The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutVAIL VILLAGE FILING 1 BLOCK 2 LOT D CHRISTIANA AT VAIL CONDO VARIANCE REQUEST WITHDRAWAL 1992 LEGALUn l l/rilrf,* r;/q / 6prba hr D ^ olnuTo-^.'@&'k"Yur^r* ftf MUA{'?W JAY K. FEiERSON TELEPHON E t303t 475€O92 FAX LIN E r 303t 479-0457 Jev IL PnronsoN ATTORNET AT L{W SUITE 3O7 VAIL NATIONAL BANK BUILDING IOA SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD WEST 1'Atr4 COI,oRADO E1657 MEMORANDT'M TO: MIKE I'{OLLICA, TOWN OF VAIL FROM: JAY K. PETERSON DATE: MAY 28 r L992 RE: CHRTSTTANIA/VARIANCE Dear Mike: Pursuant to our telephone conversation of todayrs date, christiania,L!d:.hereby withdraws their application to extend the one year periodof tine for its setback variances for the christiania Lodgl . rL is nyunderstanding that you wirl withdraw this rnatter from the June 8th.L992 hearing. If you have any guestions please contact rne at rny office. 1Ec- tlv,;-( zr, /772 tt\rilal lv tn-. Yrtnz -#r 'f'tr. YV February 24, .nnr' 0PHIL''...Yl nrv\l/ i )hJfr \rU TAKristen Pritz Communi ty Develotrrment Town of VaiI 75 Sottth Frontager RoadVai1, Colorado 81557 Re: Setback vari.ance reqlle s t Dear Ms Pritz, I would Iike to request an ext_ension for t-he setback varianeerequest whi clr was approved at the April B , 1991 pl anni ng antl Et't t'i ronmen t a1 comrnissi on Meet-1ng. The setback variance reqnest wasapproved for the Christiania Lodge, l,ot D, Block 2, Vail \ri11ageFirst Fl1ing/356 Hanson Ranch Roacl . If 1,-or-r have rrnl' questions concerni ng t_his issrie, please rjo notlresitate to call ure at 476,5647. PRJ./11 356 E. Hanson Rancb Rd. .Vail, (olorada 81657 FAX (3o.r 476-0470 hnstr-ln ClcristianiA, ot vait G09 476-5641 . o FILI f;ffifl'Y 10. A request for an extension of a oreviouslv approved variance for thc Ckistiania Lodee. 356 Hanson Ranch Road/Ilt D. Block 2. Vail Villaee First Filine. Aoplicanu Paul & Sallv JohnstonPlanner: Mike Mollica Dalton Williams moved to table the above item until the June 8, 1992 meeting. Greg Amsden seconded the motion. The item was tabled by a 5-0 vote. 11. Aporoval of April 13. 1992 meerine minutes. Dalton Williams moved to approve the minutes of the April 13, 1992 meeting as amended. Greg Amsden seconded that motion. The minutes were approved by a 5-0 vote. 9. Discussion of a reouest made bv the United States Forest Service (Holv Cross and Dillon District Raneers) regarding management oractices in the Eaglcs Nest Wilderness Area. Aoplicanc William Wood and Jeff BailevPlanner: Andv Knudtsen Discussion was held by the Commissioners, with recommendations and comments given to Andy Knudtsen to be relayed to the Forest service. The general consensus was that maragement policies that would include a permit system should not be adopted. Requiring people to secure permits to enter a wilderness area was fundamentally opposed to the wilderness concept. For areas showing signs of overuse, the suggestion was made to limit the size of parking areas at trail heads. Or, if steps such as restricting physical access was not sufficient, completely closing an area for a period of a few years would be an acceptable alternative. At this point, discussion retumed to item 7. 7. A review of a staff approval of a minor amendment to Soecial Development.District No- 6. Phase IV-A of the vail village Inn: lot o. Block 5-D. vail viuaee First Fi]ine/l00 East Meadow Drive. Applican* Josef Staufer Planner: Mike Mollica Kristan Pritz reviewed the previously approved plans. Bill Pierce, the architect for the project, said dre problem was the schematic plans werc not completely designed. After the previous approval, the Fire Department and others all wanted changes to the design. He said there was a reason that the minor amendment procedure had been crcated, and he felt too much was being asked. Kristan indicated the same "problem" had occurred during the Garden of the Gods approval, and that it had been resolved by asking the same quesrion need.ing to be asked at this time: Is the 1,800 sq. fr of comrnon area being requested appropriate? Planning and Environmenul Commission . Apfl 27, 1992 . Page 7 " X 4t"^,h-J*A Wt f,*^ fup,,fr PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE lS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town ofVailrrill hold a public hearing in accordance with Section 18.66.060 of the Municipal Code of theTownof Vailon April27,1992at2:00p.m.intheTownof VailMunicipal Building. Consideration of: 1. A request for an extension of a previously approved variance for the Neuswanger Residence, Lot 6, Block B, Vail Flidge/2642 Cortina Lane.Applicant: Chris NeuswangerPlanner: Jill Kammerer 2' A request for an extension of a previously approved variance for the Christiania Lodge, 356 Hanson Ranch Fload/Lot D, Block 2, Vail Village First Filing.Applicant: paul & Sally JohnstonPlanner: Mike Mollica 3. A request for setback and site coverage variances to allow for the extension of two balconies and an airlock at the Vail Trails East Condominiums, 433 Gore Creek Drive/Lots 7-15, Btock 4, Vait Viilage First Fiting.Applicant: Vail Trails East Homeowners Association/Mark Foster, PresidentPlanner: Shelly Mello 4. A request for a conditional use permit to allow an outdoor dining patio on the first floor at the Lodge at VailM/ildflower Flestaurant, 174 Gore Creek Drive/a Portion of Block 5C, VailVillage First Fiting. Applicant: Lodge at Vail/Sherry Donrrard, Planner: Andy Knudtsen 5. A request for setback and site coverage variances tor the Wilhelm Flesidence, 4289 Nugget Lane, West unit/Lot5, Bighorn Estates, ResuMivision of Lots 10 and 11, Bighorn Estates. Applicant: Robert and Karen WilhelmPlanner: Jill Kammerer 6. A request for an amendment to an approved development plan for spruce creek, Phase lll, 1750 S. Frontage Hoad WesUspruce Creek, phase lllApplicant: Michael LauterbachPlanner: Andy Knudtsen 7. A request for approval of a modification to the final phase at vail point, 1gg1 Lionsridge Loop Roadilot '1, Block 3, Lionsridge Filing No. 3.Applicant: Steve GenslerPlanner: Jill Kammerer 8. Any items tabled from the April 13, 1992 meeting. The applications and information about the proposals are available for public review in the Community Development Department office. Town of Vail Community Development Department Pubjished in the VailTrait on Aprit 10, 1992 /l M/-"1= /-Aq>-' a'b 75 south lrontage road yail, colo.ado 81657 ($3) 479,213s (3Gt) 479-2139 September 10, L991 office of community development Mr. Paul JohnstonChristiania Lodqe356 Hanson Ranch RoadVail, Colorado 91657 Re: Damage to evergreen tree Dear Paul: You reported that- a llrve. evergreen tree on your property had beendamaged by a large_truck raci:-nq into it. foi-r.rt trrut some ;:l|:tt" should be found titii-*o"Tc conrroi-wnere-targe rrueks can There is a 'No Parking't sign in the area of this tree. r wirl_bring this matter to tnd poiice Departnent.rs attention forenforcement. We appreciate Vou. lnformation on t,his matter. rf you have any further questions, please do not hesitate t.o calr. Sincerely, "fu.Isol-ack Technlcian Hughey Betsy Planning TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Planning and Environmental Commission Community Development Department AprilS, 1991 A request for a setback variance in order to allow the construction of a lobby addition and an addition to a third floor dwelling unit. Christiania Lodge,356 Hansen Ranch Road, Lot D, Block2 Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Paul R. Johnston DESCRIPTION OF THE VARIANCE REQUESTED A. East Side Setback Variance The Public Accommodation (PA) zone district requires 20 foot setbacks on all sides of the property. Under PA zoning, architectural projections (eaves, roof overhangs, awnings etc.) may project not more than 4'-0" into a required setback. Unroofed balconies decks and terraces etc. projecting from a height of more than five ft. above the ground may project not more than 5'-0" into the setback. Porches, steps, decks or lerraces at ground level or within five feet of ground level may project not more than 10 feet into the required setback. An existing legal, non-conforming east side setback of zero feet results from the Christiania's conneclion to the Chateau condominiums. In expanding the lobby and 3rd lloor dwelling unit, additional square footage will be constructed within the setback. On the first floor the lobby expansion will add 271 sq. ft. of common area and 17 sq. fl. of airlock, while on the ground (basement) floor 535 sq. fi. of mechanical area will be added. The 3rd floor expansion will add 44 sq. ft. of GRFA to the eastern unit (Unit A). The roof overhang over the proposed lobby and third floor additions will further encroach into eastern side setback. Under Section 18.64.050 (A) of the Municipal Code, any structure which does not conform to the requirements for setbacks, may be enlarged provided the addition fully conforms wilh setback requirements. ln this particular instance, because the addition will further encroach into the required side setback, a side setback variance must be obtained. The proposed addition wil! encroach a maximum of 20 feet into the required 20 foot side setback. Theretore, a 20 foot side setback variance is required. il. I The existing front setback is 15 feet due to the encroachment of the northwest corner of the lodge. A zero setback exists on the east side of the propeny as the Christiania Lodge connects directly with the Chateau Condominiums to the east. Currently, the west side setback is 17 feet due to the 3'-0" encroachment of the southwest corner of the building into the 20 foot setback. The existing rear setback is 8'-6" as the existing Sarah's deck projects 11'-6" into the 20 fool rear setback (see attached site plan), BACKGROUND On May 11, 1987, the Planning and Environmental Commission voted to approve density and setback variances in order to allow the construction of additions to the Christiania Lodge, At that time it was the opinion of Community Development Department staff that approval of an increase in density would be a grant of special privilege and recommended the request be denied. During this same time, public hearings had been held to review the Vail Village Master Plan, however, the plan was still in draft form and had not been formally adopted by Council. The Goals and Objectives of the Vail Village Master Plan supported the 1987 remodeling proposal and therefore the PEC voted to approve the density and setback variances. Subsequent to the 1987 PEC approval of the variance request, no construction has occurred. ln 1990, the Christiania Lodge redevelopment proposal went through several generations of revisions. These redevelopment proposals were reviewed by the Planning and Environmental Commission as worksession items on October 8, 1990, November 12, 1990, and November26, 1990 (atthis meeting this item was tabled indefinitely). At various times during this period the PEC discussed setback, density, parking and common area variances related to the Christiania Lodge. On March 6, 1991 a redevelopment proposal which did not require any variance/PE0 approvals was reviewed and approved by the Design Review Board. Under the redevelopment proposal approved by the Design Review Board (DRB), Paul and Sally Johnston, owners of the Christiania Lodge, propose to add a new third floor to the existing structure lo accommodate 2 new dwelling units, to remodel the structure's interior, to construct a walking path along Mill Creek, to screen the existing dumpster, to pave and landscape the eastern hall of the northern parking lot when ownership and rights to this lot are resolved, and to remove a porlion of an existing asphalted area adjacent to the proposed Mill Creek walking path. III. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS A. Zone District: Public Accommodation B. Site Area: 0.380 acres or 16,540 sq. ft. C. Density: (25 d.u,s allowed per acre, 1 d.u = 2 a.u.) Allowed: 9 d.u.s Existing: 2 d.u.s and 25 a,u.s = 14.5 d.u.s DRB approved Plan: 2 d.u.s & 14 a.u.s - 9 d.u.s Amount over allowed after remodel: 0 d.u.s D. GRFA: (80 sq. ft. o{ GRFA allowable per 100 sq. ft. of buildable site area.) Allowed: 13,232 sq. ft. Existing: 7,397 sq. ft. DRB Approved Plan: 12,743 sq. ft. Proposed: 13,058 sq. ft. GRFA Remaining after redevelopment: 174 sq. ft. E. Common Area: (20% of allowable GRFA)Allowed: 2,646 sq. ft. DRB Approved Plan: 3,130 sq. ft.Proposed: 3,401 sq. fl. or 26/" of allowable GRFA (lncludes 271 sq. ft. of new lobby area) Amount over allowed ol 755 sq. ft. has been added to GRFA. F. Accessory/restaurant (10% of Constructed GRFA): Allowed: 740 sq. ft. Existing: 756 sq. f.t Proposed: No Change G. Office: As Approved by Conditional Use Permit: 72 sq. ft. H. Mechanical: Proposed (no maximum): 1,336 sq. ft. L Setbacks: 20 fi. required all sides Existino Proposed Front 15 ft. No Change. East Side 0 ft. 0 ft. West Side 17 ft. No ChangeRear 20 tt. No Change Variance requested J. Site Coveraqe: (.55 of site area) Allowed: 9,097 sq. ft. DRB Approved Plan: 5,456 sq. ft. Proposed: sq.ft. Remaining: sq.ft. K. Landscaping: (30% of site area) Required: 4,962 sq. ft. Existing: 7,490 sq. ft. Proposed: 5,943 sq. ft. L. Heiqht: Allowed: 48 ft. sloping rootl4s ft. flat roof Existing: 36 ft. sloping Proposed: 43 ft. flat M. Parkino: Existinq DRB ApprovedUse # Spaces Required # Spqces Flequired Accommodation Units: 25 units = 16.4 14 units = 13.4DwellingUnits: 2units= 4 2units= 5 $arah's Lounge: 6 6 Realty Office: 0.3 0.3 Christian Chateau Townhomes: 9 g Total 35.7 0r 36 33.7 0r 34. .The Town currently recognizes the Christiania as having 3 parking spaces. Under the DRB approved plan there was a 2 space reduction in the required parking spaces. There is no increase in parking requirements under this proposal. Christiania currently provides 3 parking spaces in a small lot west of the existing building. The parking which occurs within the required setback at this location is a "grandfathered" situation. The applicant proposes to continue to provide 3 parking spaces at this location. IV. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT The applicant has since modified the March 6, 1991 DRB approval and is now seeking approval of an east side setback variance to allow the expansion of the existing lobby and the addition of 44 sq. ft. of GRFA lo the eastern third floor unit. This lobby also serves as the lobby for the Chateau Christian Townhomes. The following is a summary of the DRB approved development proposal and the modifications proposed under this setback variance request: A, Ground Floor {Garden Level) .3 accommodalion units @ 2010 sq. ft. .Common area @ 1367 sq. ft. .Chateau mechanical area @ 282 sq. ft. .Christiania Lodge mechanical area @ 1336 sq. ft. .Christiania Realty Office (conditional use permit has been obtained) @ 72 sq. ft, .Airlock 33 sq. ft. B. First Floor .5 accommodation units @ 2376 sq. ft. .Common area @ 1490 sq. ft. .Airlocks @ 148 sq. ft. .Restaurant @ 756 sq. tt. .Fireplaces: 2 C. Second Floor .6 accommodation units @ 3441 sq. ft. .Common area @ 412 sq. ft. .Fireplaces: 2 D. Third Floor (Condominium Level) .2 dwelling units East unit (A) @ 2361 sq. ft. West Unit (B) @ 2043 so. ft.Total 4404 sq. ft. .Common area @ 132 sq. ft. .Fireplaces: 3 E. Mechanical Loft .Mechanical @ 205 sq. ft. .Common area @ 13 sq. ft. F. All existing and new fireplaces are proposed to be gas including the conversion of the wood burning fireplace in Sarah's Bar. G. Site lmorovements .Construction of walking path along Mill Creek .Removal of 596 sq. ft. of asphalt from the northwest corner of site adjacent to the stream walk .Removal of the Christiania split rail fence from the Vail Associates (V.A.) owned property .Enclosure of dumpster .Landscaping and paving of eastern half of northern parking lot H. Proposed Dwellino Unit & Accommodation Unit Summarv 2 D.U.s at 4,404 sq. ft. GRFA = 2.0 D.U.s 14 A.U.s at 4,360 sq. fi. GRFA = 7 D.U.s Total 8,764 sq. ft. GRFA _ 9 D.U.s l. Parkinq The Town of Vail recognizes that the Christiania Lodge has 3 parking spaces. All of these spaces are considered legal nonconforming spaces due to their location within the required setbacks on the Christiania Lodge site. Section 18.64.050 of the Municipal Code allows structures and sites which are nonconforming because of parking, to be expanded provided the enlargement does not increase the existing nonconformity. Under this redevelopment proposal no additional parking spaces will be required, V. CRITERIA Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Vail Municipal Code, the Department of Community Development recommends approval of the side setback variance request based upon the following factors: A. Consideration of Factors: vt. 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existinq or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. ln general, the staff believes the setback variance request does not impact the property or adjacent uses any more than does the existing structure. Under this redevelopment proposal trees will have to be removed. The property most impacted by the setback requests, the Christian Chateau Townhouse Association building, has agreed to the redevelopment as proposed. For this reason, the setback variances are considered lo have no significant negative impacts on adjacent properties. 2. The deoree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified reoulation is necessary to achieve compatibilitv and uniformitv of treatment amonq sites in the vicinitv or to attain the obiectives of Jhis title without orant of soecial privileqe. The staff believes it would not be a grant of special privilege to approve the setback variance as the remodel does nol increase setback encroachment beyond those that already exist on the property. lt is reasonable to allow relief from the easlern 20 ft. setback as this is the logical location for an expansion of the lobby. 