READ A STATEMENT INTO THE RECORD SHALL PROVIDE THE CLERK WITH A WRITTEN COPY OF THE STATEMENT. • HOW TO BE A BETTER PLANNING COMMISSIONER • REMAIN FRESH • HAVE ANNUAL RETREATS OR GOAL SETTING SESSIONS • CONTRIBUTE TO MEETINGS • REMEMBER THE BIG PICTURE • EVALUATE TESTIMONY • APPROACH AS A JOB • KEEP ON TRAINING • DEVELOP ANNUAL WORK PROGRAM • MAKE EFFECTIVE MOTIONS • BE CONSISTENT e -. Im Im HAT?' ?` ? ? ?T? • O Iotf Subject: WHAT ? ? ? ? ? ?? Date Thu, 16 Apr 1998 14 :26:21 -0600 From: Ginny Gulp <gculp@vail.net> Organization: RE/NfAX Vail, Inc. To: ssilver @vail.net I received a Council Highlights today and read over the Lionshead Master Plan PHC recommendations relative to height. I am amazed that a group of local citizens could be so incredibly stupid. This is not what your constituency wants at all. wake up! Doubling and almost tripling height allowances does not show any sensitivity to local concerns about growth, density, massiveness. Oh, I know.... we are going to "compromise' off those recommendations. Right ... and the local residents still lose. What is wrong with`the old standards? Do we have to change what Vail is to accomodate what others want to create? I hope not ... but you guys are sure bending over backwards. I'm disgusted. VAIL TOWN COUNCIL 75 S. FRONTAGE ROAD VAIL, CO 81657 DEAR MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL; � a a is PHILIP M. HOLBERT 5178 E. LIONSHEAD CIRCLE VAIL, CO ;81657_ xc . r c- I HAVE BEEN AN OBSERVER OF THE LIONSHEAD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT, AND THE HEIGHT AND MASS ISSUES COUNCIL NOW FACES ARE PERHAPS THE MOST DIFFICULT AND SENSITIVE TO DATE. I THINK IT BEHOOVES THE COUNCIL TO CAREFULLY CONSIDER THE D -IPACT TO THE COMMUNITY OF LARGER,TALLER, AND BIGGER BUILDINGS. WHILE IN PRINCIPLE I AGREE THAT LIONSHEAD WOULD BENEFIT FROM A FACELIFT, THE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT SHOULD NOT BE USED AS A SMOKE AND MIRROR CLOAK FOR REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT INTERESTS, WHOSE REAL MOTIVES ARE LIKELY AT ODDS WITH MINE. I SHUDDER TO THINK THAT LIONSHEAD MIGHT BECOME ANOTHER BEAVER CREEK, IS NOT BETTER WHERE (IN THIS WRITERS OPINION) BIGGER VERY TRULY YOURS, PHILIP M. HOLBERT n Lionshead redevelopment Subject: Lionshead redevelopment Date: Sat, 18 Apr 1998 19:42:53 -0500 From: Douglas B Haynes <dhaynes@BLornand.Net> To: SSilver@Vail.net Suzanne, My wife and I have communicated with you several times in the past and have gotten the feeling that our comments were being acknowledged but pushed aside because they didn't conform with the direction that the plan is "supposed" to go. Perhaps that is because we have not been able to effectively communicate our views. We are afraid that in the process of expansion Lionshead is going to lose the very thing that makes it different from the Village and Beaver Creek - it's semi rural environmentally friendly atmosphere. That is, the lack of dominance by concrete and steel structures. To us the best thing about Lionshead is it's friendliness. It is OK to make it more attractive but lefs not make it impersonal We recently discovered an article discussing how a major university, in it's need for expansion, diverted away from the direction ifs founding fathers had laid out. It is now trying to recover from those errors. The expansions that were made were very tasteful and expensive but cost the campus some of it's character. They found that the most attractive building cannot replace natural beauty. I will fax this article to you via the town council @479-2157. If that is not a current fax#' please let me know. Sincerely, Doug and Sandra Haynes E toff 4/20/98 7:17 AM APR-18 -98 SAT 7.53 PIS DOUG & SANDRA HAYNES FAX NO, 615 668 4709 PRom THE PRESIDENT ;Afoot in the academic village tt-F F.MORY CAMPUS is not a "pedestrian" campus car. dominate the landscape, and persons on foot . must take great care when crossing some streets. Who-at is more, the inherent beauty of the campus is olxscured, its calmness disrupted, its serenity despoiled. It was not always so. When Henry I lorn6ostel designed the campus for the new university being built in Atlanta in 1915, he did so with sensitivity to the sire and the city, and he did so with both innovation and respect for the past fie designed well. Although Emory never fully built all that llanmboste:l designed for this campus, his vision guided the development of every construction F.mory undertook for the next fifty years. Unfortunately, as often happens when the founding generation passes on, the plats for Emory's campus fell victim to the whims of fashion and the demands of an increasingly complex institution, Building feverishly because we needed to, we did not always build well or with a proper sense .of our architectural heritage and a view to the, best use of our finites acreage, Mince the fall of 1996, in consultation with the %lti- more firm of Ayer,: /Saint /Gross and a remarkable