HomeMy WebLinkAboutVAIL VILLAGE FILING 1 BLOCK 2 LOT D CHRISTIANA VAIL CONDO 1991 REMODEL LEGALE(*: C4/ra/e^;
j
I
d%*
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
t{Et{oRAtfDltt{
Town Council
Larry Esknith
IMarch 19, 1991
Appeal of the Design Review Board Decision Regardingthe Christiania Lodge Extrlansion
!{r. Bill Morton, represented by }lr. Peter Rudy, has appealed the
DesLgn Review Board approval of ttre Christiania Lodge expanslonto both the Town Council and the Planning and EnvironmentalComnission. Both appeals are based on the followJ-ng issues:
1. The application violates the Zoning Code of the Town ofvail.
2.
3.
The application failed to resolve serious lparking problensin the neighborhood relating to Tract P-3'and J.
The application falled to address pending view corridors inthe innediate area.
4. For reasons to be more fully set forth to the Commissionwithin a reasonabJ.e period of tirne.
Although there is no way to address itern number 4, as I do not
know what other reasons Mr. Morton may set before you at the tineof the appeal , I would like to make comments on the other threeissues and on the appeal in general .
Section 18.54.040(C) (2) of the Town Code provides that, rrThe
Departnent of Comnunity Development shaLl cbeck all materiaLssubnitted for Design Review for conpliance with applicabJ.eprovisions of the Zoning code, subdivision regulations and nithSection 18.54.040(c) (L8.54.040tC1 deals with subnissionrequirements for the application). . . if the application isfound to be in cornpliance with the applicable provisions of theZoning Code, subdj-vj-sion regulations and Section 18.54.040(C),the project shall be p1aced upon the agenda of the nextappropriately scheduled DRB meeting in accordance with thereguired application subnittal deadlines . . .rr The currentapplication of the Christiania was reviewed by the Connunity
Development staff, and they made the determination that, in fact,the requested expansion was in cornplj-ance with the applicableprovisions of the Zoning Code, subdivision regulations and
t
ISection 18.54.o4o(c)- Because it was the staff's determination
il;i-ih"-ippficatioir-"tur in conpliance with the.appropriate rules
iiia-".qtritiott=, there nas no need for the appricant to go
iil;;;f,-;"v-""ri"""e, zoning. amendrnent or conditional use
process. The sole hearing that wi- reguired prior to building
;:;il-;#;.i;;-';;-;-!;Yia* uv tr'" desisn Review Board' rhe
staff, ttrerefore, scheduled the ctriistianii expansion for Design
Revlew.
'fhe first issue raised in Mr. Morton's appeal' that the
application viofiiE.-ift" Zoning Code of tle town of Vail, is an
appeal of the stiii-aecision tf,at-irre application. was found to be
in cornpliance witn-th;-applicable proviii"l:-91. the Zoning code'
subdivisior, r.g,ri;tio"s-'aita sectioi 18.54.040(c) ' The Design
Gi;;Eiia-i€""rf, as a part of its hearing process' never
deals with issues other than the'Oesid nevi6'l-g-uidelines' It is
not empowered by the Ordinances of the Town of VaiI to malce
decisions on issues relating to z-ning' The Town code' in
Section 18.65.030(A) provides that:
'rAppeaL from any adninistrative action or. determination by
the Town r,r"""q"i or the zoning Administrator pursuant to. the
provision= "i-ini" title ttiiie l-8,.the Town zoning code)
may be filed with the pfanning Conmission by any resident or
property ott"t within 20 days following such action or
deternination. In the ".r"ni-oi appeat, the commission after
receiving "-i"p"t[ iiot.the Town Manager or-the zoning
Adrninistrator, may confitt, i""""se oi rnodify--the action of
the Tor.rn u.rr-i"r 6r the Zoninq Adninistrator'rl
It ls clear from this provisi-on of the Town Code that the
decision of the "C"*r""ii' Oevefotrnent Depart:nent, finding the
apptication in ";;;;riy with.tt"-t"t" bt v"ir Zoning code' is
properly appearei--;;-I;"'planninq cornrnission. It is my opinion'
therefore, that-inJ-f"r" iouncif-when it hears this appeal'
shourd make it "i"it-ittit it is not dealing with. anv issues
relating to wheiher or not ttte apiii".li""'"iolates the Zoning
code of the To\itn of Vail, ""a to--"ifn""i'" to the party appealing
this uratter, ttrat-it" pii"tting colnnission is the appropriate
&;"t to hear this portion of the appeal'
The second item that is raised in the appg?I is that the
iiiri".t'iltt-i"ir.a to resolvt ="iiottt pii'xine. probrens in the
neighborhooa, rliiting-to TT":!.p-s anb l' The desiqn
gulderines, -in iectioi 18'54'osoiei at-alir with rnat€ers relating
to circuration and access. rarairapn r. of this section states
that:
IThereshallbeprovidedanon-sitevehicularcirculation
system wnili "tt.ii coordinite with adjacent streets to
uinimize ";;q;;ti;"-""a aav"ite inpacl upon the general
€iarric ciiciiation pattern in the area'rr
:t Paragraph 2 states:
I'Projects shall provide adeguate layout design of parking
areas with respect to location and dimension of vehicular
and pedestrian entrances and exits, buiJ.ding locations,
wallarays and recreation trails.rl
Paragraph 3 states:
rrProper vehicle sight distances shall exist at each accesspoint to a public street.r'
The Town Council certainly nay review the Christiania applicationto determine whether it sufficiently conforms with these Design
Review guidelines relating to circulatlon and access. However,the decision that the Connunity Developnent Department staff madethat the application complied with aII the parking requirernentsof the Zoning Code should not be considered by the To$rn Councilas a part of this appeal , but should be left for the Planning
Conmission to consider. The staff decision was based upon thefact that the Christiania Lodge is a non-conforming site withregard to parking requirenents, that the non-conforrning use andsite sections of the Zoning Code allows projects to be expandedwithout adding additl-onal parking, so long as the resultingproject is not more non-conforming witlr regard to the parkingreguirements. In this instance, the Christiania will actually beless non-conforroing subseguent to the conpletion of theexpansion. In any event, this is a determination by the staff asto the Zoning Code and should be heard by the Planning
Cornnisglqn.
The final issue raised by ttr. Morton deals with a pending viewcorridor ordinance in the imnediate area. Although the Planning
Conmission has recommended the passage of an ordinance adding a
new view corridor to the view corridor ordinance, this viewcorridor has not yet been considered by the Town Council , no
ordinance has been passed, and therefore it is not presently thelaw of the Town of Vail. ft is my opinion that you rnust dealwith this applicant by appl-ytng the law as it currently exists,not as it night exist at some point in the future. I therefore
do not believe that the Town has a legal auttrority to consider avien corridor ordinance nrhich is not yet in effect.
Simultaneously with his appeal of the Christiania expansionapplication to the Town Council, Mr. Morton also subrnitted anappeal to the Planning and Environmental Cornnission so that thematters which I have indicated should be heard by the Planning
Conmission shall be heard by theur. once the PJ-anning Commissionhas dealt with the issues, should Mr. Morton wish to continuewith this appeal , the Town Council shall- have the opportunity toreview the Planning Connission,s decisions with regard to all
zoning issues.
At the Design Review Board hearing on this application, Iindicated to them, as I have to you in this nemorandurn, that theyshould concern themselves only with how the application relatesto the design guidelines, which Ls what they proceeded to do. Inthis appeal of the Design Review Board,s decision, the TownCouncil should linit its review to those matters considered byttre Design Review Board.
I
l
o Rrc'DMAR 131991
Peter Harris Rudv
Attomq and Counsellor u Law
Suite 214, Vail National Bank
108 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
(303) 476-886s
FAX (303) 476-r64s
March l-3, 1991-
Town Council-
Town of Vail
Vail, co 81657
Re: Design Review Approval of Christiania Lodge/Paul Johnson andSally Johnson
Dear Mayor Rose and Members of Council:
I represent Jack Morton Associates, Inc., and particularly
BiII Morton, owner of a condorninium unit in the MiIl Creek CourtBuilding. This property is located adjacent to and across Hansen
Ranch Road from the property which is subject of the aboveapplication.
My client has reguested that I appeal to the Town Councilthe determination of the Vail Design Review Board granting
approval for the design review proposal of the Christiania Lodge.
This appeal is based upon the fact that the applicationviolates the Zoning Code of the Town of Vail, the app).icationfailed to address serious parking problerns in the neighborhoodrelating to Tract P-3 and J, the application faited to addressthe pending view corridors in the imnediate area, and for reasonsto be rnore fully set forth to the Council within a reasonabletine.
(
cc: Mr. Bill Morton
FI!.E COP}.
75 soulh trontage road
vail, colorado 81657
(3q') 47S2138
(3qD 479-439
otfice of community development
February 13, 1992
Mr. Paul Johnston
The Christiania Lodge
356 Hanson Flanch Road
Vail, CO 81657
Re: April 8, 1991 request for a setback variance at the Chrlstiania Lodge, Lot
D, Block 2, Vail Village First Filing/356 Hanson Ranch Foad.
Dear Mr. Johnston:
'Enclosed is a copy of the minutes of the April 8, 1gg1 planning and Environmental
commission (PEC) meeting at which your setback variance request was approved. The
attached copy of the meeting minutes will serve as your record of the conditions of approval.
Please note that the approval of this variance shall lapse and become void if a building permit
is not obtained and construction not commenced and diligently pursued toward completion, or
if the use for which the permit is granted has not commenced within one year from approval
(April 8, 1991). ll approval of this conditional use permit lapses, an application must be
resubmitted for reconsideration by the Community Development Department staff and the
PEC.
lf you have any questions or comments regarding this information, please do not hesitate to
contact Jill Kammeret at 305/479-Zi3B.
Sincerely,
,il,,j,fruoa,
Amber Blecker
Planning Assistant
Enclosure
/
Present
Diana Donovan
Connie Knight
Ludwig Kurz
Kathy Langenwalter
Jim Shearer
Gena Whitten
Absent
Chuck Crist
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
April 8, 1991
Staff
Kristan Pritz
Mike Mollica
Jill Kammerer
Andy Knudtsen
Shelly Mello
Betsy Rosolack
Tom Braun
Amber Blecker
The worksession was called to order at l;15pM by chairperson Diana Donovan.
1. A worksession to consider a conditional use permit and a densitv variance to allow the
consfruction of additions to existing structures and the construcfion of emplovee
Schone Third Filins. a resubdivision of Vail Das Schone First Filine
App]icanfi Peter Jacobs of Davs Inn
A representative for the applicanq Saundra Spaeh began the presentation by indicating the
three items the applicant would like the PEC to review. The first was employee housing, the
second was the redevelopment of the shoppette, and the final issue was the hotel upgrade.
Saundra indicated, in order to accomplish the proposed redevelopment, the Days Inn would be
requesting a density (GRFA and unity count) variance.
Jill Kammerer clarified that employee housing is allowed as a conditional use in this zone
district and, therefore, the applicant would also need to rcquest approval of a conditional use
permit. She funher indicated the Fire Departrnent and Public Works Department staffs had
not yet reviewed the project.
Saundra stated to the Commission a considerable amount of landscaping would be added
under this proposal. Jill continued that this was viewed by staff to be a positive proposal,
especially with the provision of employee housing and additional landscaping. ttrls site is
desirable for employee housing, as there is easy pedestrian access to public transportation and
services (i.e., grocery sore, laundry, etc.).
To explain the employee housing proposal, Saundra began by showing the Commission it was
a simple design which would be located at the northwesr corner of the site behind the existing
structures. There would be thirty-two 300 sq. ft. studios and eight 500 sq. ft. one bedroom
Connie Knight asked if there would still be room for a sn€am walk to be built, and Mike
indicated there would. The Town's recreation path is currently located on the south, or
opposite, side of the stream.
Ludwig Kurz moved for approval of the setback variance for the Pitto Residence, Lot 3,
Block 1, Vail Village Eleventh Filing/ 2920 Booth C-reek Drive, finding that the strict and
literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in a practical
difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent witir the objectives of this title. A
condition of approval would be that the owners place additional landscaping along the
southern elevation of the addition. If any trees are removed during the construction process,
they shall be replanted or replaced. Jim Shearer seconded the motion.
An additional condition of approval was that the new roofline of the addition not exceed the
height of the existing roof ridge. The vote on the entire motion was 4-0-1, with Gena
whitten abstaining, due to the fact that she was absent during the site visit.
Kathy Langenwalter returned to the meeting at this point.
A request for a setback variance at the Christiania Lodee, I-ot D. Block 2. Vail Village
First Filine/356 Hanson Ranch Road.
Apolicant Paul & Sallv Johnston
Jill Kammerer briefly explained the request before the Commission was ro granr a serback
variance to the eastern setback in order to allow the expansion of Christiania Lodge's lobby
and' a 44 sq. ft. expansion of the proposed eastern, third floor dwelling unit. She indicated
that there is a zero setback currently at this location. Findings A, B, and c (1-3) support the
granting of this variance because the encroachment would not be increased.
Connie Knight asked if the parking questions had been resolved- Jill responded the only
recognized Lodge parking by the Town are the three spaces located on Christiania Lodge-
owned properry immediately west of the Christiania Lodge structure. Under the original
purchase agreement wirh vail Associates, the Lodge has the right to park in p"rpetuity on
Parcel P-3. However, the property they currently park on is Lot J. It wourd appear the
christiania Lodge has never used lnt p-3 for parking. Therefore, the Town does not
recognize the parking spaces which could be accommodated on Parcel P-3. Jay Pererson,
attorney for the applicants, added that the square footage being added did not increase the
amount of parking which must be provided by the lndge. Jill concluded that no addirional
units were being added under this proposal.
Kathy Langenwalter moved for approval of the setback variance at the Christiania Lodge, Lot
D' Block 2, Vail Village Fint Filing/ 356 Hanson Ranch Road per the staff recommendations,
with findings A, B, C(i-3) applicable to this request. Ludwig Kurz seconded the motion, and
by a vote of 6-0, the variance was approved.
)n
4.
The following agenda item was discussed at this rirne.
18.22.140 - Public Accommodation parkine and Loadine.
Applicant: Town of Vail
Tom Braun discussed the current pa*ing program. There were two areas he discussed, the
first being the goal of eliminating vehicular trafiic in the core areas of Vail, and the second
issue was to examine the number of sites identified for infill as an alternarive to use as
parking. Tom explained the staff memo.
Diana Donovan asked if a person could request to be included in *re program. Tom replied
that a person could request to be included, and that there was a difference between the
regulations and who could apply. Diana Donovan stated that she believed condos and office
spaces required more vehicle servicing ftan lodge and retail locations, and therefore should be
required to provide their parking on-site.
Jay Peterson stated that some condominiums were completely short term, and functioned like
lodges, and he would also like to see flexibility to construct small infill office space. Diana
answered that she would like to encourage more hotel rooms rather than condo development.
Jay Peterson responded by stating that a mix with ofFce space can help maintain existing
traffic by ensuring locals would be around during the off-season. Gena Whitten mentionid
that she parks in the structue and then walks back and fonh to her office, and she believed
many of the locals did the same. Jay asked that the door nor be shur for office development,
especially in Lionshead.
Diana questioned Tom as to whether the proposed. variance criteria would allow anyone to bedenied. He rcplied it would be difficult, but not impossible to deny a request.
Kathy stated that her concem was that redevelopment would occur without additional parking
being provided. Diana asked if redevelopment of certain properties would allow for the
elimination of parking. Kristan stated that for a new offici uie , assuming there was no
surplus on-site parking, the parking would still have to be located on-site. However, for a
restaurant, parking could be provided tlfough the pay in lieu system. Kathy asked rhat
language be placed in the code that a redevelopment project could not eliminate current on-
site parking. Diana funher stated ttrat the Town stroutd not keep putting more locals in the
parking structures.
Kristan responded to these suggestions by indicating it would not be fair to say that if a
redevelopment resulted in a decreased pa*ing reqoirement, the previous parking levels would
have to be maintained.
2T
,.f
CHRTST]ANIA LODGE/CHATEAU CHRISTIAN TOhINHOMES
WHTEHEAD RESIDENCE
3/2/91 - GRFA Check by Jill K.
This check explores aeffipment allowed if Lot D was not subdivided. Pleasenote each of these 3 deVelopments should stand on their own. Development oneach parcel should be evaLuated based on the portion of Lol D associated witheach development.
PA Zone Dj-st.rict Lot D Vail Village 1st. Filing, Block 2
Lot Area:
Christiania Lodge 16,540 sq. ft. (from survey)Chateau Christian Apts. 4,3L5 (from digitizing plat map)chri-stiania East (whitehead Residence) 7,862.5g sq. it (from ?/gr sit.e plan)
28,7L7.58 sq. ft
Required Landscapinq (30?) = 81615 sq. ft.
ALLOWED:
GRFA 80 sq. ft./100 sq. ft. of sj_te area = 22t9'74.06 sq. ft.
Accessory (1-0* of GRFA on t.he site)
Density 25 d. u . ,/buildabte acre = 16 d. u .
Airlock 25 sq. ft.,/allowable d..u. = 400 se. ft.
Site Coveraqe (55%) = l-5r 194.6'7 sq. ft.
Commmon Area (20t) 5t743.5 sq. ft.
COMMON AREA 3t424
zt o I I
N/A
6,095 exceeds allowable by351.5 sq. ft. Therefore, addthis square footage t.o GRFA
12,852
1-0 | 522
7,588
30 | 962+ 351,5 excess common area
31r313.5 sq. ft. Therefore, GRFA
exceeds allowable by 81339 sq. ft.
Christiania (Proposed l-991)
Chateau (Existing)
Residence (Existing)
Proposed Christiania (199j_)Existinq Chateau Christ.ianExisting Residence
GRFA
}..l
D.U-' s 9 Christiania (proposed 199 j_)
9 Chateau (existing)
1 Residence (existinq)
l-9-exceeds allowable by 3 D.U.fs
MECHANICAL AREA Christiania (proposed 1991) 9Zg
Chat.eau (existing) 395
Residence (existing)
Okay, no mechanical- area maximum in the p.A. zonedi-strict
ArRLocK 176 sq. fL- therefore under alfowabre by 224 sq. ft.
ACCESSORY (only in Christiania Lodge)Christiania 756 sg. ft. (l-0% x 1"2,8521 = 112g5 sq. ft.therefore under a11owab1e by 529 sq. ft.
oFFrcE 72 sq. ft. atl-owed in christiania as a conditional usetherefore okay.
SITE COVERAGE (Bldgs. )
Christ iania S,'t56Chateau 31 100Residence 3,466'l-2r322 sq. ft. therefore under allowable by 314j2 sq. ft.
rt
GRFA check on 3-2*91
by JEKCalculations based on JuIy, 1987
Whitehead Residence Remodel plans
'/d
rte
GRFA check was d&/t& using the 1990 (old) GRFA Calculation Method
l-987 zoning: PubIic Accommodation
Site Area: .L805 AC = i,862.58 sq. ft.
GRFA: Lower Level 2439 sq. ft.Ent.ry Level 2L49
Upper Leve1 2j3LLoft Level 269
zSEE sq. ft. t.otal GRFA
2 car garage - 591 sq. ft..
B1dg. coverage: 3455 sq. ft. + eave area extending beyond 4 feet fromface of building excess eaves L23 =3589 sq. ft.Concrete Walk 289 sq- ft.Concrete Drive 623 sq. ft-Deck 55? sq. fL.
ooCHRISTTANIA EAST
a/k/a Whitehead Residence Remodel
-\JCHATEAU CHRISTIAN TOWNHOMES
3/2/9L GRFA Check of Oriqinal Plans
Check by: JEK on 3/2/91
Uslng L991 GRFA Regulations
GRFA check from original plans
dated 7 /L2/69. Includesadditional square footage added in
1986 to 4th Floor Units H and I.
Plans show Christiania Lodge & Chateau Christian Townhomes as 1- property.
Lot Area Chaleau Christian Townhomes
(From Digitizing plat) : 4315 sq. ft.
MECHANTCALBasement: 395 sq. ft. total mechanical
COMMON
Basement1st FIoor
Znd & 3rd Floor4th Floor
GRFA
Dwelling Units:
Basement (A)
1st Floor (B)
(c)
2nd Fl-oor (D)
(E)
3rd Floor (F)
(c)
4th Floor (H)
(r)
L826
405
288
r52
267L sq. ft. Tota1 Common Area
610
929
11,20
L122
1141
]-L22
1,1,4r
1520 includes 399 sq. ft. l"oft addition (1986)
l-808 includes 327 sq. ft. l-oft addition (1986)
r51
IOTE sq. ft.
75 sq. ft.
54 (west)
498 sq. f.t total hard surfaces
3100 (building)
1l-5 (eave overhand extending beyond 4t fromface of building)
TOTAL 9 DUs G l_0,522 sq. ft- totat GRFA
Hard (impermeable) surfaces:
Driveway:
East Stairs:
Concrete Slabs:
Site Coveraqe:
321-5 total sit.e coverage
Project Application
Project Name:
Proiect Description:
Contact Person and
fter,
Owner, Address and
Phone
o^r" 6'5'7/
- 35b ' Karrl Rd
fr(y',tlz't ftr!4zt
fr42
,000 s frr7i
3€v^14, au,r//
/r'e3
Architect, Address and Phone:
D 4 ,/ !t,.. ,.f
r,tinn l/4r//r/llrtz ,Dr fi/,!,L. zon. PALegal Descrlption: Lot
Comments:
B lock
Design Review Board
Dil" 10 _' 7/
Motion by:
Seconded by:-J/JFrlq /2ru.*u4' l.Az S -a fu oppmtE-
APPROVAL DISAPPROVAL
Su m mary:
Town Plan ner D statt Approval
l.!-
i'DRB APPLTCATION . TOWN OF VAII,,
DATE APPLICATION RECETVED:NATE OF DR,B MEETTNG:
t*********
rEIS APPIICATTOil TrIJI.| NOE BE ACCEPTEDultTIL ArJrr REQUIRAD IIIFORIIATION I8 SUBUTTIEDaa***t****
PRO;TECT INFORI.nTTON :
A.
1991
I.
D.ESCRfPTfON: Remodel of lobby area for the Chri stjana Lodge at
Vail "and remodel of fourtt", Level , Rpartment ,,A,,.
o
COLORADO
April 22,
B.TYPE OF REVIEW:
Nelr Construction
Addition
356 Hanson Ranch Road
Minor Alteration
_ Conceptual Review- Vail, C0 81657c.
D.
ADDRESS:
LEGAL DESCRfEIIfON: Lot D Block
Subdivision Vail Village 1st.
If pr?pelty is described bydescription, please providlattach to this application.
ZONING:
a neets and bounds legalon a separate sheet and
E.
F.
G.
H.
LOT AREA: If reguired,
stamped survey showing
applicant must provlde a currentIot area. i6,500
NAME Or AppLfCANT. paul & Sa11y Johnston
Mailing Address:_
Phone
AppLICANTTS RE'RESENTATIVE: Pierce' Segerberg & Spaeh, Arch.NAII'E OF
MaiJ.ing 1000 S. Frontaoe Road hlffi
*'.NAMF OT O},I;"ERS:
*8TGNATURE(8} 3Maillng nddiess:'-va
Phorre 6 - 564.1
J.
K"
Condoniniuni Appraval if, applicable.
$ .i, O--..$". 1C,000
$10,1!01 -s ."j{);'o0$
$50,c01 -9 15O,OOO
9150,001 - $ 5OO,OOO
$500,001 - $t, ooo, oooS over glroOo,O0O
FEE SCHE.DTLLE:
VALUATION FEE
: ..9 .L0. 00
{i ?5. O0
$ 50.00
$100.00
$200. oo
9300.00
*No APPr,rcATroN rurrr BE PRocEEgED rrrEour owltEnr8 grcNATuRa
I Plerce, Segerberg & Spaeh Architects P.C A.I. A.
REOUEST FOR VARIANCE
We are requesti ng a vari ance f nom the Town of Va.i 'l regardi nga 2Q' -O" setback requirement for the Chr.i stiana Lodge.
We are proposing a remodel addition to the existing 'l obby ofthe Chnjstjana Lodge which would extend approximately LO'-O',towards the Hanson Ranch Road frontage. A basement will bebui lt below a portion of this 'l obby. Our proposal wil l notencnoach into the 26'-9" setback along Hanson Ranch Road.
Currently, the two bui1dings
Chateau Condomi n i ums - d.i nectnorth 3t.03 property 1i ne of
The ne is no ob se rved setbackeither pnoperty.
- the Chri st i ana Lodge and the
'l y d ivi de themse'l ves on thepart of Lot D (see survey).
al ong this property 1ine for
It is our feeling that the 26'-6" setback is primarily meantto regul ate bul I di ngs al ong the Han son Ranch Road frontageand not from the propenty I i ne di vi di ng the two bui 1di ngs.
The f act that the two bui'l d.i ngs were bui.l t di nectl y on thenorth property creates hardship fon any'l obby .i mprovement.Even the exi sti ns l obby i s a1 ready ui thi n the Zg,-A.setback. The natune of thi s nemodel and its qual ity upgradethat the owner i ntends to ach.i eve wi'l 'l reoresent a markedimprovement fot the streetscape along Hanson Ranch Road.
We appreci ate a favorabl e rev.i ew of thi s vari ance request.Please contact us any time to further di scuss thi s proposal
Main Office.' 1000 South Frontage Road Wesr ' Vail, Colorado 81657 . 3O3/476-1433
Post office Box 2313 . Beaver creek, cororado gr620 . 303lg49-6049
One Tabor Cente 1200 Seventeenth Street, Suite 515 . Denver, Coiorado 80202 . 3O3l6?.3-J355
Adiacent Propefty Owners - Chni sti ana Lodqe:
1. E.C. Whitehead
366 Hanson Ranch RoadVail, CO 81657
2. Chateau Chri stian Townhouse Assoc., Inc.Richard Siegal, President
5OZ Park Avenue
Nev York, NY LgA7?.
3. Viela Val ha'l la Condo AssociationRichard Sucher, Pnesident
4595 Hilton parkway - *110
Col orado Spri ngs, C0 gg9b7
4. Jenry Lewj s
IgfrO East Gi nard
Engl ewood, CO egllg
5. Mil l Creek Court Building/Condo Associat.i on
Rod Sl i fer. President
236 Eridge StreetVaiI, CO 81657
6 . Cy rano ' s
Bud Parks
363 Gore Creek 0ni veVail, C0 81657
7. Berny Craddock
P.O. Box'1 22t
Co li:rado Spri ngs, CO gt9g7
9. Ti vo'l i Lodge
Bob Lazier
386 Hanson Ranch Road
Vai 1, C0 Bt"6S7
SENT BY:PAIACE
RrcsRRo
Exploration co, ; 4- 3-s1 ; 1:21PIll| ;,,rt',rur.
D, SrecRL
303 4?0 04?0;*
TELEPHONE (21 2t SSr-41 l o
FAx i te I er ss3.l 197
Paul R. tohnetoncnrlatianla ar vail-
356 East IIanEon Ranch RoadVail, CO 8165?
Dear Paulr
Be advleed that the Condomlnlurnobjection to your constructlon plene for thetobby. You nay bring thle letter to any Town
meetlnge.
5OC FARK AVENUE. NEW YORK. N. Y, 1OO22
April 3, 1991
Aseoclatlon hae nofront deslc erea andof Vail hearlnge or
Very truly,'&
'ii,n^rur{prestddnt
Condornlnium AEsociatlon
RD8:ns
o i'::'
Appr ication o"r"-fu/L tl I
PEC MEETING DATE
APPLICATION FOR A VARIANCE
I. This procedure is required for any proJect requesting a variance. The applicationwil'l not be accepted'until all inioi-rnation is'submitied.
A. NAME OF APPLICANT J--
ADORESS
B. NAME OF APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE
t,.\gspps5s [422 A ,tsR.lsrta^e, k -. t J
t4lbW?
C. NAME 0F OI.INER(S) (type or print)
ADDRESS
?HoNEl!.- {L41
D. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL
ADDRESS 'Vtr2A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION Ior P-ar-o cK Z FIL I NG ,-. 14
pArp4 ldv* c K #-4e13*r^orfr{W{ r&F/t?a/,.|fud^pAID BEFoRE THE coMMUNrry DEVELopMENT DEpARTN${T ltrLfn0crhr
F. A list of the names of owners of a'l'l property adjacent to the subject property
INCLUDING PROPERTY BEHIND AND ACR0SS STREETS, and thejr mailing addresses.
THE APPLICANT HILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CORRECf MAILING ADDRISSES.
II. A PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE I.IITH A PLANNING STAFF MEMBER IS STRONGLY SUGGESTED
TO.]DETERMINE IF ANY'ADDITIONAL INFORMATION iS NEEDED. NO APPLICATION I,IILL 8E
ACCEPTTD UNLESS IT IS CoMPLETE (MUST INCLUDE ALL iTEMS REQUIRED By THE ZoNING
ADMINISTRATOR). IT IS THE APPLiCANT'5 RESPONSIBILITY TO MNTE RN APPOINTHTNT
I.IITH THE STAFF TO FIND OUT ABOUT ADDITIONAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS.
PLEASE NOTE THAT A COMPLETE APPLICATION WILL STREAMLINE THE APPROVAL PROCTSS FOR
YOUR PR0JEcr gv oEcEffiINFTHE NUMBER 0F coNDITroNs 0F AppRovAL THAT THE pLANNINc
AND ENVIRoNMENTAL coMMIssroN MAy srIpuLATE. ALL coNDITIoNs 0F AppRovAL MUsr Ba
COMPLIED I.IITH BEFORE A BUILDING PERMIT IS ISSIJE-D'.
(4) C0prEs 0F THE FOLL0l,ilNG MUST BE SUBMITTED:
A WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE PRECISE NATURE OF THE VARIANCE REQUESTED AND THE
REGULATION INVOLVED. THE STATEHENT MUST ALSO ADDRESS:
l. The relationship of the.requested variance to other existing or potentialuses and structures in the vicinity.
2. The- degree to-which relief from the strict or'literal interpretation and
enforcement of a-specified regu'lation is necessary to achieve compatiUilitvand uniform'ity of treatment among sites in the vitinity or to atthin ihe'"objectives of this tiile wiilrout grant of special privilege.
3. The effect of the variance on'light and air, distribution of populationo
transportation, traffic facilities, utilities, and public safety.
E. FEE $]00
THE FEE MUST BE
YOUR PROPOSAL.
III. FOUR
/A.
lr.-
4. How your request complies with Vaii's Comprehensive Plan.
Time Requirments
The Planning and Environmental Commission meetsof each month. A complete application form and
(as described above) must be subrnitted a minimum
PEC public hearing. No incomplete applications
administrator) wi1'l be accepted by the planning
nated submitta'l date.
Vari a nce I
on the 2nd and 4th llondays
al I accompanying materiai
of 4 weeks prior to the date of the
(as determined by the zoning
staff before or after the desig-
\
"'8. A topographic 31d/or improvement survey at_a sca'le of-at_least l. - 20, stampec' by a Colorado-'licensed surveyor including locations of al'l existinq irorou.-ments, including grades and elevations. Other elements which must-be ihownare parking and loading areas, ingress and egress, landscpped ar".r ind -
ut'i 'l i ty and dra'inage features .
r' C. A site plan at a scale of at least l" = 20' showing existing and proposed
buildings.
/0. All preliminary building elevations and floor plans sufficient to indicate
thq dimensions: $enera'l appearance' sca'l e and use of a'l I buildings and spacesexisting and proposed.on the site.
E. A preliminary title report to verify ownership and easements
F. If the proposal is'located in a mu]ti-fam'ily deve'lopment which has a homeownerslassociatjon, then written approval from the association in support of theproiebt must be received by a duly authorized agent for said associatJon.
G. Any additional material necessary for the review of the application as
determined by the zoning administrator..
* For interior mod'ifications, an improvement survey and site plan may be
waived by the zoning administrator.
IV.
X w-n o* t-.T'toto m,Q n,tr&e-f zr|a'''n "9" -z
PUELIC I{OTICE
NoTfcE IS IIEREBy GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental
Conmission of the Town of Vail sill hold a public hearing in
accordance with Section 18.66.060 of the municipal code of the
Town of VaiI on April 8, 1991 at 2:oo p.n. in the Town of VaiI
I'tuniclpal Bullding. Consideration of:
1. A request for a varLance from paving drl.veway, .fogey
Residence, ht 3, Block ?, Vail VillaEe First SLLLng/ 97
Rockledge Road.Applicant: Clint Josey
2. A reguest for a setback varlance, Forbes Residence, Texas
Townhouses 48 and 58, Lot 48/5r , vail Vi}lage Fourth Filing/
483 core Creek Drive.Applicant: Walter Forbes
A request for a setback varl.ance at the Chrlstiania Lodge,
Lot D, Bfock 2, Vail Village First F.iling/ 355 Hanson Ranch
Road.Applicant3 Paul E Sally Johnston
A reguest for a setback variance, pitto Residence, Lot 3,
Block 1, Vail Village Eleventh Filing/ 2920 Booth creek
Drive.Appllcant: J. Russell Pitto
)tr 3.
4.
5. A request to repeal Town of Vail l,lunicipal Code Chapter
18.?t - Additional Gross nesidentlal Floor Area, comrronly
referred to as the n25o Ordinance.tlApplicant: Tottn of VaiL
Appeal of staff decision that christiania Lodge
redeveloprnent proposal considered by the DRB on March 6'
1991 is Ln violatLon of the zoning code, 356 Hansen Ranch
Road/ Lot D, Block 2, Vail village 1st Filing
Applicant3 Bill ltorton of Jack Morton Associates' Inc.
A reguest to anend Town of Vail Uunicipal Code Section
18.5t.160 - off street Parking and Loading Exenptions,
Section 18.24.180 - Cornrrercial Core I Parkinq and Loading,
Section 18.26.150 - Cornmercial Core II Parl<ing and Loading,
and Section 18.22.14O - Public Acconmodation Parking and
Ioading.Applicant: Town of Vail
A request to amend Town of vail l'lunicipal Code. Sectl-onE
16.04.330, 16.20.150, and 16.20.22O - Window Signs.
Applicant: Town of Vail
',4
z\JL
6.
?.
8.
i]4
9. A uorksession to consider a conditional use perrnit and a
density variance to allow the construction of additions toexisting structures and the construction of enployee housing
on the Days Inn site, 2211 N. Frontage Road/ Lot 1, Block A,VaiI Das Schone Third Filing, a resubdivision of Vail Das
Schone First Filing.AppLicant: Peter Jacobs of Days Inn
All itens tabled fron the ttarch 25, t99L PEc meeting agenda.
The applications and J.nformation about the proposals are
available for public inspection in the Conmunity Development
Departnent office.
Town of Vai.I
connunity Developnent Departnent
Pnblished in the Vail Trail on March 22t L99L.
'e. c. - wtritehead
366 Hanson Ranch Road oiff;tr*liEir.ro Berry Craddock
P.O. Box 7221-vaiL, co aL657 Englewood, CO 80110 Colorado Spg6, CO 80907
Chateau Christian Mill Creek Court Bldg. Tivoli Lodge
Townhouse Assoc., fnc. Condo Assoc. Bob LazierRichard Siegal , Pres. Rod Slifer, pres. 386 Hanson Ranch Road502 Park Avenue 230 Bridge Street VaiI, CO 91652
New York, NY LOOZZ Vail, CO AL6S'7
Viela Valhalla Condo Ass. CyranorsRichard Sucher, Pres. Bud parks
4595 Hilton Parkway, #11-o 303 Bridge StreetColorado Spgs, CO 80907 VaiI, CO 81657
PETER COSGRIFF
JOHN W DUNN
ARTI.'IUR A" AgPLANALE JR.
TIMOTHY H. BEFRY
ALLEN C. CHRISTENSEN
LAWRENCE P. HAFTLAU B
Law OFFrcEs
CoscRrrr; Dur.tN & ABpLANALP
A PAFTNEFISHIP INC!UDINC A PROF€SSIOt!AL CORPORATION
VArL NarroNAL BANK Bu I LDr NG
SurrE 3OO
log SourH FRoNTAce RoaD WEST
VArL. CoLoRADo 81657
TELEPHoN E: (3O 31 476-755?