3. The effect of the requested variance on lioht and air, distribution of pooulation, transoortation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. The setback variance request will have no negative impacts on any of the above crileria. The construction of the walking path adjacent to Mill Creek will enhance the Village pedestrian experience. The addition will have no impact on transportation or traffic facilities, As designed, the lobby and Srd floor additions will not impact the proposed Hanson Ranch view corridor any more than does the DRB approved redevelopment proposal. RELATED POLICIES IN THE VAIL VILLAGE MASTER PLAN It is staff's opinion the proposed redevelopmenl meets the goals and objectives of the Vail Village Master Plan. The Master Plan emphasizes the upgrading of lodges, the improvement of the pedestrian experience, as well as the enhancement of open space. This proposal supports the Master Plan's objectives by improving the existing lobby while complying with site development standards.'As a condition of approval the OnA nas required the applicant to landscape and pave the parking lot located north of the Christiania Lodge and presently used by the lodge, once ownership of the lot is resolved. This paving and landscaping will improve the appearance of this existing parking area in a highly visible portion of the Village. The pedestrian path will also enhance open space lor pedestrians. The following is a list of the Vail Village Master Plan Goals and Objectives which relate to this project: GOAL #1 - ENCOURAGE HIGH QUALITY REDEVELOPMENT WHILE PRESERVING THE UNIQUE ARCHITECTURAL SCALE OF THE VILLAGE IN ORDER TO SUSTAIN ITS SENSE OF COMMUNIW AND IDENTITY. 1.2 Obiective: Encourage the upgrading and redevelopment of residential and commercial facilities. 1.2.1 Policy: Additional development may be allowed as identified by the Action Plan and as is consistent with the Vail Village Master Plan and Urban Design Guide Plan. GOAL #2 . TO FOSTER A STRONG TOURIST INDUSTRY AND PROMOTE YEAR-AROUND ECONOMIC HEALTH AND VIABILITY FOR THE VILLAGE AND FOR THE COMMUNIry AS A WHOLE. 2.5 Obiective: Encourage the continued upgrading, renovalion and maintenance of existing lodging and commercial facilities to better serve the needs of our guests. GOAL #3 - TO RECOGNIZE AS A TOP PRIOFITY THE ENHANCEMENT OF THE WALKING EXPERIENCE THROUGHOUT THE VILLAGE. 3.1 Obiective: Physically improve the existing pedestrian ways by landscaping and other improvements. 3.1.1 Policv: P rivate develop ment projects shal I i nco rpo rate streetscape i m prove me nts (such as paver treatments, landscaping, lighting and seating areas), along adjacent pedestrian ways. GOAL #4 - TO PRESERVE EXISTING OPEN SPACE AREAS AND EXPAND GREENSPACE OPPORTUNITIES. 4.1 Obiective: lmprove existing open space areas and create new plazas with greenspace and pocket parks. Recognize the difference roles of each type of open space in forming the overall fabric of the Village. I vlt. GOAL #5. INCREASE AND IMPROVE THE CAPACITY, EFFICIENCY, AND AESTHETICS OF THE TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION SYSTEM THROUGHOUT THE VILLAGE. COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN FOR VAIL VILLAGE Sub-Area Concept No. 8: "Mill Creek walking path, west side Mill Creek. Path completes linkage from pirate ship and mountain path to Gore Creek Drive." The Urban Design Guide plan calls for the construction of a path connection between the bike path and Hanson Ranch Road. The addition of a foot path would be a positive improvement to the pedestrian experience in the Village area. In further support of this goal, ihe applicant has committed, as a part of the DRB approval, to remove 596 sq, tt. of paved area adjacent to Mill Creek. This paved area, which is currently used by the Christiania for parking and dumpsler storage, is located on Vail Associates and Christiania owned property. Even though the path was originally proposed for the west side of Mill Creek, staff believes that the east side provides a more attractive walking experience. The west side of the creek has a trash room for Cyrano's, as well as several utility boxes, which make it an unpleasant area to walk. VIII.FINDINGS The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before orantino a varianee: A. That the granting ol the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with lhe limitations on other properties classified in the same district. B. 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. C. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: 1. The strict literal interpretation or enforcemenl of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. 2. 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. 3. 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. IX. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the side setback variance. The setback variance can be supported by Findings A, B, C (1), and C (1), (2), (3), as the encroachments are not generally increased above those that presently exist on the site and the additions do not negatively impact adjacent properties. Further, it is reasonable to allow the expansions given the existing configuration of development on the site. lt would be dilficult to locate the expansions on another area of the site without requiring a setback variance and still have the additions logically, functionally and programmatically make sense. 10 7 2'6'P/ 661 etuz. lamz^ ' Gd Fl /s rt 2@ F/. JeF/. RoEl /et/ /370 /4q9 4/3 Jbo s3w . (?4t t A.u. '' e z.ltf e 34"? 7795 'Du,s l-€P,c/' / ({s'v") 6 (il.aae)/97o /943. --..-..-------'- '</4 /# -N-. -31-EVs -7s; a azl ,a/.-4E/ /s F/ zryF/. 35.9 = 36 fcs /A&/ Cru1 ,E/ AZO 5/:7e -p/r,EZA6g t/se /saru.4.i /azaz ) ?5LF " / ==--. (Cl.z,sr+anra- t€ea/f, {, )Jzl & -3 qr,ar&.#en --d t/33 rycr.r'.,?A._ no A .#. a*sYnq \--"/ /ttr/6dtrl ,J9tsa 4.U'= 22e 77F= /6:6 Va.euDU's /e32/3=4 yacer Jarahs /aargzC 7Sl d. = 4 '/n" A) (eatfi yc e 7zF = .3 Oo a) &aka4 T1otnlartes -' 2 (n" a) ffi"?frAgfi,*^(r,9ffi gy"&Jrulf :drts/ aeuvt) A. Zone District: PubLic Accornnodation B. Site Area: .38 acres or 16,540 sq. ft. C. Density: (25 d.u.s al-loued per acre, 1 d.u = 2 a.u.) Allowed: Existing:9 d.u.s = Lg a.u.s 2 d.u.s and 25 a.u.s = 14.5 d.u.sExisting over alLowable: 5.5 d.u.s2.. 2z /3 -Proposed: / d.rt.s and 2r5 a.u.s - \5<5 d.u.s _ / ,. r<-Differenc6 froro existiirg: ,'-+;r.Veervte oJ /-24'L/'o 5Anount over allowed after remodel: €€ d.u,s D. GRFA: (80 sq. ft. of GRFA allowable per 10O sq. ft. ofbuildable site area.) Cotnrnarl) ft. Allowed: 13,232 sq. ft. f Ail. 3i'EExisting: 7 ,3s7 sq. tt.. ,/ 929 (*. et(6r Proposed: -13#18 sd. fE./ /r/Af ,-' t4'/'87 5+2Renaining after 1990 redeveloprnent: *Cq sq. Conmon Area: (208 of allowable GRFA) Allowed: 2,646 sg. ft.Existing: 2,255 sg. ft.za/"Proposed: ffiHtT sq. ft. or 3+|CZ of allowable GRFAJ,625 (o*tess p/l a//oca/ed zb G€FA),.. Z,b4b U Arnount over allowed after remodel: #6 sg. ft. F. Accessory including restaurant and realty office uses(10? of GRF'A) : .\ , r fTl1owed: 1,323 sq. ft.1\t-r,tOt-{S1 | iiirti"s: 7so sq. f .r $..J"O-ft:) | Pronosedz l+;rs4. ft. h.e\T-ca-yu,'i . -I L- R*natnig 4il*,< redeue/. gi stz"J //.G. Mechanical: - Proposed: W sq. tt. Setbacks: Required: 20 ft. aII sides r. J. K. L. Allowed: 9,o97 sg. ft.Existing: 5,235 sg. ft.Proposed: ffi sq. ft. 5 73/Renainingr'ffi "n. ft. Landscaping: (30't of site area) Required: 4,962 sq. ft. O.\Existing: 7,49O sq. ft.Proposed:5f943 sq. ft. Height: Allowed: 48 ft. sloping roofExisting: 36 ft. slopingProposed: 43 ft. flat Parking: Front East Side West Side Rear Site Coverage: (.55 Existing ls ft.0 ft. 17 ft. 20 ft. of site area) 76.4 4 6 0.3 9 35.7 or 36 Proposed . no char!/z- 45 ft. flat roof Proposed # Soaces Required units =units = Use Accomroodation Units: Existinq # Spaces Recruired zz i2 3Dwelling Units:Sarahrs Lounge:Realty oiRice: Christi4ila.-OhateauL-4otal #-rt /6.4 12/-H6+- .3e2i.1 a//0...!1Y+e=:++o' - n{yi::3s.?n Jla ,u r,Etk -A#r*or ^. '' h {r4,:'4 -+4ca spaces required 25 units =2 units = Tounhones: or*36 spaces required -93 on Srtg3 space grandfathered - 3 orandfathered EL33 spaces for addition TO: FROM: DATE: RE: rl-.r t .i)1,. r rrt^,o-/ru^4ao*1 i; ii ";'' plannins ah{-envihonnenta)/r:o.ri==iJ*,): t t '\i{,' j, t' conrnuqity Developrnent Department 3il;ilr,;l\ \. ;',*,i",. . ' -T.Novembe r 26; 1990 " :F' ' ! r,l,r, ,-r^r.,L CrArr,Ae> ZZ: e r.Z:,Wessror.- ,.V/ J,/2)A22o t1242- Ftt tA 2 V- ' v ll'i+t'i' A reguest for density, connon area, parking, and \l setback variances in order to alLow construction of anaddition to and the renodeling of the Christiania iLodge, 355 Hansen Ranch Road, Lot D, Block 2 VaiI LVillage lst Filing ..,-: ..!;;,:ilAppticant: paul R. Johnston .!LI)ll-, BACKGROUND : On May Ll-, L987, the Planning and Environmental Commissionvoted to approve density and setback variances in order toallow the construction of additions to the ChristianiaLodge. At that tine it was the opinion of ComnunityDevelopment Departrnent staff that approval of an increase indensi.ty would be a grant of special privitege and recommended the request be denied. During this sane time,public hearings had been held to review the vail VillageMaster PIan, however, the plan was stil_l in draft form andhad not been formally adopted by Council . The Goals andObjectives of the Vail ViIIage Master plan supported theL987 rernodeling proposal and therefore the pEC voted toapprove the density and setback variances. Subseguent tothe L987 PEC approval of the variance request, noconstruction has oscurred. A comparison of the l-990 redevelopment submission andexisting conditions fol1ows in the Description of theProposed Redevelopment section of this neno. DESCRIPTTON OF THE PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT llr. Paul Johnston, owner of the Christiania Lodge, proposesto add a third floor to the existing structure, to rernodeJ_the structurers interior, to construct a porte cochere, toexpand Sarahrs Bar, to construct a stream walk along MilfCreek, to screen the existing dunpster, to pave andlandscape the eastern half of the northern parking }ot. tograde and gravel- the western half of the northern parkinglot, to remove a portion of an existing asphalted areaadjacent to the proposed stream, wa1k, and Lo add common areato the lodge under this propgrsal . rn ordeq- to carry out theredevelopment as proposed, {_Cllergr_gen EiE-db rnust be removedand density, comrnon area, setback, Enrilarking variancesmust be obtained. The following is a Funrnary of thedevelopraent proposal : J. iv -1'l,;vI r .',ii'r..1Jv ll'\.r' .1 ' ^,/.,l) ttI4r \'/ t\ IIo 'u' ,'\ ,..' , :t'\.J., ^lrfltItV i nf . J .,"i' ,'' ',r*', j l.tuvi' .' Kl r '.il' \l ^ \ \ r'" '/ rr.v,!y\ F!7'\dliS.\),Fj-\ i !J' r A.Ground Floor (Garden Level) .7 acconnodation units 0 2074 sg. ft. .Common area G 2229 sq. ft..Chateau mechanical area 0 271- sq. ft..Christiania Realty office (conditional been obtained) € 2:z sq. ft. First Floor .8 accommodation units € 2325 sq. ft. .Common area 0 L422 sq. ft. use permit has .Airlocks 0.Restaurant . Fireplaces: Second Floor .L dwelling unit with a lock-off € 815 sq. ft..10 accommodation units 0 3292 sq. ft. .Common area @ 623 sq. ft..Fireplaces: 2 Third Floor (Condoniniun Level) .2 dwelling units East unit 0 2166 sq. ft. West Unit I 21-95 sq. ft. = 4361- sg. ft. Total.Common area € 164 so. ft..Fireplaces:4 Mechanical Loft .Mechanical 0 205 sq. ft..Comrnon area I J-3 sq. ft. A1l existing and new fireplaces are proposed to be gasincluding the conversion of the wood burning fireplicein Sarahrs Bar. Site fnprovernents .Construction of stream walk along MilI Creek.Renoval of 596 sq. ft. of asphalt fron the northwestcorner of site adjacent to the stream walk.Removal of the Christiania split rail fence from theVail Associates (V,A. ) owned property.Enclosure of dunpster 'Land.scaping of piriphery of northern parking 1ot.,1. '.':1 Js,'f ',ii1i!,'.Paving of northern parking lot.Grading and graveling of western half of V.A. ownednorthern lot B. c. D. E. F. G. H. Proposed Dwellinq Unit vs. Acconnodation Unit Sunnary 3 D.U.s at 5,176 sq. ft. GRFA = 3.0 D.U.s 25 A.U.s at _l-.!5gz sg. ft. GRFA = 12.5 D.U.sTotal 12,868 sq. ft. GRFA = 15.5 D.U.s III. DESCRIPTION OF THE VARIANCES REOUESTEb A. Density Variance The property is located n'iLhin the Public Acconmodation(PA) zone district. Under PA zoning, 9 dwelling unitsor 18 accommodation units are allowed on this site(please note that 2 acconmodation units or unitswithout kitchens = one dwelling unit). The existinglodge has 25 acconrnodation units and two dwelling unitswhich equal L4.5 dwelling units. Therefore, theexisting situation is nonconforning in that theproperty is already 5.5 dwelling units over theallowable 9 dwelling units. The redevelopment proposacalls for a total of 25 accommodation units plus 3dwelling units which equals L5.5 dweLling units. A aei+te-i==ffi6 ,Lk --- d]0/1,,\ Existinq 25 2 14.5 I l. Acconmodation Units: Dwelling Units:Total Dwelling Units: Proposed 25 __3. 15. 5 6 people Through this proposal the appticant is increasing thedensity of the lodge by L dwelling unit. In additionto comparing the existing vs. proposed accommodation and dwelling units, it nay be helpful for the Commission to review existing vs. proposed lodgecapacity based upon bed counts, existing vs. proposed square footage of lodge and dwelling units and existingvs. proposed keys available for short term rental . Thefollowing lodge capacity comparison does not take intoaccount the nurnber of beds there nay be in the 2 thirdfloor dwelling units. cApacity Existing Capacity: 66 people* Proposed Capacj.ty: 72 peopleAdditional capacity following remodel: *Assume I person/twin and single bed & 2 persons/ double, king and queen beds. Square Footage--Existing sq. analysis Existing Accornmodation Units : Proposed Accommodation Units: Existing Dwelling Units: Proposed Dwelling Units: Proposed IJodge Use: Proposed Dwelling Use: ft. frorn L987 GRFA sq. ft.sq. ft. 1120 sg. ft. 5176 sq. ft. 8507 sq. ft. 4361 sq. ft. With the applicantrs comnitment to perrnanently restrictthe Znd floor dwelling/lock-off unit to short termrental , the square footage of units ln lodge uses is: Existing ground fl"oor accomrnodation units are being converted into cornrnon space and being replaced withIarger upper story accommodation units. This redeveloprnent effort also ca1ls for the renodeling ofexisting accornmodation units and dwelling unit Thelodge may haveexisting GRFAthe new third ,property would redeveloppent -7 t.'lrraL:t, 'f c.04.210, defines trLodgetr as follows: ttl,odgen neans a building or group of associatedbuildings designed for occupancy prinarily as thetenporary lodging place of individuals or familieseither in accommodation units or dwelLing units,in which up to L3,232 sq. ft. of GRFA. Theis 7,397 sg. ft. Proposed GRFA including fl-oor would be l-2,868 sq. ft. The have 364 sq. ft. of GRFA remaining afteris cornplete. residential floor area devoted to dwell-inq units. and in which all such units are operated under a __l_rlgls_rgngggnent providing the occupants thereof customary hotel services and facilities.rt B. o The reguest neets the definition of a lodqe. Of the12,868 sq. ft. of GRFA in lodge room and dwelling unituses following redevelopment, 7692 sq. ft. (59.8?) wi]lbe devoted to lodge rooms and 5176 sq. ft. (40.28) willbe aLlocated to dwelling units. I{ith the 2nd floor dwe).Ling/lock-off unit restricted toshort term rental , 66.18 of the total GRFA will bedevoted to 3-odge uses and 33.9* will be devoted todwelling units. 2OB Common Area Variance Common area, as defined in the zoning code, includeshalls, closets, lobbies, stairways and conmon enclosedrecreation facilities. Under PA zoning, the alLowed conmon area is 208 of the allowable GRFA, oy 21545 sg.ft. Presently. 21255 sq. ft. of common area exists. The proposal adds 2,L96 sq. ft. of additional halLspace, lobby area, lodge office, and storage bringingthe total amount of conmon area to 41451 sq. ft.(33.6&). A variance is necessarv for the l-.805 sq. ft.(13.68) of common area over the al1owab1e cornrnon area. C. Setback Variances The Public Acconnodation zone district reguj.res 20 footsetbacks on all sides of the property. Under pA zoningarchitectural projections (eaves, roof overhangs,awnings etc.) nay project not more than 4r-0n into asetback. Unroofed balconies decks and terraces etc.projecting fron a height of rnore than five ft. abovethe ground nay project not nore than 5r-0tr into theset,back. Porches, steps, decks or terraces at groundlevel or within five feet of ground level rnay projectnot more than l-0 feet into the required setback. The existing front setback is t 5 feet due to theencroachnent of the northwest corner of the lodge. Azero setback exj-sts on the east side of the property asthe Christiania Lodge connects directly with theChateau Condominiums to the east. Currently, the westside setback is 17 feet due to the 3r-9tr snc.rachrnentof the southwest corner of the building into the 20foot setback. The existing rear setback is 8r-6r asthe existing Sarahrs deck projects l_l_r-6r' into the 20foot rear setback. The proposed additions encroach further into the westside, front, and rear setbacks as detailed below: west Side Setback--At the northwest corner of the building, a 2nd and 3rd floor building overhang willproject 7r6il into the eetback. Also in this area is an eave which projects 9r0tr into the setback. The code.r! allows an eave to project only 4t-0rr into a setbackbefore a variance nust be obtained. I{ith the construction of the eave, which projects the greatest amount into this area, the resulting setback would be11r-0rr. A variance is necessarv for the resultinq 9t- Orr setback. Front Setback--Two additions are proposed to the front facade of the building. one of the additions is a new covered entry to Sarahrs Lounge, the other is to the main lobby. These two additions will not encroach anyfurther into the front setback then the 1r-6r' theexisting face of the building encroaches. A secondfloor bay window will project 3t-0" into the front setback and the eave over the bay window will project 4r-6'rr into the front setback. A front setback variance l-oeation. "l .i^ rl ' .', ,,. ,t l- t_.