team of architects, designers, and engineers led by Adapt Grow, we have been rng -aged in trying to seq. our campus home wirh fresh eyes. The consultants have met with scores of groups and hundreds of individuals, including the Board of Truswes, the University Senate, the Fac_ulryCouncil, the Student Government "Association, Emory Tillage titerchants, :and many interested n €ighhors. The team has researt:hed Emory's history, topography, vegetation, roadways, traffic and parking patterns, classroom use, and architectural big and misses. They have enabled us ro see this place anew. Along the way, they have reminded us of certain princi, pies inherent in that early Hornhostel plan principles worth remembering and reclaiming. The first principle is that our environment can go a long way in f,oste.ring a shared sense.of being part of an inte =llectual community. That kind of community, after all, is what Emory is about. The second principle is that the best campuses connect spaces and huildings by handsome quadrangles, eleganr- pathways, and green vistas-not by roads and parking lom– Thc campass should encourage people to ger out of their cars and into the "academic village." Third, our campus can benefit from a clearer under, standing, of where its central spaces and its defining . edges :ere located. Tito often visitors complain that they Jidn r realize rhey were on the campus until they'd driven halfway through it. Our fourth guiding princi- ple will be that Emory's architectural "hinguage," first given its vexabul ary by President William K Chacc I lornbastel in the Quadran- gle la,aildings, is every bit as graceful and lovely as that of the best college campuses, and we would benefit frorn using that language more consistently. Fifth, Emory has, and must protect, certain "sacred" spaces: Lullwater, the Baker Woodland, our creeks and our stands of mature trees. Sixth, and underlying all, we. mast develop with "enlightened frugality," so that every dollar spent an - Emory's physical plan will support our academic mission. And, finally, we must be determined to implement the toaster plan with sustained discipline:. Our colleagues from Ayers/Saint/Uross have shown us beauties we had begun to take for granted, blemishes we had grown used to overlooking, and potential we never dreamed existed. In die summer of 1997, determined to begin making this breathtaking potential, a reality, the Project Steering C:omrnittee and the University Progrant and Budget Committee approved the renovation of North Kilgo Circle;, between the Psychology Building and the Callaway Center. Some thirty -eight parking spaces were eliminated, ;asphalt was torn up, and old concrete sidewalks were removed. In their place was laid a warm and 'inviting dark - redbrick plmo, with large areas of grass that have been planted with shrubbery and ones. The transformation, admired by many, serves as a kind of foretaste of what is to corns. As the master - planning process conies to a conclusion this spring, Emory will be left with docurnents that will guide development and construction for the next half - century. We will now go forward with a legacy of partici- pation by all constituencies in the planning of one of die most important eletnents of our community life --our environment. We will be left with a sense Ofexpcctancy and excitement as we ltx)k ahead to implementing many of the consultants' rec oinlatenclatiotas. In the decades to cone, the transformation begun Ott North Kilgo Circle will spread across the campus, reclaiming green space and tuaking Emory once again the beautiful place that our alumni have always remcmlvred it to be. For this, we can be thankful to Aycts,/Saint/Greags and to the many studcnb, faculty, staff, trustees, and friends who have been part of this conversation. I hope yuca will have an opportunity soon to revisit your usenet mater and see what is afoot. Cl P. 2 BMOXY MAOAZINF, X l P �r 01 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION April 27, 1998 Minutes MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF-PRESENT: Greg Moffet Russ Forrest Galen Aasland Mike Mollica Diane Golden Dominic Mauriello John Schofield George Ruther Ann Bishop Judy Rodriguez Tom Weber Brian Doyon Public Hearing 2:00 P.M. The meeting was called to order by Greg Moffet at 2:00 p.m. 1. A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for a recreational facility (skate park) on the top level of the Lionshead Parking Structure, located at 395 E. Lionshead Circle /Vail Lionshead First Filing. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Mike Mollica Mike Mollica stated that he went over the memo in the pre - meeting and would now entertain questions. Greg Moffet asked if the applicant had anything to add. They did not. He then asked for any public comments. There were no public comments. Galen Aasland agreed with the 4 conditions in the staff memo. Ann Bishop had no comments. Diane Golden asked about rules and enforcement of wearing helmets and said that she supported this. Diane Johnson said that insurance required helmets and peer pressure was used to get everyone to wear them. Tom Weber said he supported this. Brian Doyon had no comments. John Schofield suggested finding a permanent place in Town for the skate park. Planning and Environmental Commission 0 Minutes April 13,1998 Greg Moffet stated that the application met the criteria. John Schofield made a motion for approval, in accordance with the staff memo. Diane Golden seconded the motion The motion passed by a vote of 7-0. 2. A request for a setback variance, to allow for parking in the required 20' front setback, located at 4192 Spruce Way/Lot 5, Block 7, Bighorn 3rd Addition. Applicant: Altair Vail Inn, represented by Kenneth Holsman Planner: Dominic Mauriello Dominic Mauriello gave an overview of the staff memo. Greg Moffet asked if the applicant had anything to add. Ken Holsman, property manager for Altair, said there was no way for irrigation to service that area and so he disagreed with the condition requiring trees along Spruce Way. Greg Moffet asked for any public comments. There were no comments from the public. Tom Weber asked if all the reserved signs were needed for the parking spaces, as they were unappealing. Rick Hersey, an Altair owner, said they were needed due to the limited supply of parking. Brian Doyon said he supported the findings of the Town staff and that the plants were not surviving because they were too small and impacted by the snow, but larger, more mature plants should live. John Schofield agreed with Brian. Rick Hersey said the two large pine trees would remain. Tom Weber said to run PVC's under the asphalt, as long as the asphalt was being torn up Rick Hersey said they were not tearing up the asphalt. Galen Aasland said the applicant needed to provide the trees with the condition that they live for 2 years. Ann Bishop said it looked stark and supported the staff memo. She thought the applicant could improve on what was there now. Diane Golden said the applicant needed to put in landscaping. Greg Moffet stated that if a variance was granted, it would overcome a special privilege by bringing a non-conforming property more into compliance. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes April 13,1998 9 John made a motion for approval, in accordance with the staff memo, with the additional condition that the large existing pine trees, located west of the existing parking lot, be protected during construction. Brian Doyon seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 7-0. 3. A request for a density variance, a building height variance, a site coverage variance and a minor exterior alteration, to allow for a bay addition, located at 193 Gore Creek Drive, Lot A, Block 5B, Vail Village First. Applicant: Rodney and Beth Slifer, represented by Jim Buckner Planner: George Ruther George Ruther gave an overview of the staff memo. Greg Moffet stated for the record, that the applicant was not present. Galen Aasland said he had no problem with the exterior alteration request in the CC1 and no problem with the site coverage or height variances, but he had a problem with the density request. Ann Bishop had no comments. Diane Golden said the bay window would be an improvement, but disagreed with the variance requests. Tom Weber agreed with the staff recommendation.. Brian Doyon agreed with Galen and also had a problem with density. John Schofield had no comments. Greg Moffet said he didn't think this application met the findings of the CC1 Zone District . He said it was a special privilege and if the PEC voted to deny the variances, the exterior alteration in the CC1 would become moot. George Ruther suggested tabling this item, since the applicant was not here to provide testimony. Greg Moffet said the applicant would have to request this item be tabled. Ann Bishop made a motion to table this item until May 11, 1998. Galen Aasland seconded the motion. The motion failed by a vote of 2-5. Tom Weber made a motion for denial of the variance requests, as submitted by the Town of Vail. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes 3 April 13,1998 Brian Doyon seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 6 -1, with Ann Bishop voting against. 