TELEcopren; 13O3t 476- 4765
7 February 1991
P. O. AOX ll
LEADVI LLE. COLORAOO 8O'I6I
(7t0) Jt6€t -
Planning and Environmental Comrnlssion
Town of Vail
75 South Frontage RoadVail, Colorado 81657
RE: Christiania Lodge Density Variance Hearing
This office has, for the past several months,
represented Mill Creek Court Condominium Association in
association with several proceedlngs which were represented to be
associated wlth appllcations of the owners of the Christiania
Lodge for various approvals and variances reguired for the
addition of a new floor containing tr^ro resldentlal condominiums
on top of the existing Christiania Lodge. Slnce the time of our
earlier appearance before the Town of VaiI, we also have been
engaged to oppose the Christiania Lodge project by Mr. and Mrs.
Jack Baylin, owners of a unit within the Chateau Christian
Condominiums whlch wiII be adversely affected by the variance(s)
under consideratlon and by the proposed expanslon of theChristianla Lodge. Mr. and Mrs. Baylin's late partlcipation inthls proceeding was the result of the fact that the ChrlstlanLa
remodeling proposal was first represented to Mr. Baylin as amodification which would increase the roof line by approximately
3-L/2 feet. His discovery that the new poof line would be
between 14 and 1.6 feet higher than the pxisting eave over which
he enjoys a view of much ot Vail pronp/ed his opposition to the
redevelopment proposal as a whole.
Our fLrst involvement in t/he Christlania Lodge project
was ln assoclation with and oppositAon to what were thenidentified as variances from the ity, setback, and parking
requirements of the Town of Vail Municipal Code. After thosequestions were abandoned upon ou4{ first cllent's objectlon, we
learned that the Design Review Board would consider asignificantly modified development plan. We raised objectionsbefore the Design Review Board based upon what we believed to bethe non-compliance of the proposal with certain prerequlsites
contained in the Vail Municipal Code. Upon examination, the TorrnAttorney agreed with our position that consideration of therevised proposal was in violation of the prohibitions relating to
expansi.on of nonconforming uses, and design review consideration
THE FROFESSIONAL COFPORATION IS DUNN & ABPLANALP. P.C. IN VAIL.
of the proposal ldas deemed improper.
FollowingthedeterminationthatDesignReviewBoard
consideration of tfre revised Christiania Lodge proposal_ was 1n
vlolatlon of the VaiI Municipal Code, we learned that the
questlon of the Christiania Lodge expansion had been set for a
f,"iii"g before the planning and Enviionnental Comnission on the
l1th oi February, 1991, toi tne purposes of considering a
variance on a question of density. - rt is in association with
that hearing tliat this letter is-being directed to the Town of
Vail Planning and Environmental Commission.
You may note that I have rnade no reference to any
"appll.cation" which is under consideration by the Town of Vatl'
up-o-n ano on several occaslons since our involvement in this
p-roceeding, I requested the opportunity t9 review the application
ind fites-related to the proceeding. Although I was permitted-to
review a file in Novemberl 1990, piior to a hearlng scheduled for
three variance requests on the 25th of November, and to revlew
several conflictirig sets of plats subsequent to that time, the
Department of Commrlnity Deve-lopment denied that any fiLe existed
until the Town Attorney intervened and I was permltted to review
two files related to tne project on the afternoon of the 5th of
February, six days before the hearing now scheduled for the llth
of February. An inittal examination of the files seemed to
indicate that there had never been an application made to the
Town of VaiI for any density' setback, or parklng variance
scheduled for the ZOtn ot November, 1990, or the density variance
scheduled for consideration on the 1lth of February' 1991'
desplte the fact that those variance questlons had been processed
Uy ine Town of Vail as ear).y as october, 1990. In fact, the only
application ever flled with the Town of Vall was a Design Reviewgolrd review application filed on or about the 3rd of September'
1990, which was-apparently summarily denied processing because of
the obvious confliits Uetween the application and appllcable code
reguirements. Upon a thorough revlew of the two files
represented to Ue in existence on the 6th of February, I was able
to confirm that, in fact, there have been no applications for
denslty, setback, or parking variances filed with the Town of
vail through that date. The response of the Department of
Community Developrnent representative was that she would contact
counsel"ior the Christiania Lodge oerners and reguest that an
application be filed.
For more than two months, there has been some difficulty
identifying exactly what refief the owners of the christiania
Lodge were applying for. The reason for that dtfficulty has
become apparent. wo rellef has been applied for. Apparently
there hal- been und6i discussion and consideration wlthin the Town
of vail Department of community Development a desire on the part
of the owners of the Christiania Lodge to engage in a
redevelopment project, and that desire has been molded by the
owners anO tne- stitf in an effort to identify a method by which a
redevelopment program may meet the atandards and criteria imposed
UV tn" Viif Uu-nfcipaf Coie, without ever reducing a Proposal -totire form of an appiication whlch can be revlewed by concerned_
iiiti""t''"r-""""iir^"red by a reviewing cgmTisllon,or council. Such
i prore"" ls not authorized by the frunicipal Co{er and makes it
imiossinfe for any interested person with legitimate obJections
to analyze a proplsal and provide the Town of Vail with a
crltigu6. At-an| given tiire, critlcisns may be-made of a
"p".iii" set of irins, and a different set of Pllqt surfaces'
tire Vait Municipil Code reguires, at Sect,ion 18.62.020, that an
la]ppiication foi a variance shall be made on a form
provided by the zoning administrator'
Accordlng io the rec6rds which have been made available, no
ippfication has ever been filed, either ln the case of this
.riiiance consideration or that which was before the Town of Vail
in october and November, 1990. As a matter of note, neither is
-there any evidence in the files that the fee dlrected to be paid
by Secti6n 18.62.030 has been paid to t'he Town of VaiI'
A public hearing may not be scheduled in anticipation
of or in the absence of an application for a denslty varlance.
The VaiI Municipal Code provides, at Section 18.62.040, as
follows:
Upon receipt of a variance application, the planning
commlssion shall set a date for hearing in accordance
with Sectlon 18.62.070.
fhere exists no authority to schedule a hearlng upon or otherwise
consider a variance for which no application has been made.
An appllcation for a denslty variance, when filed' is
requLred to contain considerable information, among that ls
[a] statement of the precise nature of the variance
.. requested, the regulation involved, and the practical
difficulty or unnecessary physical hardshlp
inconsistent wlth the obJectives of this tltle that
would result from strlct or literal interpretation and
enforcement of the specified regulation. Section
18.62.020.
Because of the absence of any application, the requlred
lnformation has never been supplied or identified.
In fact, there is not so much as a letter requesting
any relief in the nature of the variance, a written communication
of any tlpe from the owners of the Chrlstiania, or any memoranda
by the Town of VaiI Planning and Environmental Commission
suggesting that a request was made of the Town of Vail verbally
requesting .tty ldentifiable relief. Granted, there are various
contticttng plats ln the possession of the Town of Vail which
seem to inOicate that a number of redevelopment plans have been
considered and revLewed by the planning staff. The most recent
plans einiltt "paste-uPs" where the Town of Vail staff has
ipparentty attempted to nodify plats which have been provided _onpiivtous 6ccasioirs by affixing drawings or portions of revlsed
ptats supplled by the Chrlstiania owners or their
iepresentatives. None of this material constitutes an
apilication or an ident,lfication of any proposed variance or its
Justification.
Itisapparent,basedupontheforegoingcircumstances'that consideration of density, setbacks, or parking variances are
not only premature, but that-the questions are not properly
before tne rown of vail. Even if the appticant vrere to file
proper applications and identify the relief which ls sought' it
is imposiiUle for any interested parties to adequately revieY an
applilatlon flled two or three weeks after a notice of a public
hearing is publlshed and circulated.
There being no application for a density variance or
any other variance, ielief, or approval, before the Town of Vail,
other than a Design Review application which htas recognLzed for
its tnadeguacy at an early date, the Planning and Environmental
CommLsslon hearing regarding a density variance for the
Christiania proposal should be cance.Ied untll such time as the
proponents can and do file an application ldentifying the relief
iought and justifying that retief in accordance wlth the VaiI
Municipal Code. At that time, and not before, the Planning and
Environmental Commission may have something before it to
consider. Until that time, there is serlous question whether the
Plannlng and Environmental Comnisslon has jurlsdiction over the
matter scheduLed for hearing.
If, despite the foregoing, the Planning and
Environmental Commisslon decides to consider the questlon of
whether a density varlance should be granted to the Christlanlaproject, the foLlowing conments should be considered regarding
whether the owners of the Christiania are entitled to a denslty
variance:
1. It is the burden of the Christiania olntners to
satisfy certain specific criteria, Ln order to be granted a
variance under the Town of vail Municlpal Code. Those standards
are not particuJ.arly different from any other variance. The
Planning Commission should consider several specific factors set
forth in Section 18.62.060.A. of the vail Munlcipal Code,
including but not limited to the relationship of the requested
variance to other uses in the vicinity, the effect of the
requested variance on light and air, transportation and trafficfacilities, and such other factors and criteria as the Cornmlsslon
deems appltcable. A person deslrlng a variance must establish the
existence of several specific fact situations identified at
section 18.62.060 of the Vail Municipal code. Among these are
the fact that the granting of the variance will not constitute a
grant of speciat piivitege, that the granting will not be
f,aterially- inlurf-ous to lroperties or improvements in the
vicLnity, and that the vlrilnce is to be granted.el-ther becauae
strict or ll"teral interpretation of the specifled regulation
would result in practicir Oftticulty or unnecessary physical
hardship, or thal there exist exceptional o-r extraordinary
circumstances or conditions appliclble to the site which do not
teneiafry apply to other proplities, or that strict or literaL
Snforcem6nt-;ould deprlve th-e owners of privlleges enjoYed_by
others. None of theie requirements are or can be satisfied.
2.Despltethefagtthatitisnecessarythatowners
requesting a varilnce have the burden of proof it must
deilonstrafe that they are entitled to the rellef requested' it
must be noted that, in the absence of any application or any
document whatsoever which might have generated the scheduled
hearing, the owners have neither ldentlfied the basls for their
assertlon that they are entitled to re11ef, nor suggested there
ls any Justificati6n whatsoever for any relief being granted._
Absenl iuch an appllcation which provides to the Planning and
Environmental Coininisslon and interested parties, notice of the
subject matter, scope, and basis of the reLief which apparently
is it issue before Lhe hearing, neither the Planning Commission
nor interested parties are able to prepare for or address matters
which may be under considerat'lon.
3. Based upon the various staff reports contained in
the two flles whose eiamination was permitted, a gleneral idea of
the proposal whlch has been developed by the planning staff
and/-or Lhe owner apparently nay be described as the eliminatlon
and./or consolidation of accommodation units in a way which
reduces the density of the Christiania Lodge (but not to conform
with applicable zoning requirements) and attenpts to shift a
portion of the existing density from exlsting accommodatlon units
lnto two new dwelling units which will occupy a newly constructed
fourth floor of the itructure. As nearly as can be determined
from viewing the files and various plans, one dwelling unit will
be converted to an accommodation unit by elimination of cooking
faclllties, two accommodation units would be rendered unusable as
independent unlts because of ne$t constructlon, and four
accommodation units would be consolidated into two accommodation
units but would remain independently accessible and usable if
their use trere not monitored by the Town of vail. Apparently the
control of these latter units is to be achieved by some
commitment on the or,tner not to rent separately the existing but
to-be-consoltdated lodge rooms through some covenant with the
Town, and the subsequent enforcement of that covenant. The net
result is a reductlon of dwelling units (or dwelllng unit
equlvalents incLudlng calculations for accommodation units) from
27 accorunodation units (L3-L/2 dwelling units I Eo 22
accommodation units (equivalent to 11 dwelling unlts): At
recently as the consideration of the sonnenalp redevelopment
proposa-I , the trown of vail has placed considerable enphasia on
lhe-maintenance and expansion of its lnventory lodge rooms
available for rental . The christianla Lodge variance and
associated remodeling would operate to defeat that stated goal .
4. The Town of Vail has under consideration or has
been urged to consider vlew corridors both from the area west Of
Bridge Street easterly to the Gore Range looking. over the
Cnri6ti.tia Lodge, and from Gore Creek Drive southerty to Vail
Mountain, agaln-looking over the Christiania Lodge. Both of
these possible view coiridors wouLd be defeated by granting a
varianle to the Christiania Lodge and by the proposed
redevelopment.
5. The Town of Vail Department of Community
Development has agreed wlth our ofiice that the parking presently
being irsed by the Christianla Lodge occupies land- over which the
owneis of Chiistiania have no record interest. That land is
partly owned by VaiI Associates, Inc., and is partty a dedicated-1nut unconstruited) public street. Christiania was granted_a
iarking easement ovei a different plece of land substantially
imallei than that presently occupied, but, based upon the
information available, that Iand seems never to have been used by
Christiania Lodge. It ls now used in part for parking by Vail
Associates, Inc., and in part by the Town of Vail as a street
connecting Hanson Ranch Road and Gore Creek Drive. The
Departmeni of Community Development advised the owners of
chilstiania Lodge, by letter dated the 31st of January, which was
discovered by the undersigned yesterday, that the Christiania
proposal could not proceed unless it was established that "theproperty meets parking requirements" and further requlring the
owner€r of the Christiania Lodge to provide vtritten conflrmation
that v.A. witl- continue to accommodate the Christianla's
parking needs on v.A.-owned property.
Vail Associates, Inc., by a letter dated the 4th of February,
stat.ed that Chrlstiania Lodge could not be granted any further
rights, but that it would be permitted to use the land it ls now
using "until the present issues, presently being studied, are
resolved among VA, Christiania and Town of Vail. " VaiI
Assoclates has not made any commitment regarding a long-termright for Chrtstlanla to use its land, and, in fact' has deniedthat request.
Several things would be accomptished by the approval of
a density variance for the Chrlstlanla Lodge and the
redeveLopment plan which apparentty has most recentl.y been
developed. None of those possible accomplishments are desirable.
First, the Town of vail looses one-quarter of the lodge rooms
piei"irtry avallable in the christlania Lodge.- _second' the Town-ot Vaif lssumes the difficult, if not impossible, burden of
*"niioifng whether or not adjacent rooms which are emlnently
sultable ior and have been uled separately as Lodge rooms for
more than 20 years will no longer be used as seParate
accommodation units. Third, tf,e owners of the Christlania Lodge
will obtain a dispensation which they wilt be pennitted to
construct two lar-ge residential condorniniums, whlch, by their
nature and price, -are extremely unlikely to Join any- rental -li"t""*. f-ourth, the resldentl of anO visitors to the Town of
taii wifl lose a significant part of their views of the Gore
Range from the soutfi end of ritOge Street,__Fifth-' the density of
the Christiania Lodge will remali essentially unchanged, +n _ _violation of appliciUte vait Municipal Code standards. Flnally,
a parking situlllon under whlch the Christiania Lodgg uses (a) a
trict of 1and to whlch it has no right and (b) a dedicated (but
unconstructed) public street will remain tenuous and Inadeguate
support for a lodge operation.
It should be observed thaL sone argument has been made
to the Town of Vail that a 1968 agreenent to engage in some
property exchanges and street vacitlons is binding uPon the.To1tn
bf laifl Vail A;sociates, Inc., and the owners of Christiania
Lodge. ''Such an assertion is difflcult to take seriously. Based
upoi the information avallable, it seems that the street whlch
his long been maintained on the east side of the Mill Creek Court
Bullding has existed and been a part of the Town of VaiI street
system Since the time the Tovtn was establlshed. Since it clearly
his existed for alnoEt 30 years, there can be little question
that the Town has adverse possesslon of that street and it cannot
be evicted, At the same time, the Town of Vail owns a dedicated
street through the center of the property presently occupied by
Vail Assoclaies and Christiania Lodge parking facilitles.
There ls apparently some desire on the part of various
owners of property in the east village that the area between the
Mill Creek-Court building and Villa Valhalla be developed for
underground parking and that a public area be created on the
surfaie. The Town of ValI, through its ownership of at least
one-third, and probably closer to one-half, of the affected land,
has the ownership righis to make that happen. However, achieving
that end Ls not consistent with the approval of a density
variance for the Christiania Lodge whlch would rely upon' and
thereby possibty estop the Town of VaiI from objecting to'
Christiania Lodge's occupancy and use' as a parking area' of
approximately one-half of the property owned by the Town of Vail.
t egal title io tfre area between the MilI Creek Court buildlng and
Vtlla Valhalla is, even no$t, so tangled that the cooperative
development of that property, or even the identification of the
various rights and interests, would be a significant challenge.
The suggestlon that the Town should place itself at a further
Oisaaviitage J.n any such negotiations or determinations is truly
injurious io the Town's interests. It certainly ignores the
deiires of the residents and owners of properties ln the
neighborhood that something I'ogical happen-to-the ProPerty
pie6entfy used without autf,ority by Chiistiania Lodge but ovrned
by the Town of vail and by Vail Associates' Inc.
In summary, there is no application properly before the Town
of Vail flannini and Envlronmenlal Comnisslon for conslderation
on the 1lth of February. If an application is filed prior to the
hearing, that, applicatlon w111 nol-have been filed as reguired by
ttre ttniicipal Cohe and both the notice and any hearlng based upon
such a tariy apptication would be invalid. At such time as the
owners of the Christiania Lodge file an application for a density
variance (or any other rellef-perrnitted under the Municipal
Code), th; Town of Vail may then have a questlon before it to
consider. That has not yel occurred. If the Planning and
Environmental Commission chooses to consider the question of the
density variance for the christianla without an application, or
even with a tardy apptlcation, the tnformation avallable clearly
establishes that a density variance would be inappropriate' in
violation of the Vail Municipal Code, and counter-productive to
the Town,s stated position that lodge rooms should be increased
and not diminished, as is inherent in the Christiania
redevelopment program.
The hearing scheduled for consideration of a possible-
density variance for the Christiania Lodge should be canceled,
and, ii ttre Planning and Environmental Commission chooses Lo hold
such a hearing, any suggestion thaL a varlance should be granted
should be denied.
AAA: j
xc: Jay Peterson
Ml11 Creek Court
Jack Baylin
Larry Eskwith
Condominium Association
a\c\v\TOVPLNGA
rnrL r-i.]?w \rlLr.t/nt 9-v1cE L u, JgaJ P.UEt
Qvuil.@.
Vail Associates, Inc.
Crearors and Operarors of Vail and Bcavct CrcclP Rcsoru
'fiII Kannerer, Senior planner
lown of VaiI conmunity Developnent75 South Frontage RoadVail , colorado 6tasz
Re: Your fLle - Christiania Lodge Density Variation
Dear ,fill:.
This letter is written in response, to concerns expressed by-vour office reqard*g.!n. ab_ove pri,ject, --sp"lliiiliirrv, vail- -'Assoqiates,'r'6. ("v'i':) has been'reftriestea-f"-pi""ia" written
iiTiriti$.H:ir"HHl6:'x',iil#T'+ri,*"F;,!;i*iti,;H*yrhto,provide anv a{litignlr -parrinj- r6quired bi tn'.-ii,ri"iiu"ii--_ 7redeveropnent pran-, vA is igree-5re tlo crrrisiianiais p"riint-on 1
vlr:. Froperty..to rire extent-va i"- teqaut-oliigii"a under the termsof that certiin warranty oeed dited inife,-igEi,-i""o"ded in Bookl77 at Page 127 and._ thai-cereain Agreernent by and anong VailAssociates' rnc., christianiu:.i-vair, rnc. and, rown of, var.r dateduarch 15' 1978; iecorded, in soJi )n * page 8?z (the "Agreenentn).TII:I-iT: please be.advisea tr,ii--il alrpears to us, based on anrmprovenents locatl:" T1!-p.eparect.by' rJsi. %ii6y.soro"ying dated.(revised) ,ranuarv.re, -rgbr', ciii=li""ia rs not currentry parking rnthe location sneiifiia-i"-in" ifr""""nt, but.insteia is using otherv+ F-rgperby ani a porri.n "i-piiiiea roaaway dedicatbd to the Townof, vail- vA hereb!. acrnowieei.r-ina is agreeuent with such currentparking location uirtit trre-roiegoing issubs, presentry be$ngstudied, are resolvea arnong-va,'irt"i*tiani-a and rown of vair.
-You- have also requested that vA provide'rrritten confirnationthat vA has no ouj ection-i"-tto-inririianii-r"a"uriopr.rrtcontinulng throuqf, tne iown "i-vlir approval process. Arthough vAhas no obJeetion-to conrinuid ;;h.pii,".=Jl ii-Jpeciricatly:."JliT t'he rishr to review-tf,"-dirisii;i;'o"alulioprenr pran and
;I:i:=.an]' concerns and/or obj.aii;;;-;;;"y;;;I*resarains the
Februa:r;, 4, 1991
Post Office Bcr 7 r Vail, Ccloredo gt65g . USA _ (i0i) {?6-i60l
r sJ cr..r lr J,9. g,El VHIL
illll Kanaarer
Febnrary .4r. 1991
PaEe 2
o
(Jtsrg,,<f r Et-JOt f L;)( g4tt t'.v&,
^- ,,,-If_y93,hav9 any questions otr concerns regardl.ng the position
3l-Y1_T:Iatr|9 to the lppllcation for tbe chrlstianla r,odleredevelopuent, please feel free to contact the ruderstgneE.
. Very tnrly yonrs,
Faul ,Tohnson
ilay Peterson
vAIrr-{assoclaTEs, INc.\
- --_L
r"<-<.
cc:
':.
i,""ty nl iidr
SregutLve Vice
Jill Kammerer, Senior planner
Town of Vail Cornrnunity DeveJ-opment75 South Frontage RoadVail , Colorado 81657
Re: Your file - Christiania Lodge Density Vari_ation
Dear Jill:
This letter is written in response to concerns expressed byyour office regardinq the above project. Specifically, VaifAssociates. Inc. (ttVA") has been requested to provide-writtenconfirmation that christiania may continue to use property owned byVA for christiania parking. Although vA is not prepaied Lo cornmitto provide any additional parking required by the Christianiaredevelopment plan, VA is agreeable to Christiania's parking onvArs property to the extent vA is legally obligated under the ternsof that certain warranty Deed dated July 8, 1963, recorded in BookL77 at Page L27 and that certain Agreement by and among VailAssociates, rnc., christiania-at-Vail, rnc. lnd Town oi vait datedMarch 15, L978, recorded in Book ZLZ at page 877 (the ilAgreementil).
However, please be advised that it appears to us, based on animprovements location map prepared ny- naqte va1ley surveying dated(revised).January.l-8, LggL, christiania is not cuirently paitcing inthe location specified.in the Agreement, but instead is-using of,hervA property and a portion of ptatted roadway dedicated to th6 townof vail. vA hereby acknowledges and is agreenent with such currentparking location unt,il the foregoing issues, presently beingstudied, are resolved among vA, christiania aird tout or vaii.
You have also requested that vA provide written confirmationthat VA has no objection to the christiania redevelopmentcontinuing through the Town of vail- approvar process. Arthough VAhas no objection to continuing such piocess, Va specificallyretains the right to review the chriltiania'redevilopnent pian andexpress any concerns and/or objections we may have regarding theproj ect.
Qvuiu@
Vail Associates, Inc.
Creators and Operators of Vail and Beaver CreelP Resorts
February 4, l-991-
Post Office Box J r Vail, Colorado 81658 . USA - (l0l) 476.5601
,t'
Jill Kamnarer
February 4, 1991
Page 2
If you have any questions orof VA relating to the application
redevelopment, please feel free to
cc: Paul Johnson
Jay Peterson
concerns regarding the positionfor the Christiania Lodgecontact the undersigned.
Very truly yours,
VATL ssocIATEs, I\NC.
(.--_
Larry E
Executive
Lichl
Vice President
PETER COSG RIFF
JOH N W. DUNN
AFTH UR A. ABPLANALq JR.
TIMOTHY H. BERRY
ALLEN C. CHRISTENSEN
LAWRENCE R HARTLAUB
LAw OFFtcEsCoscnrrE DutrN & ABPLANALP
A PAFTNERSHIP INCLUOING A PROFESSIONAL CORPOFTATION
VAtL NartoNAL BANK Bu tLDtNG
SU ITE 3Oo
loe SoUTH FRoNaAGE RoaD WESI
VAtL, CoLoRADo 8t657
TELEPHoN E' (3o3) 476-7s52
TeLecopren: (3O31 476-476S
28 December L990
IN LEADVILLE!
CosGRrFt DUNN & BERRY
P. O. BOX tl
LEADVTL!E, COLOFIAOO 6O:l€t
(7t9) rt66 - tA6:i
Tiown Counci} and
PJ-anninq and
Envi.ronment,al Com{li.iss ion
'Iown of vail
Vail, Colorado
TIAND DNI.,lVERED
RE: AptrlIicat-.ion f or Desiqn
Lodge,/panl ,Johnsotr
Iieview Approval of Christiania
and SaIly Johnson
'fhis Of f ic:e represents the Mill Creek Court CondominiumAsjsociat-ion, Lhe ;:ssocicrtion g;overning the Mill Creek CourtBuj.ldinq, whj.ch j.s,located adjacer.rt- t-o and across Hanson Ranch Road
f rorn t.he pr:opert-y which is Lhe subject of the above application nowperrcling br-'fore the Town of Vai.l.
Our c1ienL has requesled that we appeal to the Towncouncil Lhe approvar of t-he staff of the Deparl-ment, of community
Deveropnrc-'rrb;:nd the vail. D.rsign Review Board of the appltcation ofch.l:isLiania Lodge lor desi.gn rev.iew atrrproval now pencling before the
'rcwn of vail., which wourd perinit the christiania Lodge to viorateseverar lj-nritat,ions conLa.ired iir t-fre zoning code of the Town ofvail" which rerate tc'r non-<:onfonning uses. This appeal is beingdirecl-ed trclth to the Town council and the planning andEnvironmentar commission because the appeal is being taken both
f rorn blre Design Review Lloard, iiri Lo its approval of the designreview applicalion, and from the determination of the staff of thef)e:pilr:t.nient of comnrunit.y Developruent that the application wascornplr:te ancl i.n conform.ity wi,th town zonirrg regulal-ions, pernj.ttingthr: a;-rpl ication to be considered by the uesign Review Board. ouicl..i-ent- has ir:<Iue)sted that we object, on its behalf, to the pendingapplicat"ion bec;ruse of the vioLat.ions described herein.
The Christiania prcrject, and partj.cularly the proposed
. cllauges-,.--i[q_ p61 comply with the r:equl.rementi of - Seltion
"l.q-54.040-c-2' <Lf l-lre vail- tvlunicipar code, which requires the
de l-ernri nat ion by the planni.ng s t a f f that any pro j ect lre incotif onni ty w,ith apgr-ticable requ l-ations prior to refei.rar to theL,resj.gn lteivievr lJoa-d. l'he christiania project was before t.he Towrr
THE FROFESSIONAL CORPORATION tS DUNN & AEPLANALR P.C. tN VAIL.
of VaiI earlier this year, in amultiple variances. That proposaito the project were raised. Basedmult.iple variances, and the staffassociaLion with that application,about the fact that the Christianiaa non-conf ormi-sq use subject to theconforminq uses) The Town ofDevelopment' staff now does ..;aQebuilding is a non-conforming g."r.)
simiLar form which required
was withdrawn after obJectionsupon the previous request forreport which was prepared inthere seemed to be no questionproject, as it stands today, isIimitat,ions applicable to non-VaiI Department of Communitybelieve that the Christiania
18.64.050.8. and D. of
The princi.pal reason that Christiania Lodge is a non-conf ormirrg use is tlre f act that tsli corrtal.ns the egulvilent of 14 .5dweJ.ling units on a lot which is only authoriled to have theequivarent of 9 dwelring units. For that reason, the pranningstaff previousry characterized the project as "non-confoiming inthat the property is already 5.5 dwelling units over the arlowable9 dwelling units". Please see the encloied staff report which wasprepared in association with the christiania variance request, atpage 3, Section III.A., line B, a copy of which is enclosed. Theplans submitted to the Town in association with the Design Reviewapprication are difficurt to interpret in some ways, but it seemsclear that the proposal would expand the GRFA, build on ner^r groundwithin the building envelope, change the existing non-conforminguses within the existing structures, and, at best, present to theTown only a permissive use of already inadequate parking. AII ofthese violate the rimitations on non-conforming structures, as morespecificalry identified below. Any one vioration shoutd haveprevented consideration by the Design Review Board.
Based upon the report of the DeparLment of CommunltyDevelopment staff itself, there should be no question that thaChristiania Lodge has, in Lhe past, been recognized as what it is,i.€., a non-conforming use which should be permitted to remain.Hovrever, upon application for reconstruction and expansion, thisproject, like any other, should be required to comply withapplicable Town requirements related to non-conforming uieJ.
Based upon Lhe plats which have been subnitted to LheTown of Vair in association with the christiania Design ReviewBoard apprication, and the violations inherent in the design reviewappr:oval which has been applied for and apparently granted, thefolrowing violat.ions of the vail Municipal cbde seen bpparent andrequire reversal of the Design Review Board decision:
I . DerlE r!y_g_ng__pg-rking. Sectionthe Vail launici.pat-TilelioviOE-6s follows :Structures and site improvements established prior to theef fect.ive date of the ordinance codi.fied in t.his titlewhich do not conforn to the development st.andardsprescribed by this title for the district in which theyare situated may be continued, Such structures or sitej-rnprovements may be enlarged only l_n accordance with thefollowing limitations :
B. Structures which do not conform to densitycontrols may be enlarged, only tf the total grossresidential floor area of the enlarged structuredoes not exceed the total gross residential floorarea of the preexisting nonconforming structure.
D.Structures or site improvements which do notconform to the off-street parking and loadingrequirements of this title may be enlarged,provided that the parking and loading requiremenLsfor such addition Jtratt de fully satisfiea and thatthe discr:epancy bethreen tho existing off-streebparking and loading facilities and the standardsprescribed by this title shall not be increased.
The proposal would directly violate the proposalidentified above related t.o density because of the fact that, ifapproved, that total gross residential floor area of the enlargedstructure would exceed the gross residenLial floor area of thepreexisting non-conforming structure.
The Christiania proposal would viol-ate the provision setforth above related to parking because the parking and loading
requirements for the addition would not be fully satisfied, and thediscrepancy between the existing off streeL parking and loadingfacilities and the standards prescribed by this title would be
increased.In fact, as noted during the Town's previous
consideration of Christiania's variance request, the site belng
used as a parking IoL by Christiania is not' that Iand whichChristiania was granted many years ago as a site for lodge parking.
The lot actually used by Christiania is owned in part by VailAssociates and the balance is a dedicated but not-constructedstreet joining Gore Creek Drive to Hanson Ranch Road. Thecongestion cr:eated by the inadequate parking presently used isvisible now, as at limited other times of the year, and the factthat the parking which is being used at this time is the subject ofno long-term conrmitment or grant must be interpreted as renderingthe sLatus-quo of no value for zoning or planning purposes.CerLainly Christiania Lodge can make no representation of theconLinuance of the status quo, unless information has been or isprovided which was not available at the time of Christiania'svariance application.
2. Site Area. Section 18.64.040 of the VaiI Municipal
Code provides,-n peiETnent part, as follows:
The use of a site or structure lawful.Ly establishedprior to the effective date of the ordinancecodified in this title which does not conform Lothe use regulations prescribed by this titte forthe disErict in which it is situated may becontinued, provided that no such nonconforming useshall be enlarged to occupy a greaLer site area for
building floor area than it occupied on theeffective date of the ordinance qodified in thischapter.
By the plat which is available for review, l_t appearsthat addiLionar land within the otherwise buildabte area of unL rotwirl be occupied by new building froor area as a resurt of theproposed expansion. That expansion of buirding floor area is indirect violation of the rimitation contained in the section seLforth above.
3 . C\s!_S_el.! Non-Conf orminq Use. Section LB .64 . g0 ofthe Vail uunj,ci.pal code'-ffi:
A nonconforming use shall not be changed to anothernonconforming use unless permission has beengranLed by the town council-. prior Lo granting
such permission, the councj.l shall determine thatthe proposed use does not substantially differ fromthe exisLing nonconforming use in terms ofcompatibility with the char:acter of the area inwhich it is located, and the council shalIdetermine that the proposed use does not increaseor aggravaLe the degree of nonconformity existingprior to any such change of use.
The crux of the proposal before the Design Review Boardinvolved the conversion of several non-conforming uses into otheruses. Although not all of t.hese changes are clear from the plans,it seems clear that several pairs of lodge rooms are being changedto single lodge rooms in order to shift density in a mannerpermitting the construct.ion of two new dwelling units. Thosechanges viol"ate the provision set forth above, unless the changesare first. approved by Town Council after Councl_l makes thedeLerminations required by the section. rt would be difficurt for
Town Council to make the delermination that the proposed use doesnot increase or aggravate the degree of nonconformity exisLingprior to the proposed change of use, but. such a deternination mustbe Lhat of the Town Council. Without such a determination,approval of the Christiania Lodge application would be prematureand unauthorized under the Municipal Code.
Summarv. The purpose of provisions relating to non-conforming uses is typicarty to permit those uses to continueduring their normal life. rt is not to permit those non-conforminguses to expand in violation of zoning which is otherwiseapplicable. The Town of VaiI Municipal Code recognizes thatprinciple and adopts it at Section 18.64.010, which provides asfol lows :
The chapler ls intended to limit the number and extent ofnonconforming uses and sLructures by prohibiting orlimiting their enlargement, their reestablishment afterabandonment and their restoration after substantial
r{i'r
.r.:),
^.
i"ri:i:.:,li;
+ itr.tL: '
destruction. WhiIe permitting; nonconforming uses,structures, and improvements to continue, this chapter isintended to limit enlargement, alteration, restoiati.on,or replacement which would increase the discrepenqtr
. be t ween ex i s t i n g c ond i t i ons anO
-tne deve 1bprnen[-6'f6nderd-;
f,) \
i n
"
XLrt 'yt,c' '
l(LJl,)'.
The proposal apparent.ly approved by the Design ReviewBoard violates the Municipal code in four wiys which have beenidentified. There may be other violations which are identified atthe hearing t-o be conducted before the Board, but any of these fourvloLations alone prevent approval of the proposal . The Milr creekcourt condominium Associat.ion requests that the Town council reviewthe proposal which carne before the vair Design Review Board, andthe decision of the Department of community Development staff whichauthorized review by tlre Design Review Board. The Mill creek courtcondominium Association further requesLs that the Town councilreview these Iimitations identified above, recognize theviolations, and reverse the decision of the Design Review Boardapproving the application of the christiania Lodge and its owners,Paul and Sally Johnson.
prescribed by thi-s tit1e.
AAAJT IMilI Creek Court CondominiumtovplngT Association
Abplanal
PETEN COS6RI FF
JOHN W. OUNN
ARTH UR A. ABPLANALB JR.
TIMOTHY H. BERRY
ALLEN C. CHRISTENSEN
LAWRENCE P. HARTLAUE
LAw OFFTCES
CoscnrpE Dur.qN & AgpLANALP
A PAR'NERSHIP INCLUOIIIO A PROFESSIO'1A! COFPOAA'ION
VArL NarroNAL BANK BurLo!NG
Su rrE 3OO
to8 SourH FRoNTAGE RoAo wEsr
VAlL,CoLoRAoo 81657
TELEPHoNsi (3O 3', 476'7552
TELEcoPf ER: (3o31 476-4765
28 December 1990
lN LEADVTLLEI
CosGRrFF. DUNN 6 BERRY
P O. EOX tl
LE OVI LLEr COLORADO 60aCl
(7t9) 4A€ - tA65
Town Council and
Planning and
Environmental Commission
Town of vailVaiI, Colorado
HAND DELIVERED
RE:Appllcation for Design Review Approval of Christiania
Lodge,/Paul Johnson and Sally Johnson
This Office represents the MiII Creek Court CondominiumAssociation, the association governlng the MilI Creek CourttsuiJding, which is located adjacent t,o and across Hanson Ranch Road
fr:om the property which is the subject of the above application nohtpending before the Town of Vail.
Our client has requested that we appeal to the TownCouncil the approval of the staff of the Department of Community
Development and the Vail Design RevLew Board of the appllcation ofChrist.iania Lodge for design review approval now pending before theTown of Vail, which would permit the Christiania Lodge to violateseveral limitations contained in t.he Zoning Code of the Town ofVail which relate to non-conforming uses. This appeal is beingdirected both to the Town Council and the planning andnnvironmental commission because the appear is being taken bothfrom the Design Review Board, as to its approval of the designreview appricat.ion, and from the determination of the staff of theDepartment of community Development that the application wascomplete and in conformity with town zoning regurations, permittingthe application to be considered by the Design Review Board. ouicrient has requested that we object, on its behalf, to the pendingappl ication because of the violations described herein
The Christianla project, and particularly t,he proposedchanges, clo not comply with the iequirement- of - section18.54.040.c.2 of the vail Munlcipal cod-e, which requlres thedetermination by the planning staff that any pro3dct be inconformity with appricable regurat,ions prtor to rereirat to theDersign Revlew Board. The chrrstianta pr6iect, r^ras before the Town
THE PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION IS DUNN & ABPLANALP. P. C. IN VAIL.
of Vail earlier this year, in a similar form whlch required
multiple variances. ThaL proposal was withdrawn after objections
to the project were raised. Based upon the previous request for
muJ.tiple variances, and the staff report which was prepared in
association with that application, there seemed to be no question
about the fact that the christiania project, as it stands today, is
a non-conforming use subject to the lirnitations applicable to non-
conforming usei. The Town of Vail Department of Communily
Development staff now does not belleve that the Christiania
building is a non-conforming use.