# trocated at theoverhanflwill entrance will proposed porte have a supportproperty }ine. cochere off of the urain column that will be The porte cochere roof the existing propertynot extend beyondline. and the roof of the porte cochere. Rear Setback--The southwestern nost addition will encroach I ft. into the rear setback. At this sanelocation the 3rd floor condoninium overhang encroaches 10 ft. into the rear setback, a second floor deck overhang encroaches 1.4 ft. into the setback and the eave encroaches 14r-6tr into the setback. Because the eave encroaches the greatest amount intothe rear setback, a variance is necessarv for the 14r- 6rr encroachment. this encroachrnent wilL result in a5r-6r rear setback. The final addition to occur on the site is the expansion of Sarahrs Bar. The deck expansion wiJ.l encroach 5r-0n into the rear setback which i.s allowable under the code without obtaining a variance.Currently, Sarahrs deck encroaches 11r-6rr into the rear setback. East Side Setback--In addition to the above roentioned encroachments, on the front, west side and rearsetbacks, the eave over the proposed new lobby additionwill further project into a zero east side setbacksituation. This zero east side setback varianceresults fron the Christianiars sonnection to the Cbateau condominiums. D. Parking Variance: Under thi.s redevelopment proposal 10OA of the parkingto be provided will be surface parking. Section L8.2O.L40, states 75* of all required parking spaces inthe PA zone district be located within the nainbuilding and hidden frorn public view. This requirementapplies only to the 5 additional spaces reguired underthis redeveJ-opment proposal . Under this redevelopnentproposal 100t of the parking to be provided will besurface parking. A variance will be recruired to allowall of the additional 5 spaces to be uncovered spaces. The Christiania parking which occurs within the frontsetback on both the north and west lots is not allowedunder PA zoning, however, this is a pre-existing, nonconforrning situation and therefore does not reguirea variance. Use of the existing northern lot does not reflect thefact that a portion of this lot is owned by the Town ofvail. The existing paved road northwest of the lodgewhich links Hanson Ranch Road r+rith core Creek Drive ison private property. The parcel which was platted forthis purpose cuts througtr the niddle of the northernparking lot. Town Engineer, Greg Hall, has indicatedthe Public Works Department is interested informalizing the situation as it currently exists sothat the Town would have title to the propertyunderlying the road as built and in turn the Town wouldvacate the platted parcel . Under the existing northern lot layout, portions of therreastern halfrr and |twestern halfrr of the lot are on Town right-of-way. As previously discussed, a portion of ttre ChristianiaIot is owned by the Town of Vail and a portion is ownedby Vail Associates. Of the portion leased frour VailAssociates, 6799 sq. ft. (6tt) wilf be paved and 43tOsq. ft. (398) will be landscaped. In order to neet the4L space parking requirernent, 15 of the 37 spaces inthis lot (42.82) vi1l be valet parking. III. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS A. Zone District: F\rblic Acconmodation B. Site Area: .38 acres or 15,540 sq. ft. C. Density: (25 d.u.s allowed per acre, 1d.u = 2 a.u.) Existing over allowable: 5.5 d.u.s Proposed: 3 d.u.s and 25 a.u.s = L5.5 d.u.s Difference from existing: 1 d.u. Amount over allowed after remodel; 6.5 d.u.s D. GRFA: (80 sq. ft. of €RFA allowable per 100 sq. ft. ofbuildabLe site area. ) Allowed: L3,232 sq. ft.Existing: 7,397 sq. ft. Proposed: 12,858 sq. ft. Remaining after 1990 redevelopment: 354 sq. ft. E. Conmon Area: (20t of allowable GRFA) Allowed: 2t646 sq. ft.Existing: 2,255 sg. ft. Proposed: 4,45L s9. ft. or 33.68 of allowable GRFA Amount over allowed after remodeL: 1-1805 sg. ft. F. Accessory including restaurant and realty office uses (1"08 of GRFA): Allowed: Existing: Mechanical: Proposed: 27L sq. ft. 9 d.u.s = 18 a.u.s 2 d.u.s and 25 a.u.s = 14.5 d.u.s {-E1lowed: I,323 sq. ft. I Existing: 780 sg. f.t iPronosed: 1.,415 sg. ft. Il-. G. H. Setbacks: Reguired: 20 ft. all sides Existinq Front 15 ft. East Side O ft. West Side 17 ft.Rear 20 ft. I. Site Coverage: (.55 of site area) Allowed: 9r097 sq. ft.Existing: 5,235 sq. ft. Proposed: 51988 sq. ft. Renaining: 3,LO9 sq. ft. J. Landscaping: (3Ot of site area) Required: 4,962 sq. ft.Existing: 7,49O sg. ft. Proposed: 5,943 sq. ft. K. Height: Allowed: 48Existing:36 Proposed:43 L. Parking: Proposed o ft. 0 ft,9 ft. 5 | -6rl 45 ft. flat roof Prqposed # Snaces Required ft.ft.ft. sloping roof sJ,opingffat Use Accommodation Units: Existinq # Spaces Recruired Dwelling Units: Sarahrs Lounge: Realty of,,{ice: christiAnir0hateau' -total 25 units =2 units = 1,6.4 4 6 0.3 9 35,7 or 36 25 units =3 units = L7.'7 7 8.5 Townhomes: ai.",.*|.2 or 44 aIr,l,':e;a -a*'s,or*36 spaces required -33 on site3 space grandfathered or44 spaces required - 3 qrandfathered 4L spaces for addition *The Town currently recognizes the Christiania as having 36parking spaces. The applicant's representative has indicated the condos have a right to one space per unit. There are 9 condosexisting so the condorniniumrs denand for parking is 9 spaces. The 1980 northern parking J.ot configuration shows a total of 33 spaces. The new parking requirernent of 5 spaces can be handled on-site. The reconfiguration of the north lot andthe use of valet parking will allow an additional 2 spaces on this lot. Three other spaces are available due to therecognition of a grandfathered situation where theChristiania eurrently parks ln the front yard drop-off area. Two of these spaces are on Christiania owned property, theo-,other space, _is on Chatealr Townhouse Assoc. property. rue ftiAssociaiion'frst, sulmi#* letter confirrning- tnit the I Christiania has the unrestricted right to utilize this spaceto rneet their parking demand prior to release of anybuilding permits by the Town. In addition to the gravel lot to the north, Christianiacurrently provides parking in a snall fot west of theexisting building. The parking which occurs in the frontyard setback is a grandfathered situation. The applicantproposes to continue to provide 3 parking spaces at thislocation. Of these 3 spaces, one will be a valet space. V. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section l-8.52.060 ofthe Vail Municipal Code, the Departrnent of Community Developrnent recommends denial of the requested densilg.#Fvariancg and approval of the cornrnon areaparking;qn{-setback varj.anges based upon the following factois: \ / ,'r ,. ; j A. Consideration of Factors: L.The relationship of the recruested variance toother existinq or potential uses and structures inthe vicinitv. Density Variance: The proposed redevelopment will have the foLlowingeffects on existing or potential uses andstructures in the vicinity: a. Under the redevelopment proposa)- the appJ-icant is increasing the nass and bulk ofthe building in a manner that neets the GRFA, landscaping, height, and site coverage reguirements of the PA zone district. 10 b.The roof of the addition will encroach intothe proposed Hanson Ranch view corridor. A view analysis indicates that the third flooraddition will not irnpact any gdggEeg! view the proposed corridor would be ninimaLar*ithe' 3 The removal of existing paved area. theconstruction of the strean wal-k and the li:l.ii i ii of the l. .r'.:,,.',, r, ', ,foriginal 15 view corridors proposed for adoption when the view corridors were established in L9 .i,.At that time, Council did not believe it was -'fappropriate to adopt this particular viewqr. The proposed Hanson Ranch view corridor study 19i photograph was taken from a point approximately 7r-Ort east of the bottorn entrancestep of a shop which is now known as rrFrivolous Salsrr looking east toward Seibert Circ1e doryn ,ther .pedestrian way between Christy SpgqtsrandiT ''rt-r-r'.l--,..' ,t. li,..-i-ri:;1-1::,,.";.: 'l;t'ry iIn earLy 1990 when the Red Lion remodel pfoject was proposed, the establishrnent of this viewcorridor again becane a point of discussion. The PEC and Connunity Developrnent Departnent (CDD)generally agreed at that tine that the CDD staff would pursue the establishrnent of the llanson Ranch view corridor once construction on the Red Lion had been completed because, the roof of the Red Lion would likely be the point above which .t , --b+il*+{rg encroachnent would not be allowed. In \;"j'ii,! -auqus€)of 1990, the PEc held a work session to' , lr:! #t - anE - esiar r ishnent 6 I eex+a++-qFi€ i-t-'i ii g:' p nt\"'' t t''; corridorll. o f,-l,ho.se--diseussed . If the applicant elirninated the 3rd floor addition t^it i)rd '):'--,i..-.---'- over the existing lower roofed-grea (the g;isting west entrance), sEehbeler€s-Ehe view €i*r:*ir,'; ;rt., wrtffif be reduced to a point where ttre inp_act into (.,/ enclosure of the durnpster wil-l all generally inprove the appearancf of the property and d. The removal of 4 evergreens uhich are 18+ feet in height is a concern of the staff and the installitiqn..,qf a significant amount of J-andscaping #1'"nitigate the removal of these tieei. staff is revipicl,ing this situation with the applicant3 representative' The proposed redevelopnent project is conrpatible with- existing uses and structures in the area' Surrounding froperties are either zoned Public Accommodation oi Cornmercial Core I. Both zone districts promote lodge uses. Comrnon Area Variance: The 208 conmon area variance is directly related to the density variance. In order to add new rooms and upgiade the J-odge, it is reasonabl-e to add adeguat-e-toUUy, hallwiy, and accessory office space. The additiinaf conrnon area that is ti'oposeO will irnprove the functioninq of t!'e lodge ina- is not in exless of what is a reasonable amount for these uses. Landscape, height, and. site coverage standards are stilI rnaintained with the additional conmon area. E,'i ",. i '1,[r--., ,',,i,),In general , the staff believes that the setback varlances do not irnpact the property or adjacent Departrnent has indicated they do not have a .rlrt,'Cil-,1;.,t:". pr-oble* with the porte cochere encroachment. expansioi'r setback enlroachments wilt project no fuither into the setback then the roof overhang' ;-, ;.,X ,rit.Y' "'. uses any more than the pre-existing setbacks do.. ,,,'., ., ,'. L\ '.- / The porte cochere will extend no further then the l";;- ,).- '-' ,' exit-ting property line. Further, the Public Works .r: ."\ia tbJi I .i[/'t]1,.{1.).ii.:"ii'".. t"rvv4e!1 E' r-i l, t: ,,. li^11; .'i ^.f,. -., /. !:.. ;- The property most inpacted by the setback /l \:1,:r{r, l\,i' ,rtti,.;.t_,-j,r_",,.,."r.teguests, the Christian Chateau Townhouse h ,. - r..ir;r,,r !.,..-,; i1:Ep.', asiociation building, has agreed to the \^ i.r>{ **i{#ftb4*3#i', redevelopnent as proposed. All other building\t."i,''ti:1. ,€ 5tf[[v.t \t For this reasonr the setback variances are considered to have no urajog negative ir-npacts-on i: adjacent properties P "' / -ljijt'_,1 :rc" !'71: .j," l,'i..:,',,,' Parkinq Variances: The parking on adjacent areas where variance willproperties or parking is to have no negative imPact land uses. All of the be provided are t2 r.' . ri tltr' \+l'i:-{ri r:-'i " ; ' - l'":'f'lt.: .. !: i , -i-ni ) .i,r- l ^.--a 1 ., .'r ,, i ,i-'t,.: .1t i )! .i r jl !i' '',,'t"."i''14t ''' 1' tJ' -li ',1 (t, i.'+\J .. i.i : i-.1 ih.t^,,-4] t- f u .l ,,',., .. i: t.f",.,1 ,.._1 r* ,1,, * .' a. .. r ,! -Y.'I\ . I "l ,, 1 ,... ..,'t, , -.r -^ ti. -.,: i.' \ t:6 | tl -t l currently jb uncovered parking uses. Further, the Town currently recognizes 33 spaces in the northern lot. Under the existing recognizedparking lay oufr:l3 of the eastern half of the 33 spaces (39.38) -hre valet spaces, Throughrestriping of the lot the applicant will increasethe capacity of this lot to 35 spaces. 17 spacesof which (42.8&) wiLL be valet spaces. Staff doesnot believe the 2 space (3.5?) increase in valetparking wiII significantly inpact existing orpotential uses and structures in the vicinity. ;+ ihe degree to which relief fron the strict andliteral interpretation and enforcement of aspecified requlation is necessary to achievecompatibilitv and unifornitv of treatnent amongsites in the vicinitv or to attain the obiectivesof this title without qrant of special privileqe. Densitv Variance: Under the existing redevelopnent proposal theapplicant will be increasing the existing density by 1 dwelling unit. The vail village Master Plan encourages the provision of short term overnight accommodations., "r$he existing lodge contains 2 dwelting unitsltrdne o;r-,the basement level , uhichis to be converted fcr-'ski storage and restroons and one on the 2nd floor uhich is to remain. The 2nd floor dwelling unit has a lock-off unit associated with it. The applicant has agreed to permanently short termrental restrict the existing second floordwelling/lock-off unit and to pernanently short term rental restrict all accommodation units. These restrictions will, however, be subject to condourinium conversion regulations-4 (J3;-iTAE info for JCP have on-meetint@l).-Inaddition to the perrnanently restricting all accommodation units and dwelling units on theground, lst and 2nd floors, the staff has suggested the applicant provide one off site ernployee housinq-unit of a minimun of 500 squarefeet within the-f,.own of Vail. The applicant hasindicated he prefers to assist his enployees inobtaining permanent housing in other ways.Specifically, Mr, ;Iohnston has co-signed nortgage Ioans for his employees. Staffrs suggestion that the applicant provide 2lock-off units in association with each of the 2 new third floor dwelling units has not been agreedto. These third floor lock-off units would L3 further the Vail Village Master Plan goal of increasing the nuruber of short terrn overnight accommodations in the Village while not ,, 'l'i contributing any additional density as each ,/ .. , 'i. dwelling unit is allowed one acconmodation lock- l"' : !' ,off. The applicant has indicated that under the 'r\ , ' ', elilt_fnS floor plan and access plans, the ' '- -r'provision of 2 such units is not possible. Uader '---r'- ' the Town of Vail Building Code, these 2 third , /: .,,i1,r/ floor lock off units would be reguired to have -'. ,/.:'t,'" "^ access to two exit points. The proposed elevatet -:' i. ..i.,,-' does not qualify as an exit point unaer the cod# .'1,, . ; . _ i'The applicant could avoid the density reguest by r ' ,.; .:' cornbining accommodation units and creating largerunit sizes. This cornbination of accomrnodationunits would still result in a majority of the isquare footage of the project im accornmodation,rriit useslAfre project'woita still meet the lodge \1" definition and the project would still meet the supportable subject tcr the follon-hr5-een4.iLions : AII accommodation units'be perrnanently short- term rental restricted. The 2nd floor dwelling/lock-off unit be permanently short term rental restricted. The applicant provids) permanentlyrestricted ernployee housing unit off-sitewithin the boundary lirnits of the Town of a. l- c. d, Thi -r€psesentincornpatib:Le nor dissimi*ar-€r-eat*ent--f,.rofir €tfiersites, i n the sjsj.niJy if,-the-2{rd'-f loor dwel 1 ing/ Iocjc:of f -unit - is- eenverted-t€ 2 accommodation units and sta€f reconmertd€d-short-tern rental reetrie"ions*an* prorisien of an enployee -bou,aing unit conditiens are -approved. --The Rails'h€i:!*d Garden of tbe Gods special developrnent districtt increased the allowable,r-' density for these sites, fn addition, a density' variance was granted for the Tivoli Lodge in orderto increase ]odge capacity. t '' t ' t..11 '..''t: ':t'j t Betlaeir Variance: ;' '' : J'' ,'',1 l...: . ) 1.- . t The staff believes it would notspecial privilege to approve theof the encroachments due to the L4 be a graht of setback variance fact that the remodel does not increase beyond those thatalready exist on the property except for the westsetback encroachment, which has nininal irnpacts,as tlre encroachment is due to several third floor bay windows. Cornmon Area: Variances have been granted for conmon areadensity increases as this square footage benefitsthe guests and provides the guest amenitiespicalLy, q xrss*'4n ; qqilsji€2. Earu" Staff does not believe granting a variance for nunber of spaces which must be covered is a grantof special privilege. Neither the Ranshorn northe Tivoli were required to structure theiradditional parking in conjunction with theiradditions. The previously approved (June, 1989) Garden of the Gods SDD rernodel project was alsoallowed to meet its increased parking reguirenentsthrough surface parking. of all of the lodge or condominiuur buildingssurrounding the Christiania, no site providesr/wil1provide covered parking except the Vail- AthleticClub and the rnost recently approved (February, L990) Garden of the Gods denor/rebuild project.All other sites provide surface parking to variousdegrees. The proposal actually reduces surfaceparking area and increased landscaped area, while 3. more efficiently utilizing the existing,parkingIots.l- n ,.^r. I l, -,. -.'' : t, : l,,iit'..r-'..'' ":.",+i. r r:,1 .1:.. .rr.r. ,..: + l: 1 .l ,., (.. .;l ', . The effect of thd recruested vdriance on liqht andi!.i,,ir., '1 ,:l r)^ .,r( ^1, .3 The effect of the recruested vdriance on liqht andi!.i,,ir., '! ,:air. distfibution of population, transportation .., ;,r, . ,. and traffic facilities, public facilities and _; "i il - . utilities. and public safety. ,.,,,t-+r,f",i,i,i, The comnon area, parking, and setback variance f i'"1',1:j,reguests will have no negative irupacts on any of 'r .1, ; l f,the above criteria. The construction of the '''Jf #stream walk adjacent to Mill Creek will enhance #the Village pedestrian experience. The addition 77. , ." of 3 (2 in the northern lot and l- in the western ',,,:',.'or J (z l.n the northern Iot anct 1 j'n the rlestern .,i..1ot) valet spaces will have little inpact on ...,, -'n1 transportation or traffic facilities. Further, n,itJ'the 3 valet spaces in the rnain entrance drop off l- ' area, currently exist and will not irnpact the above mentioned criteria. As designed, the 3rdfloor density increase will irnpact the proposed Hanson Ranch view corridor. ., 4 i\ | llrj',1 ' , ' ,, i-ii ,., ^r J i ,:.ll ' 15 v. the Vail village l{aster PlarF The Master PIan emphasizesthe upgrading of lodges, jss Eai*s" the irnprovement of the pedestrian lenas the of open space. li'-7t This proposal improving exi - r\ . ar'i ,-: il r.r . r),t .ly{ff .