4. A request for an amendment to a previously approved plan for the Timber Falls Development, located at 4469 Timber Falls Courtlunplatted. Applicant: RAD Five L.L.C., represented by Ams Development, Inc. Planner: Dominic Mauriello Greg Moffet disclosed for the record that Greg Amsden was a customer of his, but that he felt there was no conflict. Dominic Mauriello gave an overview of the staff memo and said that once they built the building, there would be no GRFA left. Greg Amsden, representing the applicant, stated that they couldn't limit the site to the development plan, since there was no development plan. He said he disputed the second sentence of the second paragraph of the letter. He said the applicant was after what would be an acceptable number of units with a format that would be acceptable. Greg Moffet asked the PEC members for guidance for the applicant. John Schofield stated that there was GRFA regulation when this was originally platted by the County. John said the development plan presented at the last meeting was very specific. Greg Amsden said that could be established by a survey. John Schofield questioned the common area and could not approve a plan which included the common area as development potential. Dominic Mauriello said the approved development plan showed all the :spaces around the building as common area. John Schofield said the common area was not specific to that specific site, but pertaining to the overall plan. Greg Amsden said the county records don't specify a common area. He then said the owner was just trying to finish the development out. Brian Doyon agreed with John. Greg Amsden said the land was owned by RAD Five and never was represented to be part of the association, so they had no right to it. He then said he wanted to focus on this site only. Brian Doyon said there would be no more building available after this project. Tom Weber said you could do Building 19 as a vested right, but stay out of the common area; because the common area doesn't come into play for the development rights of Building 19. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes April 13,1998 0 Greg Amsden asked why the PEC would take away 2,300 sq. ft. of GRFA. Tom Weber said the whole site had nothing to do with Building 19. He said the applicant would have to give the PEC someplace to start, such as to overlay the zoning and the PEC needed to have the applicant propose a site. Diane Golden had no comments. Ann Bishop had no comments. Galen Aasland agreed with the three other members. He said the applicant had a vested development right to build Building 18 on the Building 19 site and that if they wanted to make any changes, there may be a reduction in square footage. Greg Moffet said the owner had the right to build Building 18 on the site they have. He said the owner had a vested interest in a development plan and the fair solution was the right to build a building here. He said he was having trouble with this being a judgement equity case. He said the applicant could go with the development plan or with the zoning, with the development plan being compelling for a density variance. He said if the applicant relied on the history, he could get over the special priviedge to get the 7,300 sq. ft. Greg said he needed to see a good configuration. Greg Amsden asked the PEC for input on the condos or the single family approach. He asked, given the site, was it swallowable to the PEC? Galen Aasland said, yes, it was reasonable, but he would expect to see the impacts on the site to be similar. Ann Bishop and Diane Golden agreed with Galen. Tom Weber said, yes, but it comes down to the configuration. Brian Doyon asked the applicant if he was suggesting that the owner was going to sell off the land. Greg Amsden said they just wanted to build a product. Brian Doyon said he was concerned on how the lot would be divided. Tom Weber asked if they were going to plat separate lots and provide parking. Greg Amsden said all the envelopes were on the site and parking would be contained and the purpose from going from a condo to a single family would be beneficial. Brian Doyon said by dividing up the parcels, the condos had no rights to that land. Greg Amsden said the owner would deed all the remaining lands to the association, as it made sense to put it all in one package. Tom Weber asked if the condo association would have to purchase that land. 40 Greg Amsden said, no. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes April 13,1998 5 E John Schofield said he was in favor of the single family approach. Greg Moffet said he was not adverse to single family homes, but felt this was a site coverage issue and he said that the PEC would be receptive, if the applicant would come in under the 7,300 sq. ft. Dominic Mauriello summarized the PECs comments; that the applicant seek a density variance or be subject to GRFA statistics. Galen Aasland said the density variance was hard to overcome. Greg Moffet said he wanted to amend the existing development plan and not talk about zoning. He said the alternative was apply LDMF, as a zoning issue. He said the development plan was grounds for granting a density variance, since equitable argument was compelling. Tom Moorhead said the PEC has determined that the vested right was to do the same as Building 18 and if anything else was done it would have to stand on its own. Greg Amsden asked for a definition of "stand on its own," as he stated that staff would strictly enforce the interpretation. Greg Moffet said, from a conceptual discussion, the applicant had a different