The principal reason that Christiania Lodge is a non:
conforming use is the fact that is contains the equivalent of 14.5
dwelling units on a lot which is only authorized to have the
equivalent of 9 dwelling unit,s. For that reason, the planning
siaff previously characterized the project as "non-conforming in
that the property is already 5.5 dwelling units over the allowable
9 dwelling units". Please see the enclosed staff report which was
prepared in association with the Christiania variance request, at
page 3, Sectlon III.A., line 8, a copy of whlch ls enclosed. The
plans submitted to the Town in association with the Design Review
application are difficult to interpret in some ways, but it seems
clear that the proposal would expand the GRFA, build on new ground
within the buildlng envelope, change the existing non-conforming
uses within the existing structures, andr at best, present to the
Town only a permissive use of already inadequate parking. AII of
these violate the limitations on non-conforming structures, as more
specifically identified below. Any one violation should have
prevented consideration by the Design Review Board.
Based upon the report of the Department of Community
Development staff itself, there should be no question Lhat the
Christiania todge has, in the past, been recognized as what lt is,
i.e., a non-conforming use which should be permitted to remain.
However, upon application for reconst,ruction and expansion, thisproject, like any other, should be required to comply with
applicable Town requirement,s related to non-conforming uses.
Based upon the plats which have been submitted to the
Town of VaiI in association with the Christiania Design Review
Board application, and the violations inherenL in the desi,gn reviewapproval which has been applied for and apparently granted, thefollowing violations of the Vail Municipal Code seem apparent andrequire reversal of the Design Revlew Board decision:
1. Density and Parkinq. SectLon 18.64.050.8. and D. ofthe vail launic@s follolvs:Structures and sit,e improvements established prior to theeffective date of the ordinance codified in this titlewhich do not conform to the development standardsprescribed by thls title for the district in which theyare situated may be continued. Such structures or site
improvements may be enlarged only in accordance with thefollowing limitations :
B. Structures whlch do not conform to density
controls may be enlarged, only if the total gross
residential floor area of the enlarged structure
does not exceed the total gross residential floor
. area of the preexisting nonconforming structure.
D.Structures or site improvements which do not
conform to the off-street parking and Ioading
requirements of this title may be enlarged'
provided thaL Lhe parking and loading requirements
for such addition shall be fully satisfied and that
the discrepancy between the existing off-street
parking and loading facilitles and the standards
prescribed by this title shall not be increased.
The proposal would directly violate the proposal
identified above related to density because of the fact that, if
approved, that total gross residential floor area of the enlarged
structure would exceed the gross residential floor area of the
preexisting non-conforming structure.
The Christiania proposal would violate the provision set
forLh above related to parking because the parking and loading
requirements for the addition would not be fully satisfied, and the
discrepancy between the existing off street parking and loading
facitities and the standards prescribed by this title would be
increased.In fact, as noted during the Town's previous
consideration of Christiania's variance request, the site being
used as a parking lot by Christiania is not that land whj-ch
Christiania was granted many years ago as a site for lodge parking.
The lot actually used by Christiania is owned in part by Vail
Associates and the balance is a dedicated but not-construcled
street joining Gore Creek Drive to Hanson Ranch Road. The
congestion created by the inadequate parking presently used isvisible now, as at llmited other times of the year, and the factthat the parking which is being used at this time ls the subject of
no long-term commitment or grant must be interpreted as renderingthe status-quo of no value for zoning or planning purposes.Certainly Christiania Lodge can make no representation of thecontinuance of the status quo, unless information has been or isprovided which $ras not available at the time of Christiania'svariance application.
2. Sile Aqeq. Section 18.54.040 of the Vail Municipal
Code provides,=TI-[EEETnent part, as follows:
The use of a site or structure lawfully establishedprior to the effective date of the ordinancecodified in this title which does not conform tothe use regulations prescribed by this title forthe district in which it is situaLed may becontlnued, provlded that no such nonconforming useshall be enlarged to occupy a greater sit.e area for
building floor area than it occupied on the
effective date of the ordinance codified in this
chapter.
By the plat which is availabLe for review, it appears
that additional land within the otherwise buildable area of the lot
will be occupied by new building floor area as a result of the
proposed expansion. That expansion of building floor area is in
direct violation of the limitation contained in the section set
forth above.
3. Chanqe in Non-Conforminq Use. Section 18.54.80 of
the VaiI Municipal Code provides as follows:
A nonconforming use shall not be changed to anot'her
nonconforming use unless permlssion has been
granted by the town council. Prior to granting
such permission, the council shall determine thaL
the proposed use does not substantially differ from
the existing nonconforming use in terms of
compatibility with the character of the area in
which it is located, and the council shall
determine that the proposed use does not increase
or aggravate the degree of nonconformity existing
prior to any such change of use.
The crux of the proposal before the Design Review Board
involved the conversion of several non-conforming uses into other
uses. Although not aII of these changes are cl"ear from the plans,
it seems clear that several pairs of lodge rooms are being changed
to single lodge rooms in order to shift density in a mannerpermitting the construction of two ne$r dwelling units. Those
changes violate the provision set forth above, unless the changes
are first approved by Town Council after Council makes the
determinations reguired by the section. It would be difflcult for'
Town Councll to make the deternination that the proposed use doesnot ihcrease or aggravate the degree of nonconformity existingprior to the proposed change of use, but such a determination mustbe that of the Town Council. Without such a determination,approval of the Christiania Lodge applicat,ion would be premature
and unauthorized under the Municipal Code.
Summary. The purpose of provisions relating to non-conforming uses is typicltly to permit those uses to continueduring their normal life. ft is not to permit those non-conforminguses to expand in violation of zoning which is otherwiseapplicable. The ?own of Vail Municipal Code recognizes thatprinciple and adopts lt at Section 18.64.010, which provides asfollows:
The chapter is intended to limit the number and extent ofnonconforming uses and structures by prohibiting orlimiting their enlargement, their reestablishment after
abandonment, and their restoration after subst,antial
destruction. While permitting nonconforming uses,
structures, and improvenents to continue, this chapter is
intended to limit enlargement, alteration, restoration,
or replacement which would increase the discrepancy' between existing conditions and the development standards
prescribed by this title.
The proposal apparently approved by the Design Review
Board violates the Municipal Code in four ways which have been
identified. There may be other violations which are j-dentified at
the hearing to be conducted before the Board, but any of these four
violations alone prevent approval of the proposal. The Mill Creek
Court Condominium Association requests that the Town Council review
the proposal which came before the Vail Design Review Board' and
the decision of the Department of Community DevelopmenL staff which
authorj.zed review by the Design Review Board. The Mi11 Creek Court
Condominium Assoclation further requests that the Town Council
review these limitatlons ldentified above, recognize the
violations, and reverse the decision of the Design Review Board
approving the applicatlon of the Christianla Lodge and its owners,
PauI and Sally Johnson.
AAAJT:MiII Creek Court Condominium
tovplngT
Association
JAY K, PETERSON
December 20, 1_g9O
Jay K Perensorv
.{IKlRNEret r-irw
SUITE 3O7 VAIL NATIONAL BANK BUTLDING
IOA SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAO WEST
vtrl. coroRArn fl067
TELEPHONE
(303) 476€092
FAX LINE
t 303t 479-0467
Lawrence A. Eskwith, Esq.Town Attorney
Town of Vail
75 S. Frontage Road WestVai1, CO 91652
RE: Christiania Lodcre
Dear Larry:
rn response to Artrs letter of Decenbe,- zo, J-ggo, Artrs definition ofa nonconformincr ":? i:^."rtainly in"olrati.rr6 """ria"ri"s ih.;="--..definition in ie.04.39o of the iown Municipal code, whi-ch states asfollows:
rtuser' - neans the purpose for which a site or structure orportion thereof is-arlanged,- desigr,red, i"i""a"A, erected, moved,altered or enlarged or f5r which 5i.tt"r-rii"-o, structure orportion thereof is or may be occupied or-m"irrt.ined.rl
The definition has nothing.to d.o with density contror- which isset forth in separate seciions of tn" Town Code.
;:":3:*i3n.3.r3iilf=: t"* Dicrionary the derinition ol,Non_conrormins
ttNon-conforning usesr - uses perrnitted by zoning statutes orordinances to continue notwithstanding sirnilar uses are notpermitted in area in which ih"y .r" tocated. Bever v. Mayor andCouncil of Baltinore Citv, 3_82 yld. 444, 34 A.2d, 765,766.
under section L8.22.020 of the Tovn Municipal 'code the foll0vingpernitted use is perrnitted i"-trt"'pA zone bistrict. r.,odges, incrudingSccess?ry.g-u!ins, driTking, recreationui ";-;;i;Ii estaurishmenrlocated within rhe princiiar us--ina noi;;d;tiG nore rhan r_o8 ofthe total Gross ResLdentii,r ri"".-Area of ttre'iiii structure orstructures on the site. The christiu"ii-r,"Jte"'il"ouv:.ously apennitted use in the pA 2""" oirt"i.t. s" oir.-ugiirr, Art hasintentionallv rried to rnisieaa-v""-riin ;ir";;idl"u.ri'i.ior,.
Sincerely,
o
n 'l'", ,..:.i. '
*tt'''i.
LAw oFFIcEsCoscRtFE DuNN & ABpLANALp
A FAR?NERS}ItP INCLUDING A PROFESSIONAI CORPOFIAfION
VAtL NAT|oNAL BANK Butlot NG
Su rrE 3OO
IO8 SoUTH FRoNTAGE RoAo WEST
VAIL, CoLoRAoo 8t657
TELEpHoN E, {3O3) 476-755A
TELEcopt ER: t3o 3t 476- 47 6z
20 December 1990
PETER COSG RI FF
JOH N W. OUNN
ARTHUR A. ABPLANALB JFt.
TIMOIHY H. BERRY
ALLEN C. CHRISTENSEN
LAWRENCE P. HARTLAUE
lN LEADvtLLE!
CoSGRTFE DUNN & BERRY
P- O. aOX tl
LEAOVI LLE, COLoFAOO 6O.t€ |
t7t9t 4€6-tAA5
Mr. Larry Eskwith
Town Attorney
Town of VaiIVail, CO
HAND DELIVERED
Re: Christiania Lodge
Dear L:arry:
Today there will come before you the guestion ofrlt"lhgT an appllcation for renovation and reconstruction of theChristiania _Lodge qualifies for consideration by the DesignReview Board. On behalf of Mill Creek Court CondominiumAssociatlon, f obJected to the Design Reviev, Board,sconsideration of Lhis,application y6sterday afternoon, based uponthe fact that the proje-L is a nonlconforning use. on thatbasis, r felt and r feer that the project, aid particurarry the
Pl"Pgsgg^changes, do nor compry wrtn [,ne requirlmenrs of section18.54.040.c,2 ot the vail uuiriiipat code, wtiicn reguires thedetermination thar. any proJect ba in coniormity with apprtcableregulations prior to reieriar to the Desigr, i"ii", Board.
In my letter to the planning staff, whlch wlll beforwarded to you, r dld not idintify ihe nasis for my premlsethat the-project is non-conforming. Based upon the lrlviousrequest for rnultiple variances, ano the staf? report which wasprepared in association with that application, r fert certainthat there was no question about thll facu. yesterday r learnedthat there is such a question, and the planning sLaff does notberieve that the christiania buirding ii a nonlco.rforming use.
The principal reason that Christiania Lodge is a non_conforming.use is the fact that, is contains the egulvarent of14.5 dwelrlng.units on a rot which is only auihorized to have t.heequivalent of 9 dwelling units. For that reason, the pranningg!,aff previously characterized the project, as',non-conlorning-lnthat the property is already 5.5 Owefting units over thearLowabre 9 dwerling unlts". prease see the encrosed staffreport, -at page 3, Section fIf.A., Ilne g, a copy of which isencrosed. The plans submitted to the Town in ai3ociation wiin
THE FROFESSIONAL COFIPORATION IS OUNN & ABPLANALE P.C. tN VAIL.
the Design Review application are difficurt to interpret in someways' but it seems clear that the proposal would explnd the GRFA,build.on new ground withln the bulidiig envelofe, ciange theexistlng non-conforrning uses within tn5 existiit'structures, and,at best, present to Lhe_Town only a permissive ise of alreadyinadequate parklng. Arr of thesl violate the llmitations on non-conforming structures. Any one vioratlon would preventconsideration by the Design Reveiw Board prior tL correction.
. Based upon the report of the planning staff ttself,there shourd be no question that the christiania Lodge has, itthe past, been recognized as what it is, i.e., a non:conforminguse which should be permitted to remain. However, uponapplication for recongtruction and expansion, this pioJect, likeany other, should be regulred to compry with appliclnt6 rownrequirements related to non-conforming-uses.
The Design Revlew Board has determined that, if thechristlania Lodge j.s not eligabre for consideratj.on, you shouldmake that determination. please advise me if you reqirire anyfurther information.
AAAJT:
Ms. Kristan PritzMr. Jay Peterson
COSGRIFF
'A//WAffit:*
New Elevator/
/r//V E"oftz/A
" tt/tr/n
11. Village Center Condos -stonewal 1slIandscaping.part of Tracts C and K,
MOTION: George L,,arnbVOTE: 3-0
Consent approval .
L24 Willor+ Bridge Road/ABlock 5-8, Vail Village lst
SECOND: Pat Herrington
o
L2. Christiania Lodge - Rernodel & Additions JK356 Hanson Ranch Rd/lot D, Block 2, Vail Village LstMOTION: ceorge Lanb SECOND: pat HerringtonVOTE: 4-O
Motion to approve contingent upon staffdetenninatlon that proposal is in conformance withSection l-8.64 of the zoning ordinance relating tononconforming sites, uses, structures and siteirnprovernents. If staff deterrnines proposal is inconformance with Section LB. G4 of the zoningordinance, approval is subject to the followingconditions: Northern parking lot be landscaped -applicant will return to DRB with a land.scapinq planfor approval.
13. Dan the Sandwich Man - Sign BR395 E. Lionshead Cir./Lionshead parking Structure
MOTTON: ceorge Lanb SECOND: pat HerringtonVOTE: 3-0
Consent with condition lett,ers be painted notdecals.
14, Bridge Street Charliers - CoLor change and BRlighting. 304 East, Bridge StlRed Lion BuildingMOTION: SECOND! VOTE:
TABLED TO JANUARY 2, 1991
o t
a
t
o
o
P// ,9nfiou]eue*ed.'
t/::/ /mfla/cyrau.dCft' CI a{r @4{ El J47.4€r?raU/Ul
.+tl,(,e7t</u; ,b fr,Jf coagl1bd hfrn
Pa7'€/nd rW
i) ,,tiil ngLu'f r.a VroVuf, hr6l(J
o
Allowed:
Existing:9 d,u.s = LB a.u.s2 d.u.s and 25 a.u.s = 14.5 d.u.s
Amount over allowed after remodel: 11805 sq. ft.
Accessory including restaurant and realty office uses(l-08 of GRFA):
<20r-t .aProposed: €{t sq. ft.
Redeut/ Pfrry.ta/ r 7z7z'u Jrcr
^pA iznfo-g'lJt"u
A. Zone District: public Accornmodation
B. Site Area: .38 acres or 16,540 sq. ft.
C. Density: (25 d.u.s al_Iowed per acre, 1 d.u = 2 a.u.)
Existing over allowabLe: 5.5 d.u.sL 1,2- /3Proposed: d d.u.s and fu a.u.s = #h.5 d.u.sDifference from existing: -?-d.tu. t/eut,;s "6 /.5 d-A. s
RSnount over aLlowed after renodel: dEod.u.s
D. 9nTll (80 sg. ft. of GRFA altowable per 100 sg. ft. ofbuildable site area.)
*' ?il (y'' ""ln 'r't"|'/"': '': 1a:
, Allowed: 13,232 aq. ft. z7i!'Existing: 7,397 sg. ft.,. ':),t+
Proposed: 1€76t8 sq. ft.' /./ ':,
Rernainin , :?!!rt rrro r"u"rr*lopnenr . '+#!"r. fr.
E. Conmon Area: (20* of allowabLe GRFA)
Allowed: 2,646 sq. ft.Existing: 2,255 sg. ft. JAy_,Proposed: #?t sA. ft. or a€.ffi .of allowabte GRPAzb'lh ('t.'rt; 4cr r,//x. fueeFA )
Reguired: 20 ft. a1l sides
Front
East Side
West Side
^,r40 Rear
r'llf.' Site Coverage: (.55
K. Height:
Allowed: 48 ft.Existing: 3O ft.Proposed: 43 ft.
L. Parking:
sloping roof 45sloping
flat
ft. flat roof
Proposed
# Spaces Recruired
+"fi' /6.bq-4
8-5 c-+ -3
_99.{€;;2 or 4435.? o 3Lor+t3b sgaces required- 3 qrandfathered
e S3tspaces for addition
Existincr
ls ft.o ft.
17 ft.
20 ft.
of site area)
1"6.4
4
6
0.3
9
35.7 or 36
Proposed
/5--{ fi..o ft.
/7I ft-.
dutSt -5,tt
Ii r?# .r5
I
I
Allowed: 9,097 sg. ft.Existing: S,235 sg. ft.
Proposed: ffi"n. ft.
Rernaining: ffiff, =n. fr.
J. Landscaping: (30* of site area)
Reguired: 4,962 sq. ft.Existing: 7,49O sq. ft.Proposed: 5,943 sq. ft.
t7-^
,M €xrcn6
Acconmodation Units:
Existing
# Spaces Recruired
L222i units =3 units =Dwelling Units:
Sarah I s Loungle:Realty o;!{ice:
christiqfu4fhateau[-4ota1
25 units =2 units =
Townhoues:
or*36 spaces required
-33 on site
3 space grandfathered
/2. t8-2o 6p.FA bbcz
/ootol"'- "4nA6rd H F/. /370
1v ffir/ //62
2nt 4p r/ 4/3
34t F /: S9
JaS/A A//oqrcd "
^Ly'lo
.
Jbr DEB_ /2" /7' 70
o
U€4
/
Acces:oru //tu /sarahS /runqe)_..e_-Lv. / st-F/. iSAd ''/
t.- '
,'. ./OAa a//acaz2/ ?6 6Pt4
i.-- "-*
(22{A - 1/ts8'
r4,rr,/ / /'-.,;, 6 L',
/2)/b9
(zaa r25= ZZ5)
47
/32/7gd a//otrd zzi d
4 34aF/ A
B
I F saS 2ooo
3G
- 3:a a t##nrd
" 2/4-1// " 2rc3 rtd /"reduce
' 20?0- /29, &/y/2
39/15 -3' 39AZF
funq .
A.U.t Lze ???i = /6./, sfaua
Dtl-'s 2c 39b2 ' // foc"*
saraAi /ntn4&*= A 'ft*a)
Kwh e u ?2" ,3 (noa)
efu*id 6'unitt 'w, V ho A)-sip =s6
Grd /s F/.
ilsr f,9f/
6rdffi F/ -,i l t:F/ -r
A*D
33 Tneu r%
.
77" Aft aYrsh\JU
oI
o
lrg ' lt_@P __t |m/un/Zd/Y
JOH N W DUNN
ARTHUR A. ABPLANALR JR.
TIMOTHY H. B ERRY
ALLEN C. C HRISTENSEN
LAWRENCE P HARTLAU B
LAw OFFtcES
CoscRrrE DUNN & ABPLANALP
A PARINERSHIP INCLUOIN6 A PROFESSIONAL CORPOFATION
VatL NAT|oNAL BANK Bu tLDTNG
Su trE 3OO
loe SourH FRoNTAGE RoAD WEST
Var L, CoLoRADo 81657
TELEPHoN E: (3O3, 47 6 -755?
Te recocren: t3O3) 476-476519 December 1990
IN LEADVILLE:
CosGFrFF, DUNN & BERRY
P. O. BOX ll
LEADVT LLE, COLOFADO AO46l
(7tg) 4€t €t - ta65
Ms. Krist,an Pritz
Vail- Department of
Community Development
Town of VaiIVail. CO
Dear Kristan:
Following the Town of VaiI Design Review Board hearingon this date, at which I represented the MilI Creek CondominiumAssociation j-n opposition to the application of ChristianiaLodge, Jay Peterson remarked that he intended to retaliateagainst the MilI Creek Condominium Association and Jack MortionAssociates, Inc., an o\^rner within the condominium building
concerned about the Christiania Lodge plans, byz
1. As to the MiII Creek Condominium Association,forcing the Association to terminate its use of the westernportion of Tract P-3; and
2. As to Jack Morton Associates, Inc., having the
Town of VaiI terminate the revocable easement under which that
company is permitted to maintain a bay window which wasinadvertantly const.ructed over Hanson Ranch Road by the previous
owner.
I am uncertain what power or influence Mr. peterson
believes he has, that he feets that he can use this unique methodof dj-scouraging public input into the Town's planning process. I
am skeptical that he, i.n fact, has such power. However, I amsufficiently concerned/ on behalf of my clients, that I wish to
make these threats a matter or record, and to request that anyeffort to carry out these threats be communicated to me.
Should you have any questions regarding these matters,you may, of course, contact me.
COSGRIFE
Abplana
AAAJT
THE PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION tS DUNN & ABPLANALP. P.C, IN VAIL.
_1 ., q.
PETER COSGNIFF
JOHN W, DUNN
ARTHUR A. ABPLANALB JR.
TIMOTHY H. BERFY
ALLEN C. C HRISIENSEN
LAWRENCE R HARTLAUA
LAw OFFlcEs
COSCRITE DUtrN & ABPLANALP
A PAR'NERSHIP INCLUOINO A FROFESSIONAL CORFOFIA,ION
VAtL NAT|oNAL BaNK Bu rtor Nc
SutrE 3OO
tOB SourH FRoNTAGe Roao WE5T
VAtL,CoLoRAoo B 16E7
TELEPHoN E: (3o 3, 476-zs5e
TELEcoprERi (3O3) 426-476S
19 December 1990
lN LEADvtLLE:
CosGFtFE, DUNN & BERRY
P. O. €tOX tt
LEAOVT !LE, COLOaTAOO 8O4Ol
t7tgt 4A6-taas
Ms. Kristan prltz
Town of Vail
Department of Community DevelopmentVaiI,.Co1orado 91652
HAND DELIVERED
RE: Application for Design Review. Approval 0f christianiaLodge
Dear Kristanl
This office represents the Mill creek court condominiunAssociation, the association governing the Mirl creek courtBuirding. The Mirr creek court- Buircrlfg i", oi course, rocat.edacross Hanson Ranch Road from the property which is the "Luj".t-.ithe above application now pending -netbre in. fo"n of VaiI.
Our clLent_ h-as reguested that ,we express its obJectionsto the applicatton of christianla r.,odge ror aeliln revrew approvalnow-pendlng before the Town of vair. Approv"idt the appril"ti""would permit the Christiania Lodge to violate several limitationscontained ln the zoning code of the Town of vair which relate tonon-conforming uses. Our client has .eq,re"i.O ln.t *" object, onits behal-f, to the pending apprication b-ecause of these potentiarvioLations.
r hlave been informed that. there 1s no staff reportavailabre in association with this apprication, but r have beenprovide_d an opportunity to review tne -prats which are associatedwith the pending application. Based upon those plats, withreference to t.he violations inherent in the design review approvarwhich has been appried for, the forrowing .o**"rii" seem necessaryand appropriate:
1. Density. section 18.64.050.8. of the vail MunicipalCode provides EE-i6TTows:
struct'ures which do not conform to density controlsmay be . en].argedr only if the total grossresidential floor area of the enlarged structures
THE PhOFESSIONAL CORPORATION IS DUNN & ABPLANALB P.C. IN VAIL.
t
does not exceed the totaL gross residential floor
area of the preexisting nonconforming structure.
The proposal wou1C vlolate the proposal identified above
because of the fact that, if approved, the total gross residential
floor area. of the enlarged structure would exceed the gross
residential floor area of the preexisting non-conforming structure.
2. Site Area. Section 18.64.040 of the Vail Municipal
Code provides,-Ii-peT€Tnent part, as follows :
The use of a sile or structure lawfully establishedprior to the effective date of the ordinance
codified in this title which cioes not conform tothe use regulations prescribed by this tltle forthe distrlct in which is situated may be continued,provided ttlat no such nonconforming use shall be
enlarged to occupy a greater site area for buildingfloor area than it occupied on the effective dateof the ordinance codified in this chapter.
By the plat which is available for review, it appearsthat additional land wi.t.hin the otherwise buildable area of the Lotwill be occupied by new building floor area as a result of theproposed expansion. That expansion of building floor areaconstitutes a violation of the limitation contained in the sectionset forth above.
3 . pgklnS. Sectlon 18 . 64 . 050 . D. of the VaiI MunicipalCode provioes EE-to-tIows :
SLructures or site improvements which do notconforrn to the off-street parking and loadingrequirements of this title may be enlarged,provided that the parking and loading requirementsfor such addition shall be fully satisfied and thatthe- _discrepancy between the existing off-streetparking and loading facilities and the standardsprescrihed by this title shall not be lncreased.
The christiania proposar wourd violate the provision setforth above because the pirking and loading requirements for theaddiLion would not be furly satisfied, and fhe oi.screpancy betweentl* existing "f! street parking and roading facilities and thestandards prescribed by this titie would be iricreased. rn fact, asnoted during the Town's previous consideration of christiania,avariance request, the site being used as a parking 1ot bychristiania is not that tand whicn cnristiania was grantecr manyyears ago as a site- for lodge parking. The lot used oy cnristianiiactually is owned J.n part 6y Vail Aisociates and the balance is adedicated but not-constructLd street joining Gore creek Drive to
Hanson Ranch *o3_d: _ ,Tl. congestion created by the inadeguateparking presentry used is visibie now, as at other times of theyear, and the fact. that the parking r-hicn is neing used at thistime is the subj-ec: gf no. fo'nt-a"r; commitment or grant must beinterpreted as fendering ttre -siatus-quo of no varue for zoning orplanning purposes.
. . c6rtainry christlania Lodge can make norepresentation that the status quo wirl continue for any r""gih ;itime, unress information has b'een or is provided which was notavairable at the time of christianla's variance apprication.
4. Chanqe in Section 18.64.80 ofthe Vail Munlcipat Code
A nonconforning use shatr- not be changed to anothernonconforming use unress permissibn has beengranted by the town council. prior to grantingsuch permission, the councll shalr aetermine thatthe proposed use does not.substantially diff", ii"*the existing nonconforming use in terms ofcompatibility with the chaiacter of the area inwhich it is located, and the council shatldetermine that the proposed use does not increaseor aggravate the degree of nonconforrnity existingprior to any such change of use.
The crux of the proposar before the Design Review Boardlnvorves the converslon of- seireral non-conformlng uses into other
l:91 , changes in other uses, and expansion of the structure.Although not alr of th-ese changes are clear from the plans, itseems clear that several pairs ol tooge rooms are being "nu"f"'a iosingle lodge rooms in order to shift frensity in a manner which theapplicant feers would permit the constructibn of two new dwellingunits. Those changes violate the provlsron set rorln J;;"; ;;i;;;the changes are first approved by Town councir after council makesthe determinations requlled by the section. rt woutd be difficulLfor Town councir to mlke the determination that the proposeo usedoes not lncrease or aggravate the degree of nonconrormlty existingpriol to th,e proposed change of use, -but such a determinition nusibe that of the Town councir. without, such a determination,approvar of the chrlstiania Lodge application would be prematureand unauthorized under the Municipat CoOe.
Summar1. The purpose of provisions relating to non_conforminglsefis typicirly uo permit those uses to continuedurlng thelr useful llfe. rnit purpose is not to permit those non-conforming uses to expand in violation of zoning r-nicn is other,wiseappricable. The Town of vail Municipal cole recognizes thatprincipre and adopt,s it at section 19.64.0L0, which -provides asfollows:
Non-Conforminq Use.provides as follows:
The chapter ls lntended to llmit the number and extent of
o
nonconformlng uses and structures by prohibiting orrimiting thelr enlargement, their reestabrishment afterabandonment and thdir restoration after substaniiirdestruction. WhiIe perrnitting nonconforming ;";;;structures, 1nd improvements to continue, this chipter islntended to limit enrargement, alteration, restoration,or replacement which *ould increase the discrepancvbetween- existing cond.itions and the develo;;."t ;;;;;;;;;prescribed by this title.
- The proposar before the Design Review Board viorates theMunicipal code in four_ways which have'been ident.ified. rn.i" *"vbe other viorations whiih are identified at the hearing to beconducted before the Board, but these three alone prevent approvarof the proposal. The Mirr creek court condominium Associationrequests that the Deslgn Review Board. revievr these rimitations,recognize the violations, and clisapprove the application ,ro,pending before the Board.
AAAJT:MilI Creek Court Condominium
TOVPLNG
SGRIFF,
Arthur A.
Associatlon
Ly,
Abplanalp,
!ill-t i.=, o
;;. tu"y dr#
"rr.ri
ronnenra I comniss ionTO:
DROU:
DATE;
RE:
rr.
I. BACKGROUND
on May. 1l_, L9A7, the planning and Environmental Conmissionvoted to approve density and setback variances in ";e;;-i;arLow the construction 6t aaaitions to-ine--irrristianiaLodge. At the tine it was the Conrnunity -Oevefopn"nt
' Pepartrnent staff's opinlon that approrui oi an increase indensity would_ be a grant of speciii pri":.ieg" unareconmended the request be aeniea. -ouring [n:., ".m" tirne,public hearings had been herd to review tfre vail viir.g;-'Master Plan, however, the plan was still in draft form andhad not been forrnalry adopled by council. The coars andObjectives of the Vaif viifage Master pl.an supported the1987 renoderinq proposar and therefore the pEC voted toapprove the density and setback variances. Subsequent tothe 1987 PEc approval of the variance reque"i, ,roconstruction has occurred.
A conparison of the l99O redeveloprnent submission andexisting conditions forrows in th'e o."."ipiion of theProposal section of this neno.
conmunity Developnent Departnent
November L2, LggO
A request for a work session for a density, conmonarea, and setback variances in order to aiiow --'construction of an addition to and the r"rn"aefi"g ofthe Christiania todge, 35G Hansen nancn Road, Lot D,Block 2 Vait Village ist Filing.Applicant: paul R. Johnston
Mr. PauI Johnston, owner of the Christiania Lodge, proposesto add a third floor to the existing structure, to remodelthe structurers interior, to constn-rct a porte cochere, toexpand Sarahrs Bar, to construct a strearn walk along uiffCReek, and to add common area to the lodge under thisproposal . Under this redevelopment propolal , Z evergreentrees rnust be removed. This request-wi1r reguire deisity,setback, and parkilg variances. Although the- parkingvariance request will be dLscussed in ttiis rnem3, no io:naIaction can be taken regarding the granting of this variancebecause the rnatter has not been advertisea ror the Novernber12th public neeting. The parking variance wlll be heard atthe Novernher 26th PEC meeting. Approval of the parkingvariance should be a condition of- lpproving the 3etback anddensity variances. The following il-a suuunary of thedevelopment proposal;
A.
o
.7 accopmodation units g 2074 sq. ft..Conmon area € 22Zg sq. ft..chateau nechanical afea e 27L sq. ft..Christiania Realty office ic-n-itionafbeen obtained) € irz sq. fi.
'{.t
use pernit has
g 2325 sq. ft.ft.
ft.
c.
D.
lock-off
€ 3292 sq.ft.
€ 815 sq. ft.ft.
E.
F.
G.
.2 dwelling unitsEast unit 0 2166 sq. ft.I{est unit € 2195 sg. ft. = 4361 sq. ft. rotal.Conmon area 0 3_64 sg. ft..Fireplaces:4
Mechanical Loft
.ltechanical € 205 sg. ft..Common area € 13 sg. ft.
ir'_l]. e1-lsting fireplaces are proposed to be gasrncrucrrng the conversion of the wood burning fireplacein Sarahrs Bar.
Site frnprovements
.Construction of strean walk along l,lilt Creek.Renoval of 596 sg. ft. of asphalt.Removal of spllt rail fence on Christiania parceL.Enclosure of dumpster.Landscaplng of- perlphery of northern parkLng J-ot.Pavi.ng of northern parking lot
B. First Floor
.8 accorrnodation units.Common area G 1422 sg..Airlocks 0 141 sq. f€..Restaurant € LlZB sq..Fireplaces:2
Second Floor
.1 dselling unit with a.l-0 acconnodatlon units.conmon area € 623 sg..Fireplaces:2
eondoniniun Leve1
oo
Proposed Dwell-inq Unit vs. Accomnodation Unit SumnaryH,i
3 D.U.s at
25 A.U.s at
Total
51176 sq.
7 .692 sq.
12,868 sq.
3.0 D.U. s
12. 5 D.U. s15.5 D.U.s
III.
Densitv Variance
The. property is located vithin the public Acco'?nodation(PA) zone district. Under p.A zonina- 9 rtr.ra't'r i,,--,'-;+-Under PA zoning, 9 dwelling unitsor 18 acconmodation units are allow6rt on trrii-site(please note that 2 accommodation units or untis--y::l:":^Iil:h:i: = ol" dwelrins u"iai;- rr,.-"*iJti"slodge has 25 accomrnodatlon unliswhlcfr.eSuali 14.5 dwelling unit.. J ir,.i.f;;;=i;exrsEtng situation is nonconforroing in that the
.\allo!+able 9 dvelling units.r--Th5Eopodaf cEff- fo, "totar of 25 accornmodEtrEn-udits ptus- 3 dwerring unitswhich eguals 15.5 dwerring unitsl A variance is needed
ellr.1tg_qnltse the ,l
tlra I
Acconmodation Units:Dwelling Units:Total DweLling Units;
Exlstinq
25
2
r.4. 5
Proposed
25
3
1t E
6 people
Through this proposal the applicant is increasing thedensity of the lodge by L dwelling unit. In aaaitionto comparing the existing vs. proposed accommodationand dwelling units, it nay be helpful for theCorunission to review existing vs. proposed lodgecapacity based upon bed counts and- existing vslproposed square footage of lodge and dweLling units.The folloving lodgre capacity courparison does not takeinto account the nunrbei of beds Lhere rnay be in the 2third floor dwelling units.
Existing Capacity: 66 people't
Proposed Capacity: 22 peopteAdditional capacity following remodel:
rrAssune 1 person/twin and single bed & 2 persons/double, king and gueen bed,
PIERCE, SEGERBERG &APAEH
ARCHTTECTS. p.C. .t.A.
1000 South Frontage Road-West
vAlL, coLoRADO 81557
(3O3) 476-4433
E For your use
n As requested
n For review and comment tr
tr FOR BIDS DUE
LETTil @F TRANSNfl ilT-lIAL
ii:ti:;l:i 5i9r;ii*'? l/ la/qo l'"'*"u^"'"''"""\,l) K=*-*-^'&lr r qt,>n'rna. Lg.--a-
<,,
the following items:
tr Samples E Sp€cifications
E Resubmit-copies for approval
tr Submit
-copies
for distribution
E Return
-corrected
prints
tr PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US
-\
, WE ARE SENDING vODrd Attached I Under separate cover via
D Shop drawings ---S Print,n Plans
tr Copy of letter ! Change order tr
,o'*.,^,r- oS \A't L
THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked betow:
\ ror approval n Approved as submitted
tr Approved as not€d
I Returned for corrections
l9
coPtEs DATE NO.DESCRIPTION
L \lello K.-t,4e-J<'X+y:.s o* cL,,*,=,..,-n(k-.'.*-4*s- C^-tr Ma, :\;*,:,\ F-.n'",".*q\
/fieza- au{ *r:"i ,u*'oY&l-,t? JFm-* t}.*.
b-o?o
Profl}[r?{o3 /@tm, c't!r tre ot4/1.lt anclosuras t.€ aot as noted, kindly notity os at once.
rT{f .},ryTo: , Planninif hnd Environmental
o
Conmission
FROM: Connunity Developraent Departrnent
DATE: Novenber 12, ]-99O
RE: A reguest for a work session for a density, conmonarea, and setback variances in order to allowconstruction of an addition to and the remodeling of' the Christlanla Lodge, 355 Hansen Ranch Road, Lo€ D,Block 2 VaIl Village 1st Filing.Applicant: paul R. Johnston
I. BACKGROT'ND
On May 11, 1987, the Planning and Environmental Conrnission, voted to approve density and setback variances in order toallow the construction of additions to the ChristianiaLodge. At the tine it was the Conrnunity Developnent
Department staffrs opinion that approval of an increase indensity wouLd be a grant of special privilege and
recorunended the request be denied. During this sane tirne,public hearings had been held to review the Vail Villaget'taster Plan, however, the plan was sti1l in draft form andhad not been forrnally adopted by Council. The Goals andobJectlves of the VaiI Village Master plan supported the
1987 remodeling proposal and therefore the pEC voted to.approve the density and setback variances. subsequent tothe 1987 PEC approval of the variance request, noconstruction has occurred.
r
A cornparison of the 1990 redeveloprnent submlssion and
. existing conditions follows in the Description of theProposal section of this neno.