\!r rYl;r; conplying witlF site developrnent standards. The pavedparking area and landscaping improve the appearance of anexisting parking area in a highly visible portion of theVillage. The pedestrian path and seating area also enhance open space for pedestrians. iThe following is a list of theVail Village Master Plan Goa\s and Objectives which relateto this project: rts the ltfaster Planrs objectives by lodge units-anr* @,i-- I i' .. .," ivi't"o^' r .1 , of GOAL #]. - ENCOURAGE HIGH QUALITY REDEVELOP!,IENT WHILE PRESERVING THE UNIQUE ARCHITECTURAL SCALE VILI,AGE TN ORDER TO SUSTAIN ITS SENSE OF AND IDENTITY. r.2 Obj ective: Encourage the upgrading and redevelopmentresidential and conrnercial facilities. 1.2.1 Policv: 2.3 2.3.L Additional development may be allowed asidentified by the Action PIan and as is consistent with the vail Village Master Plan and Urban Design Guide Plan. TO FOSTER A STRONG TOURIST INDUSTRY AND PROMOTE YEAR.AROITND ECONO}ITC HEALTI{ AND VIABILTTY FOR THE VILI,AGE AND TOR THE CO}{MUNTTY AS A WHOLE. obi ective: Increase the nunber of residential units availabl.efor sbort term overnight accommodations. ' Policv: The developnent of short term acconrnodationunits is strongly encouraged. Residentialunits that are developed above existingdensity levels are required to be designed or rnanaged in a manner that nakes then availablefor short term overnight rental. Obi ective: Encourage the continued upgrading, renovation and naintenance of existlng lodging and commercialfacilities to better serve the needs of ourguests. (.i : :'.ir rir a : ..^" 2.5 16 .:,\,I tll\tlt)ilrl r . --u.i- ' GOAL #3 . TO RECOGNIZE AS A TOP THE WALKING EXPERIENCE 3.L Obi ective:Physically improve the landscaping and other PRIORITY THE ENHANCEIT{ENT OF THROUGHOUT THE VILI,AGE. existing pedestrian ways by improvements. 3. r_. I Policv:Private developnent projects shallincorporate streetscape irnprovements (such as paver treatments, landscaping, lighting andseating areas), along adjacent pedestrian ways. GOAL #4 - TO PRESERVE EXISTING OPEN SPACE AREAS AND EXPAND GREENSPACE OPPORTUNITIES. 4. L Obiective: Irnprove existing open space areas and create newplazas with greenspace and pocket parks. Recognize the difference roles of each type of open space in foruring the overall fabric of theVillage. GOAL +5 . INCREASE AND IIiIPROVE TH8 CAPACITY, ETFICIENCY, AND AESTHETICS OF THE TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCUI,ATION SYSTEM THROUGHOUT THE VILI.,AGE. VI . COMPLIANCE WITH IHE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PI,AN FOR VAIL VILLAGE Sub-Area Concept No. 8: ilMill Creek walking path, west side MilI Creek. Path completes linkage fron pirate ship and mountain path to Gore Creek Drive.rl The Urban Design Guide plan calls for the construction of apath connection between the bike path and Hanson Ranch Road.The addition of a foot path would be a positive improvementto the pedestrian experience in the Village area. In further support of this goal , the applicant proposes to remove 596 sg. ft. of paved area to the northwest of thesite. This paved area currently used by the Christiania forparking and dumpster storage is located on Vail Associatesand Christiania owned property. Even though the path was originally proposed for the westside of MilI Creek, staff believes that the east sideprovides a more attractive walking experience. The westliae of the creek has a trash rooi foi Cyranors as weII asseveral utility.-,\oxes which rnake it an unpleasant area towalk throughG. ) ___*-,/ L7 VII. FTNDTNGS The Planninq and Environmental Comnission shal1 nake thefoLlowinq findinqs before grantinq a variance: A. That the granting of the variance witl not constitute agrant of special privilege inconsistent with theIimitations on ottrer properties classified in the sanedistrict. B, That the granting of the variance will not bedetrinental to the public health, safety or welfare, ornaterially injurious to properties or improvernents inthe vicinity, C. That the variance is warranted for one or more of thefollowing reasons: 1. The strict literal interpretation or enforcementof the specified regulation would result inpractical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of thistitle. 2. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the samesite of the variance that do not apply generallyto other properties in the same zone. 3. The strict interpretation or enforcement of thespecified regulation would deprive the applicantof privileges enjoyed by the owners of otherproperties in the sarne district. vrrr. srAFF RECOMI{ENDATTON . ,,,i ,'',j,,,,",' ;( . ''..'' Staff recommends approval of the setbact, cornrnon area, andparking variances. The setback variance:'can be supported byFindings A, B, C (1), and c (3)r.as the encroachments arenot generally increased from those that presentlthe site. staff is able to support the parkingrand commonarea variance request by Findings A, B, and C (3) based upon the vail Village lrlaster Plan Concepts and Goals. Staff iupon the Vail Village llaster Plan Concepts and Goals. Staff t ,,, irecornmends approval of the parking, corumon area and sefhgck -:yf,' - ', - ,- t:.,,i!t",, varj-ance"-reguests and denial of the density regues!. *iL-+*e .' ,\y '' tj,,ll'i , DFt_r rra*aa {.a -n*es.,l-L*-- *Frrrr." i}ri,**^'-^ e^5r^-!Lr+---{,:ts:F--rF*.G c -- //'i.,)i!.:l'i PEc votes,to appreve'the- fou? varianee"*equests; t r ",. il e^^^h*^-i^ -*--^-.-'l l^^ ---t-: ^^! .r-^ !r .-- rc-r,5.,-<-l-- '/ ---J-- 'll1'1. The Christiania parking J-ot paving and landscaping ',-1,':-' i .: proposal also include landscaping the northeast and i',:'.'_.'. "^j| -\L southwest corners of the lot owned bv VaiI Associates. 't"it;{,C.HrrrY t^,1 ' ti.-_ -.= southwest corners of the lot owned by Vail Associates. '"i' i l" ,, "\, --. Plant materials should be placed along the northern and ^. 1,, ",i'.. . f southern periphery of the Christiania leased lot in ft,,)f,/,! I 1 ,V order to screen the lot fron adjacent properties and 'rl;;'lr' ^r) ,,7L , ,^ ls '. I .. -L/ l.t' t ,:.i1,.,' variance*reguests and denial of the density regues!. riEE-#tte .' _)\ll,.l, PEC votes,to appreve'the- fou? varianee"*equestst-the€Eeff :,'.,', ' recommenda appr€val 5e--subjes.ts-'tottre=fotiulr.ingr--gorfcfi€i6ns: !:. ,/ 'I a,^ | q$\ -- r -=::r-=.-.;':.*-=' 2. 3. 4. 5. 8. 6. 7. the improvenents proposed under the Christiania redevelopment building perrnit. The construction of the proposed stream walk fron theexisting bike path to Hanson Ranch Road shall berevierred and approved by the DRB, Town Engineer, Town Landscape Architect and Comnunity Developnent Staffprior to the issuance of any building pernits. Construction of the strean walk and trash enclosure,installation of all landscaping and removal of all,paving designated for renoval shall be a part of the improvements proposed under the Chrlstiania redevelopurent buiLding perruit. The applicant shall provide one perrnanently restricted enployee housing unit, off-site, within the Town ofvail . Said unit shall have a ninimun sguare footage of 500 sq. ft. The purchase and restriction agreement forthis unit shal] be written in a legal statement approved by the Townrs legal department and filed withthe County Clerk and Recorder prior to the issuance of any building permits for this project. The applicant shall pernanently restrict to short terrnrental all accomrnodation units and all dwelling unitsexcept those dwelling units on the 3rd floor(condoniniun level). The restriction agreement shallbe written in a legal statement approved by the TownrsIegal departrnent and filed with the County Clerk and by snow build-up/accumulation, applicant has agreed toremove/truck-out snow from the site. Applicant urust obtain a revocable right-of-way perrnitfron the Town in order to construct the planter nearthe nain entrance as proposed and to inprove thenorthern parking lot as proposed. The applicant shall install a ninimum of fifteen 8r-l0 l spruce t;-e,,gs on the north side of the northern parkingIot and e*i! at the southwest corner of the northernIot. Additionally, the applicant will clean up the}andscaping around the periphery of the west haLf ofthe northern lot. 9.to Vail I 10. The applicant shall reLocate or replace the 4 evergreentrees proposed to be removed frorn the Christianiaparcel back onto the Christianla parcel with evergreentrees of sinilar size. The applicant shall guaranteesurvival or replacenent of said trees for a perio{ of ,76tuo years fron date of installation. '" ". "!.'-""' ''&''' ,') '7 4' i,'r'11. At the southwest corner of the building, the roof ' (.overhang, 2nd floor deck, and a portion of the building encroach into a utility easement. The applicant mustobtain approval to encroach into utility easements fromthe appropriate utility conpanies prior to the releaseof any building permits by the Town. 12. Grading and graveling of the western half of thenorthern lot shall be a part of improvements proposed under the Christiania redevelopnent pernit. .n.," :r r\ ' 't l''',a' " ,ij: t:l t'.i ... tr, ) ,1,..1. *l', , -' ', L( /,t {€u 10/6}7 A tf,,r'' in,..'l . ' '.,. ii:"'' ' n ":' 20 o TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Planning and Environmental Commission Community Development Department November 1-2, 1990 A request for a work session for a densit.y, commonarea, and setback variances in order to affowconstruction of an addition to and the remodeling ofthe Christiania Lodge, 356 Hansen Ranch Road, Lot D, Block 2 Vail Village 1st Filing.Applicant: Paul R. Johnston BACKGROUND On May l-1, L9B7 r the Planning and Environmental Commissionvoted Lo approve density and set.back variances j-n order to al-low the conslruct.ion of additions to the ChristianiaLodge. At the time it was the Community Development Department staff's opinion that approvaf of an increase indensity would be a grant of special privilege and recommended the request be denied. During this same t.ime,public hearings had been held to review the VaiL VillageMaster PJ-an, however, the plan was still in draft form and had not been formally adopted by Council. The Goal-s andObjectives of the Vail Village Master PIan supported the 1987 remodeling proposal and therefore the PEC voted to approve the density and setback variances. Subsequent tolhe 198? PEC approval of the varj_ance request, noconstruction has occurred. A comparison of the 1-990 redevelopment subrnission andexist.ing conditions follows in the Description of t.heProposal section of this memo. DESCRIPT]ON OF THE PROPOSED REMODEL Mr. Paul Johnston, owner of the Christiania Lodge, proposesto add a third floor to the exi-sting strucLure, to remodelthe structure's interior, to construct a porte cochere/ toexpand Sarah's Bar, to construct a slream walk along MillCReek, and to add common area to the lodge under thisproposal. Under this redevelopment proposal, 7 evergreentrees must be removed. This request will require density,setback, and parking variances. Although the parkingvariance requesl will be discussed in this memo, no formalaction can be taken regarding the granting of this variance because t.he matLer has noL been adverti-sed for the November12th public meeting. The parking variance will be heard atthe November 26th PEC meeting. Approval of the parkingvariance should be a condition of approvinq the setback anddensity variances. The following is a summary of thedevelopment proposal: II A. B. ? E F. Ll . Ground Floor (Garden LeveI) .7 accommodation uniLs G 2074 sq. fL..Common area G 2229 sq. fL..Chateau mechanical area G 271 sq. ft..Christiania Realty Office (conditional use permit has been obtained) G 237 sq. ft. F I Fqr F t atr.|r .8 accommodation units Q 2326 sq. fL..Common area G 1422 sq. ft..Airlocks G 141 sq. ft..Restaurant. G 1178 sq. ft..Fireplaces: 2 Second Floor .l- dwel-l-ing unit with a lock-off G 815 sq. ft..l-0 accommodation units Q 3292 sq. ft..Common area @ 623 sq. ft..Fireplaces: 2 Third Floor (Condominium Level_) .2 dwelling units East unit G 2L66 sq. ft- West Unit G 21-95 sq. ft. = 4361 sg. ft.Common area G 164 sc. ft..Fireplaces: 4 Mechanical Loft .Mechanical G 205 sq. ft..Common area G 13 sq. ft. AII existing firepfaces are proposed to be gasincluding the conversion of the wood burning fireplacein Sarah's Bar. S i l- a Tmnra\\76manf <.v, v...r +r s o .Construction of sLream walk alonq Mi11 Creek.Removal- of 596 sq. ft. of asphal_t.Removal of split rail fence on Christ.iania parcel.Enclosure of dumpster.Landscaplng of periphery of northern parking 1ot.Paving of northern parking lot Total H. 3 D.U.s at 5,L'76 sq. ft. = 3.0 D.U.s 25 A.U.s aL '1,692 sq. ft. = 12.5 D.U.sTot.al 12, 8 68 sq. ft . = 15 .5 D . U. s III. DESCRIPTION OF THB VARIANCBS REOUESTED A. Density Variance The property is located within the Public Accommodation(PA) zone district. Under PA zoning, 9 dwelling unitsor l-B accommodation units are afLowed on this site(please not.e that 2 accommodation units or unitswithout kitchens = one d.welting unit) . The existinglodge has 25 accommodation unit.s and two dwelling unitswhich equals 14.5 dwelling units. Therefore theexisting situation is nonconforming in t.hat theproperty is al-ready 5.5 dwelling units over theallowable 9 dwelling units - The proposal calls for atotal of 25 accommodaLion units plus 3 dwelling unitswhich equals 15.5 dwelling units. A variance is neededfor the 1- dwellinq unit increase.in densitv. Ex i st inq Accommodation Units: 25Dwelling Units: 2Total Dwelling Unitsr fT.S Broposed E.s Through this proposal the applicant is increasing thedensity of the lodge by 1 dweIllng unit. In additionto comparing the existing vs. proposed accommodationand dwelling units, it may be helpful for the Commission to review existj-ng vs. proposed lodge capaci-t.y based upon bed counts and existing vs.proposed square footage of lodge and dwelling units.The following lodge capacity comparison does not takeinto account the number of beds there may be in the 2t.hird floor dwelling units. Existing Capacity: 66 people* Proposed Capacity: 72 peopleAdditional capacity following remodel:6 nonnl a *Assume 1- person/twin and single bed e 2 persons/double, king and queen bed. Square Footage--From 1987 GRFA analysis ? Existing Acconmodation Units: 6535 sq. ft. Proposed Accommodation Units: 7692 sq. ft. Existlng Dwelling Units: 1120 sq. ft. Proposed Dwelling Units: 5176 sq. ft. Existing ground floor accommodation units are beingconverted j-nto common space and being replaced withIarger upper story accommodation units. This redevelopment effort al-so ca11s for the remodeling ofexisting accommodation units and dwelling unit bathrooms. The reguest does not reguire a GRFA variance. Thelodge may have up to 13,232 sq. ft. of GRFA. Theexisting GRFA is 71397 sq. ft. Proposed GRFA includingthe new third floor would be 1-2, 868 sq. ft. Theproperty would have 364 sq. ft. of GRFA remaining afterthe remodeling is cornplete. Section 1B . 04 .21-0, def ines "Lodgfe" as f ol-l-ows : "Lodge" means a building or group of associatedbuildings designed for occupancy primarily as thetemporary lodging place of individuaLs or familieseither in accommodation units or dwell-ing units,in which the sross resident.ial floor area devotedLo accornmodation units exceeds the qross residential floor area devoted to dwelling unit.s,and in which all such unit.s are operated under asingle management providing the occupants thereofcustomary hotel services and facilit.ies.,' The resuest meets the definition of a lodqe. Of the12r868 sq. ft. of GRFA in lodge room and dwellingr unituses folLowing redevelopment, 7692 sq. fL. (59.8t) willbe devoted to todge rooms and 5176 sq. ft. (40-2%) wiIIbe allocat.ed t.o dwellinq units. B.20% Common Area Variance Common area, as defined in the zoning code, includeshalls, closets, lobbies, stai-rways and common enclosedrecreation facil-ities. the al-lowed common area is 20* of the a11owab1e GRFA, or 2,546 sq. ft. Presently,2,255 sq. ft. of common area exists. The proposaf adds 2,1"96 sq. ft.. of additional hall space, lobby area, accessory office, and storage which brings the total amount of common area to 41451 sq. ft. A variance is necessarv for the L,805 sq. ft. of common area over the a1lowable of 2,646 so. ft.. Setback Variances The Publ-ic AccommodaLion zone districl requires 20 fooL setbacks on all- sides of the property. Under PA zoningarchitectural projections (eaves, roof overhangs, awnings etc.) may project not more than 4'-0" into asetback. Unroofed balconies decks and terraces eLc.projecting frorn a height of more than five ft. abovethe ground may project. noL more than 10'-0" inLo theseLback. Porches, steps, decks or terraces at groundleveI or within five feet of ground l-evef may projectnot more t.han 10 feet lnto the required setback. Theexisting front setback is 15 feet due to the encroachment of the northwest corner of the lodge. Azero setback exi-sts on the easL side of the property asthe Christiania Lodge connects directty with the Chateau Condominiums to the east. A 17 foot setbackexj-sts on the west side of the property as the southwest corner of the building encroaches three feetinto the 20 foot setback area. The rear selback is 20feet. The proposed additions will further encroach j-nto thewest side, front, and rear setbacks. West Side--At the northwest corner of the building, a2nd and 3rd floor building overhang will projecL 1t 6,,into the setback. AIso in this area is a roof overhangwhich pro3ects 9'0" into the setback. The code only al1ows an eave to project 4'-0" int.o a setback before avariance must. be obtained. WiLh Lhe construction ofthe roof overhang, which projects the greatest amount into thi s arca. J- ho roqrr'l I i nrr cal[3gk WOU]d be 11, -0rr.+r rY seA variance is necessarv for the resul-tinq 9,-0" setback. Front--Two addltions are proposed to the front facadeof the building. One of t.he additions is a new covered o Fnf r\7 t..| Q.ar:h/ e T ^ri^ft^ f lra af lrar io l-n l-ha I nhl-rrrD JJ\,,,LTTIVe, Llle lrLIle! Ir> L!J r,-lrs -!