read from the commission. Dominic Mauriello asked the PEC for clarification on what application process the applicant needed to go through. Greg Moffet stated that it was up to the applicant and the PEC would not dictate what the applicant could ask for. Dominic Mauriello said the applicant could request an amendment to the development plan at his own risk, or come back with a variance application. Greg Amsden stated that there would not be specific floor plans at this time. Greg Moffet said to come in with what he had. Tom Weber said he wanted to see building heights. Brian Doyon said he wanted to see massing and scale on how it fit in with the site. Greg Moffet said on a conceptual basis, he would like to see GRFA and massing. Dominic Mauriello stated that it sounded like a full application was needed. 5. A request for a worksession to discuss a major amendment to SDD #4, to allow for a fractional fee club and a change to the approved Development Plan, located at 1325 Westhaven Dr., Westhaven Condominiums/ Cascade Village Area A. Applicant: Gerald L. Wurhmann, represented by Robby Robinson Planner: George Ruther Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes April 13, 1998 George Ruther said that this was a worksession on a limited scope and was the second worksession, He said at this time, there were 4-5 issues that needed addressing. Gerry Wurhmann, the applicant, said he conformed with the definition of a fractional fee club by having no more than 12 owners per unit and the issue of on-site management with a reservation system. He stated there would be a manager there 100% of the time, who would live in a decent unit. He explained that the telephone at the entryway would go into the manager's residence and also to the Cascade Hotel. Ann Bishop was concerned about coverage for reservations, as well as managing the building. Gerry Wurhmann said the Cascade Club would handle the reservation end of it, but the checking in would be done by the manager. He explained that on Fridays and Saturdays, a separate party would work the front desk. He said the manager would answer to the developer. Greg Moffet asked if this front desk arrangement met the code. Gerry Wurhmann said reservations would be done by the Cascade Hotel. Greg Moffet said "on site" is in the building or in the neighborhood and asked if this constituted a front desk. Tom Weber thought this could work as being on-site. Gerry Wurhmann suggested having someone at the next PEC meeting on May 11 th, to explain how it would work. Brian Doyon said he felt this wouldn't fulfill on-site 24 hrs., as the manager would need to go on vacation, etc. He said an office or station has not been provided, just a place to live with a title. Gerry Wurhmann said the Cascade Hotel desk would be open 24 hrs. John Schofield said the Austria Haus couldn't do it using the Bavaria Haus front desk. He said the ordinance was drafted because of what might happen should the Sonnenalp no longer manage the Austria Haus. John felt the front desk did not comply with the code, as the desire was to have a warm body, not a telephone, to greet customers as they came in. Gerry Wurhmann said the manager's job was located where he lived. Greg Moffet reminded the applicant that this process was going to end up in front of Council, who drafted this law. John Schofield said the ordinance was very clear. Brian Doyon asked if people should be out searching around for a manager to get into their, units. Gerry Wurhmann said it was in our best interest to have someone there. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes 7 April 13,1998 Galen Aasland agreed with the other commissioners and said this application should be treated Obconsistently with the Sonnenalp. He didn't believe any leeway was given the Sonnenalp, on the prime-times. He asked if the on-site management unit was going to be deed restricted? Gerry Wurhmann said, yes. George Ruther said the Austria Haus had to have 7 deed restricted units. Galen Aasland said a manager on -call I didn't meet the intent of the ordinance and should be treated the same as the Austria Haus. He said this would need 5 people to manage this front desk. Gerry Wurhmann said the night workers could check people in Galen Aasland said he would like to see some on-site, deed restricted units. Greg Moffet said there were 21 deed restricted units in the building on the first floor. Gerry Wurhmann said he would like to sell the units to get an owner-employee, rather than a renter- employee. Ann Bishop said the code was clear. George Ruther said the Austria Haus had a warm body. Diane Golden said she viewed this differently, as this was in close proximity to the hotel and was much closer than the Austria Haus was to the Bavaria Haus. Greg Moffet said if the applicant physically connected this to the Cascade Club, he could view this as an on-site front desk. He said there was no guarantee that there would continue to be a