IT. DESCRTPTTON OF THE PROPOSED REMODEL
Mr. Paul Johnston, o$rner of the Christiania Lodge, proposesto add a third floor to the existing structure, to remodelthe structurers interior, to construct a porte cochere, to
expand Sarahrs Bar, to construct a strean lrallc aLong l4iltCReek, and to add conmon area to the lodge under thisproposal.. Under this redevelopment proposal, 7 evergreentrees rnust be removed. This reguest will reguire density,setback, and parking variances. Although the parking
varlance request will be discussed in this memo, no fornralaction can be taken regarding the granting of this variance
because the matter has not been advertised for the November12th public rneeting. The parklng varJ.ance will be heard atthe Novernber 25th PEC neeting. Approval of the parking
variance should be a condition of approvinq the setback anddensity variances. The following is a sunmary of the
development proposal:
I
Gfound Floor fGarden Level)
rJ asgqmrnodation units A ZOZ4 sg. ft..Common area e 2229 srr. ft..Chateau nechanical afea g 27L sg. ft..Christiania Realty Office (conditionalbeen obtalned) € 237 sq. ft.
First Floor
.8 accomrlodation units I ZSZI scr. ft..Connon area g L4Z2 sq. ft..Airlocks 0 t4t sg. fa..Restaurant € 1128 sg. ft..Fireplaces:2
Second Floor
.1 dweLling unit with a lock-off € efS.LO accommodation units 0 3292 sg. ft..Conmon area € 623 sq. ft..Fireplaces:2
I 'li
use per.mit has
sq. ft.
A.
B.
c.
D.
.2 dwelling unltsEast unlt € 2166West Unlt g 2195.Conraon area € 164 sq..Fireplaces: 4
E. Mechanicat Loft
.Mechanical € 205 sq..Cournon area € 13 sq.
sg. ft.sg. ft. = 4361 sg. ft. Totalft.
ft.ft.
a.
G.
111_ exlsting fireplaces are proposed to be gasrncluctrng the conversion of the wood burning fireplacein Sarahts Bar.
Site fmprovernents
.Construction of strean walk along uilL Creek.Renoval of 596 sg. ft. of asphalt.Removal of spLit rail fence on Christlania. parcel.Enclosure of dunpster.Landscaping of, periphery of northern parklng lot.Paving of northern parking lot
Condoninium Level
H,I
'3 D.U.s at Sr176 sq. ft.25 A.U,s at 7.692 sq. ft.Total 12,868 sq. ft.
rIT. DESCRTPTION OT THE VARIANCES REOUESTED
A. Densitv Variance
The property is located wlthin the publtc Accommodation(PA) zone district. Under pA zoning, 9 dwelling unitsor 18 accoumodation unlts are aLlowerl on this site(please note that 2 accornrnodation units or units
= 3.0 D.U.s
= 12.5 D.U. s
= 15.5 D.U. s
without kitchens =.one dwelling unit). The existing19{Se has 25 accommodation uniis and two dwelling uiitswhich eguals 14.5 dwelling units. Therefore theexisting situation is nonionforning in that theproperty ls already 5.5 dwelling units over theallowable 9 dselling units. The proposal ca1ls for atotal of 25 accomrnodation units plus 3 dwelling unitswhich equals L5.5 dwelling units. A variance is needed
Accornmodation Units:Dwelling Units:Total Dwelllng UnLts:
Existing
25
2
14.5
Proposed
25
3
1R tr
Through this proposal the applicant. is increasing thedensity of the lodge by I dwelling unit. In aaaitionto comparing the exist,ing vs. proposed accommodationand dwelLing units, it rnay be heJ.pful for theCorunission to review existing vs. proposed lodgecapaclty based upon bed counts and existing vs.proposed square footage of lodge and dwelling unlts.The following lodge capacity cornparison does not takeinto account the nunber of beds there uray be in the Zthird floor dwelling units.
rxisting Capacity: 66 people*
Proposed Capacity: 22 peopleAdditional capacity following rernodel: E people
*Assune 1 person/twin and single bed & 2 persons/double, king and queen bed.
a
.{
,+
d"
^>J'
$,U
z
$t
nR*
-1 -2+fi+quz
4tittu
orl
[g
Hf$
3
9
t\t
OLdt-IEf,o
{
l-
,$
\I
$is
"/-
,a P l)tl 't+{ itrt, ^' ,uln
,nln '' DFP''
DRB APPI.,ICAIION
DATE APPLICATION RECEIVED:
DAIE OF DRB HEETING:
*****THIS APPLICATION WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED I'NTIL ALIJ INTORMATIONIS SUBMITTED*****
r. PRE-AppLrcATroN t{sntlHe:
A pre-application neeting wlth a planning staff meraber isif any additionalstrongly suggested to deternineinformation is needed. No apnl
the zonins adninistrator). It is the appJ.icantrsresponsibility to rnake an appointnent wittr ttre staff to findout about additional submittal requirenents. please notethat a COI.IPLETE application will streamline the approvalprocess for your proJect by decreasing the number ofconditions of approval that the DRB uriy stipulate. ALLconditions of approval must be resolvea Uefore a buildingpertnit ls issued. Application wiLl not be processedwithout Ownerrs Signature.
oN: AdA.
B.
c.
I,OCATION
Address
Legal Description
Subdivision
NA],IE OF APPLICANT:
tot D Blo.L D-
zonins ttfffi-
Mailing Address: OP)(a ft€lna<\d.r\ cc>
VALUATION
$ o-$ l-o,ooo$ io,co1 ..$ sr).nn,,$50,ooL-g Lso,ooo
$1-50, 001 - $ 5oo, ooo
$500,00L - s1,000, o0o$ over $1, oO0, oo0
Phone
D.NAME OF APPLTCANTlS REPRESENTAT
Mai n?l-Adciress: lOOo
Phone
E " N,AI'{E OF OWNERS:l
SrGNATURE (8) e
"u'rtHtl Address:
Phone
F. Condoninium Approval if applicable.
G. DRB FEE: The fbe will be paid at the time a buildinqpermit is paid for.
rEE
I r0.00
! 4 ,)c tn
$ 50.00
$100.00
$20O. oo
93OO.00
Condoninium Approval if applicable.
LIST OF MATERIAI,S
CItv",e!nNAI'IE OF PROJECT:
TEGAL DESCRIPTTON:rpr t?-
STRSET ADDRESS:
IVIS ON
A.
The following infonoation is
Review Board before a final
BUILDING MATERIAI.,S:
Roof
Siding
Other Wall Materials
Fascia
Soffits
tiindows
Window Trirn
Doors
Door Trirn
Hand or Deck Rails
Flues
Flashings
Chimneys
Trash Enclosures
Greenhouses
Other
I.ANDSCAPING: Name of
PI,ANT MATERIAI,S:
PROPOSED TREES
required for submittal to the Design
approval can be given:
COIOR
Botanical Narne Cornmon Name Ouantitv Size*
It
B.
EXISTING TREES TO
BE REMOVED
Rc\oa&-
-._-
Evr*rnrq Tn<*A
J
T.iffi.@
'tlndicate caliper for deciduous trees. Minirnum caLiper for
deciduous trees is 2 inches. Indicate height for coniferoustrees. Minimurn height for coniferous trees is 6 feet.
OF MATERIAL
--A6v- =hd
Designer:
Phone:
t
PI.ANT !.TATERIAI,S:
PROPOSED STIRUBS
Botanical Nane Common Name ouantitv Size*
t-,
PAorgjt-. grr+;nl <U";
ExrsrrNc sHRUBs Fu\o-eLo-. E * r*ttn.-lt
TO BE REMOVED \
*Indicate size5 gallon.of proposed shrubs.Minirnurn size of shrubs is
Tvpe Scruare Footaqe
GROUND COVERS
soD
SEED
TYPE
OF IRRIGAIION
TYPE OR IqEfHOD OF
EROSION CONTROL
C. OTHER LANDSCAPE FEATURES (retaining walls, fences, swimrningpools, etc.) Please specify. fndicate heights of retainingwalls. Maximun height of walls within the front setback is
3 feet. Maxinun height of walls elsewhere on the property
is 6 feet.
.J t
IITTLTTY IPCATTON \IERTFTCATION
SUBDTVISI
iTOB NATIE
o* -ilACH ersr r
IOT D BINCK L TILING FrBsr
ADDRESs 3gh Hr{5oet pa{c+r Polg
Ittre locatLon of utllltles, whether they be naln trunk lLnes orproposed ll.nes, must be approved and verified by the followlngutilitles for the accompanying site plan.
Authorized Siqnature Date
U.S. t{est Conmunications
1-800-922-1987
458-6860 0r 949-4530
Public SerrrLce Conpany
949-5781
Gary Hall
Holy Cross Electric Assoc.
949-5992
Ted Husky/Michael Iaverty
Heritage Cablevl-sion T.V.
949-5539
Gary Johnson
Upper Eagle Valley Water
& Sanitation District 't47 6-7 480
Fred Haslee
o6-3aa/
f ';i r,
kstre. J, Slter^-
NOTE:These verifications do not relieve the contractor ofhis responsibility to obtain a street cut, pernit frorothe Tovn of Vail , Departnent of Public ?lorks and toobtain utllitv locations before dicrcrinq in any publicright-of-way or easenent in the Town of Vail. Abuildinq perrnit is not a street cut oernrit. A streetcut pennit nust be obtained separately.
This fora is to verif,y sernrLce avallability andlocation. Ttris should be used in conjunction withpreparing your utility pLan and schedulinginstallations.
* Please bring a site plan when obtaining Upper Eagle Valleyllater & Sanitation signatures.
H
I ,ry
Peter Harris Rudv
Attomey and Couttsellor at Lavt
Suite 214, Vail National Bank
108 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
(303) 476-886s
FAX (303) 476-L4s
March 11, l-99L
Town Council andPlanning and Environmental
Commission
Town of VailVail, Colorado 81657
Re: Design Review Approval of Christiania Lodge/paul Johnson andSally ;Iohnson
I represent the East Village Honeowners Association, a newlyformed association of homeowners in the Gore Creek Drive neigh- -
borhood, which is located adjacent to and across Hanson RanchRoad from the property which is the subject of the above appli-cation.
My client has requested that I appeal to the Town Councilthe determination of the Vail Design Review Board grantingapproval for the design review proposal of the christiania Lodge.
This appeal- is based upon the fact that the applicationapproved by the DRB uas not properly before them, conduct by the
DRB violates fundamental rights of due process, the applicalionviolates the Zoning Code of the Town of Vail, the applicationfailed to address serious parking concerns in the neighborhood,and for reasons to be nore furly set forth to the council withina reasonable tine.
cc: East Village Horneowners Association
o
t
rr/z/r o
i
,,2I tu/,r:./.,".
:,,: . /'' ,/o/22/4 n//t/' //,/t:',t,r,,', -/ -./'-
1,. 1/ t /.t r., .', t"/-" u
6ty'l*J ;.,tAQ"/ 4e
l(.dVl *'r'li:',t '*;
/&z.too t 7 ;* U)a4&s-r/fl*
A- /Ua/XJt'{*il*/A) €
"/<ral7t t.ao.//?/)/d)vtut-tra- -aa, I X/'fu,,t- /d*a+.,ta4t At,"d
zUoucti,it^ ?{-,' k)arE .,i'i' 9v2---.rd/o uct r,i lr ot tc' - " 9rv,--z
A+td,
f3'.
*&-Maq/#€a.a..,Jf yt'L* Ochh'of, tryo Pec aeefrah s 4 /udrzss.szd- azt/e/d ?6
d<raza'dena! *o',ats7/foa gAe #L hnrla;^.,dd* -
F€C,qzze*l'a\J
41 //z'Aarrt nA*ts /4 /?2o l€c meaatl a atarz*,tszt4
*/u/d fr anrorz"., den4Qt */be ahda>rrr*r,*124- //a1@4e
U*d,fr tlt fua>*^,dady
'4y'' ///4,/t/d/h7fiz,t: zQ, /??o /!c .zec*3 a urtreta>,+txt.6z/c/ ft/rsat*- tclk ep r&u,. cq.nYztfdnca,neD W A 4- U,/-Ld'+/;-,.,4.'- ?fry<.
r%e hMle 1Fa %2. turr'&zaa *,2, zfi*** A-*',4,Fffim,fu;;r,,; {;*.u &
% etuf d&a"r,-ah) ,tt4/ Wz.frafwZ az4)b'
,4/ //12 OabAav 2.2/ 4?o P€C rne4;,a -rftu<-2!*4/p?+ /o,a1z laked
an#oz* dreodtx,@Y ?6 %^,+Turunl* //) / ??o
o i .. ,/irnpdtaqh*.
a
//,L
-//*-4////arcd I D,4 Zt/.ao/,tr*^"ry
@"r)
75 soulh tronlage road
Yail, colorado 81657
(303) 4792138
(30:l) 479-2139
offlce ol communlly det elopment
March l-, 1991-
Ms. cretta Parks
303 core Creek DriveVail, CO 81657
Re3 Planning fssues for tbe East Vail Village Steering
Comnittee
Dear Ms. Parks:
Thank you for your letter concerning several planning issuesrelated to the East Village area. I will try to respond to thepoints raised J-n your letter.
First, the Christiania Lodge is scheduled for review by the DesignReview Board on March 6, L99I. These meetings are held on
Wednesday afternoons in the Vail Town Council chambers at theMunicipal Building. PLease check with our office on March 4th tofind out exactly what tiure the neeting will begiir, and where thisiten uiLl be on the agenda. f believe you are aware of this issue,as f renember last week you and Art Abplanalp were reviewing theplans for the project. If you have any specific questions on theproject, please contact Jill Kammerer, project planner, at 479-2138, and she will be happy to meet with you and further explainthe project.
The second issue concerned the desire of the recently formed trEast
Vail vi]lage Steering Conuritteetr to be involved. in some type ofstreetscape planning effort. The Streetscape planning projectcurrently being carried out by the Townrs Departnent of CommunityDevelopment does include the East Vail Village neighborhood. I'tr.Bil-I Hanlon, Ms, Parn Hopkins, representing Garden of the cods, Mr.Paul Johnston, Mr. and Mrs. Art Carroll, Mr. Jack Rush, and Mr. Jim
Lamont have attended one or more meetings related to this planningeffort. This project focuses on lighting, drainage, pedestrian
walkways, landscaping, and other site improvements which we believe
Ms. Gretta Parks
February 28, 1991
Page 2
to be necessary to make the Village area as attractive as possible'
Our records show that you are on the nailing }ist for the notices
we send out about public meetings for this project. If, for some
reason, you are not receiving the notices, please bring this to our
attention, as our intent is to involve you and as many of your
neighbors as possible in tbis planning effort. our next public
meeting is tentatively scheduled for Marctr l-9, 1991,. I hope you
will be able to attend, cretta, and if not, please contact Mr. Mike
Mollica in our office at 479-2138, and he will be happy to arrange
a neeting with you.
With respect to the parcel of land directly to the north of the
Christiania Lodge, the Town of Vail is working with Vail Associatesto clear up ownership of each of the parcels, and also the issue of
how the parcel should be used. !tr. Mike Brake, Assistant Town
Engineer, is working in cooperation with Jill Kammerer, Senior
Planner, to resolve this issue. rn addition, the Vail Master
Transportation Plan reconnends that this area be retained for apotential goods delivery/loading area, including the potential of
converting it to a centralized loading facility to transfer cargo
to smaller delivery vehicles. At this tine, the plan estimates
that the cost of this effort would be approxinately $1.4 to $1.7uri1lion, plus land acguisition. The issue of the Christianiaparking would also have to be resolved. Loading (4 spaces) is also
proposed over Mi11 creek, east of the Cyrano's durupster.
A view corridor is proposed to be created from the area of
Frivolous Sals looking out to the east toward the Gore Range. Thisproposal was reviewed at the February LLth Planning and
Environmental Couurission rneeting, and tabled. The itern will be
resolved at the March 11th meeting. If the Planning Commissionacts on the view corridor, the view corridor ordinance could be
heard as early as March 1gth by the Town CounciL, at their eveningneeting. Amendment of the view corridor ordinance will require two
hearings at the Town Council tevel .
With respect to starting a more detailed East Vail Village MasterPIan, I believe it would be more beneficial for you and any
neighbors who wish to participate to attend streetscape ueetings.I believe this planning effort can acconmodate the concerns you
raised in your letter. If the neighborhood decides to addressadditional planning issues, this is certainly fine. our departrnent
encouralJes community participation, and the idea of neighborhoodsvoicing their development interests and ideas for irnprovements. Ialso invite you to attend a vork session on the Master
Transportation Plan, which is tentatively scheduled for ?uesday
afternoon, March 12, 1.991, lrith the Council. At this tirne, f do
not have a specific tirne for that work session, but these sessi-ons
normally begin between 12:00 and 2:00PU.
Ms. Gretta Parks
February 28, 1-99L
Page 3
Our department welcones interest in planning issues by Vailresidents. f hope you wi.Il be able to attend some of these
upconi.ng neetings, and give us your comments and concerns. If you
have specific questions about the Streetscape Plan, please call
Mike Mollica at 479-2138. Any guestions concerning the MasterTransportation Plan, please contact me at the same number. I hopethis letter has been helpful to you, cretta. Thank you once againfor your j.nterest,
Sincerely,
K"^f*T+,+ /1/"\
Kristan Pritz
Comrnunity Development Director
/abcc: Ron Phillips
Mayor Kent Rose and Council Menbers
l,like Mollica
Shelly Mello
Greg Hal1Jill Kanmerer
Mike Brake
Jim Lamont
lJ.f0(}(}sc)0
.:.1 *r
OO
f:l '"J$,3
U}
fd
r''.
.{-!
'.r .i
00$o
oCI
..i,{
oor:! L-l!
oo
lfl -r
tr-l
LI
z{f
'-'{
I
tr-{
r3
F"
ru
s'
o
r+
I!
tf.l
t:'l
3l
UI
td
ta
F{F{
HJ
t"l-
d
=l:]
I
trl
lal"r
F
ilirif{z
f'i
f..ln
ll
+t
t!
lj.l
*lLn
{L/.L
dlt /"F
F |-r
FJr{(Ju
\L IIIJgJ
tg rtjFI
8FrXE||rl
tlJ LlTTdd77
f'l
rf,
.+)
s
ah
qto
rJ
tl
U
{L Irl
it ul& trJdtL
F.{ 0-r.{ {
t( z.lr6
>Fltd F-cr{
us. aJzd}<gE
u(X
tlul rl.lET<[d2Z
i'] I'
0-ttI'UJ '/VJNIrtr{-)I
a|{{dttj i!f
TJJ J
q!.;
tt ats<tE
fitli, triTfd{zz
.F
i:r
Cl
8,
t^
tn
Itl
rll
.p
o
t9
tr
LL
tt1
ih
ul
sl P'
+J:tn ,l'
LA(|;.
+r {!1! iu
rn .{P
ltl
cll rgt
lJ-c] ctn Jlt
UJ
lL -,+
('l*
{
ttl
ot
{u
|l.
{lt
i,J
/!l
F
a>
LJ
cl
E
f-l
O ftJ
{0s
fi r'r,
It
r.
.,tt
n
F
J
I
LL
lll
ii
rF rr.
[gn
(s$
ft5
lllllrrrlllrltlllfll
ID
(U
cflrt
€r,s
f-.
r!".
,'t
JF.
<ia>+)
FS
Z.{30
l-- t.
E
t0
ur
r0
l-
ru
.p
{tJ
r"r F
TJ
lrt
{r f.-
O Irl
FUJCH
J
]JJ
F-tc.{
:f- g
4rJ
Etl]
uJ
u-
F'
(:e]$r)t-l f-rfft)()Lt $o(){1
r'' ! ! 'fr l'! r'r
t) t]{:r L}
()
(J
;
()(}
oofrl O
(?
d
a;
I
l
!
+.,
Y
+;
I.
I
t
I
I
t
I
tt
;+ito
.Y
'Ff
t
t
I
l
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
C)o
;.-
)(}
jo)o
Ird
t
$
\a\
lr\j j
a.,
-..st
q{.
..E-
0- lr.i
dl!
Lt-Io-lrf 44,..&s!o
oil
t--az.0r ullrl tg0_&(ft$J('UJ
lrJ >
ttJ lrl
u.lUI
ll| +:.i
9.Elt rl
LjJ t!xI{{77
*\oml*
fd lfrlfiIfiolo
..!l ltl
fn
{J
Ef,
"Jtzl.t"t
z"
u
T:!
cl
tr
'4
U]
:i
t
z.a
*1
F
H
zE(J
LI
i-rl
q
LU
J
.+r lt
t:. Ll..r I;o{
oL t,
.c lr.ifl qt
flu)
{) {'lo {'l
cd c{d] rtfi rfi(}qit u
i*) 4+
o_ q..u4
o(1tror\\tn{
()o
rx
4o\
.{
:
{ +.}
.J
LJOu] s.X\
.JQ
(-.) \
"F -,r
+r .1,
iJ
l"Ll
Z
t*.-{
J
ll-
4
t-L{
fn
Fzlrj LirdElr l,l
rLo
{o-,r'8
al! iriJg
{:r
lr <{
unz-J3il
it
EE{ ,<tzz
+r .|J
UU
tEIT
c! Ul
Crt fdN l'.fl f'lrrr fr
't tl
+,lJ
UTJtrlr
Fltl
lltllE{z
${)
c{fi
lr:
tl
+
f:l
Ltl
tJ-
d
F
t--{
ll-
I.'r
F
<r3
i
iJa
{II
Itltdz
bo
zn
H
t*-{
L)
o- t0
{ul
"". tf)dZ,'1 th
F1 Z
J r-.,{
UJ?:
3TT"/
llJ{N\
It tl\
EEddzz
{rl
4U,.1
utLtlFLZo-d{FrrJ
=.j r'l7.2ris
at
(u
ft
{tl
rrl
tu
e
fiqfos.rJ$qf qt
lr tt
ooooooooooqcltFL\8-tr0"rrrro.rlrs'\\\\\\\\-\\\\t0 $ !l c* (] qf +,f.rl .qf.m..{ r{ F.r r'r e'J fd fiJ Cil ld ftl fil fd\'..'\\ar\\\\r*\"\tFs0s0-.&$*.sLF-0:s'oooodioqocoo$
I
ctcL
rJ l-lgG
.p +:
E-S
fl|J)
fim
+
01 s.sII'r\
'0 F..(.1 {}0
rtr'.aG c)(}
:
1
rv
!t
rt(]
{L
$"osrtrrt, &rd rd|r, lf)
utl
I-...-:,rrlllflloIT
ln
gl
^
-v
sn\
LJt!
0
o
F'
:> j-.
{f s.
Z'a3$
L-l -rFT\
4l-
f
e
CI
4j
qt
$
a
1-F
+j
-rFIY
|.1
u-It
lrlg t--
I trl
-
|!r-
EU]J
+jJIJ${a{E
llr "-lu(3
fJCt()()
i..]
ll1
fd
fi
;rfo
*tif
tG$:
,i
LI
UJ
zt-,
.-IJ
.:
rf$
tgtrj
tJ)
dtIr
trJ
er ll
|!*{ lrlEIT
f-{f,'{oo)()
{o
tl
ul
1,! lll
L
LLL{<.'?
r'JtrFt3
t-F*1 z
= trl(JE
{e
t0 bJz>r.{ irlr(n
NJT{zoI 8
11z tito {Jl*u3lr(-rfizu
{Jl &trI
TE<{>7
nf'Ff*
.{-l {,u) g)
fiil
..P +t
tJL'
sB
ITI r\
t"S
<t
(i\
o
4J r{
uf-I
-r. -_,r, :t
rllllllrlllllrllof,oll
n
o
ttl
rF
trs
r*
tu
Lr
t
l|,.
Jb{
<B>#
LOET
.1 E<3()E\FNo
E
,-+
tr
t-
4Ju
{l
o
F"
.E
.p
tttn
F. l-
E,
L
ul
dQ
lr|gF
S lrl
F LtIG0:J
.eJt-Ja<f
{uJIr$
0-'N
JOH N W. DU NN
ARTHU R A. ABPLANALB JR.
TIMOTHY H. B ERRY
ALLEN C. CHRISTENSEN
LAWREN CE P HART LAU B
Law OFF|cEs
CosonrFE DuNN & AapLnNRLp
A PARTN€RSHIP INCLUDING A PROFESSIONAL COFPORATTON
VAtL NATtoNAL BaNx Bu rLor r,rc
Su rrE 3oo
lOg SourH FRoNTAGE RoaD WEST
VArL, CoLoRADO 81657
TeLepHor.r E' (3O3) 476-7552
TE LEcoPIER: /3o3) 476-47 6s
7 February 1991
a Van' 4-i-
lN LEAavtLLET
CosG RrFF, DUNN & BERRY
P. O. BOX tl
LEAOVT LLE, COLOF|AOO EOrt6 |
(7t9t 46€- l8A5
I r-"/ ;
ti :1 ','
/l . i itii-,,'I - : L'It"t'.( "'1 ._ "j.--"I t l'-; lt .i
Planning and Environmental Commission
Town of Vail
75 South Frontage RoadVail, Colorado 81657
RE: Christiania Lodge Density Variance Hearing
This office has, for the past several months,represented Mlll Creek Court Condominium Association lnassociat.ion with severar proceedings whtch were represented to beassociated with applications of the owners of the ChristianiaLodge for various approvals and variances required for theaddition of a new floor containing two residential condominiumson top of the existing Christiania Lodge. Since the time of ourearlier appearance before t,he Town of VaiI, \^re also have been
engaged to oppose the Christiania Lodge projecL by Mr. and Mrs.Jack Baylin, owners of a unit within the Chateau Christlan
condominiums which wilr be adversery affected by the variance(s)under consideration and by the proposed expansion of theChristiania Lodge. Mr. and Mrs. Baylin's late participation inthis proceeding was the resuLL of the fact that the christianiaremodeling proposal was first represented to Mr. Baylin as amodification which would increase the roof line by approxinatery3-l/2 feet. His discovery that. the new roof line would Uebetween 14 and 16 feet higher than the existing eave over whichhe enjoys a view of much or Vaii prompt.ed his opposition to theredevelopment proposal as a whole.
Our first invol_vement in the Christiania Lodge projectwas in association with and opposition to what were thenidentified as variances from the density, setback, and parkingrequirements of the Town of Vail Municipal Code. After thosequestions were abandoned upon our first client,'s objection, \.relearned that the Design Review Board would consider asignificantly modified deveropment, plan. we raised objectionsbefore the Design Review Board based upon what we believed to bethe non-compriance of the proposal with certain prerequisitescontained in the vair Municipar code. upon examination, the TownAttorney agreed with our position that consideraLion of therevised proposal was in vioLation of the prohibitions relating toexpansion of nonconforming uses, and design review consideration
THE PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION IS DUNN & ABPLANALR P.C. IN VAIL.
of the proposal was deemed inproper.
Following the determination that Design Review Board
consideration of the revised ChrisLiania todge proposal was in
violation of the Vait Municipat Code, we learned that the
question of the Christiania Lodge expansion had been set for a
tiearing before the Planning and Environmental Commission on the
l1th oi February, Iggl' for the purposes of considering a
variance on a question of density. It is in assocj.ation with
that hearing ttiat this letter is being directed to the Town of
Vail Planning and Environnental Conmission.
You may note that I have made no reference to any
"application" which is under considerati"on by the Town of Vail.
Upon ana on several occasions since our involvement in this
pioceeding, I requested the opportunity to review the application
ind files-related to the proceeding. Although I etas permitted to
review a file in November, 1990, prior to a hearing scheduled for
three varj-ance requests on the 26th of November, and to review
severaL conflicting sets of plats subsequent to that time, the
Department of Community Development denied that any file existed
until the Town Attorney intervened and I was permitted to review
two files related to the project on the afternoon of the 5th of
February, six days before the hearing now scheduled for the l1th
of February. An initial examination of the files seemed to
indicate that there had never been an application made to the
Town of VaiI for any density, setback, or parking variance
scheduled for the 26th of November, 1990' or the densiLy variance
scheduled for consideration on the 11th of February' 1991,
despite the fact that those variance questions had been processed
by the Town of Vail as early as October, 1990. In fact, the only
application ever filed with the Town of Vail was a Design Review
Board review application filed on or about the 3rd of Septembert
1990, which was apparently summarily denied processing because of
the obvious conflicts between the application and applicable code
requirements. Upon a Lhorough review of the two files
represented to be in existence on the 6th of February' I was able
to confirm that, in fact, there have been no applications for
denslty, setback, or parking variances filed with the Town of
VaiL through that date. The response of the Department of
Community Development representative was that she would contact
counsel'for the Christiania Lodge owners and request that an
application be filed.
For more than two months, there has been some difficultyidentifying exactly what relief the owners of the Christiania
Lodge were applying for. The reason for that difficulty has
become apparent. No relief has been applied for. Apparently
there has been under discussion and consideration withln the Town
of Vail Department of Community Development a desire on the part
of the owners of the Christiania Lodge to engage in a
redevefopment project, and that desire has been molded by the
owners and the stift in an effort to identify a method by which a
redevelopment program may meet the standards and crj-teria imposed
by the V;if Mu;icipat Code, without ever reducing a proposal _to
tl.re form of an appiication whlch can be revlewed by concerned
f"iti." or consii-ered by a reviewing Commission.or Council. Such-. pro."ss is not authorized by the Municipal Code, and makes it
impossible for any interested Person with legitimate objections
to analyze a prop6sal and provlde the Town of Vail with a
critique. At any given time, criticisms maY be made of a
specific set of pfins, and a different set of plans surfaces'
T-he vail Municipit Code requires, at Section 18'62'020, that an
[a]pplication foi a variance shall be made on a form
provided by the zoning administrator.
According lo the records which have been made available, no
application has ever been filed, either in the case of this
.riiiance consideration or that which was before the Town of Vail
in October and November, 1990. As a matter of note' neither is
there any evidence in the files that the fee directed to be paid
by Section 18.62.030 has been paid to the Town of vail'
A public hearing may not be scheduled in anticipation
of or in the absence of an application for a density variance.
The VaiI Municipal Code provj.des, at Section 18.62.040' as
follows:
Upon receipt of a variance applicat'ion, the planning
commission shall set a date for hearing in accordance
with Sectlon 18.62.070.
There exists no authority to schedule a hearing upon or other'wise
consider a variance for which no application has been made.
An application for a density varj-ance, when filed' ls
required to contain considerable information, among that is
[a] statement of the precise nature of the variance
requested, the regulation involved, and the practical
difficulty or unnecessary physical hardshipj-nconsistent with the objectives of this title that
would result from strict or literal interpretation and
enforcement of the specified regulation. Section
18.62.020.
Because of the absence of any application, the required
information has never been supplied or identified.
In fact. there is not so much as a letter requesting
any relief in the nature of the variance, a written communication
of any type from the owners of the Christian.i.a, or any memoranda
by the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission
suggesting that a request was made of the Town of VaiI verbally
requesting any identifiable relief. Granted, there are varlous
conflicting plats in the possesslon of the Town of Vail which
seem to indicate that a number of redevelopment plans have been
considered and reviewed by the planning staff. The most recent
plans exhibit "paste-ups" where the Town of Vail staff has
ipparently attempted to modify plats which have been provided on
pi6vious 6ccasions by affixing drawings or portions of revised
ptats supplied by the Christiania owners or their
iepresentatives. None of this materiaL constitutes an
apilication or an identification of any proposed variance or its
justification.
Itisapparentrbasedupontheforegoingcircumstances,
that consideration of density, setbacks, or parking variances are
not only premature, but that the questions are not properly
before Lhe Town of Vail. Even if the applicant were to file
proper applications and identify the relief which is soughi, it
is impossible for any interested parties to adequately revie\^t an
applilation fiLed two or three weeks after a notice of a public
hearing is published and circulated.
There being no application for a densiLy variance or
any other variance, ielief, or approval, before the Town of Vail,
other than a Design Review application which was recognized for
its inadequacy at an early date, the Planning and Environmental
Commission hearing regarding a density variance for the
Christiania proposal should be canceled until such time as the
proponents can and do file an applicat,ion identifying the relief
sought and justifying that relief in accordance $tith the Vail
Municipal Code. At that time, and not before, the Planning and
Environmental Commission may have something before it to
consider. Untit that time, there is serious question whether the
Planning and Environmental Commission has jurisdictlon over the
matter scheduled for hearing.
If, despite the foregoing, the Planning and
Environmental Corunission decides to consider the question of
whether a density variance should be granted to the Christianiaproject, the following comments should be considered regarding
whebher the owners of the Christiania are entitl"ed to a density
variance:
1. It is the burden of the Christiani-a owners to
satisfy certain specific criteria, in order to be granted a
variance under the Town of Vail Municipal Code. Those standards
are not particularly different from any other varlance. The
Planning Commission should consider several specific factors set
forth in Section 18.62.060.A. of the VaiI Municipal Code,
including but not limited to the relationship of the requested
variance to other uses in the vicinity, the effect of the
requested variance on light and air, transportation and lraffic
facilities, and such other factors and criteria as the Conmission
deems applicable. A person desiring a variance must establish the
existence of several specific fact situations identified at
o
section 18.62.060 of the vail Municipal code. Among these are
the fact that the granting of the variance will not constitute a
grant of special privilege, that the granting will not be
fraterially injurious to properties or improvements in the
vicinity, and that the variance is to be granted either because
strict or literal interpretation of the specified regulation
would result in practicif Aitticulty or unnecessary physical
hardship, or that there exist exceptional or extraordinary
circumstances or conditions applicable to the site which do not
generally appty to other properties, or that strict or literal
6nforcement-woutO deprive the owners of privileges enjoyed by
others, None of theie requirements are or can be satisfied'
2. Despite the fact that it is necessary that owners
requesting a varlance have the burden of proof it must
demonstrate that they are entitled to the relief requested, it
must be noted that, in the absence of any application or any
document whatsoever which might have generated the scheduled
hearing, the owners have nelther identified the basis for their
assertion that they are entitled to relief, nor suggested there
is any justification whatsoever for any relief being granted.
Absent iuch an application which provides to the Planning and
Environmental Commission and interested partiesr notice of the
subject matter, scope, and basis of the relief which apparently
is at issue before the hearing, neither the Planni"ng Commission
nor interested parties are able to prepare for or address matters
which may be under consideration.
3. Based upon the various staff reports contained in
the two files whose examination was permitted, a general idea of
the proposal which has been developed by the planning staff
and/or the owner apparently may be described as the elimination
and,/or consolidation of accommodation units in a way which
reduces the density of the Christiania Lodge (but not to conform
with applicable zoning requirements) and attempts to shift aportion of the exisLing density from existing accommodation units
into two new dwelling units which will occupy a newly constructed
fourth floor of the structure. As nearly as can be determined
from viewing the files and varj-ous p1ans, one dwelling unit wiII
be converted to an accommodation unit by elimination of cooking
facilities, two accommodation units wouLd be rendered unusable as
independent units because of new constructlon, and four
accommodation units would be consol-idated into two accommodation
units but would remain independently accessible and usable if
their use were noL monitored by the Town of VaiI. Apparently the
control of these latter units is to be achieved by some
comrnitment on the owner not to rent separately the existing but
to-be-consolidated lodge rooms through some covenant with the
Town. and the subsequent enforcement of that covenant. The netresult is a reduction of dwelling units (or dwelling unit
equivalents including calculations for accommodation units) fron
27 accommodation units (L3-l/2 dwelling unitsI to 22
accommodation units (equivalent to 11 dwelling units). As
recently as the consideration of the sonnenalp redevelopment
proposal, the Town of vail has placed considerable emphasis on
lhe- maintenance and expansion of its inventory lodge rooms
avallable for rental . The christiania Lodge variance and
associated remodeling would operate to defeat that stated goal.