\JIJIJJ. These two additions will not encroach any further lnto t.he front setback t.hen the 1,-6" existing face of thebuilding current.fy encroaches. A second floor bay window will project 3'-0" into the fronl setback andt.he roof overhang will projecL 4t -5" inLo the frontsetback. A proposed port.e cochere off of the mainentrance will have a support column that will bel-ocated at the property line. A zero setback is neededfor the support column. The roof of the porte cochere woul-d also overhanq 3 feet onto the public riqht-of-wav. The roof overhang woul-d not extend beyond theexisting 3 foot planter encroachmenl into the publicright-of-way. Rear--The southwestern most addition will encroach Bft. i-nt.o the rear setback. At. thls same locat.ion the3rd floor condominium overhang encroaches 10 ft. intothe rear setback, a second ffoor deck overhang encroaches 14 ft. into the setback and the roof overhang encroaches 14'-6" i-nLo the setback, Because the 14'-5" roof overhang encroaches thegreatest amount into the rear Setback, a variance isnecessarv for the 14f-6" encroachment. This encroachment Wil-l- result in a 5,-6" rear setback. The final addition Lo occur on Lhe site is the expansion of Sarah's Bar. The expansion of the deckwill encroach 5'-0" into the setback which is al-lowableunder the code without obtaining a variance. Theexisting Sarah's deck currently encroaches I2t -5" inLo t.he rear setback. In addi-tion to the above mentioned encroachmenLs, onthe front, west-sid.e and rear setbacks, the roofoverhang on the proposed new lobby addition willfurther project int.o a zero east-side setbacksituation. This zero east.-side setback varianceresults from the Christiania, s connection to the Chateau condominiums. Parking Variance: Although the Commission can not, at this time, forrnallyvoLe on the parking variances required to allow thisproject to be consLrucLed, staff believes i_t isappropriate to discuss the required varj_ances at thistime. Under this redevelopment proposal 100% of the parkj-ngto be provided will be surface parking. SecLion 18.20.140, states '75% of all required parking spaces inthe PA zone di-strict be located wit.hin the mainbuilding and hidden from public view. This requirementapplies only Lo the 6 additional spaces required underthis redevelopment proposal . Under this redevelopmentproposal 100? of the parking to be provided will besurface parking. A variance wil-l- be required to allow 75? of the additional- 6 spaces not to be located withinthe main building and hidden from pubJ-ic vj-ew. The Christiania parking which occurs within the front set.back on both the north and wesl l-ots is not allowed under PA zoning, however this is a pre-existing, nonconforminq situation. Use of the existing northern lot does not refl_ect thefact that a portion of this 1ot is owned by the Town ofVail. The existing paved road northwest of the l-odgewhich links Hanson Ranch Road with Gore Creek Drive ison private property. The parcel which was platted forthis purpose cuts through the middle of the northernparking lot. Town Engineer, Greg Halt, has indicatedthe Public Works Department would have interest informafizing the situation as it currently exists sothat the Town would have title to the propertyunderlying the road as built and in turn the Town would vacaLe the platted, unimproved, pl-atted parcel. Under t.he existing norLhern lot layouL, cars which utilizethe west.ern half of the lot are parking on Town right-of-way. This is not the situation with the Christianialeased, eastern half of the lot. As previously discussed, a portj_on of the ChristianiaIot is owned by the Town of Vail and a porLion is ownedby Vail Associates. Of the portion leased from VailAssociates, 6799 sq. ft. (61-C) will be paved and 431-0sq. ft. (39t) will be landscaped. fn order to meet Lhe41 space parking requirement, L7 of the 3? spaces inthis 1ot (46%) will be vat_et parking. ]]I. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS A. Zone District: Public Accommodation B. Site Area: .38 acres or L6,540 sq. ft. Density: (25 d.u.s allowed per acre, 1d.u = 2 a.u.l Allowed: 9 d.u.s:18 a.u.sExistj-ng: 2 d.u.s and 25 a.u.s = 1,4.5 d.u.sExistinq over al-lowable : 5 .5 d. u . s Proposed:3 d.u.s and 25 a.u.s - 15.5 d.u.sDifference from existinq: 1 d.u. Amount over allowed after remodel: 6.5 d.u.s D. GRFA: (80 sq. ft. of GRFA allowable per 100 sq. ft. ofbuil-dable siLe area.) Allowed: 13,232 sq. ft.Existing: 7 ,397 sq- ft. Proposed: 12,868 sq. ft. Rernaining after 1990 redevelopment: 364 sq. fL. E. Common Area: (20e. of affowabfe GRFA) Allowed: 2,646 sq. ft.Existing:2r255 sq. ft. Proposed: 4r451 sq. ft. or 33.68 of allowable GRFA Amount over allowed after remodel: 1-,805 sq. ft. F. Accessory: (10? of GRFA) : Allowed: 1r323 sq. ft.Existing: 780 sq. f.tProposed: 1r415 sq. ft. Amount over allowed: 92 sq. ft. G. Setbacks: Required: 20 ft. aII sides Existinq Proposed Front East Side West Side Rear 15 ft.0 fr. 1,7 ft . 20 fr. 0 fr. 0 ft.. 9 ft. 5' -6* H. Site Coverage: (.55 of site area) Al-lowed: 9, 0 97 sq.Existing: 5r235 sq. Proposed: 5r 988 sq. pam: i n.i nr, ' j, 10 9 sq. Landscaping: (30% of site Porrrli rod ' Elvicl-inrr Proposed Height: Allowed: Existing Proposed 48 ff slnnincl roof 45 . u r vu+ rrY 43 ft. flat ft. flat roof Prar'rnqarl # Spaces Required 4,962 sq. 7,490 sg. 5,943 sq. ft.ft. ft. ft. fr.fr.fr. J. USe Accommodat.ion Units Exi stinq # Spaces Required Dwelling Units: Saraht s Lounge: Raa 'l i rr Offi na. Christian Chateau I (,, L CI.I : 25 units =2 uniLs = ro.c A n? F.z or 36 25 units =3 units - I7 .7 7 8.5 L q Ti.2 or 4s Condos: or*36 spaces required -:3__on sige 3 snace rrr:ndf afftg196lv vyvvv or44 spaces required - : qranOfatnereO 47 spaces for addj-tion *The Town currently recognizes Lhe Christiania as having 36parking spaces. The applicant,s representative has indicated the COndOS have a riOht i-n nno qn:.ra ncr rrnit Thera afe 9 COndOS;;i;ii";-"" tr'"-i""oo^i"rJ';!-;;d;; ;;;-;"'k;ig"i" e spaces. The 1980 parking lot configuration shows a total_ of 33spaces. The new parking requirement of 6 spaces can behandled on-site. The reconfiguraLion of the north lot andthe use of vaLet parking will alIow an additional 4 spaceson thi-s lot. The other two spaces are availabl_e due to therecognition of a grandfathered situation where theChristiania currently parks in the front yard drop-off area. In addit.ion to the gravel- Iot to the north, Christianiacurrently provides parking in a smal_l lot west of t.he existing building. This lot is also a grandfatheredsit.uation as parking occurs in the front yard setback. Theapplicant proposes to cont.inue to provide 2 parking spacesat t.his location. CRITERIA AND FTNDINGS Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 ofthe Vail Municipal Code, the Department of Community Development recommends approvaf of the requesled variances based upon the following factors: A. Consideration of Factors: 1. The relationship of the requested variance toother existinq or potential uses and structures in fha rri ni ni+" Densitv Variance: The proposed redevelopment will have the followingeffecls on exist.ing or potential uses andstructures in t.he vicinitv: a. Under the redevelopment proposal theapplicant is increasing the mass and bulk ofthe bullding in a manner which the staff bel-j-eves is acceptable. The project meetsthe GRFA, landscaping, height., and site coverag'e requirements of t.he PA zonedistrict . The removal- of existing paved area, theconstruction of the stream wa]-k and the encl-osure of the dumpster will all generally improve the appearance of the propert.y andpositlvely irnpact adjacent propert.y owners. The removal of 7 evergreens which are L8+feet in height is a concern of the staff andthe installation of a significant amount. oflandscaping should be required to mitigatethe removal of these trees. A vlew analysis also indicates that the thirdfloor addition will not impact any adopted view 10 b. c. corrj-dors, however the proposed view corridor overthe Red Lion nay be impact.ed. SLaff is reviewing this situalion with the applicants representative. The proposed redeveLopment project is compatiblewith existing uses and st.ructures in the area. Surrounding properties are either zoned Public Accommodation or Commercial Core I. Both zonedistricts promote lodge uses. Common Area Variance : The 20* common area variance is directly relatedto the density variance. In order to add new rooms and upgrade the lodge, it is reasonable to add adequate lobby, hal1way, and accessory officespace. The additionaL common area that isproposed will improve the functioning of the lodge and is not in excess of what is a reasonable amount for these uses. Landscape, height, andsite coverage standards are sLi.l-.1- maint.ained wi-t.hthe additional- common area. Setback Vari-ances : In general, the staff believes that the setbackvariances do not i-rnpact the property or adjacent uses any more than the pre-existing setbacks do. The porte cochere will extend no further int.o lheright-of-way then does the existing plant.er andfurther, Lhe Pub1ic Works Department has indicatedthey do not have a problem with the porte cochere encroachment. The property most impacted by the setbackrequesls, the Christian Chateau CondominiumAssociation building, has agreed to the redevelopment as proposed. All other building expansion setback encroachments wiLl projecL nofurther int.o the setback then the roof overhanq. For this reason, the setback vari-ances areconsidered t.o have no major negative impacts on adjacent. properties. specified regulation is necessary to achieve 1_ 1_ o compatibillty and uniformitv of treatment amongsites in the vicinity or to attain the ob'iectivesof thi-s title without qrant of special privileqe. Densitv Variance: Under the exist.ing redevelopment proposal t.heapplicant wil-1 be increasing the existing densityby 1 dwelling unit. The Vail Village MasLer Plan encourages the provision of short. term overnight accommodations. The existing lodge contains 2dwelling units, one on the basement fevel, whichj-s to be converted for ski st.orage and restrooms and one on the 2nd floor which is to remain. The 2nd floor dwelling unit has a lock-off unit associated with it. SLaff believes the applicant shoul-d convert the second floor dwe11ing,/1ock-off unit to 2 accommodation units, and further t.hat theapplicant should provide 2 Lock-off units inassociation with each of the 2 new third floordwelling units. These third fl-oor lock-off units would further the Vail- Vil-l-age Master Plan goal ofincreasing the number of short term overnight accommodat.ions in the Village whil-e notcontributing any additional density as eachdwelling unit is allowed one accommodation l-ock-off. The applicant could avoid the density request alltogether by simply combining accommodat.ion units and creating larger unit sizes. This combinationof accommodation units would still result in a m: inri f rz of f ho qrrrrrro fnnirrra nf tha nr.\ia.'i- i n...-.J".-"JFlvJvvu+r. accommodation unit uses, the project would still- meet the lodge definition and the prolect wouldstil1 meet the Vaj-.l- Vil,l"age Mast.er Pf an supportcriteria. Staff has encourage the applicant. tomaintain or increase the exisLing number of lodgeunits and believes this density variance resuestis supportable subject. to the iollowing condit.ions : A1l- accommodation units be short-term rentalrestricted. The 2nd floor dwelling/lock-off unit be short.term rental- restricted or converLed to two accommodation units. The annlir.:nt nroyi6lg a ShOrt term rentalrestricted lock-off unit in association wit.h L2 each of the two 3rd floor (condominium 1eve1) dwelling units. This proposal, if approved, would not represent incompatible nor dissimilar treatment from othersites in the vicinity if the 2nd floordwel1lng/lock-off unit is converted to 2 accommodation units and staff recommended short-term rental conditions are approved, The Ramshorn and Garden of the Gods speciaL deveLopmentdisLricts increased the allowable densiLy forthese sites. In addition, a densiLy variance wasgranted for the Tivoli Lodge in order to increase lodge capacity. Setback Variance: The staff believes it would not be a qrant ofspecial privilege to approve the setback varianceof the encroachments due to the fact that t.he remodel does not increase beyond those thatalready exist on the property except for the west setback encroachment, whj-ch has minimal- impacts,as the encroachment is due to severaf third fLoorbay windows. Common Area: Variances have been granted for common areadensity increases as Lhis square footage benefiLsthe guests and provides the guest amenitiestypically associated with a quality lodge. The density, comnon area and setback variancerequests wlLl have no negative impacts on any ofthe above criteria. The construclion of the stream walk adjacenL Lo Mill Creek will enhancethe Village pedestrian experi-ence. RELATED POLICItrS IN THE VA]L VILLAGE MASTER PLAN Staff's opinion is that proposed redevelopment with staff recommended conditions of approval meets the goals andobjectives of the Vail Village Master Pl-an. The Master plan emphasized the upgrading of lodges, the addit.ion of accommodation unitsr the improvement of the pedestrianexperience, as well as the enhancement of open space, 1J This proposal supports the Master Plan's objecLives byimproving existing lodge units and adding new units while complying wlth site development standards. The pavedparking area and landscaping improve t.he appearance of anexisting parking area in a highly visibfe portion of theVi1Iage. The pedestrian path and seaLing area also enhance open space for pedestrians. The followinq is a list of theVail Village Master Plan Goals and ObjecLives whj-ch relate fcr fhie nro-iar'J- . r_ v Jvve r GOAL #1 - ENCOURAGE HTGH QUALITY REDE\ELOPMENT V'IHILE PRESERVING THE UNIQUE ARCHITECTURAL SCALE OF THE VILLAGE IN ORDER TO SUSTAIN ITS SENSE OF COMMUNITY AND IDENTITY. 1.2 Obiective: Encourage the upgrading and redevelopment of residential and commercial facilities. L.z.t Pol-icv:Additional development may be allowed asidentified by the Action Pfan and as isconsistent with the vai_l village Master plan and Urban Desiqn Gulde P1an. GOAL #2 - TO FOSTER A STRONG TOURIST INDUSTRY AND PROMOTE YEAR-AROUND ECONOM]C HEALTH AND VIABILITY FOR THE VTLLAGE AND FOR THE COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE. 2 .3 Ob-iective: Increase the number of resi-dentiaf units availablefor short term overnight accommodations. 2 .3 .I pol_icy: The developnent of short t.erm accommodationunits is strongly encouraqed. Residentialunit.s that are developed above existingdensity levels are reguired to be designed or manaqed in a manner that makes them availabl-efor short term overniqht rent.al - 2 -5 Obiective: Encourage the continued upgrading, renovation and maintenance of existing lodging and commercialfacilities to better serve the needs of ourguests. GOAL #3 _ TO RECOGNIZE AS A TOP PRIORITY THtr ENHANCEMENT OF THE WALKING EXPERIENCE THROUGHOUT THE VTLLAGE. 3 . 1 Obiect ive :Physically improve the existing pedestrian ways bylandscaping and olher improvements. I4 J.I.I Pol-icy: Privat.e development. projects shallincorporate streetscape improvements (such aspaver treatments, landscaping, lighting andseating areas), al-ong adjacenl pedestrian ways. GOAL #4 _ TO PRESERVE EX]STING OPEN SPACE AREAS AND EXPAND GREENSPACE OPPORTUNITIES . 4.1, Obiective: Improve existing open space areas and create newplazas with greenspace and pocket. parks. Recognize the difference roles of each type ofopen space in forming the overalf fabric of theVillage. GOAL #5 - TNCREASE AND IMPROVE THE CAPACITY, EFFICIENCY, AND AESTHETICS OF THE TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION SYSTEM THROUGHOUT THE VILLAGE. COMPL]ANCE WITH THE URBAN DES]GN GUTDE PLAN FOR VAIL VILLAGE Sub-Area Concept No. 8: "MiL1 Creek walking path, west side MiII Creek. path completes linkage from pirate ship and mountain path toGore Creek Dri-ve. I' The Urban Design Guide plan calls for the constructj_on of apath connection between the bike path and Hanson Ranch Road.The addition of a foot path would be a positive improvementto the pedestrian experience in the Vjllage area. In further support of this qoa1, the applicant proposes Loremove 596 sq. ft. of paved area to the northwest of thesite. This paved area currently used by the Christiania forparking and dumpster storage is l_ocated on VaiL Associat.esand Christiania owned property. Even though the path was originally proposed for the westside of MilI Creek, staff bel-ieves that. the east sideprovides a more attractive walking experience. The westside of the creek has a trash room for Cyrano/ s as well as QArTar^ 1 rrf i I i +rr ]-'n.,^^ '-,l..1 ^1. --l-^^JOxeS whiCh make .i | :n rrnn'l ae q: nt area bOwalk throuqhoul. \,TT T E' T \TN T NT/: C 15 following findinqs before qrantinq a variance: B. c. That the granting of the variance will noL constilute agrant of special privilege inconsistent wiLh t.helimitations on other properties classified in t.he samedistrict. That the granting of the variance will not bedetrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, ormaterial-Iy injurious to properties or improvements inthe vicinity. That the variance i-s warranted for one or more of thefollowing reasons: 1. The strict 1j-teral interpretation or enforcemen!nf l- l-ra c-'1^^i f iej rccrrr'l ef .i nn WOUId reSUIt inuFvvrt nranf ir-al ali ff i r.rrll- rr .\r rrnna.\accarrz rrhrzqinrlv e! I Ir llfhardship inconsistent with the objectives of thistit 1e . 2. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumst.ances or conditions appficable to the samesiLe of the variance that do not apply general-l-yto other properties in the same zone. 3. The strict interpreLaLion or enforcement of thespecified regulation would deprive the appticantof privileges enjoyed by the owners of otherproperties in the same district. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the setback, common area, anddensity variances. The setback varj-ance can be supported byFindings A, C (1), and C (3), as the encroachments are notgenerall-y increased from those that presentfy exist on thesite. Staff is able to support the density and common areavariance request by Findings Ar B, and C (3) based upon lheVaiI Village Master Pl_an ConcepLs and Goals. Staff recommends approval of the three variance requests subjectto Lhe followinq conditions: 1. The Christiania parking lot shal1 be paved andIandscaped. The proposal would also includelandscaping the northern, southern, and western portionof the 1ot owned by Vai] Associates. pl-ant. materials shoul-d be placed along the northern, southern andwestern periphery of t.he entire IoL in order to screenthe lot from adjacent. propertjes and pedestrian ways. The applicanl shall consLruct a stream walk between theavi ct- i nrv l-r i La ,r5l- h and HanSOn Raneh Roa.l Thi s nALhr.lrrr l.