managing relationship with the Cascade and therefore, the PEC needed to have an ironclad structure in place that would contemplate any changes in management or ownership. He asked staff , in SDD land, if there was some flexibility in the underlying zoning rules and if the PEC had authority to permit for-sale EHU's in the building. George Ruther said these were a combination of Type III and Type IV. Diane Golden asked if 132 owners all called this number, what would the manager do? Gerry Wurhmann said we would deal with it. He then defined the club portion and the 21 rental EHU's , which would be owned by the developer or would be on its own, if the association sold. He said the AU's would be owned by the developer and he then defined the ownership portion. John Schofield asked how the Town could enforce this. Gerry Wurhmann explained the platinum and gold members for prime time and stated that this was not a rotating priority system, as there would be different classes of membership. George Ruther asked the PEC about pursuing the skywalk interconnect to the Cascade Club. Planning and Environmental Commission 01 Minutes April 13,1998 N Tom Weber liked the idea, but stated that this was not a slam dunk, as there were still operating issues. Gerry Wurhmann said access to the Cascade would be a marketing idea for club membership. Brian Doyon said he would support this, as long as it didn't affect the streetscape or landscape plan. He said he didn't want to see making a primary access, by foregoing the budget for the landscape. He said'he would approve a streetscape improvement, before a catwalk. John Schofield said he would want a skywalk. Galen Aasland said if the applicant wanted a skywalk, that would be, fine, but for the long term they needed a management plan. Ann Bishop had no comments. Diane Golden had no comments. 6. A request for a minor subdivision of Lot G-1 to create a new lot, located at 1410 Buffehr Creek Road, Lot G-1, Lion's Ridge Subdivision Filing 2. Applicant: Leroy Schmidt, represented by Eric Johnson Planner: Dominic Mauriello TABLED UNTIL MAY 11, 1998 John Schofield made a motion to table item #6 until May 11, 1998. Ann Bishop seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 7-0. 7. Public Meeting Procedures & Discussion: • Time allocation for public input. • Closing public comment period. • Debriefing of meeting. • Effective date of any changes. Greg Moffet said this discussion was specifically for non-applicant input. He said the only problem was enforcement; we would need to get a clock or flashing lights. Mike Mollica said procedural elements can be posted, as staff was not advocating setting a time line. He said it would give the chair the opportunity to close the meeting according to the operating rules. Ann Bishop thought these were good suggestions that needed reviewing and she suggested discussing them at the next meeting. Diane Golden complimented the Chair for well-run meetings. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes April April 13,1998 I I Dominic Mauriello said with some applicants, the rebuttal can be confusing. Diane Golden said she hesitated getting too strict, as the PEC had a good rapport with the, public. Ann Bishop agreed with Diane and thought the Chair could run it the way he wanted to. Tom Weber said it would be good to have some guidelines: John Schofield thought it a good idea to give the ability to the Chair, but not a specific time. Greg Moffet suggested maintaining flexibility, but he said with a "beast such as Lionshead," it would be a good idea to hold everyone to 5 min. Ann Bishop agreed, but suggested setting some ground rules. Brian Doyon thought it would be good for an applicant to sit down if discussion was getting too heated. Greg Moffet agreed that basic ground rules would be helpful. Brian Doyon said a summary of the public at the end would make it clear. Galen Aasland thought it would help if things became a challenge, to go back to a set of rules. Mike Mollica stated he got the idea from an APA conference he went to and suggested posting it. Greg Moffet asked if the Town would pay for the PEC members to go to a conference. Russ Forrest said it was not in the budget at this time. Greg Moffet asked for education in the pre - meetings. Greg Moffet said this discussion will continue at the next meeting 8. Information Update Greg Moffet said the PEC was saddened to lose Mike Mollica. Russ Forrest gave an update on the Common Ground. 9. Approval of April 13, 1998 minutes. Diane made a motion to approve the amended minutes. Tom Weber seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 6 -0 -1, with Ann Bishop abstaining. Ann Bishop made a motion to adjourn. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes April 13, 1998 11 LI Diane Golden seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 7-0. The meeting adjourned at 4:05 p.m. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes April 13,1998