4. The Town of Vail has under consideration or has
been urged to consider view corridors both from the area west of
Bridge Street easterly to the Gore Range looking over the
Chriitiania Lodge, and from Gore Creek Drive southerly to Vail
Mountain, again-looking over the Christiania Lodge. Both of
these possible view corridors would be defeated by granting a
variance to the Christiania Lodge and by the proposed
redevelopment.
5. The Town of Vail Department of Community
Development has agreed with our office that the parking presently
being used by the Christiania Lodge occupies Land over which the
owners of Christiania have no record interest. That land is
partly owned by vail Associates, Inc., and is partly a dedicated
(but unconstructed) public street. Christiania was granted a
parking easement over a different piece of land substantially
smaller than that presently occupied, but, based upon the
information available, that land seens never to have been used by
Christi-ania Lodge. It is now used in part for parking by Vail
Associates, Inc., and in part by the Town of Vail as a street
connecting Hanson Ranch Road and Gore Creek Drive. The
Department of Community Development advised the owners of
Christiania Lodge, by tetter dated the 31st of January, which was
discovered by the undersigned yesterday, that the Christianiaproposal could not proceed unless it was established that "theproperty meets parking requirements" and further requiring the
ohrners of the Christiania Lodge to provide written conflrmation
that
V.A, will continue to accommodate the Christiania'sparking needs on V.A.-owned property.
VaiI Associates, Inc., by a letter dated the 4th of February'
stated that Christiania Lodge could not be granted any further
rights, but that it would be permitted to use the land it is nor"t
using "until the present issues, presently being studied, are
resolved among VA, Christiania and Town of VaiI." Vail
Associates has not made any commitment regarding a long-term
right for Christiania to use its land, and, in fact, has deniedthat request.
Several things would be accomplished by the approval of
a density variance for the Christiania Lodge and the
redevelopment plan which apparently has most recently been
developed. None of those possible accomplishments are desirable.
First, the Town of Vail looses one-quarter of the lodge rooms
presently availabte in the Christiania Lodge. Second, the fown
of Vait assumes the difficult, if not impossible' burden of
monitoring whether or not adjacent rooms which are eminently
suitable ior and have been used separately as Lodge rooms for
more than 20 years wiII no longer be used as separate
accommodation units. Third, the owners of the Christiania Lodge
will obtain a dispensation which they will be permitted to
construct two large residential condominiums, which, by their
nature and price, are extremely unlikely to join any rental
program. Fourth, the residents of and visitors to the Town of
VaiI will lose a significant part of their views of the Gore
Range from the south end of Bridge Street. Fifth, the density of
the Christiania Lodge will remain essentially unchanged, in
violation of appticable VaiI Municipal Code standards. Finally,
a parking situation under which the Christianla Lodge uses (a) a
tract of land to which it has no right, and (b) a dedicated (but
unconstructed) public street will remain tenuous and inadequate
support for a lodge operation.
It should be observed that some argument has been made
to the Town of VaiI that a 1968 agreement to engage in some
property exchanges and street vacations is binding upon the Town
of VaiI, Vail Associates, Inc. I and the owners of Christiania
Lodge. Such an assertion is difficult to take seriously. Based
upon the information available, it seems that t.he street which
has long been maintained on the east side of the Mill Creek CourtBuilding has existed and been a part of the Town of VaiI street
system since the time the Town was established. Since it clearly
has existed for almost 30 years, there can be Little question
that the Town has adverse possession of that street and it cannot
be evicted. At the same time, the Town of Vail owns a dedicatedstreet through the center of the property presently occupied byVail Associates and Christiania Lodge parking facifities.
There is apparently some desire on the part of various
owners of property in the east Village 'Lhat the area betr^reen the
MilI Creek Court building and VilLa VaLhalfa be developed for
underground parking and that a public area be created on thesurface. The Town of Vail, through its ownership of at leastone-third, and probably closer to one-half, of the affected land,
has the ownership rights to make that happen. However, achievingthat end is not consistent with the approval of a density
varj.ance for the Christiania Lodge which would rely upon, andthereby possibly estop the Town of Vait from objecting to,Christiania Lodge's occupancy and use, as a parking area, of
approximately one-half of the property owned by the Town of VaiI.Legal title to the area between the Mi1l Creek Court, building andVilla Valhalla i"s, even now, so tangled that the cooperat,ive
development of that property, or even the identification of thevarious rights and interests, would be a significant challenge.
The suggestion t.hat the Town should place itself at a further
disadvintage in any such negotiations or determinations is truly
injurious Lo the Town's interests. It certainly ignores the
deiires of the residents and owners of properties in the
neighborhood that something logical happen to the property
preiently used without authoriiy by Christiania Lodge but owned
by the Town of VaiI and by Vail Associates' Inc.
In summary, there is no application properly before the Town
of Vail Planning and Environmental Comrnission for consideration
on the l1th of February. If an application is filed prior to the
hearing, that application wiff not have been filed as required by
the I.,tunicipal Code and both the notice and any hearing based upon
such a tardy application would be invalid. At such time as the
owners of the Christiania Lodge file an application for a density
variance (or any other relief permitted under the Municipal
Code), the Town of Vail may then have a question before it to
consider. That has not yet occurred. If the Planning and
Environmental Commission chooses to consider the guestion of the
density variance for the Christiania without an application, or
even with a tardy application' the information available clearly
establishes that a density variance would be inappropriate, in
violation of the VaiI Municipal Code, and counter-productive to
the Town's stated position that lodge rooms should be increased
and not dirninished, as is inherent in the Christiania
redevelopment program.
The hearing scheduled for consideration of a possible
density variance for the Christiania Lodge should be canceled,
and, if the Planning and Envj.ronmental Corunission chooses to hold
such a hearing, any suggestion that a variance should be granted
should be denied.
AAA: j
xc: Jay PetersonMilI Creek Court
Jack BaylinLarry Eskwith
Condominium Association
a\c\v\ToVPLNGA
-1
.llercn< I"" tscrg{iur
IOG Old Courff Rocrd
Fikeswitrla, &fcrnglcnd :]rEoa
(sor) am+-+aro
February 7, l99l
Town of Vail
Department of Community Development
75 South Frontage Road West
Vail, Colorado 81657
RE: CHRISTIANIA LODGE REDEVELOPMENT
PROPOSAL AND DENSITY VARIANCE REQUEST
We are the owners of Unit G, Chateau Christian Condominiums,
which is also known as Unit 410 of the Christiania Lodge complex.
We have recently become aware of the fact that there is before the
Town of Vail a redevelopment proposal for Christiania Lodge which
requires a density variance. We have also become aware of the factthat the president of the Chateau Christian Condominium Association
has represented to the Town that the Executive Committee of the
Association has approved and urged the Town's approval of the project.
There also apparently exists another letter indicating that the Chateau
Christian Condominium Association approves the use of one of the
Chateau Christian parking spaces by the Christiania Lodge.
One of the purposes of this letter is to inform you that thetwo letters which have been directed to you on behalf of the ChateauChristiania Condominium Association have not been discussed withme and, to the best of my knowledge, have not been authorized bythe members of the Board. It is my opinion that neither the Executive
Committee nor the president of the Chateau Christian Condominium
Assoeiation can grant anyone the right to use the property ownedby the Chateau Christian Condominium Association, and that includes
a parking space owned by the Association.
The second, and probably more important, purpose of this letteris to advise you that we personally do not approve of the density
Yg^.j.ange or the project, due to the fact that the density is alreadydifficult to deal with, and the development of the prbject wouldseverely impact our property and other properties in the area. Ifthe variance request is approved and the redevelopment proposal
is approved, there will be eliminated from the Christiania seven lbdgerooms, which will be replaced by two large residential condominiums
and several lodge rooms larger than those presently existing, resultingfrom consolidation of several existing -independent lodge rooms.
il[;"'"flleeo
Although the number of independent lodge rooms may decrease, the
actual square footage and occupancy ability of the Christiania Lodgewill increase. The Town of Vail loses lodge rooms from the
marketplace, the occupancy ability of the Christiania Lodge increases,
the project is in greater violation of density limitations, and the
eongestion in the area becomes more aggravated. There is no logical
reason for the Town of Vail to grant a density variance to the
Christiania Lodge.
I urge that the Town of VaiI disapprove any density variance
associated with the Christiania project and the project as a whole.I also urge the Town to ignore the letters which you have received
from the president of the Condominium Association, whieh I believe
were never authorized by the membership and are not within the
power of the president of the Association.
I regret that I am unable to attend the proceeding of the Townof Vail at which these matters may be considered, but I hope that
you will give this letter the same weight as though I were in attendance.
#*#.84
JLB/lmt
Town of Vail
Town Council
75 South Frontage RoadVail, Colorado 81657
February 5, 199I
Dear Mayor Rose and members of the Town Council:
IPlease accept the following letter fbr considerationduring your work session discussions rey'arding theChristiania RemodeL. ./
In October and November 1990, the owner of theChristiania todge, during work sessions with the Town of Vail
Planni.ng and Environmental Commission (PEC), proposed the
expansion of the existing Christiania Lodge building.
Subseguent to concerns raised by neighboring property owners,the Christiania Lodge tabled it application before the PEC.
The propos,al for expansion of the Christiania includedthe addition -cjf a another story to the lodge structure. Theaddition would raise the height of roof ridge line above thepresent roof Iine. The application before the PEC requesteda variance from setback requj.rements. Parking requirements
were satisfied by increasing the ratio of valet parking inthe Christiania leased Vail Associates parking lot. Theproposal received support from Town of VaiI planning staff.
The PEC raised several concerns with regards to the
proposal . I and other neighboring property owners raisedissues with regards to view corridors, parking, trafficcirculation, and building design. The matter remains beforethe PEC.
We woulC like to bring to your attention that theChristiania Lodge is not designated as an infilL developmentin the Vail Viltage Mast,er plan.
The requested density variance will have significant
impacts upon the neighborhood. Appropriate rnitigation shouldbe taken to avoid undesirable impacts. The proposed densityvariances for the Christiania Lodge should be evaluatedwithin the contexts of the criteria established for East VailVillage: Christiania,/VA Study Area in the Vail Village masterplan. Criteria should include East and South facing viewcorridors from the neighborhood. (See. attached copy. )
NM?FEB 5 tggl
Vail Town Council
RE : Christiania RemodeLFebruary 57 1991
Page 2
The site of the present Christiania/VaiI Associatesparking area, known as tract p-3, consist of two parcels
owned !V Vaif Associates and a road right-of-way owned by theTown of Vail. The location of the connecting road (MiII
Creek Chute) between Hansen Ranch Road and Gore Creek Driveis located on the western portion of VaiI Associates ownedproperty- The Town of Vail right-of-way bisects the existingparki.ng lot. The Christiania todge has a long term lease forparking on the eastern parcel of Vail Associates ownedproperty. If the two halves of the p-3 parcel are combined,there is sufficient land to acconmodate a Large structure.
From time to time consideration has been given tobuilding an underground parking structure on the site for useby the neighborhood for parking and other public services. Aproposal in the 1972 Vail plan adopted by the Town of Vail,included a pedestrian plaza covering the proposed parkingstructure.
It is -an opportune time for the neighborhood property
owners to discuss, with the Town of VaiI, specificneighborhood master planning issues such as trafficcirculation, view corridors, parking, and streetscapeimprovernents. It should be noted that this is the onlyneighborhood in Vail Village which has not been incluOea inthe Streetscape Planning project currently being carried outby the Town-s Department of Community Development.
It is with this history in mind that we have formed. aneighborhood property owners steering committee. The Eastvail village steering committee is undertaking the initiativeto prepare a more detailed neighborhood master plan, inconjunction with the Vail Town Council. tncluded in theneigltborhood master plan would be provision for the adoptionof view corridors; improvements to landscape, streetscape,and traffic circulation; development of centralized pari<ingstructure with pedestrian plaza; and other relatedneighborhood concerns.
If a more detailed East Vail Village Master plan isadopted, as a catalyst, it is suggested-that neighborhoodproFerty owners petition the lown of Vail.. The petitionwould ask, that the Town of Vail acguire and combine p-3 intoa development site on which to build an undergroundneighborhood parking structure covered by a pidestrian plaza.
Vail Town Council
RE : Christiania Rernodel
February 5, 1991
Page 3
It is assumed that neighborhood property ohrners will be
expected, by the Town Council, to participate in shearing thecosts associated with the parking structure and otherqualitative improvements to the area.
The following is a brief description of goals that couldreasonably be expected to be achieved.
I. Project Goals:
1. Adoption by the Vail Town Council of a streetscape
and open space preservations masLer plan for East Vail
Vi L l age.
2. Construction of a landscaped, bermed, undergroundparking structure covered by a pedestrian p1aza.
The underground parking strueture would provided coveredparking for neighborhood property owners and their guests.
3. Provide a means by which existing prj-vately ownedon-street parking spaces would be exchange for parking in theparking structure.
4. Open space that is created by rernoval of on-streetparking would be converted to privately maintained landscapedbuffers between residential buiLdings and the street.
5- The present street right-of-way would be upgraded toa controlled-access, landscaped pedestrianized street lrithcurb, gutter, storm drainage, sidewalks, and street lighting.
6. View corridors adopted by the Town of Vail wouldpreserve views of the ski nountain and Gore Range.
7. That neighborhood property owners would consider,through election by property owners, the formation of aspecial taxing district that would finance public debt. thedebt would be eguivalent to the extraordinary costs resultingfrom the desires of the property owners.
The Town of Vail- would be expected, at a minimum, tofinance that portion of the publj.c debt which is custonaryand similar to public improvements in similar circumstancesin the Town of Vail.
8. That service delivery, customer parking, and trafficcj.rculation safety problems that presently exist are improvedor solved.
Vail Town Councll
RE :Christiania Remodel
February 5, 1991
Page 4
l{e would ask the Town Council give authorization for atown planner and planning consultants to participate with theEast Vail Village Steering Conmittee to conduct the necessaryplanning studies to fulfill the foregoing goals.
East Vail Village Steering Conmittee
I,
r
t
i'"parcel currently providls pirfi""for the christiinia r,"d;; Iii'ilirAssociates. fssues to 6eaddressed in the developnent ofthis property inclua" c'o"e"intirestrj.cting the use of thisproperty.to parkinlt, acconnodationot exrstrng parking as uell asqetranct created by new develoFnentand a_foraally adopcea vi;;----"-corrtdor, looking toward the GoreRange. public purpose uses thatTay-b: appropriate for this siterncructe park/open space and,/or acenrraL loading and delivervtacrtity for the Village coie.
?E;fui*I3ii Lod nf*l
Snall lodging infill over parkincrarea off of the existing fbae;.--.Mass of .building to "st6p d;;;,;rroE existing structure. A kevlssue related to this potentiaidevelopment is accor-oiatffi-;;_site parking for new denand-createC and the spaces lost by theinfill of the existing lot.
55
12 :30
Kristan Pritz
1:30
J iI I Kammerer
2:30
Rob Robinson
3:00
Andy Knudtsen
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL
},ORK SESSION
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 5, 1991
12:30 P.M.
EXPANDED AGENDA
1. DRB & PEC Applicants Intervjews. All terms will be for
two years.
Action Requested of Council: Interview applicants and ask
any questions you may have.
Background Rationale: 0n DRB, the terms expiring are Ned
Gwathmey - 2/91 , and Sherrie Dorward - 2/9L- Reapplyingwill be Ned Gwathmey, Sherrie Dorward - letters attached.
0n PEC, the terms expiring are Chuck Crist - 2191, Kathy
Warren Langenwa'l ter - 2/91 and Dalton WiIIiams - 2/9L,
Reapplying will be Chuck Crist, Kathy Langenwalter and
Dalton Will iams - letters attached.
New applicants to the DRB - Carol A. Dick - letter
attached.
New applicants to the PEC - none,
Council will vote on the posit'i on openings at this evening
meet i ng .
Housing Authority Board of Commissioners/App1 icants
Interviews. Board appojntments will be for L, 2, 3, 4 or
5 year terms.
Action Requested of Council: Interview appl icants.
Background Rationale: Attached are copies of Letters of
Interest and Resumes from individuals who wish to serve on
the Housing Authority Board. The Board is to be comprisedof L Council member and 4 residents of the Upper Eagle
Va1 1ey who reside or work wjthjn the Town of Vail. All of
the individuals who have submitted Letters of Interest
and/or Resumes will appear before the Town Council at the
February 5th afternoon work session to interview.
Commissioners will be selected at the February 5th evening
Counci 1 meet ing.
Symphony of Sports Request for Fundjng and VRD Youth Center
Renovation. A video will be shown and a verbal report will
be given on the Symphony of Sports. Enclosed is a diagram
of the proposed renodeling of the Youth Services Care and
0pen for discussion and
2.
I
Teen Center aieas.
Action P.eouested of Council:
recommeiidat ions.
Stephens Park Master Plan.
Action Reouested of CounciI
bri ng i t back to Counci I
adopti on.
4.
: Review p1an. Staff will
February 19th for a formal
3:20
Kristian Pritz
3:40
3:50
4:00
Kristan Pritz
Ron Phi'llips
6.
6.
Eackground Rationale: Staff will present the proposed
Stephens Park Master Plan to the council. In order to
understand the Council's concerns and expectations, staff
has met with the neighborhood twice and taken it to DRB and
PEC. Some changes to the original design have been made,
based on the impact from these groups.
5. Discussion of Christiania redevelopment and Council consent
to proceed through the PEC review process (356 Hanson Ranch
Road/Lot D, Block 2, Vail Village 1st).
Action Reouested of Council: Counc'i I consent to allow the
proceed through theChristiania Redevelopment proposal to
approval process.
Background Rati onal e: Paul Johnston, owner of the
Chnistiania Lodge has requested approval of a dens'i ty
variance to allow the construction of several additions tothe Lodge. The Christjanja Lodge is meeting parking
requirements in part on the Town of Vail owned land and inpart on VA owned Iand. This item is scheduled for review
by the PEC on February 11. Before this item can be
reviewed by PEC, the Christiania Lodge must receive
assurances from the Town Council and VA that the Town and
VA will contjnue to accommodate the Christiania's parking
needs. The Town of Vai'l , Vai'l Associates, Paul Johnston
and the Mi I I Creek Condominium owners are continuing
discussions in an attempt to permanently reso'l ve property
ownership in this area.
Informatjon Update.
0ther.
Executive Session-Land Neootiations.
t
-2-
ffi50ct/t
JiIl Ranmerer, Senior Planner
Town of VaiI Cornmunity Developnent75 Soutlr Frontage Roadvall, Colorado 8165?
Rei tour file - Christiania Lodge Density Varj.atj-on
Dear JiIl:
Thie Letter is written in response to concerns expressed byyour office regarding the above project. Speciflcally; vailAssociates, Inc. (rtvAtt) has been requested io provide-lrrl_ttenconfir:matlon that christiania nay contlnue to use property owned by nhvA for christiania parking. altirough vA is not prlpaled Lo cormjt. ,("to_provide any additional parking required by the clrristiania /redevelopment plan, VA is agreeable €o ChrisLianiars parking onV1':- property..to the extent VA is legally obligated unaer the ternsof that certain Warranty Deed dated July B, 1963, recorded in Booky7 al Page 127 and that certain Agreeuent by and anong VailAssociates, rnc., christiania-at-viiL, rnc. ind ronn oi vail datedI'Iarch 15r L978, recorded in gook 212 aE Page 872 (the ttAgreenentn),
However, please be advised that it appears to usr'based 6n aninprovements location nap prepared bf eagre vall.iy'sunreying dated(revised) .January.1s, 19b1; crrristiaiia is not cuirentty-pairing lnthe location specified ln the Agreernent, but Lnstead is'uiing o€hervA p_roperty and a portion of plitted roidway dedlcatbd to tlr6 tornof vaiI. vA hereby acknowledles and is agr-eenent uith such currentFgli-ng location lntiI the foiegolng lssu6s, presently beingstudied, are resolved among va,-christiania'aird rown 6f vati.
You have arso reguested that vA provide'written confirrnationthat VA has no objection to the cnrisiiania redevelopmentcontinulng thlough the Town of vair approval process-. Although VAna: {re objection to continuing such process, VA speciflcally -
r_etains the right to review the cnriitiania'redevilopnrent pian andexpress any concerns and/or objections tre may have rLgarding theproJect.
(ffi3t476-5@1 D( 3S3p
+rail@"
Vail Associates, Inc.
Creaton and Operarors of Vrll and Bcaver CreeP Resons
Febtuary 4, L99L
F8 W '91 t6:19 VRIL 1..411
Post Offfce Box 7 r Vril, Colorado Bl6i8 . USA - 13931 4?6-5601
j FB E4 '9L t63ffi \nIL ffiC 1ffi)47ffi1 S( 3tr19I
ilLll Kanrnarer
Febnrary .4, 1991.Page 2
' cc! Paul ;IohnEon.fay Peterson
jr.-,t/'4,
. If you have any guestionE or concerns regardlng the positlonof vA relating to ttre appll.catlon f,or tbe Christiania Lodgeredevelopnent, please feel free to contact the undersl.Ened.
. Very truly yours,
vArL/+ssocrATES, I\Nc.
e-?H,t t**
r,arry EI Lichlflter
Executive vicer President
f .+
FII F [l{!P Y
lnwn
75 south trontage road
vail, colorado 81657
(303) 479'2138
(303) 47!t-2139
January 3L, 1991.
office of communily danelopment
Jay Peterson
l-08 S. Frontage RoadSuite 307Vail, Colorado 8L557
Re: Christiania todge Density Variance
Dear Jay:
Per your request, the Christiania redeveloprnent proposal has been
scheduled for hearing before the PEC on February 11, 1.99L. The
PEc will be considering approval of a density variance to allowthe construction of several additions to the Christiania Lodge.At the tirne this item was advertised, it was my understandingthat the project to be reviewed by the PEC on February ll-th would
be identical to the December L9, L990 DRB redevelopment proposal
submission. If this is not the case, please let rne know as soon
as possible.
As we discussed in our telephone conversation of January 22,I99Lt prior to PEC consideration of the density variance reguest,the staff must have documentation that the property neets parking
reguirements. Under the December 19th DRB submission, theproposal did not increase the parking requirement beyond that
which is currently required. However, because the parking 1ot
lease area does not matclr the location of the parking lotcurrently used by the Christiania Lodge, we nust require you
obtain written confirmation fron Vail Associates (V.A.) statingV.A. will not object to the Christiania redevelopment proposal
continuing through the Town of Vail approval process, and furtherthat V.A. will continue to accommodate the Christiania's parking
needs on V.A.-owned property.
f ..*'
Jay Peterson
January 31, l-991.
Page 2
Toward this end, Kristan Pritz has contacted Joe Macy of Vail
Associates to discuss whether or not V.A. has any objections to
these issues. It is my understanding that Joe is in the processof determining whether or not he can provide the needed
assurances.
This parking requirement issue must be resolved by Monday,
February 4th. If you are unable to resolve this issue by thattime, the Christiania density vari-ance reguest will be removedfron the February 1lth, LggL PEC docket and held off the docketuntil such time as the Cornmunity Development Departnent is inreceipt of some forrn of written assurance that the Christianiatsparking needs can be rnet.
If you have any questions
please do not hesitate to
Sincerely,
JR/abcc: PauI JohnstonKristan Pritz
or cornments regarding this matter,
contact me at 479-2L38.
11
Planner
re=.i
| {Tla\^T?- r l
f{\ahn:roN
,/fr,*p d,/r_e"#r#+/6*A E* \,e""/ {4/z* , o4;|( /
?>o e/-Ja'&. .qf \
taro
\'
\
-IIUA EA:'T AE, 6T dfs
w
SrS\= Arq C,<frf A : /"' ,, ,ril"4tn;#%;9 \rod
\
tI
{.)
ttr,rXT
E/6 rtr
"O.-:
^,i/,4M /" ,tttu/,,E hry'
ilarz t/ohea!
I
li-
ii
3//
i1
t,!i
1.:li
tl
I
FILE COPY
75 south frontage road
Yail, colorado 81657
(303) 479-2138
(303) 479,2139
January LL, 1991
Mr. Paul JohnstonChristiania Lodge
356 E. Hanson Ranch RoadVail, Colorado 8l-557
office of communily developmenl
RE: Christiania Lodge and Nonconforming Sectionof the Town of VaiI Zoning Code
Dear PauL:
On behalf of the Conmunity Development Department, I would liketo offer our sincere apologies for the zoning code interpretationprobl-en which occurred in reviewing the christiania redevelopmentproposal. .As.you are aware, a reqgtest to add remaining GRFA tothe Christiania even without increasing any of the other non-conforming situations on the project, is not aLlowable given theregulations in the nonconforning section of the I.lunicipir code.
Jil1 Karnrnerer is in the process of preparing a tetter addressinge19!r of the points raised by Mr. Art Abplanilp, attorney for theMil} creek condominium Association. we have indicated Lo bothArt Abplanalp and Jay peterson that the project as proposed doesnot conply with section L8.64.050, Nonconforming structures and.Site improvements (B), which states:
Structures which do not conforrn to densitycontrols nay be enlarged, only if the totalgross residential fLoor area of the enlargedstructure does not exceed the total GRFA ofthe pre-existing nonconforning structure.
once the letter from our department addressing arl of the issuesraised by Mr. Abplanalp is conpleted, we will contact you toarrange a neeting to reviev the staff decision.
't
I realize that this development process has beenextrernely frustrating for you. I hope you witl acceptheartfelt apology. please contact ne ii any additional
come up before our meeting.
Sincerely,
ny
questions
Conmunity Development Director
KP:lrdcc: Jay PetersonJill Kanmerer
Ron Phillips
| ^'ifurr,#ea,@/
November 28, 1990
Mr. Jay Peterson
L08 South Frontage Road
suite 307
VaiI, CO 81657
RE! Christiania Redevelopment
Dear Jay:
The followinq isfsunnary of comments and issues laised bythe Pl-anning and Enviionmental Commi_ssion at the
November 26, 1990 work session and of materials which the
Planning Commission staff woul_d like to receive no later than9:00 a.m., Monday, December 3, 1990 in order to complete ourreview of the Christiania redevelopment proposal .
1. fn response to discussion regarding the layout of thenorthern parking lot, Commission members indicated theywould like to see the northern lot restriped with a
compact
if two
wit.hout
car deep.
2. With regard to density, Kathy warren had indicated shewould like to see the provision of another lock-off unitwithin the redeveloped Christiania building.
3. Pl-ease submit the signed and stamped survey of thenorthern lot along with all reports corresponding to thesurvey indicating ownership of each parcel of land.
site
three
/,*i,,p
d'o^d-{''
'.. U' ,rlV
Irb ^ 4e
,A#
l'/
-
portion of the sp+ces being allocaparking. The putpose of which is,additional space$ can be accommodd
having to provLd6 valet parking wh
,o
RCHRISTIANTA LETTE
NOVEMBER 28, 1gg0
PAGE 2
4. In response to Jaek Curtin and planning Commission.,, ,)"klmember's conunents, please have the eaves of the addf?Al-. (tVt*'
'l+gi€+*€ for the next hearing before the pEC.
Preferably the proposed roof and eave lines can beindicated with wood as opposed to with tape.
5. On Tuesday, November 27, L990, the Town Councilindicated a desire to obtain information regarding theresolution of the multiple ownerships of properties inthe northern lot prior to al_l_owing the sale or transferof city-owned right-of-way between Hanson Ranch Road and
Gore Creek Drive to move forward.
6. Additionally, it may be of interest to you to know thatthe Council requestgd^_the Cormnurlj.ty Development
Department staff fiff"'review H4 -the proposed "Hanson
Ranch Road" vj_ew corridor a priority, and further, that
&W would like to receive information regarding theestablishment of such a view corridor at the next TownCouncil meeting.
Jay, in essence, the Council's position regarding thetransfer of land and wanting to see a resolution t.o property
ovrnership on that parcel may necessitate tabling this item forthe December 10, 1990 PEC agenda. The council indicated thestaff should not proceed with processing the Christianiaredevelopment proposar untir such time as an agreement has beenworked out between the Town and Vair Associates and the MillCreek Court building property owners and the Christianiaregarding the northern rot. r berieve the councils position onthis issue was in part the result of testimony by Joe Macy ofvair Associates regarding Vail Associate,s .ininirity to commit toswapping the Christianiais''parking rights aift p"rp"Luity' fromParcer P-3 to Parcer J at this time. r believe t,he council seesthis situation as an opportunity to resorve the Vail villageIoading and unloading situat,ion.
If you have any questions or colunents regard.ing thesematters, pJ-ease do not hesitate to contact me at 479-2139.
Sincerely,
Kammerer
Planner
JilI
Town
JK/ds
\/tk ,ilorzs h*.L-t/. zb.?c h/rsrrl nrr;*o
r/77t/ta,zt 1 -./,to tii-Lte
ljru t/tr(/azr<-t fuaq
;fatD *y'.< ?EC oZ'*L
t /4, a,'c/'// d4J5",/a-' a>-
la ry/ -sazze c/t.frfta>-'\-./ /nzzhbat q /cf&&D.' /tc''
-" O zP.4 rarza,ne<)
@ fr* (aarty'al
"@
dtz.nyat ra
Co-znhtuszN
w(ffiu' @
J azz'e,a t U.k>/a> - {A>l t zt,,zz lh
)("'E
fuua/zil o?f , ,J , ryaezt _-rLao"z /l1-2,^l
.t-14 ) )n/</,7- f. ^/ /0f
, ' (lz( 6 ,%* zlaeed zs ffi --.t27:/aczzt*- fu ly' VtVlak lLtzdt- ful)ofr*, -/4,r/LA .fu' rL th/e/ ryrz aJ
,naaPrn,.' 4/WP lr /oc i- Vrx/6.r/z c/uttfir4d -z/'zv/al4u-t
" Vy:ytace. i' ,r.rg/arzd, *,,
,Fs& Vul/<rihcz 7c s*1r4.2//r.*xrL*.yt V/ank. <'ta'
tfoo/ /rna a/ ftar/r anal 1azn-fu lzo lzz.r" /ozt.eaz:{
t J rrrya'ua-< b ,/,ro"ur*)rw --u7a.u*..v y/,2 eryW1/ieru"r2'""doJ J J
-.47Vila"2/ ^-//tu //&,r4L
*nzzZ -r- y'a&y'T'
AUa/, ft .fua,* .' qn*/ /<K. asty' /z fl// /ar O
U ,. A U .,4 / pA <raqr--=@Jry -'yJ a'*X /rtt"# i.'d-zr,t^d zb fu,+a|arozzqtaft frffffd
:ry{ A?18//?';/. t1 ala "tr-f ,/a c/z,rc.oeaat e/fu/ j#hffi"
biVan u u,n, la fra>.. g a/uripo.z, loald/aui fu ml
5/, ar/ krn.-/,ffi U-ze-h,/ -.azni./ a iakrz/'rZA
hie'//al /r/y'/4u-M
lle ,/77/JE
- ./1 | /,'U( k /dzr j* a/1aa,rry'/t fu.. r4ezu; Coat-r/a"ze
o ,IzczJltso-J/o.r1 /arc/c>, / arz-e.Z
(d f @ Lk4r ffi/rlt- - /ttz'2h{azp ru tuzt/
& N/. .ft/ uzglao,il ' /aurazr/
o
oo
oo
oo
L
PETER COSGRIFF
JOH N W. DUNN
.ARTHUR A. ABPLANALR JR,
TIMOTHY H. BEFRY
ALLEN C. CH RISTENSEN
LAWRENCE P. HARTLAUB
LAW OFFtcEs
CoscRtrr, Dur.tt{ & AepLANALp
A PARINERSHIP INCLUbING A PROFESSIONAL CORPORA}ION
VAIL NATIoNAL BANK BU ILDING
SUITE 3OO
log SourH FRoNTAGE RoAD WEsr
VArL, CoLoRADo 8t657
TELEPHoNE, l3O3t 476-7552
TELEcoPTER: B 03, 47 6- 47 65
21 November 1990
IN LEADVTLLE:
CoscRrFE, DUN N & BERRY
P. O. BOX ll
LEADVTLLE, COLORAOO eO4€l
(7t9l aa6- laa5
Ms. Kristan Pritz
Town of Vail
Department of Community DevelopmentVaiI, Colorado 81657
HAND DELIVERED
RE: Application for Variances of Christiania Lodge
Dear Kri stan:
This office represents Jack Morton Productions, Inc.,which is the owner of a second floor condominium residence in theMiIl Creek Court Building.
Our client has recently become aware of the fact thatthere is pending before the Town of Vail an application formultiple variances, which would permit the Christiania Lodge toviolate several zoning limitations presently in effect which limitthe use of the Christiania Lodge property. Our client hasrequested that we object, on its behalf, to these proposedviolations of Town zoning regulations.
We understand that a hearing will be conducted upon theChristiania application on the 26th of November, l-990. VIe expectto have a representative at that meeting, but the purpose of thisletter is to give you some advance notice of our client's position.
With reference to the various variances applied for, thefollowing comments seem necessary and appropriate:
1. Deng$)L_Ier! . The most recent staf f commentswhichwehavereffiindicaLethatavariancehasbeen
requested for "one density unit". Our ctient was disappoinLed toobserve that little, if any, consj-deration is given to the factthat the Christiania Lodge, as it presently exists. is already 5.5dwelling units (or 11 accommodation units) in excess of theallowable zoning. The variance requested, therefore, is not onewhich would simply permit what might be catled an incrementalincrease, but would literally blow out, by more than two thirds,the limitation presently affecting the Christiania property and
THE PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION IS DUNN & ABPLANALP. P.C. IN VAIL.
other properties in the zone district. Granting a variance whichwould permit l-5.5 dwelling units on a property which is allowed 9dwelling unit.s could not properly be characterized as a variance.
Such an action wouLd be little more than a repeal of the existingzoning for the area, an invitation to similar developments inviolation of the existing ordinance. Such an action could hardlybe characterized as anything other than a grant of specialprivilege by the Tor/'rn of Vail. The fact that this specialprivilege is being granted to a former Mayor of the Town of Vailhardly serves to support the position that the Town's treatment ofthe applicants who come before it is even-handed.
2. 208 Common Area Variance. The proposed increase in
common area woffion area variance by an even
greaLer percentage than that which is being requested in the naturein density permitted on the lot. The suggestion that 4t45I sq. ft.of common area is necessary on a property whose al"Lowable commonarea GRFA is limited Eo 2,646 square feet supports our client'sposition that the over-use in density units necessitates furtherviolations of the Town's zoning limitations including those relatedto required common area. We are disappointed to see that theanalysis of common area variance contained in the staff report islimited to ten lines of analysis. However, even in that ten lines,it is important to note that the only justification for the cornmon
area variance contained in the staff report is the addition of the
new rooms and upgrading of the lodge, all of which is coincidentalwith the owner's attenpt to obtain a variance from the density2limitation. Unlike the density variance, the common area varianceis not simply an incremental increase, but is who1ly beyond thepresent limitation, necessitated only by the density increase, andagain can be construed only as a grant of special privilege by the
Town of Vail. If there is no density limitation, there is norequirement for a common area variance.
3. SetLqck Variances. The requested setback varianceseffectively crffies on the front and east sides,where only the east side now has a zero 1ot line. The requestedsetback variance would halve the existing setback on the west side
and would diminish the rear setback by three-quarters. The purposeof these setbacks are to provide some illusion of space adjacent tothe property. There exists no zoning principat which indicatessetbacks are to be treated as zoning limitations which may bewaived, in order to achieve some other goal, such as obtaining realproperty rights for a stream walk. The granting of the setbackvariances beyond those nonconforming violations which presentlyexist, particularly for the purpose of negotiating acquisition ofproperty rights, is inappropriate and not within the authorizedpurposes for granting such variances.
4. Pa$!-ry_yar.igngeE. The material which seems to bepresentlyavaiffiiswho11yinadequatetoanaIyze
Christiania's application for a parking variance. Although ageneral description is given regarding the ownership of variousparcels, there exists no survey in the record available for public
inspection. Neither is there a reference to any such survey in theTown report. Based upon that state of the record, we can onlyassume that no survey of the subject property has been submitted.If a survey had been submitted, then such a survey could then beused as a basis for determining what entities have rights to theproperty with which you are dealing. ft seems that the Town ofVaiI is dealing with at least four entities in that respect. Theseinclude the Town of VaiI, VaiI Associates, and Villa ValhalIa (eachof which apparently have ownership of a portion the property), andChristiania Lodge (which apparently has some leasehold interest ina portion of the property).