-/ o VIII TO shall also j-nclude a smal-l seating area. Path focation and construction material sha1l be reviewed and approved by the DRB, Town Engineer, Town LandscapeArchitect and Communit.y Devefopment Staff. 3. Construction of the stream wafk and trash enclosure,inst.allation of al-l l-andscaping and removal of al1paving designated for removal shaff occur aL Lhe Limethe Christlania remodel occurs. 4. ApprovaL of al-I parking variances. 5. The applicant shall provide one permanently restrict.ed employee housing unit, on or off-sice, within the Townof Vail. Said unit shall have a mj-nimum square footageof 500 sq. ft.. 6. The applicant shal-l- provide two lock-off units. Saidunits shal1 be associated with each of the t.wo 3rd' floor (condominium leveL) dwelling units and shall ben6rmarranl- r.l reStriCted fOr Short term rental . Saidrestriction shall remain in effect even if the dwetlingunits are condominiumized. 1. The applicant shall permanently rest-ricL Lo short termrental al-l- accommodation units and all dwelling unitsexcept those dwelling units on the 3rd fl oor(condominium leve]) . B. If the ability to park in the north lot is compromj_sedby snow build-up/accumulation, applicant shal1remove/lruck-out snow from the site. 9. Applicant must obtain a revocable right-of-way permitfrom the Town in order to construct the porte cochere and planLer as proposed and to improve the northernparking lot as proposed. 10. The applicant shal-l- instal_l_ a minimum of six 8, -t}tspruce trees on the north side of the northern parkinq lot . 11. The applicant shalI work with the Town and ValLAssociates Lo resolve the sit.uat.ion regarding theright-of-way which bisects the norLhern parking tot. L2. The applicant shal-l relocate or replace the 7 evergreentrees proposed to be removed from the Christianiaparcel back onto the Christiania parcel with evergreen 1_'7 trees of similar size. The applicant shall guarantee survival or replacement of said t.rees for a period oftwo veers from date Of inStallation.-"- J 13. The applicanL must. obtain approval to encroach intout.ility easements from the appropriate utility companies prior to the release of any buildinq permits bv t.he Town. 18 REVTSED t0/8/9A TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Planning and EnvironmenLaf Commission Communit.y Development Department October 8, 1990 A request for a work session for density and setbackvariances in order Lo all-ow construction of an additionto and the remodeling of the Christiania Lodge, 356 Hansen Ranch Road, Lot D, Block 2 VaiI Village lstFiling.Applicant: Paul R. Johnston I. BACKGROUND On May 11, I9B1 t the Planning and Environmental Commissionvoted to approve density and setback variances in order toallow the construction of additions to the ChristianiaLodge. It was the Community Development Department staff, sopinion that approval- of an increase in density would be agrant of special privi-lege and therefore the staff had recommended the request be denied. At the time t.he PEC considered the 1987 redevelopment proposal, public hearings had been held to review the Vail Village Master P1an. However, the plan was stiLl in draft form and had not beenformally adopted by Council. The Goals and Objectives ofthe Vail Village Master Plan supported the 1987 remodelingproposal and therefore the PEC voted to approve the densityand setback variances. Subsequent to the 1987 pEC approvalof the varj-ance request, no building permit has beenrequested so no construction has occurred. A comparison of the 1987 redeveJ-opment submissiont 1-990redevelopment submission and exisLing condiLions fol_lows inthe Description of the Proposal section of this memo. II. DESCRTPT]ON OF THE PROPOSED REMODEL Mr. Pauf Johnston, owner of the Christ.iania Lodge, proposesto add a third floor to the existing structure, t.o remodelthe structure's interior, to construct a porLe corchere, Loexpand Sarahfs Bar, and to add common area to the Lodge,tnrlar fhic n1666g21 This rerrrrasf r^ri lI rorrrri ro rienqi l-rr rnrlvyvuqf J-sL{L.rsDu s!!lu-Llv ul, qrru set.back variances. The following i-s a summary of thedertcl rrnmant rrrnr.raca I .rru t,! \./v\./l'crr . A. Ground Floor (Garden Levef) -(1 dwelling unit G 511 sq. ft.) Changed from D.U. toA.U. is a result of microwave removal (kitchen) -(6) 7 accommodation unit.s G 1563 sq. fL.. + StL = 2Q74sq. ft. -Common area @ 2I1 9 sq. ft. -Chateau nechanical area G 271 sq. fL. -Christiania Rea1ty Office (conditional use permit has been obtained) G 237 sq. ft. B. First Floor -" "-"aa-" unit G 551 sq. ft.) Changed to A.U. -(7) 8 accomrnodation units @ l-775 sq. ft. + 55t = 2326sq. ft. -Common area G t422 sq. ft. -Airlocks G 141 sq. ft. -Restaurant. G 1178 sq. ft. -Fireplaces: 2 C. Second FLoor - (5) 1 dwel]ing unit G (2054) 492 sq. ft. Ctranged 4D.U.s to A.U.8 -(7) 11 accommodation units G 2053 sq. ft. + 1562 =3615 sq. ft. -Common area G 623 sq. ft.-Firepfaces: 2 D. Third FIoor (Apartment Levef) -2 dwelling unitsEast unit G 21-35 sq. fL. West Unit G 2156 sq. ft. = 429L eq. ft. -Comrnon area G 164 sq. ft .-Fireplaces: 4 E. Mechanical Loft -Mechanical G 205 sq. ft. -Common area 2 13 sq. ft. F. A11 fireplaces are gas except for one wood burning unitin Sarahrs Bar. Note: Summary of Total Sg. ft. 3 D.U.s at 4783 sq. ft. 26 A.U.s at 8015 sq. ft. = 13 D.U.s III. DESCRTPT]ON OF THE VARTANCES REOUESTED A. 20% Cornmon Area Variance Common area includes halls, closets, lobbies, stairways and common enclosed recreation faciLi-ti-es. The allowed conmon area on this site is 21 546 sq. ft. Presently/2,255 sq. ft. of common area exists. The proposal adds2,L92 sq. ft. of additional hall space, lobby area,accessory office, and sLorage. A variance is necessarvfor the 2,192 sq. ft. of common area over the allowableof 2,545 sq. ft. B. Setback Variances The PubIic Accommodation zone district requires 20 footsetbacks on afl sides of the property. The exisLingfront setback is 15 feet due to the encroachment of thenort.hwest corner of the l-odge. A zero setback exisls on the east side of the property as the Chrisli-ania Lodge connect.s directly with the Chaleau Condominiumsto the east. A L7 foot setback exists on the west sideof t.he property as the southv,,est corner of the building encroaches lhree feet into the 20 foot setback area. The rear setback is 20 feeL. The proposed additions will further encroach into thefront, rear and west-side setbacks. A proposed porte cochere off of the main entrance wil_l_have a support column that wil-I be located at theproperty l-ine. A zero setback is needed for thesupport colurnn. The roof of the porte cochere wouldalso overhanq 3 feet onto the publ-ic riqht-of-wav. Theroof overhang would not extend beyond the existing 3foot planter encroachment. The proposed Christiania ReaIty Officers coveredentrance at the northwesl end of the site wil-l encroach11 ft. into the setback. Currently the corner of thebuilding at t.his location encroaches 5/-6" into t.hesetback. With Lhe consLruction of the coveredentrance, the resultinq setback would be 9,-0", Two additions are proposed to the front facade of thebuilding. One of the additlons is a new enrrv ro Sarahts lounge, the other is to the lobby. These two additj-ons wil-l not encroach any further inLo the fronL setback then t.he 1'-6tr the existing face of Lhebuilding currently encroaches. The covering of the enLrance to Sarah's Bar will not extend bevond theexisting 6' -6" planter encroachment, The western most addltion will encroach 8 ft. into therear setback. At this same locat.ion the 3rd floor apartment overhang encroaches 10 ft. inlo Lhe rear setback and a second floor deck overhang encroaches 14ft.. into the rear seLback. Because the second floor deck overhang encroaches thegreatesl amount into the rear aetback. a variance isnecessary for the 14 ft. encroachment. The final addition to occur on the site is theexpansion of Sarahts Bar. This expansion wil-l not. encroach into required setbacks. In addition to the above mentioned encroachment.s/ tothe front/ west-side and rear setbacks, the roof overhang on the proposed new lobby addiLion willproject into the zero east-side setback situation. IV. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS A. Zone District: Pubfic Accommodation B. Site Area: .38 acres or 161540 sq. ft. C. Density: (25 d.u.s allowed per acre, 1 d.u = 2 a.u. ) Allowed:. 9 d.u.s = 18 a.u.sExisting: 2 d.u.s and 25 a.u.s = L4.5 d.u.sExisting over aLlowable: 5.5 d.u.s 1987 Proposed: l- d.u. and 28 a.u. = 15 d.u.s 1990 Proposed: {6) 3 d.u.s and (20) 26 a.u.s: t_6 o.u. s 1-990 Difference from existinq: 1.5 d.u.s ToLaI amount overallowed after l_990 remodel: (1) 5.5 d.u.s D. GRFA: (80 sq. ft . of GRFA atlowabl_e per 100 sq. fL. of buil-dab1e site area. ) F Allowed: L3,232 sq- ft.Existing: 7, 397 sq. ft . 1987 Proposed: 10r075 sq. ft. 1-990 Proposed: L2,75B sq. ft. Remaining after 1"990 redevelopment: Common Area: (20% of allowable GRFA) 5 /lJ -(4. rL 308 of all-owabfe GRFA 59.5% of affowable GRFA sq. ft. and Sarahf s Bar ft. orft. or 1,801 Office Al-l-owed: 1, 323 sq. ft .Existing: 780 sq. f.t 1987 Proposed: 1-, L46 sq. ft. 1990 Proposed: 1,415 sq. ft. 1990 amount over al-lowed: 92 sq. ft G. Setbacks: Rorrrli rorl . ti ++ Ex i sl inq i5 rt. 0 fL. L't fL. 20 fr. of site area) sq. ft. D\4, ! L . 6,090 sq. ft. 5,984 sq. ft. 3r 113 sq. ft. ^.1 +^ --^^lorLrJ o'! E;a,/ 5 H. Allowed:. 2,646 sq. ft.Existing: 2r255 sq- ft. 1- 98? eroposed: 4,220 sq- 1990 Proposed: 4,441 sq. l-990 amount over allowed: Accessory: Christiania Realty (10% of allowable GRFA) Front !.;as!.51cle West Side Rear Site Coverage: (.55 Al-lowed:. 9,091Existing:5r235 1987 Proposed: 1990 Proposed: 1990 Renaining: Landscaping: (30% of 1990 Proposed 0 fr. 0 fr. 5 ' -6 rr encroachmentL4t encroachment Required: 4,962 sq. fl .Bxisting: 7,490 sq. ft. 1987 Proposed: 6r635 sq. fL. 1990 Proposed: 5r943 sq. ft- J. Heiqht: Al-l-owed: 48 ft . sloping roof 45 ft . f lat roofBxisLing: 36 ft. sloping Proposed: approximately 44 fL. flat K. Parkinq: Existinq Proposed Use #Spaces #Spaces Accomrnodation Units: 25 units = Ij (20) 26 units =(14) 18.4Dwelling Units: 2 units : 4 ( 6) 3 units =(17) 6.5Sarahts Lounge: 6 BRealty Office: 1 IChristiania Condosz 9 9rotal 3j (4g) Ar.9 or 43 or or37 spaces required (49) 43 spaces required 34 on site -_i__SfCldfathered3 spaces grandfathered (46) 40 spaces which must be provlded to neetparking requirements, V. RELATED POLICIES IN THE VAIL VILLAGE MASTER PLAN The following is a list of the Vail Village Master plan Goals and Objectives which relate Lo this pro-iect: GOAL #1 - ENCOURAGE HIGH QUALITY REDEVELOPMENT WHILE PRESERVTNG THE UNIQUE ARCHITECTURAL SCALE OF THE VILLAGE ]N ORDER TO SUSTAIN ITS SENSE OF COMMUNITY AND IDENTITY. I .2 Ob-iective: Encourage the upgrading and redevelopment ofresidential and commercial_ facilities. L .2 .L Pol-i cv: aOOIEFnal devetopment may be allowed as rdentified by the Action Pfan and as isconsistent wj-th the vai] Village Mast.er Pl-an and Urban Desiqn Guide Pl-an. GOAL #2 - TO FOSTER A STRONG TOURIST INDUSTRY AND PROMOTE YEAR-AROUND ECONOMIC HEALTH AND VTABTLITY FOR THE VILLAGE AND FOR THtr COMMUNTTY AS A WHOLE. 2.3 Obiective: Increase the number of residential units availablefor short term overniqht accommodations. 2.3.1 Policv: rt e-?Errefopment of short term accommodationunits is strongly encouraged. Residentialunits that. are developed above existingdensity levefs are required to be designed or managed in a manner that makes them avai-Iablefor short term overniqht. rental . 2,5 Obiective: Encourage the conLinued upgrading, renovation and maintenance of existing lodging and commercialfacilities to better serve the needs of our arrioc1- c GOAL #3 - TO RECOGNIZE AS A TOP PRIORITY THE ENHANCEMENT OF THE WALKING EXPERIENCE THROUGHOUT THE VILLAGE. 3.1 Obiect.ive:Physically improve t.he existing pedesLrian ways bylandscapi-ng and other improvement.s. 3. 1 .1 policy: Privat.e development projects shalllncorporate streetscape improvements (such aspaver treatments, landscaping, Lighting andseating areas), along' adjacent pedestrian wavs. GOAL #4 _ TO PRESERVE EXISTTNG OPEN SPACE AREAS AND EXPAND GREENSPACE OPPORTUNTTIES . 4.t Obiective: Tmprove existing open space areas and creaEe new plazas with greenspace and pocket. parks. Recognize the difference roLes of each type of open space in forrning the overafl- fabric of the Vil1aqe. GoAL #5 - TNCREASE AND IMPROVE THE CAPACITY, EFFTCIENCY, AND AESTHETICS OF THE TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION.. SYSTEM THROUGHOUT THE VILLAGE. VI . COMPLTANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN FOR VA]L V{LLAGE Sub-Area Concept No. 8: "MiII Creek walking path, west side Mill Creek. Path completes linkage from pirate ship and mountain path to Gore Creek Drive. 't The Urban Design Guide pl-an calfs ouL for the path connection between the bike path and Hanson Ranch Road. Theaddition of a stone foot patir would be a positive improvement to the pedestrian experience in the Vi-llage area, Even though the path was originally proposed for the westside of MiIl Creek, sLaff believes that the east sideprovldes a more attractive walking experience. The westside of the creek has a trash room for Cyrano's as well as severaL utility boxes which make it an unpleasant area towalk through. VII. WORK StrSSION DISCUSSION ITEMS 1. Setback variances. 2. Upgrading of existing parking area Lhrough paving and landscaping. The appllcant needs to demonstrate how the required.parking wil-I be provided. Staff woul-d like to see theappllcant upgrade the existing Christiania parking lot l-ocaLed across the street from the lodge as a part ofthis proposal . VaiL Associates owns the entire lot anduses t.he western port.ion of the parking area. TheChristiania has a long Lerm lease with Vail Associatesfor the eastern hal-f of the lot. Staff will require that the applicant landscape rheenti-re lot and asphalt the portion of the 1ot which isLeased. Plant materials should be pl-aced alonq the southern and northern periphery of the lot in order toscreen the lot from adjacent properties and pedestrianways. The provision of this landscaping was acondition for approving the plan in 1987. Construction of Mill Creek Path,/Trash Enclosure. Staff suggests the applicant construct a foot path witha small- seating area along the east side of Mill Creek. The pat.h woufd be an informal stepping stone path witha seating bench adjacent to the creek. The path wouldbe focated between the Christiania split rail- fence andMilf Creek. Screening of trash encl-osure and Rel-ocation ontoapplicant's property. Ql- a€f r.r'i I I raarri ro t-haf f h6 .y1^l i CanL rel-OCaLe andconstruct a trash encl-osure to screen t.he lodge's Lrasharea. Currently the lodge's dumpster and a porLion ofa paved parking area is' ]ocated on V.A. owned propertyadjacent to MiLl Creek. The Town proposes [-o consLructan off-street loading area for the Village on thisproperty in addition to the above mentioned Mi11 Creekpat.h in order to al1ow for the constructj-on of the Mill Creek path and to aI1ow for the constructlon of an off-street loading area, this paved area should be removedand the dumpster located on Christiania property. The construction of the Mill Creek Path and Trash EnCIOSUTe Were alSO COnditiOnS fOr arrr-rrr'rri n r-r f ha 111611 in 1987 Porte corchere encroachment.. Condominium Notification of redevelopment proposal. Lease on parking--is an off-site parking approvalrequired from Council or is arranqement with VailAssociates a grandfathered situation. DRAFT CHRISTIANIA CHRONOLOGY 1990: September 4, DRB Application fil-ed for Sept. 19, 1990 meeting.O, t,gr(n, Sept . 6, Meeting w/Bill Resl-ock (arch. ) to reviern, pr-ans fr a2Sept. 18, review of devetopnent proposa] by Fire Depr dtggsd Sept. l-9, DRB meeting conceptual review of Christj-ania Lodge redevelopment proposal Receipt of list of property owners to be notified Oct. 5, Noti-ce in Trail- for 10/22/91 densit.v & setback variancerequests Oct. 8, PEC worksession density and setback variances. Sinceltem was reviewed by the PEC as a worksession j_tem, and sincethere is no advertising requirement for worksession items, iLem was not. advertised. Oct. I7, JK phone conversation w,/Bill Resl_ock summarizing comments of PEC mtgf on IO/19 and setting forth information Townmust receive in order to process application Oct 18, Received letter frorn Richard Siegat/ pres. Chateauchristian Townhome Assoc. dated ro/L1 /90t sLating Assoc. approvesremodel proposal and encourages Town to approve plans Act. 22, sched. for PEC Worksession on setback and densitvvariances. ftem tabled without discussion to November 12th PEC meeting date. Adjacent property owners had beennotified of meeting Oct. 25, Notice to Adjacent property owner mailed for 11/12 mtg OcL. 26, Lett.er from JK to paul ,fohnston re: summarizing pEC member comments from 10/8 mtg and seLting forth informat.ion which musL be presented to Town by November 2nd to affow Town time toprocess information in time for 11 /12 pEC meeting. Letter statesletter is follow up Lo 1-0/L1 phone call. Although letter isaddressed lo Paul T bel iewe onlw ohone conversation I had waswit.h Bill- Reslock Oct 30, ,fK meeting w/Bill Reslock Lo review Oct. 3I , or so Town L.A. review of plans 1 Nov. 2, Meeting 12:00 p.m. G TOV JK & Bill Reslock Lo 9ro overrequested additional information submission from Bill. Inforeceived from Bill G Meet.ingNov. 