After a survey is available to the Town of Vail, the Townof Vail might then be in a position to analyze the ownership andIeasehold rights which affect the ability of Christiania to use theproperty in the future. It must be remembered that teaseholdrights typically terminate.There is no suggestion thatChristiania rights to the parking lot are irrevocable. Thegranting of irrevocable rights in the Town of Vail is very unusual,and should not be expected or assumed. If the right to use theparking area are either leasehold or revocable in nature, then eventhose parking rights which are relied upon in association with theexisting nonconforming use cannot be assumed in perpetuity, and the
Town of Vail must real-ize that the parking lot may not exist at allin one, five. or ten years. Under such circumstances, theChristiania Lodge may have no parking support for either itsconforming units gr its nonconforming units, without even giving
any consideration-for the units which are to be constructed oi thiivariance is granted.
A particularly troubling aspect of this application isthe fact that the Town of Vail seems to have largely ignored theeffect of the expansion upon the proposed vj-ew corridoi over thechristiania Lodge. whire vee recognize that the consideration ofthe view corridor, which has not been adopted. may not be used todeny an applicat.ion, the fact that the Town of VaiL has worked tongand hard on this corridor, and the fact that the conflict has beenbrought to the attention of the Town of Vail by others, is anaggravating factor in the Town's consideration of this application.The Town may not be able to deny the application based upon aproposal, but when an application is either inadequate or fraughtwith violations of existing limitations, it is irrogical to grintan application which wouLd not only viorate those exiitinglimitations but which would so adversery effect other l"imitationson the eve of their adoption by the Town of Vai1.
V{e must observe that, while the Town of Vaj_l 'smathematical analysis of this application relating to viorations ofthe Town of vair zoning regulations is satisfactory, the analysisof the impacts of these violations, and the justification for theapprication, are inadequate. There exist a l-imited number ofjustifications for the granting of variance. principle among themis the existence of an unusuar hardship. The only unusual naidshipwhich might be identified with this case is the desire of the ownei
of the propert.y to dramatically expand the property in order togenerate cash flow, permitting an upgrading of his lodge withouthis out-of-pocket expenditures. If that is an unusual hardship, itis one shared by many property owners wherever they live. By thatvery fact, it is demonstrated that the hardship is not "unusual",That hardship is not a qualifying circumstance among the criteriafor granting a varj-ance.
A justification that the grant of the variance may beused as a bargaining chip in order to obtain real property rightsfor public ways, employee housing, or any other goal of the Town ofVail which, however meritorious, may be realized through rezoningprocesses but it is not a permitted basis for granting a variance.Jack Morton Productions, Inc., and we suspect other owners in MiIlCreek CourL and adjacent properties, acquired their properties withthe expectation that Town of VaiI zoning regulations would beenforced, and that the Town would not be negotiating away theirexpectations and rights in order to achieve unrelated publicpurposes. Neither does our client expect the Town of Vail to grantspecial privilege to property owners based upon illusory togic ora special relationship with the Town government.
The requested variances are without justificatj-on, and,in fact, the Town of Vail is without sufficient information to makeany rational analysis whatsoever of the parking variance request.Each of these variances shouLd be denied, and, if the property
owner desires to renovate christiania Lodge within the parameterspermitted by the Town of Vair zoning, that shourd be accomplishedthrough the property owner's own financing, without the Town ofVail participating in the financing of the project through thedispensation of rights which are injurious to the Town and theneighboring property owners who rely on the Town's equar and even-handed enforcement of its regulations.
Please arrange for circulation of these observat,ions tothe members of the Pranning and Environmental commission for theirmeeting on the 26th of November, in order that those members may beaware of the position of Jack Morton productions, rnc. and thedeficiencies in the application now pending before the Town ofVail.
AAAJR: Jxc: Jack Morton Productions, Inc.
rely,
OSGRIFF,
-ir Y-" .'--l
t.' . \cur pro}ryYy .t | 'J', -NOTICE I5 HERSBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environnental
" ..,G,s.nrmission of the Town of Vail vi1l hold a public hearing
;'' accorda:'lce wi.th Section 18.5G.050 of the uuaicipal code of
Town of Vail on Novenber 26, L99O at 2:OO p.D. in the Town
Vail Muni.cipal Buildirig. Consid.eration of:
1. A work sessj-on on a request to rezone Lots 2 and 3, Vail
Vii.Lage west Filing No. 2.ApcJ.icant: Elnore, Vail Village West Ccrporation
2. A reques',- to establish a Special Develcprcent Disirict forthe Sonnenalp reievelopnen-,-, located ac 20 Vail Road; A part
of Lot L, Block 5-E, Vail Village l-sr ?iling.Apoiicant: Sonnenalp Prccers,-ies r Inc.
3, A request to anend Chapte: 18.40 of t:e Municipal Ccde,
Special De.reloproent Disi.rj.cts.Appiicant: Town or- Vail
4. A :3quest to anend Chapte: 18.24
Cc:.:nercial Ccre I (Varl village) .Ap:licant: Town of Vail
5. A :esuest to anend Chapte: 19.65
Ad-inic:-->-inr.
A:plicantt Tcwn of Vail
6. A :eguest to amenC Chapter L8.50Ccni,iiional Use Perinits.ApFiicant: Town of Vail
7. A :eguest to anend Chapter 18.62
Va:iances.
.f i- Lo Mtrrr i r-.i nl' f-a.i^ei'\.i9,
nF i'-o Mrrhi.i-,^ l rl^A^\JJ. \-..= rIlrll-!\, j,l./q- !vv\,ag t
of t:e Municipai Coie,
of t:e l{unicipal Ccde,
Ap:licant: Town of Vail
8. A request for a condit,ional use per:ni-. in order tc establish
a bed and breakfast, ope;ar,:on on Lct P, \rail Village 2ni.Fi.ling, 141 West Meadow Drive.Ap-::icant: Joan M. Norris
9. A request for a conditional use penmi: in order to establish
a bed anC breakfast operation on Lot 7ts, Vail Village LOthFiling, 930 B Fair*ay Drive.
Ap.cJ.icant: Nancy and Paul Rondeau
i,!
the
of
11
I-70 Interchange fron Agricultural open Space to Medj.uat
Density ltinre Fanily-nore seeci:ify described as:
Mountain Be1I Site described as a trac: of land in the SouthHalf, of, the Southeast Quarter, Secticn 6, Township 5 South,
Range 80 West of the 5th Princ:paMe:idian, Eagle County,
colorado, tnore partJ.cularly described as follows:
!rglan{:r; r: r
'ok:
A':'i:: fu;.'r':S' t I a: t::!ct ! :' -
ii5-'it fcr: tr=s 1:r !ar!.:ut: c:Err tl
'rezl=-t
t. ic'rclt ! :.
i6:=, i:ng. sc li.t: ct::r 6!: h:s'l;rl tat{ctrtr l"jE ='.--r :aia: .f Srii::::i: r;i€ lri:f t ,6,r: 6: =t lErj:tlt - -.'.t1::r:-rf-t:i €l ir(sd:::! ?ll; =:!cr ' ;g:33';5--I rl::t =r,' :ai: lfae o/ s:fc SG:1cr 5 r {tii:g.: rf 5i:- rG f5:: =.-!! fgr='::. 'li I Cl:-:s: of L<-.,'5 tr?,.:: r tcit:.! =t:rt::e*-,:-iro. ;f fill 1?ett'e-?iigi nl'=;: *rt€: ! stt'=':
.i1"=;:jl< Er:: Solrralr? ilt: : {::-r<:-cf 15!.ll /3!: = t- "''i:r:i ar r i=r-.. :rlc i:nr rlls :ritg rrl s:. i:r':r t i:F:" :'tl-.rl af !::::-::!e ig; Sctcs t!3tg 3.id :€t-.:r-l! 21*1'
lit :r ::. f:t ! crl 'r7 ! :.-rs: !i r't'::-:<: 3i :il.J: trla '' al.:r: =: :- €f I ::t?r :: =: nF:. !i{c c=!+: :rr-::; r
:::::iri rall+ c/ Ct€5'i'5'. r act'is d 13*1.3 l-:. Itc l3=lj.li'; i i:=:l'l1- i r
-l:j::".t sf 2lr.nl f*::.ll: :::':i'
I i i:i::'ci i: :::.lc'ri.i:-i; : let::':':'g I a:r::'€!:r !i3"'l
' j.i.i ii s-i:J::;ii:-i r-ili:.r-ic-' ar-'?:.€ re::. !i t !:-r€:'::'
i i ::::::rc: o? .:r12. ?i l':i:: fi 5 ;::.I:':S'i I a'':::E:: 'fi;:.1? l:::: ;) i i::r:!'::'! r 3f;::n(r r/,!ii.5 t'i::: 'rl -
;- i j:" j! :' ; - ; i l:i:-i-.':: isi. ]r ;=.. i=, =: T-.."-Ft'5.5. .
)*i;::'i,i=.;':.:f,',Eil"'ii::,--?l=ii.:i'ii;i'lll"iii:.
ii ::f , f; .!'.3 , f i llc 2{ r'rfjt'a In =. 3f "r3: ci E;"r l'(
ia{:-r:' 3f 3:gl: 3;gr:1- C.rl4r11--
A:riicant: Town of Vail and Profess:c:aL Develcpinent
Cor:.
A rec-ues-- tc rezone the fcllcwi::g prc;:-y ccnmcnly k:rcwn ast:e Pecot--c prcperty locered to t::e sc'::h of Ki-nnickinnick
Rcai in the intirnoirncain Subdivisic.: ::cn Prinary/Second,arylc i{eC:un Densrty Multiple Family nc=e soecificaj.lyi,esc:ibei as:
A pa:ceL cf lanC in the Sfr L/4 of Sec::cn 14, To$nsh:p 5
Scu:h, Rangfe 81 West of t.n,e 5th Princiial Meridian, rnorepar::cularllz describeC as follcws:
\i.:'rl-:E a: I pcl:l vhs:s:: t br:r: *; tel t:: Ir1=:ti i=r:c: ?:: Lle lrc.r t V{ ef r{d s€c{.!t !l
!c::'t'!l 29':3'5j' l0;:.tS !c=:; tl:::r= H 71' 0gtiE'
3 ls.i6 fc:--; 'Lls.re. i3l.5l !<c: l iet.lr' tj:c erc sI te5,! t: .*. tl;la vhl3! |ac rr:!u::Cr e elc:i lcci:g
f t3'1:'3€' t l9:,.?5 frl; t!ac- S ::'1C':.1' t 5:.?:1:r:; tLsa= !{?.fi f*t ll.rs !.:e :- ca r c---c !=r.jr l:l! tihl c!: i:: lul;t:-C: t-c--:3 br*l::; X Nri':s'l?'
t :i1.5! 3.=:i t:cr.c: lr ?0.5:'5j' 3 a05.5: fr:t: !!e::=Si.li i.:l r:c::i L:! r:: of r E.:--r? t! tls rlgl: r|:js!
. r--: tc:i!;a: t ec:i !c.!:lrt 5 {?':!'l?' E {{.:t 3r.ljL:ct= S l{t::t!r. !J t13.5i fe:!: Llr::: S 63'ii'i:'I J::,00 fcc:; Llc::cr X l9'O?'05'll !n-00 !-.-: g*::sr
t ;i'{3'l!' H f50,!3 feEl; !'::::c:.c l0'::' ji'lf :5.{li::'.,' ttr::c: y N?.tc'0s' iJ lj?.?: fEci: tlcne !1:'5:'lJ' g 1:0,06 frct !l !.\.c Fcl;i cf Legi::::!:;,e:r:ri;lag.:.:006 lc::!, rc--e o! i:s:.
t:!:L'.f !--=: 6.3.C. Fc6:ri tor 5c.:.1 V2 cf rlc.j:lIi.'.: !ctrc=n 5c=:1c:rs :,i-13.
Appiicant:Juanita I. PeCotto, and P::iessional Development
LZ.A IeqFleSE EO rezon€l Eng IO.LIOwtrrg PrOFerEy riJr-qusq L
north of Safewav and Cha:nonix Lane inJhe Vail Eeiqhts
;#i;;=frir;i;=r;;iiri='= r=:=a::7f;ia:i' :3 :{e::':r'
Applicant: Konrad oberlohr, John w. and Patricia A. Richan
for John Witt, Reuben B. Knight, and ProfessionaL
De'relopment Corp.
A request for off-street surface parking at the trHoly Cross
parceltr described as follcws:
i g:ac: o:' g::u:C ia c.!e llE !/1, of sec=ion t2, T:':s;i; 5 Sc::h,'Bang: 8l
',issc oi cle 6 ch P:ircipal !{eridian' I7i.;rg vr:-ii: :!ac .pa;:el .c:ar:.red ta
cl:e 3cl;r C--:ss Ele:::ic lssocia:::n, I:c. !y Ce:d ::cj:ded at Ee:epcioo Xc'
l1jl3,3 q:;-E::::a-,, 12, lgel , i: :!e ;er::js oi tgi: C:::1c7, C:lc:acc,
iesc:iiei as:
C::=e-:i::g al gle llE c:::e: o-t iaii Src:i-on l!; -::::: Soul: 83'19'!9"
'jes:, alccg B.ie ao;:.i liie oi sa:: tlE l/4, a ii:::--: oi 4i.! j:e: tc glc
i::e:se::i.- oi c.te p;:i:n3::ic: o:' !:e ess c 1i:: c:' saii pa::ei I cle*r
!:'.::l: 0'01'33" Eesi, :lc;g saii ;:rir:3eii:::' :::': fe:t El !:e lc'::Eisi
c:-:: ci ssii pa:::! chi:h is E:: pci:e ci be3i::i:3; rie=c:
S:u::0'0i'3!" E:s!, a!:n3 saii e:s; ii:e, 2ll'i' jr:r Et !:' sou::e3si
c:-er ci said pa::ei; c::incs nc::!';es:eri;r ac::s: :aid pa:::i l::::u3h tlc
j:lic:i::3 f.-: i:-::"s: l) Nc::i 23'36'19" gjes:, :'!.06 ize",2) !lc::t '
:a'::'::; !Je::, 8i.46 fa::, 5) 5c::5 50'43'25";e::, 5'3'58 fr::, aii 4)
!:'.::: 79'43'C4ir Fesi, !il.i5 fe:: go c'ie no::ia'ei: ci-e: o-: saii la:::l; ,
!.'::::cl ac:---ie.:.s:::1; alcn3 cle ::::5 li::e of sa:j;a:':ei rhi:l !s a
i"::l*"g=== (a r:c:al c: iaii rc:::res! c'r;ei !e::; Hor:h 2i'39'23" lJesc),
3:lj :':c: r:ii::s e:-;e c:rc3ve 3c:ii!e:lJ' 25i'3t i::: (celr::i a::3ie cquals
(..: . r': itrr -- F\r *^:-: Oi beg:::-:3.
?iis c:ac:, as desc-led, ccn::i:s l5r9'lc sq::::: i::!, or 0'366 ac:es, ao;:
o: i:ss.
A;plicant: Vail Associates
A request for a parking va:iance in c=ie: tc ccr,s'-r':ct
aid.itions to the Christ,ianla LaCge, 336 Hansen Ranc::. Road,
Lcc D, Blcck 2 Vail Village 1s-' Filing.
Alplicant: Faul R. Johnston
A iequest for a binor subeivision in c:Cer tc vacate a 1ot
li::e between Lots 46 and 1i, 'lail Vittage west Fj.Ling No. 2.
Applicant: ANJA Corporation
at
K'-
15. A request for a height va;iance and a variance tc the nunber
of satellite dishes pernlr:eC in orde: to a1low for the
i::st.a1lation of tr,ro satell.ite iish an'r-ennas on t5e roof of
tle Marriott Mark Rescrt, Lots 4 and 7, Block 1
Va:.1/LionsheaC Third Filing, Lots C ani D Morcus
Su:divisicn, located at 715 LionsheaC Circle.
Applicant: Marriott Mark Resort/Tri-Ccunty Cablevision
The applications anci inforrnaticn about the proposaLs are
availabie for public inspection in the Com:unity Developnent
Depart:ent office.
Town of Vail
Communitlt Development Department
Published, in the Vail Trail on November 9, 1990'
t
I{MFTS. CORTI-,ANDT T.ILL
20 liov. 1990
P1.snnlns I Flnvlronment.al Connl sslon
?5 S. 9rontare ild.r,,ral1, C0. 8]-517
iter lhrlstlanla Lociqe Remcdellne Bequest
near Co:rnl s slon l,lembers ,
Thls let.ter reqrrests that you closely rerrlewthe lmpact the requesterl Chrlstlanla ':,,=xpanslon
wt11 have on the ''rlIF"i{ iOAiIDOn'' from One Va11
Flace - Founders Plaza, ChrlsLy Sports - t/all
Skl lienlals walktnfc comldor. It i-q myposltlon the lmpact w1 1l- be severe, fhusdesiroylnq |Oq of the Gore Ranr{e Puirllc Vlersshor:ld the atidltlon be apnroved.
Adri1tlonal1:r f request you revler^r the parklnqplan belnr presented and 1ts lrnplementatlon.Tt 1s mtr feellnc the parklnq should not be
epprove4 unt1l the parklng lot land dlsputes
a.re solverl . The Comrnl sslon must have acclrrate
lnforr.:.atlon before appro\'lns parklng, wlrlch1n fact t fi&! not be ln the complete controllof the Chrlstlanta. The parklns Flan presented
1s unacceptable.
Thank you for your oonslderatton.
': sll rlRrDGE srREttr
YArL, (jOLORADO 41657
L] .!i. -{.
bk .1 . Curtln
a
INc.Surnn" Snatrrr & FRa.vrroN,
ItBAL ESI'ATE BItOKtrRS AND CONSULTANTS
23t) lJl{lDCE Sl t(EEl'
VAIL, COI-OI'ALX) 81657
November 1-9, 1990
Ms. Kristen Pritz
Town of Vail
75 S. Frontage Road WestVai1, CO 81657
Dear Kristen,
As President of the Mi}I Creek Condominiun Association, I amwriting to express our concern and opposition to the proposedexpansion of the christiania Lodge. we understand that the rrLightwill be increased by another story. This will very negativ6ryimpact several of the units in the MilI Creek Buildinq. -
rn addition, the proposed addition intrudes into the view corrid.orthat was established under the urban Design Guiderines. The vier^rcorridor is east frorn a point in front of Frivolous sal's retailshop located in the Vail One place building.
The views of the Mi11 creek Building have been impacted by the RedLion addition and further reduction of views will have a very nega-ti-ve irnpact.
Please notify us of aLl hearing dates so that we can attend andexpress our opposition.
President
Condominiurn Association
REs/j r
cc: Ross Davis, Jr.cunther HofflerBill Morton
TF I-EPI{L)NE
(3O3) 476 2421
'I'ELEIAX
(303) 476 265a
()I FI( I-C I\ \ AIL A\D BEAVLR CR]:EI-
Rrcruenii D, $rEcer
F.T1{1Ft,t;/ ar LAr!
TeLE FHDri S i'it2l t-Jt.4lla-l
SCa PAFF. AVetrUE, E'.# YOFF, H Y. l00le
lJovember 10, 1990
llr. Faul R, JohnsLonchrlstlenia ar, \tall
:J56 East l{anson Ranch RoedVall, C0 81657
.He i DeEignate,l ?arking an
F.ssociation Lend
flalr Flrrl *
Wiih r*fer+nce *r-o t!-,e propose,l r€rflod,el of thechrlsilania at vali it ia ilur unc*rstan..iing that l'cu needpermlssj-en to designate *ne parki.ng 6pace cn the Aseccliton randr:overed b,v the frant drlrre',;ay, fhi* j.s &n a.gresabie eoluCl.on *sper the Chateau Ter*nhouse Ase+,;let1on, fnc.
very truli/
RDS: ns
+o
PYc0FIL E
75 soulh frontage road
vail, colorado 81657
(303) 47!F2138
{303) 479-2139
otfice of communily development
Novernber 15, 1990
Mr. Jay Peterson
l-08 South Frontaqe RoadSuite 307Vail , CO 8L657
RE: Christiania Redevelopnent
Dear Jay:
Per our telephone conversation of November ]-3, Lggo, r anr writingto you regarding information which the Town nust receive by 1"0:05
1.m. on.Monday Novernber 19th in order to complete our review ofthe Christiania conmon area, density and setback variancerequests. These variance requests are scheduled for publichearing at the Planning and Environmental cornmission (pnc) onNovernber 26 | 1,990. The following is a list of issues which thePEC raised at the November l_2, LigO work session:
L- cornrnission members indicated a desire to see the dumpstermoved further to the south, away fron Hanson Ranch Road, inorder to mininize the impact the dunpster would have onrandscaping at this ]ocation. commission members furtherindicated a desire to see the provision of add.itionalIandscaping in this area.
2. cornmission member, connie lftight, indicated a desire to seea copy of the lease ag'reement between Vail Associates andthe christiania which addresses the christianiars rights topark on the northern Vail Associates (V.A. ) owned 1o!.
o
3.Kristan Pritz and I will be neeting with Jack Curtain
Monday, November Lgth at L0:00 a.m. to discuss the irnpact ofthe Christiania addition on the proposed viev corridor. ffat all possible, could you arrange to have the roof of the
new addition staked for this neeting? In any case, the roofshould be staked for the November 25th PEC rneeting.
Conmission menbers will be reviewing the inpact of the
proposed roof line on the proposed view corridor the rnorningof the November 26th rneeting.
Any inforrnation which you nay have regarding the inpact oftbe proposed roof line on the view corridor should besubnitted to the Planning Departrnent for review as soon aspossible, and no later than 8:00 a.m. November l-9th.
Sone of the Comnission nembers indicated a desire to see a
commitment frorn V.A. to pave the hal-f of the northern lot
which they utilize. Sone Commission menbers also indicatedthey felt it was appropriate for the Christiania to do thispaving. Perhaps you could explore the possibility ofobtaining a commitnent frorn Vail Associates to grade andgravel the portion of the lot which they currently utilize.fn the absence of such a cornmitment, I beLieve sone Planning
Cornnission members rnay look to the Christiania to performthis gradinq and regraveling in conjunction with the
redevelopment activities.
Please contact the Town Engineer, Greg Hal1, prior to
Monday, November L9th to explore with hin the Townrs desireto permanently resolve the northern right-of-way issue.
Mile on November 1-2, L99O PEC site visits, Paul Johnstonindicated the Villa Vathalla owned a portion of the pareel
leased in perpetuity from VaiI Associates to theChristiania. this belief was based on the fact that he hadheard the villa valhalla was paying taxes on this parcel .Please investigate the ownership of this parceL and anyrights to the parcel which Vil1a VaLhalla nay have. please
provide a written staternent to the Town of Vail regardingyour findings on this rnatter.
Some Conmission nembers indicated skepticisn regarding thefunctionality of the northern lot as currently designed. Inorder to alleviate these concerns, the Conmunity Developrnent
Departrnent suggests the applicant consider eliminating thetwo eastern most spaces within the northern parking 1otwhich are stacked 3 deep. With the elirnination of these 2spaces the 4l- space parking reguirement could sti1l be metthrough the provision of 2 spaces on the south side of
Hanson Ranch Road. An additional space could be provided inthe porte cochere drop-off area on Chateau Christian
Townhouse owned property. However, in order to meet theparking requirenent in this manner, I believe that theapplicant rnust obt,ain a letter of consent from the Chateau
5.
6.
B.
9.
Christian Townhouse Association indicating that one of the 9
spaces allocated to then could be provided at this location
and further that the Condominiurn Association would notobject to the Christianiars use of this parking space. Inadditlon to this parking space in front of the lodge, Ibelieve the applicant should continue to show the valet
space in front of the dumpster on the western lot as areguired space. With the etinination of tliro spaces in thenorthern lot and the provision of a space in the lrestern lot
and in the porte cochere drop-off area, the Christianiaqould continue to meet itts 4l- space parking reguirement.
The Connission rnernbers expressed some skepticisn regardingthe ability for two cars to pass each other in the drop-off
area beneath the porte cochere. The Cornmunity Developmentstaff recomroends the applieant consider narrowing the
proposed planter at the base of the porte cochere supportsin order to allow two automobiles to pass more easily. Inaddition, the applicant should provide a dimensionedillustration showing how valet parking of automobiles andthe passj-ng of an additional autornobile is possible at thislocation.
l-0. Commission members generally were not suplrortive of the
concept of allowing the porte cochere roof to overhang ontothe Town of Vail right-of-way. Please reconfigure this roof
overhang and modlfy the site plan to illustrate that this
encroachrnent vill no longer occur.
l-L. One Commission mernber requested the applicant exploreentering into an agreement with V.A. which would allow theChristiania to utilize the western half of the 1ot duringthe summer months when V.A.ts demand for parking at thisIocation is low.
12. Comrnission
the demand
generated,
from.
menbers wish to obtain information regarding howfor parking on the western half of the lot isi.e. who is parking there and where do they come
13. Some of the Couunission members thought that the provision oflandscaping on the periphery of the northern 1ot wasappropriate. The purpose of this landscaping would be toninirnize the inpact of the surface parking on adjaeentproperties and pedestrian ways.
14. Commission members appeared to be generally supportive ofthe concept of permanently restricting the second floordwelling/1ock-off unit to short term rental .
, :.-
l-5. Cornmission members appeared to be generally supportive ofthe concept of proving two permanently restricted short-termlock-off units in conjunction of each of the two third floordwelling units.
1.6. To date, I have not received the planting ptan informationrequested in rny letter of October 26, L99O. Although I havereceived additional infornation regarding the plantingproposed it is not of sufficient detait to be properlyreviewed. ff you require further clarification on theinformation requested please contact the Town LandscapeArchitect, Todd Oppenheirner, at 479-2LSB.
17. Please submit an explanation in writing of any agreernents
which nay exist between the owner of the Christiania Lodgewith Vail Associates, Chateau Christian TownhouseAssociation and/or any other entity which nay irnpact yourapplicants ability to carry out the parking for theredevelopment as proposed.
18. At this tine due to advertising requirements, it does notappear the accessory area variance can be approved at the
November 26th PEC rneeting. please revier,r with your clientwhether he intends to incorporate the excess 92 sq. ft. into
comnon area or elininate the cRfA altogether or whether hewishes Lo pursue the accessory area variance at a laterdate.
Jay, when you have completed assembling the above requestedinformation and have had an opportunity to neet with your clientregarding the PEC memberls comments, please give me a call sothat we can rneet to discuss your clients position on the staffrs
recommended conditions of approval as outlined in the NovemberL2, l-99O PEC memo and the above listed pEC conments.
r recognize that we are under a short time frarne in atternpting toassemble this infonnation. However, due to the Thanksgiving-Holiday, it is iurperative that we assemble this information byMonday. If you have any questions or conments regarding theabove mentioned itens, please do not hesitate to call ne at 479-
21,38.
Si4cereIy,
Paul JohnstonBill Reslock
J:ttr.,s'1
, tf tl r r
PIJANNING AND ENVIRONI{ENTAL COMMISSION
Novernber 12, L990
Present
Dalton Williarns
Kathy Warren
Diana Donovan
Chuck Crist
Jim Shearer
Connie Knight
Ludwig Kurz
The meetingt was called toChairperson.
StaffKristan PritzJi1l Kammerer
Andy Knudtsen
She11y Mello
Betsy Rosol-ack
order at 2:00 PM by Diana Donovan,
1. Approval of minutes fron tbe October g, 1990 neeting.
Kathy Warren moved and Chuck Christ seconded approval of theninutes as written. The vote hras Z-O in favor of the motion.
2. Review of gtaff decision concerniugf the parking requirenentfor the Learning Center tab to be located in the lower levelof the Vail ValLey Medicat center parking.
Applicant: vail valley Medical center
Sltelly Mello gave the staff presentation and showed the planswith the approved reconfiguration.
Diana then asked for any conments from the Board or the public.
Kathy Warren indicated that it looked to her that the MedicalCenter was out of parkingr again. Jay said that they were out ofroom for an expansion, and that they were completely maxxed.
shel1y explained that if another conference room nas added in thefuture, it would create the need for more parking spaces.
Diana Donovan wanted to add to what Kathy said by stating that itwas guestionabre not to count the proposed confeience room whencalculating needed parking. Jay rnentioned that every doctor andoffice in the building has a parking requireurent. when theyconbined offices, there was no 1onger the sane reguirement.-
Kathy moved that the requirement be approved with the cond.itionthat any future conference rooms buirt have a parking requirementas part of the development. Chuck Crist seconded the motion.The vote was 7-: in favor.
3. A request for setbaclc, connon, and density variances inoraler to coustruct adlditions to the Cbtistiania todge, 356
transetr Rancb Road, tot D, Bloclc 2, VaLl vlllage '.Et Filing.Applicant: Paul R. itobnEton.
This was changed to a work session. Diana Donovan started bystating that since the board was familiar with this proposal ,she asked that onty new issues be reviewed.
JilI Kamnerer reviewed the setback, conrmon area, and densityvariances. She explained that the northwest overhang wouldextend into the setback.
Jill reviewed the zoning considerations, the criteria andfindings, the related policies in the Vail Village Master plan,
and the Urban Design Guide plan.
JiIl explained that the parking variances required to a1low theproject to be constructed could not be formally voted on at thistime, but the parking was discussed.
Chuck asked about the number of parking spaces planned to beunder the porte cochere and was told there would be two. JayPeterson added that rnany bui-ldings in the area did not providethe technically required covered parking amount. The memo statedthat L7 of the 37 spaces in the Christiania parking lot would bevalet parking.
Jack curtin guestioned the parking nurnbbrs and also felt that ttrespaces at the entrance should not be included. Jay respondedthat fron a practical point of view, some of the spaces would befor long term and some for short term. Dalton asked if someonewould be on duty 24 hrs a day for the valet parking, and paul
Johnston replied that employees would be on duty as needed.
Bill Reslock showed an updated landscape plan. Diana wished tosee the status of the villa valhalla snow dump. she also wantedto see the VA part of the parking lot also rrspruced uprr. Jayreplied that he had asked this of VA, but thal it was not apriority to VA. Connie was concerned about the guarantee of theagreement to use VA property, and paul responded that this was aright, to perpetuity.
Kathy asked Jay for an explanation of the common area. Jayanswered that 204 was permitted for conmon area, but he tett ttratwith-only 20? given to cornmon area, new lodges were not able toprovide necessary and wanted arnenities without using some of theallowed GRFA. Jay felt it was not valid to penalize a lodgeowner for providing first class facitities including ski slorage,etc. He explained that mechanical , elevator, stairways, lobby,storagef etc. were part of conmon area. Kathy asked if
mechanical. was conmon area, and JiIl replied that it was not.
Ludi was concerned about the trash area. He felt that this was a
bad spot in a nice part of town and adjacent to Hanson RanchRoad. Ludi stated that the area contained a I'skinnyl portion tobe used as a buffer and wanted to see rnore nitigation in thatlocation. Ludi also was not cornfortable with the parkingsolution.
Dalton agreed with Ludi concerning the trash mitigation. He had
some concerns regarding the feasibility of the possible agreementwith Vail Associites.
Chuck Crist had no problen with the landscaping or the reguestedsetback variances. He did not feel the applicant should bereguired to landscape the VA portion of the lot. Chuck was
concerned about the proposed view corridor. Jay stated thatthere was no designated view corridor in the area to date. JackCurtin felt that the vi.ew corridor should be from the streetlevel, and not from a balcony. Jay stated that he would havephotographs for the next neeting. Jack explained that he was notconcerned with the removal of the trees, because that would openup the view corridor.
Jack was concerned about the variances required for the site andfelt this action would set a precedent for the Golden peak House,Cyrano's, etc. and that it was critical to deterrnine what wasreasonable when granting variances.
Kathy felt that the trash could be moved and two parking spacescould stilL be provided. she was concerned about overhangingr theproperty line. Kathy felt the VA 1ot should be paved somehow,the second floor du should be restricted as short terrn rental .she agreed with the staff of having 2 lock-offs on the 3rd floor.
Jim Shearer asked about the perpetuity of the parking lotagreement. Jay stated that it ran with the land and had nothingto do with a granto: or vith perpetuity and that if the VAdeveloped the 1and, they would have to replace the parking. Jinsuggested paving the lot.
Connie pointed out that if the au,s hrere combined, a densityvariance wourd not be needed. she had a problern with the plrking
and was :.ct in favor of the setback variances, but agreed that itwas rrnot that big a dealrr. She would rather see that the portecochere was contained on the Christiania property. Jay statedthat the porte cochere could be cut back.
Diana agreed with the staff memo, but had concerns about the viewcorridor.
This concluded the work session.
a. A regueEt for a front setback variance to allow f,or a garage
on Lot 10, Block 4r Lionsridge filing No. ,t, 1{O{ Aspen
Grgve lJane.lpplicants earrol p. orrieon
Andy Knudsen explained the request and stated that the applicantdid not feel that the garage vould be visible from the Toern.Rusty Wood, contractor for the project, fett that the location
was chosen to please all the neighbors, owners, and Town staff.He felt that the location suggested by the staff wasunacceptable, and the location proposed would have the leastinpact.
Kristan explained that the present meeting was to review thevariances reguested. The board went outside with Rusty to lookat the site from the Eown office parkinq lot. Diana thensummarized that the setback was n-ot a pioblen, but there was aproblem with the cuts for the driveway.
Kathy made suggestions for alternative schenes. She felt thatshe could not approve variances when there were alternatives.The alternatives were discussed, bur the applicant did not r,*istrto change his design.
Diana suggested tabling the iten to a11ow for revisions to theproposal . Chuck moved and Connie second.ed to table this iternuntil Novenber 26th. The vote was 7-O in favor.
5. A request for setback variances aDd aD exterior alterationfor tbe village center Condoniniuns, L21 Willow Bridge Road.Applicant: Village eeater Coadominiums Association
JiIl Karunerer explained that there was no longer a need for aIandscape variance, and shorved. plans explaining the proposals.she added that the staff recommended approvar with one Londition,that of requiring that the applicant not remonstrate against theconstruction of a streanwalk or the construction of a pocket parkat the northeast intersection of WiLlow Bridge Road and GoreCreek.
Kirk Aker, employee of lttorter Architects, felt that the conditionwas a little strong because the Town could come in with arrterriblerr design. Diana pointed out that the applicant couldgive input on the design. Kirk felt that the conaition was notfair. tle added tbat a hardship had been found for the varianceand the privilege of the variance should then not be taken away.connie feLt uncomfortable reguiring the condition and felt thalit was backhanded. Jim Sheafer could not see any d.ifferencebetween conditioning this variance and conditioning othervariances. Diana agreed with Jim and felt that th6 conditionwould speed up the process and did not feel rights were being
taken away.
chucl< did not feel the condition should be placed on theapproval, but felt that perhaps the part about not remonstratingagainst the public park shouLd be left in, but not the part aboutthe streamwalk because he was not personally in favor of thestreamlralk. He felt the variance was OK.
Dalton suggested changing the wording to encourage input into thedesign. Ludi agreed with Diana.
Kirk felt the condition was objectionable and pointed out thatthis was a study area, not a plan. He stated that the applicantis not getting a special privilege and that the variance-wasjustified. The vari.ance and the strearnwalk should. be twoseparate issues and go through norrnal channels. Chuck asked ifthe applicant would drop the inprovenent if the conditionrernained, and the applicant stated that 90? of the ordners wereagainst the streamwalk.
Kirk asked to have the item tabled until November 26th. Jiurmoved and Dalton seconded to table to L!/26. The vote was 7-0.
6. A request f,or a bed and breakfast eouditional use pernit at275{ South Frontage Roacli Lot B, Stephenrs Eubdivision.Applicant: Dallene Schweinsberg
Betsy Rosolack presented the proposal and stated that theapplicant net arl the criteria and the staff recommendation wasfor approval . Dalton moved and Jin seconded a motion to approvethe conditional use reguest. The vote was z-O in favor.
7. A request to anend, Seetion 18.0,t.l3o--definition of floorarea, gross residential (GRFA) r 18.09.080 EillsideResidential DiEtrict density coatroli 19.10.090 Siuglerarily District density controlr 19.12.090 Two rauifyResidential District dlensity conttol and lg.13.OBO eiinarySesoDaary District deasity control, of the Municipal Code.Applicants Town of Vail_
T:m Braun, planning consultant for the Town of Vail, explainedthe proposed ordinance. Linda Fried, an east Vail propertyowner, felt that single fanily hones able to be made into 2 unitswould be losing square footage. She felt that the amount ofadditional GRFA v/as not adeguate.
Kathy warren was not comfortable with the 475 sqluare feet figure.she also felt that the anount allowed for smarl lots wourd be outof proportion to large lots. Diana had the same concern. Shefelt they were bending over backwards to accornrnodate deveropers
and, although she agreed philosophically, she disagreed with thefigures and felt the additional GRFA to compensate for creditsshould be less than the proposed 475 square feet.
Tom Braun wondered if they lrere suggesting a different set ofnumbers for the smaller 1ots. Kathy suggeSted using 425 as thenumber. Torn replied that at the last task force meeting, 50sguare feet was added in response to developers.
Jin Shearer did not feel 50 feet more or Less would help or hurtanyone. Dalton felt more comfortable with 428 feet. Ludi statedthat he was not part of the task force and supported 425 sguarefeet. Chuck Crist did not care which number was used. He didnot feel 50 square feet would nake much difference. Connie washappy to hear the support for less square footage.
Kathy moved and Dalton seconded to approve the proposed amendnentwith the addit,ional sguare footage chlnged to alS sguare feet.
The vote was 7-O in favor.
8. A requeEt to amend sections lS.0{.360--definition of sitecoverage andl sections 18.09.090, 18.10.110, 18.12.110,18.13.09O, 18.t.i|.110, 18.1G.110, 18.18.110, 18.20.110,L4.22.110r 1a.24.150, 18.25.LzO, 18.27.09O, L8.28.L2O,18.29.090, 18.30.110, 18.32.110, and 18.39.190, all dealingwitb site coverage.Applicant: Tonn of Vail
Kristan Pritz and rom Braun explained these proposed revisions.There was much discussion concerning the 4 foot rbuffer, for roofoverhangs with regard to calculatj.ng site coverage and forreducing the arnount of site coverage allowed on iteep lots.Dalton felt that if 3 sides of a garage were covered, the garageshould not count as site coverage.
Jin Shearer felt that the explanation of why site coverage wasreduced should be included.
Kqthy moved and Jirn seconded to recommend approval to the councilwith the removal of any 4 foot buffer reference. Kathy thenanended this notion to apply only to HilJ"side, Single Farnily,Prirnary/Secondary and Duplei zonlng with the rest of the zoiedistricts to be tabLed until Novenber 26th. Jim seconded theamendment.
Jim Lamont felt that nore notification needed to be made tocommercial entities. Torn stated a press release could be used.Kristan said a newsletter could be used, but the issue would then
have to be tabled to a later rneeting. Jirn felt the need to domore discussion in the task force rneetings.
The vote was 6-0 in favor with Chuck absent.
9. A request for a rrork session to revietr a proposed anenctmentto Cbapter 18.71 of tbe Municipal Code--Aalditional crosgResidential Floor Area (z5o ordinance).Applicaut: rown of Vail
10. A requeEt for a vork session to rezone the property connonlytnowa as the t'tountaia BeIl Site located to the uortb of tbenain Vail I-70 fnterchange fron Agricultural opeu Space toliediun Deusity Uultiple Fanity.Applicant: Town of Vail and prof,essioaal DevelopmentCorporation
11. A request for a work session to rezone the followingproperty connoaly knolrn as the pedotto property located tothe soutb of Kianickinnick Road in the fnternountaiaSubdivisiou fron trinary/Secondary to uedium Densityl{ultiple Fanily.Applicant: ituanita I. pedotto, and professioaal Developmentcorporation.
L2. A request for a work session to rezone the fotlowingproperty losated to the north of safeway and Chamonix Lanein the vail Heigbts subdivision, Lots 5-13 frouPrinary/Secoudary to litedium Density Irtultiple family.Applicant: Konrad Oberlohr, .fohn W. and -patricia t'a.Rickmaa for ilohn nitt, Reuben B. Rnight, and professional
Development Corporation.
13. A leguest for off-street surface parking on a ;larcelconnonly known as the ||Holy Cross parcelrr.Applicant: Vail Associates
1,!. A reguest for a height variance to aLlow for theinstallation of two satellite distr antennas on the roof ofthe l,larriott l{ark Resort, Lots 4 and Z, Block 1, VaiItionshead 3rd Filing, Lots C and D, tlorcus Subdivisiou,located at 215 West Liousbead Circle.Applicant: l{aEiott }tark Resort/Tri County Cablevision
Darton moved and Ludi. seconded to table rteros 9 through 14 to theneeting of Novenber 26. The vote was 6-0 in favor.
15. A reguest for a front setback varianae in order to constructa garage and a wall beigbt variance in order to qonEtructret.airing walLs in the front setback at t44g Vail ValleyDrivei tot 18, Block 3, Vail valley First Filing.Applicant: John and Barbara Schofield
Kathy moved and Chuck seconded to table iten 15. The vote was6-0 in favor.
Kathy Warren was selected to be a representative on theTransportation Task Force.
The meeting rras adjourned at 5:30 p.!,t.
t{tf.s$*
Environmental ConmissionTO:
FRO}T:
DATE:
RE3
Cornmunity Development Department
November L2, L99O
A request for a work session for a density, conmonarea, and setback variances in order to allowconstruction of an addition to and tbe rernodeling ofthe chrlstiania Lodge, 356 Hansen Ranch Road, Lot D,
Block 2 vail vilJ.age lst FilLng.Applicant: Paul R. Johnston
I. BACKGROUND
On Uay 11, 1987, the Planning and Environmental Comnission
voted to approve density and setback variances in order toallos the construction of additions to the ChristianiaLodge. At the tine it was ttre Connunity Development
Departnent staffrs opinion that approval of an increase in
density vould be a grant of special privilege and
reconmended the reguest be denied. During this same tirne,public hearings had been held to review the Vail Village
Master P1an, however, the plan was still in draft form and
had not been formally adopted by Council . The Goals andobjectives of the Vail Village Master Plan supported the
1987 remodelinq proposal and therefore the PEC voted to
approve the density and setback variances. Subsequent tothe 1987 PEC approval of the variance request, noconstruction has occurred.
A comparison of the L990 redevelopment submission andexisting conditions follows in the Description of the
Proposal section of this nemo.
II. DESCRTPTION OF THE PROPOSED REI.IODEL
Mr. PauL Johnston, owner of ttre Ctrristiania Lodge, proposesto add a third floor to the existing structure, to remodelthe structurers interior, to construct a porte cochere, to
expand Sarahrs Bar, to construct a strearn walk along Mill
CReek, and to add common area to the lodge under this
proposal . Under this redevelopment proposal , 7 evergreentrees must be removed. This request will require density,
setback, and parking variances. Although the parking
variance reguest will be discussed in this memo, no forroralaction can be taken regarding the granting of this variance
because the matter has not been advertised for the November
12th public neeting. The parking variance will- be heard atthe Novenber 26th PEC neeting. Approval of the parking
variance should be a condition of approving the setback and
density variances. The following is a summary of the
developnent proposal:
A. Ground Floor (Garden Level)
.7 acconmodation units g 2074 sq. ft.
.Common area € 2229 sq. ft..Chateau mechanical area e 27L sq. ft..Christiania Rea1ty office (conditional use petmit has
been obtained) g 237 sq. ft.
B. First Floor
.8 acconmodation unl-ts g 2326 sg. ft.
.Common area 0 ]-422 aq. ft..Airlosks 0 fef sq. ft..Restaurant 0 1178 sg. ft..Fireplaces: 2
c. Second Floor
.1 dwelling unit with a lock-off € 815 sq. ft.
'1o acconmodation units g 3292 sg. ft.
.conmon area 0 623 sg. ft..Fireplaces: 2
D. Third Floor (Condominiurn Levell
.2 dwelling units
East unit € 2166 sq. ft.
West Unit € 2195 sq. ft. = 4361 sg. ft. Total
.Common area € 164 sq. ft..Fireplaces: 4
E. Mechanical Loft
.llechanical 0 205 sq. ft.
.Common area € 13 sq. ft.
F, AlL existing fireplaces are proposed to be gas
including the conversion of the wood burning fireplace
in Sarahrs Bar.
G. Site Irnprovements
.Congtruction of stream walk along ltill Creek
.Removal of 596 sq. ft. of asphalt
.Removal of split rail fence on Christiania parcel
.Enclosure of dunpster.IrandscaPing of periphery of northern parking lot
.Paving of northern parking lot
H. Proposed hlellinq Unit vs. AcconnodatLon Unl.t Sunmarv
3 D.U.s at 5,L76 sq. ft.
25 A.U.s at 7.692 sq. ft.Total L2,868 sq. ft.
= 3.0 D.U.s
= 12. 5 D.U. s
= 15.5 D.U.s
ITI. DESCRIPTTON OF TTIE VARTN.ICES REOUESTED
A. Density Variance
Ehe property is located within the Publlc Accommodation(PA) zone district. Under PA zoning, 9 dwelling unitsor 18 acconmodation units are allowed on this site(please note that 2 accornmodation units or unitswithout kitchens = one dwelling unit). The existing
lodge has 25 accornmodation units and two dwelling units
which equals 14.5 dwelling units. Therefore theexisting situation is nonconforning in that theproperty is already 5.5 dwelling units over theallowable 9 dwelling units. The proposal callstotal of 25 accommodation unl-ts plus 3 dwelling
for aunits
which equals 15.5 dwelling units.
Accornnodation Units:Dwelling Units:Total Dwelling Units:
Existinq
25
2
14.5
Proposed
25
I
15. 5
6 people
Through this proposal the applicant is increasing thedensity of the lodge by I duelling unit. In additionto comparing the existing vs. proposed acconrrodation
and dwell-ing units, i.t nay be heLpful for the
Comnission to review existing vs. proposed lodgecapacity based upon bed counts and existing vs.
proposed square footage of Lodge and dwell-ing units.
The folLowing lodge capaeity comparison does not takeinto account the number of beds there nay be in the 2third floor dwelling units.
Existing Capacity: 66 peoplet'
Proposed Capacity: 72 peopleAdditional capacity following remodel:
*Assume 1 person/twin and single bed & 2 peraons/
double, king and queen bed.
suuare Footage--Fron 1987 GRFA analysis
Existing Accornnodation Units: 6536 sq. ft.
Proposed Acconmodation Units. 7692 sg. ft.
ExistLng Dwelling UnitE: 1.120 sq. ft.
Proposed Dltelling Units: 5176 sq. ft.
Exl.stlng ground floor acconmodatlon units are being
convert6d into common Epace and being repJ'aced with
larger upper story accomrnodatlon units. This
redEvelopnent effort also calls for the remodeling of
existlng accomnodation units and dwelling unit
battrroons.
exlsting GRFAthe new thirdproperty wouldthe remodeling
nay have up to 13,232 sq.is 7,397 sq. ft'ft. of GRFA.
The
The
,39? sq. ft' ProPosed GRFA including
floor would be 12,868 sq. ft. The
have 354 sq. ft. of GRFA remaining after
is conplete.
Section 18.04.210, defines ilLodgerr as follows:
in which
trLodgeil meana a building or grorrp of associated
buildings designed for occupancy prJ-narily-as.ttte
teurporaiy lodglng place of individuals or families
eitirer iir acconnoaltion units or dwelling units,
and in ch all such units are operated under a
the occupants thereoffacilities. rlsingle managenent providing
_custonary hotel services and
. of the
12r858 sq.of GRFA in lodge room and dwelling unitLa. , 9vtJ -Y. .. b. e.
uses following redeveJ-opment, 7692 sg.ft. (5e.8*) willft. (40.2*) willbe devoted to lodge rooms and 5176 sq.
be allocated to dwelling units.
B.208 Common Area Variance
Common area, as defined in the zoning code, includeshalls, closets, Iobbies, stairways and common enclosedrecreation facilities. The allowed common area is 208of the allowable GRFA, ot 21646 sq. ft. Presentl.y,
21255 sq. ft. of corrrnon area exists. The proposal adds
2,L96 sq. ft. of additionat hall space, Iobby area,
accessory office, and storage whlch brings the total
amount of conmon area to 4r45L sq. ft. A variance is
necessarv for the 1,805 sg. ft. of common area over the
allowable af 2.545 so- ft.
Setback Variances
Ttte Public Accommodation zone district requires 2o foot
setbacks on all sides of the property. Under PA zoningarchitectural projections (eaves, roof overhangs,
awnings etc.) nay project not more than 4r-0rr into asetback. Unroofed balconies decks and terraces etc.projecting frorn a height of more than five ft. abovethe ground nay project not more than 10r-0tr into thesetback. Porches, steps, decks or terraces at groundIevel or within five feet of ground level nay project
not more than Lo feet lnto the required setback. Theexisting 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 property asthe Christiania Lodge connects directly with the
Chateau Condoniniums to the east. A 17 foot setbackexists on the west side of the property as the
southwest corner of tbe building encroaches three feetinto the 2o foot setback area. The rear setback is 20
feet.
The proposed additions wilt further encroach into the
west side, front, and rear setbacks.
West Side--At the northwest corner of the building, a
2nd and 3rd floor building overhang will project 716'rlinto the setback. Also in this area is a roof overhang
which projects 9ro[ into the setback. The code only
allows an eave to project 4t-Ox into a setback before a
variance must be obtained. With the construction of
the roof overhang, which projects the greatest amountinto this area, the resulting setbaek would be 11 r-orr.
A variance is necessarv for the resulting 9r-orl
setback.
c.
5
Frorlt--Two additions are proposed to the front facadeof the buil.ding. One of the additions is a neqr covered
entry to Sarahrs Lounge, tbe other is to the lobby.
These two additions will not encroach any further into.the front setback then the 1r-6$ existing face of the
building currently encroaches. A second floor bay
window will project 3r-on into the front setback and
the roof overhang will proJect 4r-5il into the frontsetback. A proposed porte cochere off of the main
entrance will have a support colunn that nill be
located at the property line. A zero setback is needed
gay,. lfhe roof overhangexisting 3 foot planter
right-of-way.
Bggl--The southwestern most addition wlll encroach 8
ft. into the rear setback. At this same location the
3rd floor condominlun overhang encroaches 10 ft- into
the rear setbaclc, a second floor deck overhang
encroaches 14 ft. Lnto the setback and the roof
overhang encroaches l-4r-5rr into the setback.
Becausegreatest overhang encroaches the
would not beyond the
encroachment into the public
rear setback,
encroachment will result in a 5'-6tr rear setback.
The final addition to occur on the site is the
expansion of Sarahrs Bar. The expansion of,the-deck
wiLl encroach 5r-0n into the setback which is al-lowable
under the code without obtaining a variance. The
existing Sarahrs deck currently encroaches 12t-5rr into
the rear setback.
In addition to the above mentioned encroachments' on
the front, lrest-side and rear setbacks, the roof
overhang 6n the proposed new lobby addition will
further-project into a zero east-side setback
situatioit. -This zero east-side setback variance
results from the christianiars connection to the
Chateau condomlniums.
Parkinq Variance:
Although the Conmission can not, at this tirne, fornalJ-y
vote oi the parking variances regulred to allow thls
proJect to bE consiructed, staff believes it is
ippiopriate to discusE the required variances at this
tine.
the 14r-6tr roof
amount into the
D.
6
Under this redeveloprnent proposal 100* of the parkingto be provlded will be surface parking. Section18.20.140, states 75t of all reguired parking spaces inthe PA zone district be located-within-the niin-buiLding and hidden from pubtic view. This requirementapplies only to the 6 additional spaces required underthis redevelopnent proposal . Under this redevelopnentproposal 100* of the parking to be provided will besurface parking. A variance will be reguired to allow758 of the additional 6 spaces not to be located withinthe main building and hidden fron public view..
The Christiania parking which occurs withln the frontsetback on both the north and uest lots is not allowed
under PA zoning, houever this is a pre-existing,
nonconforming situation.
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 with Gore Creek Drive ison private property. The parcel which was platted forthis purpose cuts through the rniddle of the northernparking lot. Town Engineer, Greg HaJ-l, has indicatedthe Public tlorks Department would have j-nterest infornalizing the situation as it currently exists sothat the Town would have title to the property
underlying the road as built and in turn the Town wouldvacate the platted, unirnproved, platted parcel . Underthe existing northern lot layout, cars which utilizethe western hal-f 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 portion of the ChristianiaIot is owned by the Town of Vail and a portion is ownedby vall Associates. Of the portion leased fron VaiIAssociates, 6?99 sg. ft. (51*) will be paved and 4310sq. ft. (39t) witl be landscaped. In order to neet the41 space parking reguirement, 17 of the 37 spaces inthis lot (46*) will be valet parking.
III. ZONING CONSTDERATTONS
A. Zone District: Public Accorurodation
B. Site Area: .38 acres or 16,540 sq. ft.
7
c. Density: (25 d.u.s allowed per acre' I d.u = 2 a'u')
' Allowed: 9 d.u.s = 18 a.u.E
Existing: 2 d.u.s and 25 a.u.s = 14'5 d'u's
ExlEtlng over allowable: 5.5 d.u.s
Proposed: 3 d.u.s and 25 a.u.s = 15.5 d.u's
Difference from existing: 1 d.u.
Anount over allowed after remodel: 6.5 d.u's
D. GRFA: (80 5q' ft. of GRFA allowable per 1OO sg. ft' of
buildable site area.)
Allowed: L3,232 sq. ft.Existing: 7,397 sq. ft.
Proposed: 12,868 sq. ft-
Rernalning after 1990 redevelopnent: 354 sg' ft'
E. comon Area: (zot of allowable GRFA)
Allowed: 2,646 sg. ft.
Existing: 2'255 sg. ft.
Proposea: 4''45L sq. ft. or 33.6t of allowable GRFA
Amount over allowed after remodel: 1r8o5 sg' ft'
F. Accessory: (10t of GRFA):
Altowed: 1,323 sq. ft.Existing: 780 sg. f.t
ProPosed: 1,415 sq- ft.
Amount over allotted: 92 sg. ft'
G. Setbacks:
Requiredl 20 ft. all sides
Existinq ProPosed
Front 15 ft. o ft.
East slde o ft. o ft.
t{est Side 17 ft. 9 ft'
Rear 20 ft' 5r-6(
H. Site Coverage: (.55 of site area)
Allowed: 9t0g? sq, ft.Existing: 5,235 sg. ft.
Proposed: 5,988 sg. ft.
Renaining: 3,109 sq. ft.
I. Landscaping: (3Ot of site area)
Required: 41962 sq.Existing: 7,49o sq.
Proposed: 51943 sq.
ft.ft.ft.
sloping roof
slopingflat
45 ft. flat roof
Proposed
# Spaces Recruired
J. Height:
Allowed: 48 ft.Existing: 36 ft.
Proposed: 43 ft.
K. Parking:
Use
Accommodation Units: 25 units =Dwelling Units: 2 units =Sarahrs Lounge:Realty Office:Christian Chateau Condos:Total
Existing
# Spaces Reguired
L6.4
4
6
o.3
9
35.7 or 36
25 units =3 unLts --
L7.7
7
8.5
t
9
43.2 or 44
or*36 spaces required
-33 on site3 space grandfathered
or44 spaces reguired- 3 grandfathered41 spaces for addition
*The Town currently recognizes the Christiania as having 36parking spaces. The applicantrs representative has indicated thecondos have a right to one space per unJ.t. There are 9 condosexisting so the condoniniumrs denand for parking is 9 spaces.
The 1980 parking lot configuration shords a total_ of 33spaces. The new parking requirement of d spaces can behandled on'site. The reconfiguration of the north lot andthe use of valet parking lrlll allow an additional 4 spaceson this lot. The other two spaces are available due to therecognition of a grandfathered situation where theChristiania currently parks in the front vard drop-off area.
V.
In addition to the gravel lot to the north, Christiania
currently provides parklng in a small lot sest of the
existing-building. This lot is also a grandfathe-red
situation as parking occurs in the front yard setback. The
applicant proloses to continue to provide 2 parking spaces
at this location.
CRITERIA Al{D FINDINGS
Upon review of Criteria and Findlnga, Section 18.62.060 of
tie vall ttunicipal Code, the Department of cornmunity-
Development rec6rnmends ipproval-of the reguested variances
based upon the following factors:
A. Consideration of Factors:
the vicinity.
Densitv variance:
Ttre proposed redevelopnent will have the fotlowing
effelts-on existinq or potential uses and
structures in the vicinitY:
a. Under the redevelopnent proposal the
applicant is increasing the.mass and bulk of
trrl Uutfaing in a manner which the staff
believes is-acceptabte. The project-meets
the GRFA, landsclping, height. and site
coverage requirements of the PA zone
district.
b. The removal of existing paved area, the
construction of the stream walk and the
enclosure of the dunpster will all generally
improve the appearance of the property and
politivety inpact adjacent property olrners'
c. Ahe removat of ? evergreens which are 18+
feet in height ls a concern of the staff and
the instatlitlon of a signlficant amount of
landscaping should be required to mitigate
the removal of these trees.
1-
10
A view analysis also indicates that the thirdfloor addi.tion will not inpact any adopted viewcorridors, however.the prcpoSed view corridor overthe Red Lion rnay be inpacted. Staff is reviewingthis situation with the applLcants representative.
The proposed redevelopnent project is conpatiblewith existing uses and structures in the area.
Surrounding properties are either zoned Publlc
Acconnodation or Cornmercial Core I. Both zonedistricts promote lodge uses.
Corunon Area Variance:
The 2ot connon 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, hallway, and accessory officespace. The additional conmon area that isproposed will inprove 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 still naintained withthe additional co:Bmon area.
Setback Variances:
In general, the staff believes that the setbackvariances do not inpact the property or adjacent
uses any more than the pre-existing setbacks do.
The porte cochere will extend no further into theright-of-way then does the existing planter andfurther, the Public l{orks Department has indicatedthey do not have a probJ.em with the porte cochere
encroachment.
The property nost irnpacted by the setbackrequests, the Christian Chateau CondoniniumAssociation buitding, has agreed to the
redevelopnent as proposed. All other buiLding
expansion setback encroaehrnents wiLl- project nofurther into the setback then the roof overhang.
For this reason, the setback varj-ances are
considered to have no najor negatJ-ve impacts on
adjacent properties.
11
Densitv Variance:
Under the existing redevelopment proposal the
applicant will be-inereaslng the existing density
lf r awetling unit. The vail Village Master.P-13n
eircourages the provision of short teim overnight
accommodations.- The exlsting Lodge contaLns 2
dwelling units, one on the basenent level , which
is to be converted for ski storage 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.
staff believes the applicant should convert the
second fLoor dwelling/lock-off unit to 2
accomnodation units, and further that the
applicant should provide 2 lock-off unlts ln
ailociation with each of the 2 neu third fLoor
dwelling units. These third floor tock-off units
would further the Vail Village Master Plan goal of
increasing the nurnber of short term overnight
aeconmodations in the Village while not
contributing any additional density as each-
dwelling unit il allowed one acconmodation lock-
off.
The appLicant could avoid the density reguest.all
togetirir by sirnply conbining accommodation units
and creatiire rai'ger unit sizes. This cornbination
of accommoaition-units would still result in a
najority of the square footage of the project.in
ac6onno&ation unit uses' the project would still
meet the lodge definition and the project would
still neet tie Vail Village Master PIan support
criteria. Staff has encourage the applicant to
malntain or increase the existing nunber of lodge
units and believes thLs density variance request
!-s supportable subject to the following
conditions:
a. All acconmodation units be short-tetrr rental
restricted.
b. The 2nd floor dwelling/lock-off unit be slrort
term rental restricted or converted to two
accomnodation units.
L2
c. The applicant provide a short tern rentalrestricted lock-off unit in associatLon lrith
each of the two 3rd floor (condoninlum level)dwelling units.
This proposal , if approved, would not representinconpatible nor dissinilar treatment from othersites ln the vicinity if the 2nd floordwelling/lock-off unit is converted to 2
acconnodation units and staff reconmended short-
term rental conditions are approved. The Ramshorn
and Garden of the Gods special developmentdistricts increased the allowable density for
these aites. fn addition, a density variance wasgranted for the Tivoli Lodge in order to increase
Iodge capacity.
Setback Variance:
?he staff believes it would not be a grant ofspecial privilege to approve the setback varianceof the encroachments due to the fact that the
renodel does not increase beyond those that
already exist on the property except for the west
setback encroachment, which has ninimal impacts,
as the encroachment is due to several third floor
bay wlndows.
Common Area:
Variances have been granted for common areadensity increases as this sguare footage benefitsthe guests and provides the guest arnenitiestlpically associated with a quality lodge.
The density, conrnon area and setback variance
reguests will have no negative inpacts on any ofthe above criteria. The construetion of the
strean walk adjacent to Mill Creek will enhancethe Village pedestrian experience.
REI,ATED POLICIES IN THE VAIL VILI,AGE IIIASTER PI,AN
Staffrs opinion is that proposed redevelopnent with staff
recommended conditions of approval meets the goals andobjectives of the Vall Village Master Pl-an. The Master Plan
emphasized the upgradlnE of lodges, the addition of
accornmodation units, the improvement of the pedestrl.an
experience, as well as the enhancement of open space.
3.
v.
13
This proposal tupports the ltaster PIanrs objectiYgs by
il;;#r;a existiiri-ioag" units. and addins naY- units while
""ipivitis with si€e deielopnent standards' The paved
;;;"kdi--;tii i"a-ii"at"ipiits. inprove the appearance of an
existing parking ;;-in a friqttiy visible portion of the
vilLage. The peaE"iiiin patn-anl seating area arso enhance
op"tt !p""e fot'peaestrian-s. The following is a list of the
vail villaqe ua"i;r plan Goals and objectives which relate
to this proJect:
GoAt*1-ENcot'&AGEHIGHQunLITyREDEVEIpP!,IENTWHII,E
PREsBRtiNs'rttr frrlrqut ARcHrrEsruRAL scALE oF THE
VILLAGE-INoRDERToSUSTAINITsSENSEoFco!,lMUNITv
AIID IDENTITY.
ObJective:
E"-nc-ou-rage the upgrading, and ^redevelopment ' of
i"iiaen€,fal and ionnercial facilities'
L.2
1.2.1
2.3
2.3.L
2.5
Pollcy:iffin.I developrnent may be allowed.as
identified by the Action Plan and as ls
;;;;i;t;;i nittt the vail- villase Master Plan
and Urban Design Guide PIan'
GoAL#2-ToTosTERAsTRoNGIoIIRISTINDUSTRYANDPRoI.toTE
YEAR-enour.roEcoNol,llcIIEALTHANDVIABILITYFoRTHE
VTT,T,EEi AWN TON THE CO!'IMUNITY AS A wlTOLE'
obiective:iiffia-t e number of residential units avaLlable
ior short tem overnight acconmodations'
Po1icv:
The development of short term acconmodation
unitt is stionqly encouraged' Residential
ilii; ittat ir"-alvetopea ibove existing
aensity feveis ire reluired- to be designgd- 9rt""is"h in a-n."ner tliat makes them available
ioi 6nort term overnight rentar'
objective:
Encourage the continued upgrading, renovation-and
uaintenance of e"fi[i"g r-odging ind cornnercial
;;;iiittas to better strve the needs of our
guests.
GoAIJ+3-ToREcoGNIzEAsAToPPRIoRITYTIIEENHANCEMENToF
THEwAliirle-nipnnrBNcETIIRoUGHoUTTHEVILI,AGE.
obiective:
FhysicallY imProve the
landscaPinq and other
existing Pedestrian llays bY
improvernents-
3.1
14
3.1. 1 Policy:
Private developrnent projects shall
incorporate streetscape improvements (such as
paver treatments, landscaping, lighting and
seating areas), along adjacent pedestrian
ways.
GOAL #4 - TO PRESERVE EXISTTNG OPEN SPACE AREAS AND EXPAND
GREENSPACE OPPORTIJNITIES.
4.L obiective:
Irnprove existing open space areas and create newplazas with greenspace and pocket parks.
RecognJ-ze the difference roles of each tlpe of
open space in forning the overall fabric of the
Village.
GOAL #5 - INCREASE AND IMPROVE THE CAPACITY, EFFICIENCY, AND
AESTHETICS OF THE TR,ANSPORTATION AI.ID CIRCUI.ATION
SYSTEI,T THROUGHOUT THE VILI,AGE.
VI. COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PI,AN FOR VAIL VILI,AGE
Sub-Area Concept No. 8:
Itl,till Creek walking path, west side MiIt creek. Path
completes linkage ir6n pirate ship and mountain path to
Gore Creek Drive.rt
The Urban Design Guide ptan calls for the sonstruction of a
path 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 sq. ft. of paved area to the northwest of thesite. This paved area currently used by the Christiania for
parking and dunpster storage is located on Vail Associates
and Christiania owned property,
Even though the path was originally proposed for the lrest
side of Mill Creek, staff believes that the east sideprovides a more attractive walking experience. The westside of the creek has a trash room for cyranors as well as
several utility boxes which nake it an unpleasant area to
walk throughout.
15
VII. FINDINGS
A. That the granting of the variance wilL not constitute agrant of special privilege inconsistent with thelirnitations on other propertieE classified in the sanedistrict.
B. That the granting of the variance will not bedetrinental to the public health, safety or welfare' or
materially injurious to properties or improvenents in
the vicinity.
c. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the
followlng reasons:
1. The strict literal interpretation or enforcenentof the specified regrulation would result inpracticat difficulty or unnecesisary physical
hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this
title.
2. There are exceptions or extraordinary
circumstances or conditlons applicable to the same
sLte 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 applicantof privileges enjoyed by the owners of otherproperties in the same district.
VIII. STAFF RECOMUENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the setback, common area, and
densJ.ty variances. The setback variance can be supported by
Find5-ngs A, C (L), and c (3), as the encroachments are not
generally increased fron those that presently exist on the
site. Staff is able to support the density and conmon area
variance request by rindings A, B, and c (3) based upon the
Vail VillaEe Master Pl-an concepts and Goals. Staff
reconmends approval of the three variance reguests subject
to the following conditions:
1. The Christiania parking lot shall be paved and
J.andscaped. The proposal rlould also include
landscaling the nortlern, southern, and western portion
of the 1ot-owned by Vail Associates. Plant rnaterials
should be placed along the northern, southern and
western periphery of the entire lot in order to screen
the lot iron-adjicent properti.es and pedestrian ffaya.
16
2. The applicant shaLl- construct a strean sal-k between theexlsting bike path and Hanson Ranch Road. This pathshall also include a snall seating area. Path location
and construction material shal1 be reviewed and
approved by the DRB, Town Engineer, Town LandscapeArchitect and Connunity Development Staff.
3. construction of the strean walk and trash enclosure,installation of all landscaping and renoval of atlpaving designated for removal itratt occur at the timethe Christiania remodel- occurs.
4. Approval of all- parking variances.
5. Tbe applicant shall- provide one pernanently restrj.cted
ernployee housing unit, on or off-site, within the Townof Vail . Said unit shafl have a minimum square footageof 50O sq. ft.
6. The appJ-icant shaLl provide two lock-off units. Saidunlts shall be associated with each of the two 3rdfloor (condoniniun leve1) dwelling units and shall bepermanently restricted for short term rental . Saidrestriction shall remain in effect even if the dweltingunits are condoniniumized.
7. The applicant shall permanently restrict to short termrental all accomnodation units and all dwelling unitsexcept those dwelling units on the 3rd floor
(condominiurn level).
8. If the ability to park in the north lot is compromisedby snow build-up/accumulation, applicant shallrenove/truck-out snow from the site.
9. Applicant nust obtain a revocable right-of-way perrnit
from the Town in order to construct the porte cochere
and planter as proposed and to irnprove the northernparking lot as proposed.
l-0. The applicant shall install a ninimum of six 8!-101
spruce trees on the north side of the northern parking
Lot.
11. The applicant shall work with the Town and VailAssociates to resolve the situation regarding therlght-of-way which bisects the northern parking 1ot.
L7
L2. The applicant ahall relocate or replace the 7 evergreen
.trees proposed to be renoved from the ChriEtianiaparcel back onto the chrlstianl-a parcel nith evergreen
trees of sinilar Elze. The appLicant shall gTuarantee
surrrival or replacebent of said trees for a period of
two years fron date of lnstallation.
obtal.n approval to encroach into
fron the appropriate utilitY
the release of any building pertnits
13. The applicant mustutillty easenents
conpaniee prior to
by the Tolrn.
18
,.J
ttI
ing 4(. , , it'.'Nr t';" ir: l, '' ;l
TO;
FROM!
DATE:
R.E:
r.
reconnended the request be denied. During this sane tine,public hearings had been held to review the Vail Villagel,{aster Plan, however, the plan was still in draft form and,had not been fornally adopted by Council. The coals andObjectives of the VaiL Village !,taster plan supported the1987 renodeling proposal and therefore the pEC voted toapprove the density and setback variances. Subsequent tothe 1987 PEC approval of the variance reqfuest, noconstruction has occurred.
A conparison of the 1990 redevelopment subnission andexisting conditions follows in thL Descripti.on of theProposal section of this meno.
II. DESCRTPTION OF THE pROpoSED RElt{oDgL
llr. Paul Johnston, owner of the Christiania lodge, proposesto add a third floor to the existi.ng structure, -to renodelthe structurers interior, to construct a porte cochere, toexpand Sarahrs Bar, to construct a strean waLk along Mill
voted to approve density analloir the construction of a
density would be a grant of
Enviroruoental Cornmissiontback variances in order toto the Christianiaty Developnent
1 of an increase ln
, i'li
,,.,'4)1'"'0
,L\'X ^ ,'
l
, .' ,:, !'
,t". i'''i ' i'
i
Plann and Environmental Cornmiss
Comnunity Development Departnent
Novernber L2, L99O
A request for a work session for a density, conmonarea, and setback variances in order to allowconstruction of an addition to and the remodeling ofthe Christiania Lodge, 35G Hansen Ranch Road, Loa D,Block z vall village lst FiJ_ing.Applicant: Paul R. Johnston
ion
BACKGROIJND
On May l-1, L987, the pl
CReek, and to add cornnon area to the lodge under this /UF*proposal . Under this redevelopment proposal ,5{ evergreen- /b11 tarrlrl,'eproPosal . Unater this redevelopment proposal ,5{ evergreen - /bt1 .iaralr,
^... .,\\,.trees must be renoved. This request wi}l require density, /h"yr'hrat'i1ti.*9lit " "{tsetback, as parking,variances. -Stttrough th6 parking 'lEalttrees must be renoved. This requgst wi}l require density, /hqy'lrat'
]setback,asparking,variances.-$tttroughth6parking'variance request will be discussEd in this nemo, no iorrnalaction can be taken regarding the granting of this variancebecause the matter has not been advertised for the Novenber12th public neeting. The parking variance will be heard atthe Novenber 26th PEC neeting. Approval of the parkingvariance should be;r condltion of approving the -setbaci anddensity variances.]xne following is a sumnary of thedeveloprnent proposal :
AAlv
A.Ground Floor (Garden levell
.7 accororoodation units g 2074 sq. ft..coqrrnon area € 2229 sq. ft..Chateau nechanical area e Z7L sq. ft..Christiania Realty Office (conditional use pemit hasbeen obtained) g 237 sq. ft.
First Floor
.8 accor!'todation units e 2326 sq. ft..conmon area € L422 scr. ft..Airlocks € lct sq. f€..Restaurant g 11Zg sq. ft..Fireplaces:2
Second Floor
.1 dwelling unit with a lock-off e 8L5 sq. ft..1O acconmodation units g 3292 sq. ft..Conmon area € 623 sq, ft..Fireplaces:2
Third Floor (Condoninium Level)
.2 dwelling unitsEast unit g 2166 sq. ft.I{est Unit g 2195 sq. ft. = 4351 sg. ft. Total.Conmon area € 1G4 sq. ft..FirepLaces: 4
Mechanical Loft
.Mechanical € 205 sq. ft..Conmon area 0 13 sq. ft.r Wd nu'\/
111-existingrfireplaces are proposed to be gasincluding the conversion of Lhe-wood burnini fireplacein Sarahrs Bar.
Site frnprovernents
B.
c.
D.
E.
F.
G.