2t JK - phone call from ,Jack Curtain inquiring as to what isgoing on with Christ.iania. Nov. 7 | discussion re: Chrlstiania parking 1ot and Town ownedland G Interdepartmental- Nov. 8, Adjacent Property owners notified of 11/26 PE'C meeting Nov 9, Ad published in Trail for parking variance request hearingat 11126 meeting of PEC Updated Christiania Lodge property survey submitted to TOV /\ t f r r\a c Nov. 12, PEC worksession on density, setback and cornmon areavariances Nov. 12, BilI Reslock submits of landscaplng plant material list Nov. 13, Phone call JK & Jay Pet.erson to discuss 11/12 pEC meeting and additional information which application must. provideto Town in order for Town to process application for 1"L/26meeting. Nov. 14, JK meeting w/ Gretta parks to go over submission plans Nov 15, ,JK, Kristan and Jay Peterson meet G Christian to discussprovision of employee housing unit (s) , restricting units to shortterm rental- and proposed site improvemenls Letter to Jay Peterson fr. JK to summarize phoneconversation of 1"I/73 and to set deadline of lI/L9 forreceipt. of information request.ed Nov. 16, Lttr dated 11 /1"6 to TOV fr. Richard Siegal, pres. ofChateau Townhome Assoc. grantlng permission to designate oneparking space on CCTA owned property to Christiania for theChristiania's use. Nov L9, ,JK and KP and Jay meet Jack Curtin in front of FrivolousSaL's to take a look at View Corridor from phot.o point Nov. 20, Barry Craddock (adjacent properly owner) notification ofl.L/26 PEC hearing returned to TOV offices Nov. 2L, TOV receipt of let.ters of opposition to redevel_opproposal from: Mi11 Creek Court Condominium Assoc-Jack Curtin 2 Note: First documented mention of View Corridor encroachment.is above menti-oned l-etters Let.ter dated 1,1"/2I fr. Art Abplanalp representing Jack Morton Productions owner of unit on 2nd Fl. of Mil1 Crk.Court Condo Build, objecting to redevefopment proposal Nov. 21 cont. 'IK in discussj-on with Art. becomes aware of fact thal parcel of land where Christiania is now parking (J) is not property on which they have t.he right to park (P-3) and that TOV ROWbisects the parking 1ot located north of the Christiania Lodge TOV receipt of revised elevations from Bill Resfock showing how bldg plan has been modified to decrease j-mpact redevel_.wil-l- have on proposed Hanson Ranch view corridor ,JK - Phone cafl fr. , Art A., BifI Morton and Mark Mathews(manager of Mi1l Creek Court Bldg.) Inquiring as to whaL was proposed under Christiania deveJ_opment proposal Nov. 23, TOV receipt of Lttr dated II/23 fr. Art. Lo Kp re: Art,sdiscovery t.hat Christiania parking area used and parking arearights don't jive. Encl-oses copy of signed 1963 agreemenL between VA, Christiania and TOV. Asreement to swap land hasnever been executed Nov. 26, PEC worksession on density, setback, common area andparking variances. FirsL discussj-on of corridor by board.Discussj-on centered on View Corridor, Density & parklng Nov 30, JK meeting with Mike Mol_lica and Rod Slifer and anot.hergentleman who came to t.he meeting with Rod, to discuss Mill_ Creek Condominium site redevel . rirork whi_ch MitI Creek CondominiumAssociations would like to carrv out on Tov owned land rocated inthe Hanson Ranch Rd. ROW. Condominium improvements (stairs andwalkways) currently encroach. At this same meeting Christianiaredevelopment. proposal- was discussed and reviewed by thosepresent, Dec L0, PEC - no discussion item tabled ind.efj_nit.e1y to allow ::::"::t resol-ution of parking lot ownership and parkins rishr.s Dec. 18, revised and updated norLhern parking 1oL survey (parcels -3 and ,J - includinq Vi1la Valhalla ownership) subrnitted to rovoffices. 3 Dec. 19, DRB consideration of Christiania redevelopment. proposalitem was approved subject to several conditions including Tovrn Att.orney's legal opinion regarding zoning code issueraised by Art at the meeting. Dec. 28, TOV receipt of fttr fr. Art. Appeal of 12119 DRB approval 1991 .Ian 3, Meeting JK, Larry Eskwith and Kp to address Art, s zoning code viol-ation issue. Jan 4, JK, Mike Brake and Jerry Arnold meeLing Lo discuss ownership of parcels p-3 & J Jan 11, Lttr fr Kristan to Paul_ apologizing for zoning codeinterpretation problem relating to increasing size ofnonconforming structures - in the past, code was not interpretedin this manner. Jan 22, JK phone cal-f with Jay re: TOV requirement thatchristiania obtain written confirmation fr vA stating vA does notobject to Christiania's use of lot and VA wil-l- continue to accommodate Chrlstiania's parking needs. Jan 24, Lttr mailed fr. Larry Eskwith to Art not.ifying Art ofTOV's findings with regard to his l-etter of I2/I9/90. Towndetermines Art.'s objections to Sections 18.64.050.B and18.54.040.C-2 are va1id. Accordingl_y DRB 12/19 approval is void Approx Jan 28, nailed noti-ces to adjacent property owners af Z/lI PEC meet.ing KP telephone Joe Macy re: staff position on VA/ s need toprovide written confirmation to TOV stating VA wilI continueto accommodate the Christiania, s parkinq needs and that eventhough property which they own is- impacied by theredevelopment proposal/ they do not object. Jan 31, Lttr t.o Jay fr. JK re: placing redevelopment proposal_ on2/LL agenda, reit.erating poinLs of L/22 phone caII and setting2/4 deadline for receipt of required letter fr. V.A. Feb. 4t JK Phone call- fr. Larry Lichli_ter of VA inouirino as fo irlc|r^rhrf;^+^--.il::;:..'._i:-,-^:*^^.-;::-.';-*_^..*..="-.<l.YJ Lro L- w.rcru rrrrwL_Ifldt.ien Town is requesting VA provide to paul Feb 4 , 4:L9 p.m. TOV receipt of l-etter fr. Vail- Associates.LeLter doeS nOt nrnvi zro naarraA ehristiania parking Commi Lmentrequired by TOV 4 Feb 5, Town Council Work Session. Discussion of Christlania redevelopment and Council consenL to proceed through the PBC review process. On agenda, item was not discussed. Larry Eskwith verbally notifies Art of TOV interpretationt.hat the TOV recognizes the Christiania Lodge as having 3Iegal parking spaces. These 3 spaces are located onChristiania property to the west of the Christiania LodgeBuilding. TOV receipt of hand delivered l-et.t.er Lo Council fr GrettaParks (East Vail Village Steering Commit.tee) re: need formaster plan for East Vail- Village Feb 6, Art notifies staff there is no varrance appllcation in thefi 1e JK phone TOV accounting to get print out of 41330 fundsreceived to check if application filing fee was ever paid JK phone Bill Reslock to see if he has copy of applicationform or cancel-]ed check JK phone Jay Peterson to see if he has copy of applicationform or cancelled check Feb 7, TOV receipt of 2/l ttt.r fr Art to pEC sLatj-ngconsideration of Christiani_a redevelopmenL proposal is improper because no application has been filed JK receive copy of TOV 41330 account print out. Unable tosee record of TOV receipt of Christiania filinq fee JK phone caLl- to Reslock. He also is unable to find recordof payment in his files. Having afso checked with Jay andPau1, and finding out that they have no record of payment ofcopies of an application, we conclude no payment was everreceived. JK ^l telephone TraiL to have item removed from 2/1L pI"C aqenda Feb 11,, DRB application filed for March 6 meeting KP and JK review DRB application to insure all- requiredsubmittaf information had been submitted. Kp and JKdetermine application is complete. However lt appears aportion of the redevelopment is proposed to occur on ChateauChristian Townhome owned property. JK telephones Bill R. tomake sure all construction is to occur on Christiania-ownedproperty. 5 BiLl submits drawing to show refationship of ChristianiaIobby to the Chateau Christian Townhome lobby Feb 12, TOV receipt of 2/'7 lttr fr. Jack Baylin a property ownerin the Townhomes stating his objection to the pl-an Feb 15, 8:00 am JK, Bill R and Jay P meet. BilI presents drawingwhich shows Chrlstiania redevel-opment wil-1 not occur on ChateauChristian Townhome owned properti JK letter to Bil-1 Resl-ock re: additional informationrequired to complete processing DRB application Feb. 20, JK mails courtesy notice to Art to notify him DRBapplication has been filed for March 6 DRB meeting JK mails letter of apology to Paut and Sally in response to fact variance appllcatJ-on was not submitted and filing fee was not paid. Feb. 2I , TOV receipt of ]etter from Art appealing staffdet.ermlnation of adequacy of 3/6 DRB application Feb. 28t RPt JK and Larry Eskwith meeL to review JK response LoArt's l-etter of Feb. 7- Response to Art/s letter of Feb. 21 notyet draft,ed. XP indicat.ed that j-n a conversation wj_th Jayearlier t.hat day, Jay indicated the allowable dwelling unit countunder Lhe current PBC application did not exceed 9.5 d.u.ts. JKthen indicated allowable uniL count is 9.0 d-u.rs and that. shehas conveyed that information to Jay in a telephone conversationand further that every PEC memo which has been written has setforth 9 d.u.'s as the allowable unit count. During course ofthis di-scussion JK indicates zone check is not complete. Meetingbreaks up- It is determined no further discussion on response toArt's Ietters need occur until- zone check has been completed. JK does zone check based on unitprovided by Bill R. March 1-, JK telephones Jay regarding need to reduce unit counL JK receipt of revised drawing from Reslock reflecting unitcombination/reducing project density to 9 d.u./s JK Lelephones Bil-I R. regardingBill indicates where unit. count need to reduce unit count.reduction will occur. combi-nation information Mexico. KP phones JK to find out whatreduction telephone cal-L. Park's letter of 2/7 is mailed KP out' of town in NewJay's response was t.o d.u. KP response to Gretta 6 ,4 .'1 tr *# for 3/6 and Jay ,JK sits down to qo over zone check in preparation meeting. Setback encroachment. is dlscovered. Bill are not available bv phone at their offices Sat.. March 2, Jay is not avaiLable by phone. 3:45 JK contactsBill at hj-s home to notify him of side setback encroachment (Paul is in Mexico on vacation) JK contacts KP in New Mexico reqardingsame. No answer at survey company Sun. March 3, approx. 9:00 am JK reaches Jay at home to notifyhim of encroachment. Ron Phil-l-ips st.ops into Community Development Deptnotifies of setback encroachment situaLion March 4, KP calls JK from New Mexico to qet update on situat.ion JK, Mike Mollica, Jay Peterson, Bill R. and Kurt Segerberg(with arch. firm) meet to discuss encroachment and Lo reviewpreliminary design solution to encroachment. Purpose ofthis meeting was also to set forlh agreement on whatinformation/pIans need to be submitt.ed as a result ofproposed minor plan modifications and when this informatj_onmust be submitted. KP ca1ls JK in evening to set up meeting for followingmorning to revj-ew Christiania project status JK meets with Ron to up date him on statua of encroachmentsituation. March 5, 7:30 am KP and JK meet to discuss staLus of Christianiaproject - KP gives JK written summary of morni_ng discussion andwhich includes out.line of how to avoid this t.ype of problem inthe future. JK receives around 7:30pM. 3:45 pm TOV receipt of revised plans fr Bill R. addressingE. setback line encroachnent. JK review plans with Bill R. JK completes draft of letter responding to Art,s feLlers ofFeb. 7 and Feb. 21. 4:30 pm JK review plans with Kp and BiIl R. 5:00 pm JK telephones Art A. to inform him revised planshave been submitted and making an appointment to meet withhim the following day at 9:00 am to review plans UT\ 7 March 6, Review new plans with Art and Jack Baylin (Townhome r-aq i rlanl- I KP puts note in Ron's box informing him Christ.iania is goingto DRB on this day KP out of town 3/6 and 3/7 to Crested Butte DRB meeting * ChrisLiania is approved 4-0. Those presentinclude: JK, Larry, Bill R., Art, Paul Johnston/ Jay andPeter Rudy representing East Village Homeowners Assoc.(Assoc. not formally established at time of this hearing) March 8, KP reviews JK's draft of letter written j-n response EoArt's letters of Feb. 7th and 21st. March 12, Larry completes review of .fK, s fetter to Art mentioned above. March 13, KP review final draft of.fK/s letter to Art. I i ..':'. t' tr TO: FROM: DATE: Planning and Environmental Corununity Developrnent Department August 8, 1988 The west setback is corner to 17'-10rr on setback is slightly 4t/r/ now from t.6'-2n on the northwest the southwest corner. The southgreater than 6 feet. hru,^/- wfl 2) 3, 'J''o"d ofi'[u' SUB"TECT: A request for variances for side and rear setbackst parking design, and density control in order to construct an 8 unit addition to the Tivoli Lodge located on Lot E, Block 2, Vail Village 5th Filing and Lot P-2, Block 3, Vail Village 5th Filing. lppl-icant: Robert Lazier I. DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCES REQUESTED The appJ.icant has nodified his proposal since the June 27th PEC meeting at which it was first considered. The following is the applicant's statement describing the urodifications: u1) Densitv: The current rnodified proposal ca1ls for 8 rooms (formerly 11) as follows: a. Two rooms at 378 sq ftb. One roon at 336 sq ftc. Three rooms at 295 sg ftd. One room at 280 sq fte. one suite (a.u.) Ja@sq ft (tr'I Total GRFA is 2,84i sq.ft. (forrnerly 4'345 sq ft) The basement space will be used as storage or a physical fitness tlpe of room. Parkinq The nerir parking demand is 6 spaces. The current parking requirement is 28.9 spaces plus 6 spaces for a total of 35 spaces. The current parking plan shows L8 spaces in P-2i 4 spaces in front and 11 spaces in the west lot. we can conform to the parking requirement by valet parking 2 cars in P-2, neither of nhich need to be novedoff site for access. No parking structure is proposed and no P-2 nodifications will be necessary. Setbacks irl 4.Views While viens are sometrhat inpacted for the 2 units to thenorth of the Tivoli, a substantial decrease in massinghas greatly reduced their view inpact. Sun./shade: The development has no inpact on public property. Landscapinq: 5. 6. 7. _!!! :5:sting pavement. Safetv Aspects: The Town Fire Department has been increasingly concernedabout the lack of a second exit from the second andthird floors for the existing building. The new develop:ment provides such exit. If the new proposal isnot built, a second exit at some point will need to beconstructed which would in all likelihood elininate 2 existin,gr parking spaces and also increase the existing massing of the building without the benefit ofincreasing the number of rooms.rt It should be noted that there is a variance required to allow 754 of the a,Cditional 5 parking spaces reguired to not belocated within the nain building and hidden fron public view.This is a re,quirement of the Public Accommodation zonedistrict in which the tivoli lies. The development calls forlandscaping borderingr the a substantial increase in Town pedestrian path, versus -...r_'. GRFA Proposed:I A.U. rs Existing: L4,L7L sf Proposed: 2,847 sf Total z 17 1018 sf AlLowab1e:,..44, 165 sf =---''r''' II. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.0G0 ofthe nunicipal code, the Department of Conmunity Developrnent recommends approval of the requested variances based upon thefollowing factors: uNrTs Existing: 3rB A.U. rs .l D.u. Total . Ati A.U.'s :L D.U. Allowable: 2ll A.U.'s A.Conside.ration of Factors: The relationshi the sted variances toexistaI uses vlcrnlt]/. The substantial scaling back of the rnass and bulk of theproposal in conjunction with substantially increasedside setbacks has relieved the staff's concerns regarding the impacts upon the public recreation trailadjacent to the west. The cornbination of pulling thebuilding back from the property line over L6 - 17 feet,pl-us the proposed heavy landscaping between the pathway and the building, will result in an improvement in thisarea. Furtherrnore, the 6 foot encroachrnent of theexisting parking lot will be elininated, gaining anadditional 468 square feet of landscaping which is nowasphalt. \The redesign has also resulted in a reduced view inpact \to the units to the north. While acknowledging that )these private views will be affected with the proposal, /it is inportant to understand that our duty is- to- - / prinarily protect views to and frorn public spaces. With regard to the parking design variance, there shouldbe no negative irnpacts upon existing or potential uses and structures in that there is not an increase inasphalted parking area, but in fact a decrease. ree to which relief frorn the strict and Iiretaton and enforcement of a f ation o oftreatmentthe vic ty or to atta the ob out tofpr].vll_e,qe. jli The substantial redesign of the addition has brought theproposal nuch more in line with the mass and bulkenvisio:ned for the addition in the Vail Village MasterPlan. tl{hile a ninor variance is required for theunstruc'Eured four parking spaces, it should be notedthat neither the Ranshorn nor the Christiania (both \ 1. ,located in the PA zone) were required to structure their fladdj-tio:nal parking in conjunction with their sna1ladditio:ns. Regarding the setback variances, theredesign has resulted in near compliance with the 20foot rerluired side setback (L6-L7 feet from propertyline pr,rposed) . W /-u ),';t ; / landscaping ,4 .will enhance t'tre /, - : a:: -'conEalned w].En].n When or:re considers that this scale addition wasidentifiied in the Action Plan, it indicates that approva.l of the project woutd not be a grant of specialprivS-lege. The proposal actually improves upon an ex5-stinrg nonconforming rear setback situation whereinthe garage is three feet from the property line. The new bui.lding is now proposed to be to 8 feet from theproperty 1ine. , @nsidering the Ramshorn and Garden of the Gods districts which increased thespecial. development allowahrle density as rrelJ.,q$ .the density variancet-i.{M%odge, this proposal, ifgranted. for the Jhi approve,d, vould notdissirnilar treatment represent incornpatible nor from other sites in the vicinitv. lhe effect of the reguested variances on liqht and air, . i aTstrlb ""facITIt c safety.. The proposal now meets its 35 space parking reguirernentfor the entire project. This includes the introductionof 8 to 9 valet spaces (252 of the total which is the maximurn. nunber generally used by the staff) as well asthe recognition of four existing legal nonconforrning spaces along Hanson Ranch Road in front of the hotel .Also, it is now possible to accommodate a small numberof valet spaces on Lot P-2 without the necessity of backing onto VaiI Val1ey Drive. This was of rnajor , concern to the staff in the previous proposal . The --tty' intention of the 758 structured parking requirernent in-r[-ttre PA zone is an aesthetic consideration. The intentis to rninimize surface parking and naxirnize landscapedareas. The proposal actually reduces surface parking area and increases landscaped area, while moreefficiently utilizing the existing parking spaces. III. APPLICABLE POITCIES FROI{ VATL'S COMPREHENSTVE PI,AN { //* Again, the Vail Village Master Plan calls for a snalladdition in the specific area in which it is now proposed.substantial redesign of the addition now is in generalconfornity with what lras envisioned in that plan. Theredesign'of pulling back from the property line along thepublic walkway will allow for a substantialbuffer to be introduced in thiE area. This walkway and achieve another rtant policy oplan is to the rki demands with the rivatesector develo now ntion of lodqe rooms A A achieved. F ro S 1S an inportant goal of the plan which is being satisfied by the nature of thris proposal . IV. SUCH OTHER I'ACTORS AND CRITERIA AS THE COMI,IISSION DEE}TS APPLICABLE TO THE PROPOSED VARIANCES. v.FINDTNGS That the gra.nting of the variance wiLL not constitute a grantof special privilege inconsistent with the limitations onother properties classified in the sarne district. That the gra.nting of the variance wiII not be detrirnental tothe public h.ealtb, safety or welfare, or naterially injuriousto propertie,s or i.rnprovements in the vicinity. That the variance is warranted for one or more of thefollowing r€dsons! The strict or literal interpretation or enforcement ofthe spe.cified regulation would result in practicaldifficulty or unnecessary physicat hardship inconsistentwith tbe objectives of this title. There are exceptions or extraordinary circunstances orconditions applicable to the same site of the variancethat do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. The strict interpretation or enforcement of thespecified regulation would deprive the applicant ofprivileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties inthe same district. rj, VI. STAFF RECOMI,IENDATION The Conrnunity Development Department recornmends approval ofthe requested variances for the addition to the Tivoli Lodge. The applicant has obviously responded in a strong andpositive manner to the concerns of the staff and PEC. Wefeel that as described above, these revisions result in anacceptable proposal and one which will be an enhancernent tothe property and to the neighborhood in general . Benefits tothe Town include achievinq 8 additional. lodge roolns in aninportant loqation as well as the removal of an encroachmentin an area adjacent to a public walkway and a subseguent enhancement of the wal-kway itself with the provision of a .i.rr substantial anount of new landscaping. Moreover, tlrrough either the special development procedure orthe grantinq of density variances, there have been sinilar approvals aclding lodge rooms or short term rental dwellingrunits in the innediate area. We feel there is justificationfor grantinlJ these variances for this addition in a sinilar, nature. -/& lnry /-a G-O, fzo"/<: ,r--*- l2*oU *,*-.-/, ,l-"h ::r TO: FROM: DATE: RE: ttAcat Planning and Environnental .Comrnission Comrnunity Development Department ilune 27, 1988 Reguest for side and reardensity control variances setback, order parking, andto construct ocated onl-l-Unit addi-tion to theE, Block 2, vail VillagApplicant: Robert,Ia,zier DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED Located in the Public Acconroodation Zone District, theTivo1i Lodge is conprised of 3g acconmodation units andone dwelling unit. A variety of variances have beenrequested to a1low for the addition of LL accornmodationunits and a basement rneeting room space of approximately 1-000 sguare feet. The variances requested are asfollows: 1. A density control variance to a1low for LL additional accomnodation units. The current 1evel of development (nurnber of units) on this site is overtwice that pernitted under existing zoninq. Thisvariance would allow for the development of 11additi-onal accornrnodation units. 2. A density'control variance to allow for additionalresidential floor area. Existing GRFA (L4,121) onlyslightly exceeds that permitted by zoning (14,L68).This variance would allow for the development of4,345 additional sguare feet of GRFA. 3. Side and rear setbacks, Setbacks of AO feet arereguired for properties within this zone district.As proposed, this addition would be located as clgsBas six feet from the propertyrs souttrerly line anil upto four feet fron the westerly line; an Lot 4.Variance to the required nurnber of off-street parkingspaces. As previously stated, the properLy presently meets its parking reguirements. Additional ,'parkirig - demand generated by the lodge rooms (g.Z spaces) andthe neeting room facitity: (3.9 spaces) is proposed tobe partially rnet by initiating valet, service on theTrack P-2 Lot. As proposed by the applicant, thiswould result j.n a net deficit of two parking spaces. q 3t) t9u&t 1 d+,'"lt 5. 61 s1\c + \s.sz. obo k[t" e l1.Lz.l..lo p b rv' thetothese, provisions are required as weffl Thisofaincl s proposed as the firstThe second phase would the ir also be noted that the proposed lobby r.rill alsosetback variances. rr.CRITERIA AND FINDINGS 'I rp A. Consideration of Factors e rel ionshi f the re este!!. variance to oor pote tial uses and structures in thE 1_ k"y factor with regard to this criteria is not .iust I!: ":}"!ionship or inis requesr to otirei ."i=ti"i ",potential uses and structures in the "i"i"ilt;-;;i:i:l:L -!l: ""]-u!ionships . between trre varian"'"'rEeo."t :3?l=1*ye=. While cornprised of a greater nurnber of :::::_l:l_ln permitt.g by. zonins, this property j.s ?:l::11ty consisrenr with other developnlnt - standdrds. The large nurnber of varianles reguestedwith this proposal lhoula serve as a directrndr-cat,ion that the developrnent proposed is beyondwhat the property is reasoirabty Lapanle of ?:.:Tt?d1!irs. rhis inrerrelaiionlrrip should be keptrn nrncl when considering the specific-variancesrevi-ewed in this nemorandum. torhn."\ -) \{' sr' ogo o the west of the| ?\.xe5 existing buiLd and to the north of the proposedaddition.. and. a parking structure -on Tract-p-2. whileparking structure rggJ."a potentially meet the parkingdemands of this facirityl the applicant-rras-"fii"i tnutlrrould not be constructed until i-gSO or 1991_. It should Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section L8.62.060 ofthe rnunicipal code, the Department recornmends denial ofthe requested variance basLd upon the forlowinj iiccor* Variance to the design and location of parkingprovided. In this zone distr! ct, 7S>" oi aII ieguiredpllking is to be located within Lhe rnain buifaiiq-anahidden fron public view. parking pro.ria.a--;;-fi.demand created frorn this additioi ioes not iiil"iythe standard. In addition, parking denand. is to ieprovided on the site fron irfricfr, tht denand isgenerated. Whi1e the Town Council may grant anexception to this provision, this is io[ p"r*iit"afor spaces that are reguired to be locatei wiinin-nain building of a site. Consequently, vari;"-;; f=\ llt*' *\l P/ It is not uncommon to find discrepancies withexisting development and developnent standards asthey relate to density, parking, and setbacks. Withtle najority of these cases, however, thesediscrepancies were the result of construction priorto the current zoning regulations. In addition, few,if any, properties are developed to twice theirallowable units (plus the additional 11 reguestedhere). While setback variances (and to a lesserdegreee, density variances) have been granted in therecent past, staff concerns center around thespecific impacts created by the variances requestedby this apptication. Staff fj-nds the proximity of the proposed add.ition tothe gxisting sidewalk to the lrest of this parcel simpJ.y unacceptable. This heavily used pedestrian walkway connects Hanson Ranch Roal with ihe coldenPeak area. At the present time, a walk down thispedestriaru'ray offers a spectacular view of GoldenPeak and Vail Mountain. These views would beseriously inpacted by this construction, as would. the Fe1:g-of space one feels in walking this path. Thebuilding proposed four foot from the propirty line isan intrusion on this public space that'would resultin adverse inpacts on the pedEstrianrs experience. The density variances also create impacts to ad,jacentproperties by virtue of the additional buildingJ nassthey would permit. properties to the north of theTivoli presently have pleasinq views of Vail Mountainthat vould be irnpacted by this construction. Whileprivate view corridors are not a fornal criteria ofthe Planning Cornmission, staff feels they arerelevant in this application because the requestinvolves density over nrhat existing zoning ilou1dperrnit. Generally speaki_ng, the pioposed-design isinsensitive to both the adjacent ialkway and ,.r neighboring deveJ.opment to the north of this site. Theliteral to which lief frorn the str andon and enfo ent oflations necessa to ach at tvaiformof treatnent sites the vicinitor to atta ect ves of th title withouttofecialrtv ecifi To approve the variances required to al1ow for thisdevelopment would undoubted.ly be a grant of specialprivilege. WhiIe justification and-precedent-mayexist for one or tr4ro of the regueste&. variances, thestaff's objection to this proposal becomes most acuteuhen considering these variances colJ.ectively. T1: ylli:nce process has been used recently to altowror addrtronal units at the Sitzrnark (3) and theChristiana (1). In both of these cases, however, theproperties had sufficient cRFA under "*ir-i"f "oii"gguidelines to allow for these units. The variances 19re 1e9aed only for the units thernselves, ana weieqeemed. to be appropriate by the staff and Commissionglven the comnunity,s desire lodge room facilities.with this applicatl_on, varian."=-"." required foi-notonly the units but also the additional c'RFA. - i;-addition, the expansion has been sited as close asrour feet fron the_property's westerly property line:11_:l:.lllklns solution ii unacceptalri ri"nr i,anyscandpornt.s (see next criteria). Variance^requests are undoubtedly the most commonapplication presented to tne sti'fr and planni;;- - Commissi.on. fn many cases, there are jusi "".ion. togrant variances and the plinning cornrnilsion iras -not been reluctant to do so. Howev6r,.with tnis- request,one.need only to consj.der the uragnitude oi "1i-€h;varrances requested to conclude that the proposalwould be a grant o_f.special privilege wefi llyond thedegree of relief whicl may bL necesiary t" aiiow-tora development. The effect of the ested variance on 1i t andaqtribution oT ation orta on andtrafulitiesandub1c safetv. Reference has already been made to the proposedstructure,s impact on tne public walkwa! abjacent tothis site. To introduce a-building in this 1ocationwould affect views, nrorning sun an6. the sense ofspace one feels when walking this corridor. Of greater concern to the staff is both the interi,inparking soluti.on and the p"rran.nt solution prop"seOto meet the demands creat-ed by this additionaldevelopment. The parking proior"a *i.tn thi;developarent involvEs a r6airction of two spaces in thewest lot, with that deficit and a portion'of the- newdernand being nret by operating . .r.uf.t service out ofthe^P-2 Lot-(it shoul_d. be noted that thecontrg'uration of spaces proposed for the west 1otalso necessitates I vatel oierationfunctional), The staff has a ,rr*b", of concerns withthe.valet operation of the p-2 Track. Theseinclude: 1. Safety is the foremost concern when consideringthe operation of a valet service on this lot. The proposal would require l-00* of the area to be used for parking cars resulting in a totalelirnination of access ways or aisles. This would require al1 users of the lot to be valetserved. This service would result in carscontinually backing out of the lot onto VailValley Drive in order to a1low another car toleave or enter the lot.. Being a heavilytraveled road, a bus route and a highlypedestrianized street, this situation isintolerable from a safety standpoint. Inaddition, it is in violation of the nunicipal code for a lot of this size to be designed in a way for cars to be back out onto a public right- of-way. 2. While off-street parking may be provided off-site if approved by Council, this approval cannot be granted for spaces reguired to beenclosed or within a structure. In the public accommodation zone district, 752 of all parkingis reguired to be within a building and out ofview. As a resuLt, '752 of the new demand (orapproxinatety eight spaces) rnust be enclosed to meet this reguirement. Providing this parkingoff-site and not enclosed is in conflict lriththis provision of the municipal code. 3. While secondary to the safety issues, theaesthetics of parking approxinately 25 cars on alot designed for 15 to 17 is also unacceptable. ft should be noted that the staff, PJ.anningConnission, and Council has approved valet operationsin the past (Vail Villaqe Inn, Doubletree Hotel , VailVai-ley Medical Center). In these cases, however,_,thevalet operation took place and functioned entirelywithin the property,s boundaries. This distinctionshould not be overLooked in responding to thisinterirn parking sotution. The applicant has suburitted a parking survey that was done during the L987-88 ski season. The survey erasdone to gauge the utilization of the two parking lotsused by the Tivoli l,odge. I,fhile the nurnberspresented are interesting, they do not provide just cause to waive or nodify the Townrs parkingrequirernents, nor do they incLude tnl surnm6r monthswhen we typically find a higher percentage of guestsbrrng autonobiles to vail. The, staff has focused this review on the interirnparking solution because oe the-iack of assurancesfor when the structured puii.i"g ioufd be built.staff feels stron-gly _thai p"iri"g dernands need to benet at the time the-devetoir.rri inat "r"ut;;-;";;dernand is constructed. r"'aaaition, it shouLd benoted that, the p-2 Track is not-ownea ouiii;h; ;; th"Ti"g+i Lodge, but rather controli.o ny an associationof five different entities- -ih;;. is no confirrnationthat the Tivoli Lodge would "rr*.r-t".r" the right tobuild structurea pairins-i; ;-;;;ron of p_2 wirhourapproval of this associition. 'Without thisfogyngnlation, a aetaijea-ae=ign-so1utj.on, anddefinitive assurances to constiuct_ the parking at thesame time as the new units, ;i;ii nas no alternativebut to consider only the inteiin-solution that isproposed. IIJ..REI,ATED POLI TO VAIL'S rv.SUCH OTHER FACTORS APPLTCABLE STVE PLAN AS THE COMMTSSTON DEEMS The rnaster plan elernent nost rerevant to this proposal isthe vail viirace Masrer pi;; ?iI'shourd. be notld tnut tti,plan has not f6rrnarry been ua.lpi"a by the councir and isconsidered a dra_ft air"urn"ntt ]--?fr" Village plan does infact reference the_west.p.riring iot .= having potential toaccornmodate a smar-r intiil. rf,e-intention ot Lhis infillwas in response !"--ll-""".irr-gJai or rniniri"iii-rurfaceparkins atons the villaq";;-;"4;!.rr."n lrays. rr waspredicated oi tne feetiig irrii-"-*a'l addition would bernore visualrv nreasins ii ihi; ;r.i il ;;;t;;;iili ,:.ti,the elirninatioir or irris-su;;;";.rking. The developnent of additional lodge rooms is alsoidentified as a goat oi thi;-pi;;.. However, this proposalfal]s short wrren,ggnlie";i;; I-i"*1., of other objectivesof- this master pran docurne.,f . Cil.;-r;;ri-ii.iilienhancins open Spaces and 1a*yiv1r_"uti"ivir,;-il; par:c.ingqemands of privat_._:":tg., develoinent, . and. irr'gJ;Jrur,permitting developnent that is risponsrve to thedevelopment obieciives oi iir"-"orrirnity is i"ii".,surrounding us6s. V., FINDINGS The Planninq and Environmental Cornmission sha11 make thefollowinc findinqs before qrantinq a variance: That the granting of the variance will not constitute agrant of special privilege inconsistent with theIinitations on other properties classified in the samedistrict. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimentalto the public health, safety or welfare, or nateriallyinjurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. IV. That the variance is warranted for one or more of thefollowing reasons: The strict or literal interpretation or enforcementof the specified regulation would result in practicaldifficulty or unnecessary physical hardshipinconsistent with the objeetives of Lhis title. There are exceptions or extraordinary cj-rcumstancesor conditions appticable to the same site of the variance that do not apply to other properties in the same zone. The strict interpretation or enforcernent of thespecified regulation would deprive the applicant ofprivileges enjoyed by the owners of other propertiesin the same district. STAFF RECOMMENDATION While developing additional lodge rooms and maintainingthis facility as a family-owned lodge are admirableintentions, one must consider the complete picture when eval-uating this developnent proposal . ft is here whereithe staff feel-s this application falls well short of whatis good for this conmunity. Staff can find little in the way of physical hardship to justify these variancereguests. It is also very apparent that to grant these requests would establish dangerous precedence and be agrant of special privilege. There lrould appear to be design alternatives availablethat could respect setback lines and reduce the mass ofthe proposed addition, thereby nininizing inpacts on lqf?991! properties (both the walkway and adjacent lodgingracllrtres). It has been represented that thesealternatives are undesirable to the applicant because of (' their economic feasibility: rf these design arternativesare infeasible and if pari<ing cannot be pr6videa inconjunction with the dLvelopient, staff concrudes that thecommunity nould be better olr wii:rrout this reaev-toprnentproposal . Siurply stated, there are no adverseranifications if this addition is not built and thenegatives far outweigh the positive i.f it rs ruiit. whilei!-i:.the_goal of this Depaitrneni and the Council ro seeadditional todge rooms in-vail , they should. ""i-U"qeveroped at the expense of granting these requestedvariances. The staff would recommend the planning Cornrnission denythis proposal as presented. When evaiuatin;-thi;proposal , the staff enc-ourages the Conmissi6n to closel_yconsider the findings that iust be nade before granting avariance. I{hen coniidering physical hardship, ,"ffu:tdinary_ circunstancei,- sleciat privifei!, andLnpacts to other properties or improvements, -there islittle atternativl rirt to deny ati; p;;6;;i ;---presented