.Construction of strean walk alonq HilL Creek.Renova1 of 596 sg. ft, of asphalEadStizat"J: 76tli.":ran"ar-a*/&*.Removal of Tsplit rail fence!€tf €}trj#*i€rie parree.f.Enclosure of dunpster i.Landscaping of plriphery of/ northern parking lot
^.Paving of1 northern parking Lot
l^a^/ I ;,.,..r,.i-. I ^ 1.,-
n4ii:ii/*'r
0s'" ',1 l-
'0 {!il
H. Proposed Dnellincr Unit v5. Accornrnodation Unit Surnrnary
3 D.U.s at 5,L76 s![. 'ft. = 3.0 D.U.s
25 A.U.s at 7.692 sg. ft. = 7.2.5 D.U.sTotal L2,868 sq. ft. = 15.5 D.U.s
rII. DESCRTPTION OF THE VARIANCES REOUESTED
A. Densitv Variance
The property is located sithin the Public Accornrqodation
(PA) zone district. Under PA zoning, 9 dweLling unitsor 18 accornmodation units are alloserl on this site
(please note that 2 accornmodation units or unitswithout kitchens : one dwelling unit). The existing
lodge has 25 accornmodation units and tvo dwelling units
wbich equals 14.5 dselling units. Therefore tlreexisting situation is nonconfonning in that theproperty is already 5.5 dwelling units over tbeallowable 9 dwelling units. The proposal callstotal of 25 accorunodation units plus 3 dwelling
which equals 15.5 dwelling units. A variance isfor the 1 dwellino unit increase in densitv.
for aunits
needed
Accommodation Units:
Dwelling Units:Total Dwelling Units:
Existinq
25
2
14.5
Through this proposal the applicant is ihcreasing thedensity of the lodge by 1 dwelling unit. fn addition .$'to conparing the existing vs. proposed accommodation ,,0,1and dwell.ing units, it nay be helpful for the ,:4'{sCornrnissien to review existinlt vs. proposed lodge , rr*l'.rtt"capacity based upon bed counts and existing vs. -{] -^i'0f ,,f ..,+9proposed square footage of lodge and dwellingT unitsf'- Ytpy'\ r,"'The following lodge capacity conparison does not take 1.Jn'into account the number of beds there nay be in the 2 t^., ,third floor dwelling units. {1'.,t
1lI"J,,Existing Capacity: 66 peoplerr "11 'yrt}'
Proposed Capacity: 72 people dI"Additional capacity following renodel: 6 people
*AsEuue 1 person/twin andTdfrqle bed & 2 persons/
double, king and queen rW
t
f rJ'v A{' v
.k'l,l'
,s.'91,vvScruare Footage--From^1987 GRFA analysis
r {ffiot.l/o*-
.,.jq\ Proposed Acconmodation Units: 7692 sr{. ft. y /f " 7
t,t,r",,;t'1fu* , Existing Dnelling units: 1120 sq. ft. ./ Unhth /.
Nt4 Yrt,- ,rf1,, ( Pronosed Dnelling units: s175 sg. tt7//'
,/
{f:ii!lf; i!,,,"'lluExistrns sround rloor accommodarion unirs are beins
il9#"),,,t:l!{t't converted into connon space and being replaced with',t*t;r0"..i larger upper story accoromodation units. Thisf"-..1 f!9.,-ft:T,. redevelopnent effort also calIs for the renodeling of
l),1#^,, /:''tgtlf existing acconmodation units and dwelling unit
'u{17'",-' rl '- Y I b-athrooms.,0 ^,tft
.-,,i i i.rt ., - ca I lz " ,
4*';;:o *0u".,'u,s?o;jA ff,el/iecruest aoes not requi-re a enF,e variance. rhe-ilr , )dc*.:.ra#", lodge rnay have up to L3,232 sq. ft. of GRFA. The
^^y."ftlt(-t existing GRFA is 7,397 sq. ft, Proposed GRFA including
ful'-rri v the nelr third floor wouLd be 12,869 sq. ft. Thefr"f' ti:T*:.:ill3 13"!.i51,i3: ft. of GRFA renainins after
Section 18.04.210, defines rrl,odgerr as follows:
rl,odgetr means a building or grorrp of associated.buildings designed for occupancy prinarily as the
temporary lodging place of individuals or farailieseither in accommodation units or dwellj.ng units,in which the gross residential floor area devotedto accommodation units exceeds the qross
residential floor area devoted to dwellinq units.
. and in which all such units are operated under asingle nanagement providing the occupants thereof
customary hotel services and facilities.rl
The recruest neets the definition of a lodge. of the
12,858 sq. ft. of GRFA in lodge roon and dwelling unituses following redevelopment, 7692 sq. ft. (59.St) wilfbe devoted to lodge rooms and 5L76 sq. ft,. (40.2?) willbe allocated to dwelling units.
.,l:.
i:i .:
.v\
t:
l:tlLi\
i'
o
B.20t Conmon Area Variance
Connon area, as defined in the zoning code, includeslralls, closets, lobbies, stairways and cornnon enclosedrecreation facilities. The allowed conmon area is 20?of the allowable GRFA, or 21646 sq. ft. Presently,2,255 sq: ft. of conmon area exists. The proposal adds2,L96 sq. ft. of additional halL space, lobby area,
accessory office, and storage which brings the total
amount of conmon area to 4r45L sq. ft. A variance isnecessarv for the 1,805 ss. ft. of cornmon area over theallowable of 2,646 sq. ft.
Setback Variances
The Pubtic Accommodation zone district requires 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. tprojeciing from a height of more than;live ft. above ,Athe ground nay project not more than F/-o't into the r'
setback. Porches, steps, decks or teiraces at groundlevel or r+ithin five feet of ground leve1 nay prgjectnot more than 10 feet into the required setbackl Theexisting front setback is 15 feet due to the
encroachment of the northwest corner of the lodge. Azero setback exists on the east side of the property asthe Christiania Lodge connects di.rectly with the
Chateau Condoniniums to the east. A 17 foot setbackexists on the west side of the property as the
southwest corner of the buiLding encroaches three feetinto the 20 foot setback area. The rear setback is 20feet.
The proposed additions will further encroach into thewest side, front, and rear setbacks.
West Side--At the northwest corner of the building, a
2nd and 3rd floor building overhang will project ?r6ninto the setback. Also in this area is a roof overhangwhich projects grorr into the setback. The code onlyallows an eave to project 4r-0tr into a setback before avariance rnust be obtained. With the construction ofthe roof overhang, which projects the greatest amountinto this area, the resulting setback would be 1lr-0tr.A variance is necessarv for the resulting gt-Ott
setback.
c.
D.
Front--Two additions are proposed to the front facadeof the building. one of tbe additions is a new coveredentry to Sarahrs Eounge, the other is to the lobby.
These two additions will not encroach any further intothe front setback then the 1,-6r, existing face of thebuilding currently encroaches. A second floor bay
wi,ndow will project 3t-0'r into the front setback andthe roof overhang will project 4r-5'r into the frontsetback. A proposed porte cochere off of the mainentrance will have a support colunn that rsill belocated at the property line. A zero setback is neededfor the support column. The roof of the porte cocherewould also overhanq 3 feet bnto the public riqht-of-way. The roof overhang would not extend beyond theexisting 3 foot planter encroaclrment into tle publicright-of-way.
Rear--The southlrestern nost addition will encroach gft. into the rear setback. At this same locat,ion the3rd floor condominium overhang encroaches LO ft. intothe rear setback, a second floor deck overhangencroaches 14 ft. into the setback and the roofoverhang encroaches 14r-5x into the setback.
Because the 14r-6tr roof overharig encroaches thegreatest amount into the rear setback, a variance isnecessarv for the 14r-6tt encroachment. Thisencroachment will result in a 5!-6rr rear setback.
The final addition to occur on the site is theexpansion of Sarahrs Bar. The expansion of the deckwill encroach 5t-Otr into the setback which is allowableunder the code without obtaining a variance. Theexisting Sarahts deck currently encroaches l-2t-5r intothe rear setback.
fn addition to the above nentioned encroachnents, onthe front, west-side and rear setbacks, the roofoverhang on the proposed new J.obby addition wiIIfurther project into a zero east-side setbacksituati-on. This zero east-side setback varianceresults fron the Christianiars conneqtion to theChateau condominiu:ns.
Parkinq Variance:
Although the Connj.ssion can not, at this tine, fornallyvote on the parking variances required to allow thisproject to be constructed, staff beLieves it isappropriate to discuss the reguired variances at thistine.
A. Zone District: Public
B. Site Area: .38 acres
b
Accornmodation
or 16r540 sg. ft.
Under this redevelopment/proposal 100t of the.parking
to be provided will-be /uitace parking. Section
18r20.i40, states 75t /t att required parking spaces in
the PA zoire district de located within the main
building and hidden fforu pubtic view. This reguirenent
applies-only to the { additional spaces required under
tiris reaeveiopment frtposal. undel this redevelopnent
proposal 100t of th- parking to be provided will be
suriace parkinq. A variance will be reguired to allow
758 of the additional 6 spaces not to be located within
the nain building and hidden frorn public view..
The Christiania parking which occurs within the front
setback en both the north and west lcts is not allowed
under PA zoning, however this is a pre-existing,
nonconfor:ming situation.
Use of the existing northern lot does not reflect the
fact that a portion of this lot is owned by the Town of
Vail . The existing paved road northr+est of the lodge
which links Hanson Rlnch Road with Gore creek Drive is
on private property. The parcel vhich was platted for
this purpose cuts through the niddle of the northern
parking lot. Town Engineer, Greg Hall, has indicated
tne zurfic works Departrnent would have interest in
formalizing the situation as it currently exists so
that the Town would have title to the property
underlying the road as built and in turn the Town would
vacate the pLatted, unirnproved, platted parcel . Under
the existing northern lot layout, cars which utilize
the western hatf of the lot are parking on Town right-
of-way. This is not the situation with the Christiania
leased, eastern half of the lot.
As previously discussed, a Portionlot is owned by the Town of Vail and
by Vail Associates, of the PortiAssociates, 6799 sq. ft. (618) will
sq.ft. (39*) will be landscaped.4 fn
4l- spacethis lot
III. ZONING CONSTDERATTONS
hristion i
from
d andtom
space
a
ned
1
0
the
1
0th
anLa
ottn
Vail
4310ett
in
stia
is
omV
nd4
mee
ces
ris
onfro
chrtiodf
edrt
the
po
eas
pa
ord
nf
danI
be
fn
th
s.
e(jI:orti
sed
aved
der
lDQ c
,tLt'
D.
C. Density: (25 d.u.s aLlowed per acre, 1d.u = 2 a.u.)
' Allowed: 9 d.u.s = 18 a.u.sExisting: 2 d.u.s and 25 a.u.s = 14.5 d.u.sExisting over allowable: 5.5 d.u.s
Proposed: 3 d.u.s and 25 a.u.s = 15.5 d.u.sDifference from existing: 1 d.u.
Amount over allowed after reuodel: 6.5 d.u.s
GRFA: (80 sq. ft. of GRFA allowable n"tloi1q. ft. ofbuildable site area.)
Allowed: L3,232 sg. ft.Existing: 7,397 sq. ft.
Proposed: 12r858 6q. ft.
Rernaining after 1990 redeveloprnent: 364 sq. ft.
Comnon Area: (208 of al1owab1e GRFA)
Allowed: 2,646 sq. ft.Existing: 2,255 sq. ft.
Proposed: 41451 sq. ft. or 33.5* of allowable GRFA
Amount over aLlowed after renodel: 11805 sq.
E.
F. accessor:F1Joi .i enref{Z@ rc***ra-ffi
Allowed: 1,323 sq. ft.Existing: 780 sq. f.t
Proposed: 1,415 sq. ft.
Amount over allowedz 92 ss. ft. /
--4? #fu#lt 27/s
Required: 20
Front
East Side
West Side
Rear
ft. all sides
Existinq
15 ft.
0 ft.
17 ft.
20 ft.
Proposed
0 ft.0 ft.9 ft.
5 !-6rl
H. Site Coverage: (.55 of site area)
Allowed: 9rO97 sq. ft.Existing: 5,235 sq. ft.
Proposed: 51988 sq. ft.
Remaining: 3r1og sq. ft.
I. Landscaping: (3ot of site area)
Required: 4,962 sq. ft.Existing: 7,49O sq. ft.
Proposed: 5,943 sq. ft.
J. Height:
AIlowed:
Existing:
Proposed:
K. Parlcing:
48 ft. sloping roof 45
36 ft. sloping
43 ft. flat
ft. flat roof
Proposed
# Spaces RecruiredUse
Accommodation Units: 25 units =Dwelling Units: 2 units -Sarahts Lounge:
Realty Office:Christian Chateau Condos:
Total
Existino
# Spaces Required
L5.4
4
6
0.3
9
35.7 or 36
25 units =3 units =
t7.7
7
8.5
1
9
43.2 or 44
or*36 spaces reguired
-3-3__on giEe
3 space grandfathered
or44 spaces required- 3 qrandfathered
41 spaces for addition
*The Torm currently recognizes the christiania as havingGWparking spaces. The appJ-icant's representative has indicVed the //,condos have a right to one space per unit. There are 9 condos 6'existing so the condoniniumrs dernand for parking is 9 spaces.rnfu46vr4tw/a/ - ,S/ t"t rr< tlavft, /f{ /{/7 7 JThe 198/ parking lot configuration showg / totat of 33 /J /spaces./ The new parking requirement otrar%rtpaces can be 3 ?handled on-site. The reconfiguration ofthe nort\ lot andthe use of valet parking will allov an additionalSFspaces
on this lot. The other two spaces are avaj-1able du{ to therecognition of a grandfathered situation where theChristiania currently parks in the front yard drop/off area.
L
v.
rn addition to the gravel lot to the north, Christianiacurrently .provides parking in a srnall 1ot west of theeTisting building. This lot is also a grandfatheredsituation as parking occurs in the front yard setback. TheappJ.icant proposes to continue to provide-Z parklng spacesat this location.
CRITERTA AND FTNDTNGS
Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 ofthe Vail tlunicipal Code, the Departrnent of ConmunityDevelopnent reconmends approval- of the reguested variancesbased upon the following factors:
A. Consideration of Factors:
1. The relationship of the recmested varLance toother existing or potentia] uses and structures inthe vicinity.
Density Variance:
The proposed redevelopment will have the followingeffects on existing or potential uses andstructures in the vicinity:
a. Under the redevelopnent proposal theapplicant is increasing the nass and bulk ofthe building ln a manner which the staffbelieves is acceptable. The project neetsthe GRFA, Iandscaping, height, and site
coverage requS.rements of the PA zonedistrict.
b. The removal of existing paved area, theconstruction of the strean walk and theenclosure of the dumpster will aLl generally
inprove the appearance of the property andpositively irnpact adjacent property owners.lh
c. The removal- of {..r."gr.ens which are 18+feet in height is a concern of the staff andthe instalLation of a significant amount oflandscaping should be required to nitigatethe removal of these trees.#,nflr
4r* ,f ff,a,u '-1
10
A view analysis also indicates that the thirdfloor addition will not inpact any adopted viewcorridors, however the ppg1! view corridor overthe Red Lion nay be inpacted. Staff is reviewingthis situation with the applieants representative.
The proposed redevelopnent project is conpatiblewith existing uses and structures in the area.
Surrounding properties are either zoned public
Acconmodation or ComnereiaL Core I. Both zonedistricts prornote lodge uses.
Cornmon Area Variance:
The 20t connon area variance is directly relatedto the density variance. In order to add new
rooms and upgrade the lodge, it is reasonable toadd adeguate lobby, hallway, and accessory officespace. The additional cornmon area that isproposed wilJ. inprove the functioning of the lodgeand is not in excess of what is a reasonable
amount for these uses. Landscape, height, andsite coverage standards are still naintained withthe additional conmon area.
Setback Variances:
In general , the staff believes that the setbackvariances do not inpaet the property or adjacentuses any nore.than the pre-existing setbacks do.
The porte cochere will extend no further into theright-of-way then does the existing planter andfurther, the Public Works Departrnent has indicatedthey do not have a problem with the porte cochere
encroachment.
The property most impacted by the setbackrequests, the Christian Chateau CondoniniuraAssociation building, has agreed to theredevelopnent as proposed. A11 other buildingexpansion setback encroachnents wiLl project nofurther into the setback then theTroof overhang.
For this reason, the
considered to have noadjacent properties.
/.tseEpacK varAances are
major neg/tive inpacts on//)t /- - ,t 2,ppap44 8.ltl/znq arrl
11
2.The degree to which relief frorn the strict andliteral int€rpretation and enforcement of asErecified regulation is necessary to achievecgrnpatibiLity and uniforrnitv of treatrnent amongsites in the vlci.nity or to attain the objectivesof this title without qrant of special privileqe.
Densitv Variance:
Under tlre existing redevelopuent proposal theapplicant will be increasing the existing densityby 1 dwelling unit. The Vail Village Master plan
encourages the provision of short te::m overnightacconmodations. The existing lodge contains 2dwelling units, one on the basernent leve} , whichis to be converted for ski storage and restrooms
and one on the 2nd floor which is to remain. Theznd floor dwelling unit has a lock-off unitassociated with it.
Staff believes the applicant should convert the
second floor dwelling/lock-off unlt to 2
accornmodation units, and further that theapplicant should provide 2 loclc-off units inassociatlon with each of the 2 new third floordwelling units. These third floor lock-off unitswould further the Vail Village Master Plan goal ofincreasing the nurnber of short term overnight
accommodations Ln the Village vhile notcontributing any additional density as eachdwelling unit is allowed one accotnmodation lock-off.
The applicant could avoid the density reguest alltogether by simply cornbining acconuaodation unitsand creating larger unit sizes. This conbinationof accomnodation units would still result in anajority of the square footage of the project in
accommodation unit uses, the project nould stillrneet the lodge definltion and the project wouldstill meet the vail Village Master plan supportcriteria. Staff has encourage the applicant tornaintain or increase the existing number of lodgeunits and believes this density variance reguestis supportable subject to the followingconditions:
All accouunodation units be short-terrn rentalrestricted.
The Znd floor dwelLing/lock-off unj.t be shorttern rental restricted or converted to two
acconrnodation units.
a.
b.
L2
c. The applicant provide a short tem rentalrestricted lock-off unit in association witneach of the,two 3rd floor (condoninirm f..r.ildwelling units.
J,fris nrgp.o:al , if apploved, vould not representrncompatible nor dissirnilar treatroent fron othersites in tbe viclnity if the 2nd floordwelling/Iock-off unj.t is converted to 2acconrnodation units and staff recomrnended short_tenn rental conditions are approved. The Ramsltornand Garden of the Gods speciii aevetopmentdistricts increased the illowalfe aen'siiy-f",these sites. In addition, a density varian"" "u,granted for the Tivoli Lodge in ordir to increaselodge capacity.
Setback VarLance:
The staff believes it would not be a grant ofspecial privilege to approve the setbick varianceof the encroachments dul to the fact that therernodeL does not increase beyond those thatalready exist on the propert! except for the westsetback encroachment, which nas niirinaf fr,pacir, -
as the encroachment is due to several thtril floorbay windows.
Common Area:
Variances have been granted for common areadensity increases as-this square footage benefitsthe.guests and provides the guest arnenitiest11p:.cally associated with a quality lodge.
2
lhe densi.ty, cornnon area and setback variancerequests will have no negative impacts on any ofthe above criteria, The construciion of tfre'
:.tre_lT_Ialk adJacent to Milt Creek witt enhincethe Village pedestrian ex;lerience.
v.
staffts opinion is.that proposed redevel0pnent with staffreconmended condit_i_o1g of approval neets tne goats anaobjectives of the vail villile uaster plan. {n. r,r."t"r ptaneurphasized.the upgrading of lodges, the addition ofacconmodation units, the irnprov6nent of the p"a"=ir:.anexperience, as well as the Lnhancement of opln space.
13
conplying with site developnent, standardsl The pavedparking area and landscaping inprove the appearance of anexisting parking area j-n a highly visible portion of theVillage. The pedestrian path and seating area also enhance
open space for pedestrians. The following is a list of theVail Village t{aster Plan coals and Objectives which relateto this project:
GOAL #1 - ENCOIIRAGE HIGTI QUALITY REDEVEIOP!,IENT WHILE
PRESERVING TIIE UNIQUE ARCHITECTTTRAL SCALE OF THE
VILI,AGE fN ORDER TO SUSTAIN ITS SENSE OI' COI.IMI]NITY
AND IDENTITY.
L.2 Obiective:
Encourage the upgrading and redevelopment ofresidential and comrnercial- facilities.
1.2. L Policv:Additional developnent uay be alLowed asidentified by the Action Plan and as isconsistent with the vail Village Master Plan
and Urban Design Guide Plan.
GOAL #2 - TO FOSTER A STRONG TOTIRIST INDUSTRY AND PROMOTE
YEAR-AROUND ECONOMIC HEALTH AND VIABILITY FOR THE
VILI,AGE AND FOR THE COMMUNIIY AS A WHOI..E.
2.3 Objective:
Increase the nurnber of residential units availablefor short term overnight accommodations.
2.3.1 PoIicy:
The developnent of short term acconnodationunits is strongly encouraged. Residentialunits that are developed above existingdensity levels are required to be designed or
nanaged in a manner that makes thern availablefor short tern overnight rental .
2.5 Objective:
Encourage the continued upgradinltr renovation and
maintenance of existing lodging and commercialfacilities to better serve the needs of our
gruests.
GOAL #3 - TO RECOGNIZE AS A TOP PRIORITY THE ENHANCE}IENT OF
THE WALKING EXPERIENCE THROUGHOUT EHE VILI,AGE.
3.1 obiective:
Physically improve the existing pedestrian ways by
landscaping and other irnprovenents.
14
3.1.1 Policv:Private development projects shallincorporate streetscape inprovements (such aspaver treatnents, landscaping, lighting andseating areas), along adjacent pedestrian
uays.
GOAL #.4 - TO PRESERVE EXTSTING OPEN SPACE AREAS AND EXPAND
GREENSPACE OPPORTT'NITIES.
4.1 Obiective:
Improve existing open space areas and create newplazas with greenspace and pocket parks.
Recognize the difference roles of each tlpe ofopen space in fonoing the overall fabric of theViI1age.
GOAL #5 - INCREASE AND IIIPROVE TIIE CAPACITY, EFFTCTENCY, AND
AESTHETICS OF THE TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCUI,ATION
SYSIEM THROUGHOUT TITE VILI,AGE.
vr. col'lPLrANcE wrrH THE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE Pr-,,AN FoR vArL VTLL,AGE
Sub-Area Concept No. 8:
''Mill Creek walking path, west side t[ill Creek. pattr
completes linkage frou pirate sirip and nountain path toGore Creek Drive.rt
lhe Urban Desi-gn 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 J.nprovenentto 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 northsest of thesite. This paved area currently used by the Christiania forparking and dumpster storage is located on VaiL Associatesand Christiania otrned property.
Even though the path vras original-J-y proposed for the westside of MilL Creek, staff believes that the east sideprovides a nore attractive walking experience. The westside of the creek has a trash room for Cyranots as welf asseveral utility boxes which nake it an unpleasant area to
wal.k throughout.
15
VII. FINDINGS
A. That the granting of the variance lrill not constitute agrant of special privilege inconsj.stent with thelinitations on other properties classified in the samedistrict.
B. That the granting of the variance will not bedetrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, ormaterially inJurious to propertles or inprovenents inthe vicinity.
C. That the variance is warranted for one or more of thefollowing reasons:
1. Tbe 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
circuustances 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 same district.
VIIT. STAFF RECOI4MENDATION
Staff reconmends approval of the setback, common area, anddensity variances. The Eetback variance can be supported by
Findings A, C (1), and C (3), as the encroachments are notgenerally increased fron those that presently exist on thesite. Staff is able to support the density and conrmon area
variance reguest by Findings A, B, and C (3) based upon the-, L('')^u\ .{, vair vi1la96 Mastei p}an c6ncepts'and coais. staff
4r .,nlJ")^d- recomends approval of the three variance reguests subject
,^fl(r" Ju'^ to the following conditions:v"l -h,V- \l
,', ryft. ^Lfl I rfia r^trr,.i a+i q.i q .:r.rrirx la] aLrl I t^a rr-r'a,{ "i.{
wl- -v,l/'' |l -- -' /pri\ , d
,1"1) t'ni-!/ 1. The Christiania parking lot shall be paved and
'\,'" , l(fi, r ^ landscaped. The proposal would also include
. _t)/ - tr',U|$ -\ landscaping the northern, southern, and western portion
ity' /,lA | '"N) of the lot owned by vail Associates. PLant rnaterials\r' k0 ' ,tnIlt",/ \i should be placed along the northern, southern and'' e]tu" l-'t western periphery of the entire Iot in order to screen
,P' the lot from adjacent properties and pedestrian ways.lt rl" 1,",lrtl,t" t e.flfi r-lt '
)
Wrl
"" lt\L (Vtt _./lN" 16v
a
2. lhe applicant shall- construct a strean walk between theexisting bike path and Hanson Ranch Road. This pathshall also include a snall seating area. path locationand construction materiaL shall be reviewed andapproved by the DRB, Tohm Engineer, Town LandscapeArchitect and Community Development Staff.
3. Construction of the strean walk and trash enclosure,installation of alt landscaping and renoval of allpaving designated for renoval sha1l occur at the tinrethe Christiania rernodel occurs.
4. Approval of all parking variances.
5. The applicant shall provide one pernranently restricted
employee bousing unit, on or off-site, within the Townof Vail . Said unit shal1 have a ninirnum square footageof 500 sg. ft.
6. The appLicant sha11 provide two lock-off units. Saiduni.ts shall be associated with each of the two 3rdfloor (condoninium level) dwelling units and shatl bepermanently restricted for short terrn rental . Saidrestriction shall remain in effect even if the dwellingunits are condominiumized.
7. The applicant shal.l perrnanently restrict to short termrental all accorornodation units and all dwelling unitsexcept those dwelling units on the 3rd floor(condoniniun level).
8. If the ability to park in the north lot is comprornisedby snolr build-upr/accuruulation, applicant shallremove/truck-out snow from the site.
9. Appl.icant nust obtain a revocable right-of-way permitfrom the Tovn in order to construct the porte cochereand planter as proposed and to improve the northernparking lot as proposed.
10. The applicant shall lnstall a nininuru of six gr-10l
spruce trees on the north side of the northern parkinglot.
11. The applicant shall work with the Town and VaitAssociates to resolve the situation regarding theright-of-way which bisects the northern parking lot.
L7
fu /&?' srfults ^"g P tu- 4rM/36"0
@ - ?"F@LPf/a'tu'
[Ca',al nuns 9//4d 'ntu/ -aafr!2 '/-/"
do o/fr*"e
r ----s'/-J n gnm;42 -
J au4 41,q44 rc Pnt4ck/
n, iJ-'ii 4[ Y/@u -o'tceP'/ f
-.__-4".rrt" /u*, t eax-n.tn /)
"/ -2..---@e;ffi 1,hffi:f;k;"-'/et&48/^-
olt 'a/-*/hoA-'
*r/ /t lJ d'*-Psfr'ts
pn ft c o c,here- -:1f :_:1gA4 e f!4
nhr' paurra, ,Ht*/M,4.r*a l7rcb? furMl,rt ;1ffi#*,7':7at d be/
t/,1 )s ,S a
Pn/ coclrae - /,2 f41eo/ zn'L R o' a)'
o
o
a
o
13.
12. the applicant shalL relocate or replace the 7 evergreentrees proposed to be removed fron the Christianiaparcel back onto the Christiania parcel with evergreentrees of sinilar size. The applicant shall guaranteesurvival or replacenent of said trees for a period oftwo years frou date of installation.
The applicant must obtain approval to eneroach intoutility easements fron the appropriate utility
conpanies prior to the release of any building pennits
by the Tovn.-4l
////
//JQtn Ur/"A.,/"'OU-VA
t/
18
- E*;
iLfl*:.:q"f*:gffiffi .,
J /oe #i^*.6 vi'A I o"o*fr fr st" #/e'
--rc.dny';-''^
ffil_ &,ne * /ry. adlal /4/,12- 6w- &@-aa Ja@
ff lftruaar-,
r,tullydgf ,*-'a7G&'&tm' /* * turil
€fu" an6
' - Raryrafufr 5/? t^-' '4 L/ #/ PC
W; "##-^'^t ^/- ,nn '4 z''P'r# t/ tuc/ /
ofit " Z" or* r2q4r'e2,b fuazd ar, tuvT7.'1 a!c/''ra"7 " dfia')7,'" r;;';;,4,"fiala*,e - _u,V &r€t*u_ -{o,,-7-*rye
Dq6., E 7.r; /auane<46r.r.w* arrv fu >h/<3 aAa?/*;d ,;_dao y'b;a?-(.
t
r, \'l9u
"!\l
PLANTTNG LIST
CHISTIANA LODGE REMODEL
COMMON NAI.,IE LATIN NAME CT'EI QUANTITY SPACING
==================::============::=:=::=:==:=======i==-F===============colorado Blue plcea pungens 6' to B' 10 I 8' - 0" o.c.
Spruce Glauca
Aspen Populas
TremuLolds ?tr 11 t4 6l _ a,, o.c.
colden Elder Sarnbucus Canadian
Aurea
5 gal q,r _ nr ,\ F
24" high 5r - 0tto.c.Dwart X Mugo Pinus Mugot Pumllio
Doglwood Cornus Stoloni 3 t tal{I -5{ - 9" o. c.
;7,-1-------T-VL. varj.ous grasses and wild flower areas wilf be planted to rnatch exlstingor restored.
2. Planters wi1l. be planted 1n varled arrangements from year to year,
f/ar"( ds /7!t 7/; r,zzg 4tu-
A,',,-/lz2,'*
,lrttK- o'
/.g Kp--i-{,'e'
.r/ , 'c(n+-4&.tc<cz /
. J^ JFry/*-, mLv u-\tecr puBLrC NOTICE/\ )cur ??d,fty o
NOTICE fS HEREBY GIVSN that the planning and Environnental
Commission of the Town of Vail will hold a public hearing in
accordance with Section 18.c6.060 of the nunicipal code of the
Town of Vail on Noverober 26, ],99O at 2:OO p.u. in the Town of
Vail Municipal Bui)-ding. Consideration of:
L. A lrork session on a request to rezone Lots 2 and 3, VailVillage West FiLing No.- Z.Applicant: Elnore, Vail Villase West Ccrporat,ion
2'. A request to establish a Special Developroent District forthe Sonnenal.p redevelopment, located at 20 Vail Road; A partof Lot L, Block 5-8, Vail Vi).lage lst Filing.Applicant: Sonnenalp properties, Inc.
3. A request to arnend Chapter L8.40 of the Municipal Code,Special Development Districts.Appiicant: Town of Vail
4. A request to anend Chapter LB.ZA of the Municipal Code,Conrnercial Core I (Vail Village).Ap.o).icant: Town of Vail
5. A reguest to anend Chapter Lg.6d of the Municipal Ccde,ACninistration.Applj.cant: Tovrn of Vail
6. A request to arnend Chapter 18.60 of the Municipal Code,ConCitional Use pernits.
Appiicant: Tor,m of Vail
7. A reguest to aurend Chapter L8.62 of the Municipal Code,Variances.AppLicant: Town of Vail
8. A request for a conditional use pernit in order to establisha bed and breakfast operation on Lot p, vail VilLag:e 2ndFiling, 141- West Meadow Drive.Apclicant: Joan M. Norris
9 - A reguest for a conditlonal use perrnit in order to establisha bed and breakfast operation on Lot 7F , VaiI ViLlage 10thFiling, 930 B Fairway Drive.Apglicant: Nancy and paul Rondeau
r r ... =fi.u'r'i #\ -'1-U1,ttrI _-
lHfrT=:--- ---
--:T+
Iti.r--1ll if| t t lli,--l I ltiF:#lFr__ _ ____E+
- *-=.-=-* ,-
r--* .i
rL. rr ri L+
1_,_
o
o
oo
^..''.',n..--lif ilUJL '
!'
lN LEAovTLLE
CoscRtFF, Dutqru & Beaay
eo.Boxtl
LEADVILLE, COLORAOO AO46 I
17r 9i 4A6-rAas
PETE R COSGRIFF
JOF N W. DUNN
ARTH U R A. ABPLANALE JR.
TIMOTHY H. BERRY
ALLEN C. CH RISTENSEN
LAWRENCE P. HARTLAUE
LAw OFFlcEs
CoscnrFF, DUNN & Aepr_Rr.retp
A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING A PROFESSIONAL CORPOFATION
VAtL NATToNAL BANK B u tLDt NG
Su trE 3OO
I OB SoUTH FRoNTAGE RoAD \A/Esr
VArL, CoLoRADo 81657
TELEPHoNE: (3O3\ 47 6--7552
TELECoPI ER: (3O3) 47 6-47 65
23 November 1990
Ms. Kristan Pritz
Town of Vail
Department of Community DevelopmentVai1, Colorado 81657
HAND DELIVERED
RE: Application for Variances of Christiania Lodge
Dear Kristan:
This letter is intended to serve as a fo1low-up to thatwhich r provided your office on the 21st of November, rerated tothe above application now pending before the Town of ValI.
On the afternoon of the 2\st of November, I was given theopportunity to review plats of the proposed project and a Jurvey ofthe parking area which were not previousty mlde-availabre. r sfrarllimit this letter to the question of parking avaitable to theChristiania Lodge.
There is no evidence whatsoever in the application or theassociated file of the Town of Vair that the chriiiiania Lodge hasany right whatsoever to occupy the area which it is usin-g forparking on the north side of Hanson Ranch Road. A qrant -of aparking easement relating to Area p-3 (identifiea on ihe surveyprovided to the Town) did occur in 1963, but that is not thalocation of the parking being used by the christiania Lodge. AreaP-3 and most of a dedicated pubri- road east of Area p-3 areactually_being used by Vail Associates for its own parking. AreaP-3 is arso affected and limited by the road whicli nas ictuallybeen constructed east of the Mirr creek court Buirding betweeirHanson Ranch Road and Gore creek Drive. The remaining paft of AreaP-3, which ls being used by vail Associates but which christ,ianiaLgdge probably has a right t.o use, is significantly smaLler than
!h" parking lot actually being used by Chrisliania Lodge.According to the survey supplied to the town of Vail, the parkingarea which is actua]ry being used by the christiania r,ooge i;located primarily on a parcer of rand described as Lot J, Brdck 5,
THE PRoFESSIoNAL coRPoRATIoN IS DUNN & ABPLANALP. P.c. IN VAIL.
VaiI Va11age, Fifth Fiting. That land is zoned for public
accomodations and, under the covenants, is limited to residentialand limited commercial uses.
The parking rights which apparently have been representedto the Town of Vail as a basis for Christiania's parking on thenorth side of Hanson Ranch Road do not relate to the parking being
used and cannot form a basis for a claim of perpetual rights on thetract which is being used by Christiania Lodge. The only way thatIot could be used in perpetuity by the Christiania Lodge would be
upon the grant of such rights by Vail Associates, of which there
seems to be no record.
It should also be noted that some discussion has occurredregarding the vacation of the dedicated (but unused) public roadwhich extends through the existing parking lot. An agreement r^ras
reached in 1968 between VaiI Associates, Christi.ania-at-Vai1, Inc,(the entity which then owned the Christiania Lodge), and the Townof Vail, regarding arrangements under which the existing road mightbe dedicated where it is actually constructed and the dedicatedroad might be abandoned. fhe application and the file related tothe application include no evidence that a vacation actuallyoccurred or that rights to the originally dedicated roadway everpassed to Christiania Lodge. On the contrary, the dedicated
roadway appears on the survey plat submitted by the applicant andstill appears on the Town of Vail zoning maps, suggesting that thededication and vacation contemplated by the 1968 agreement neveroccurred.
For your information, f am encLosing a copy of the 1968
agreement by which the Christiania Lodge might have been grantedthe right. to use the dedicated st.reet east of Area P-3 for parking.The absence of any record indicaLing that the agreement wasimplimented suggests that the conditions contained in paragraphs 1through 3 of that agreement, which were preprequisites to the grantto the Christiania Lodge anticipated by paragraph 4, were neversatisfied. A comparison of this docurnent with the survey providedto the Town of Vail wi1I, I believe, establish the problemidentified above.
In conclusion, the fotlo!,/ing facts seem clear:
( 1) Christiania Lodge has no documented right to use theproperty which is is presently using for parking;
(21 Christiania Lodge could be prevented from using itspresent parking Iot by VaiL Associates at any time. at which timethe parking availabLe to the Christiania Lodge would bedramatically decreased.
(3) No parking exists to support the increased userequired in the event that the several requested variances aregranted;
(4) Even if Lhe Christiania Lodge hrere to obtainpermission to use its existing parking lot, any grant ofindeterminate Iength would almost certainly result in theelimination of that parking at some time in the future, when the
owner of Lot J decides that the property shouLd be developed for
some higher or better use.
Because of the reasons identified in my previous letterto you and those identified above, the granting of the variances
requested by the Christiania Lodge would be improper. fn fact, itshould be recognized that the Christiania Lodge is, even now,operating in a manner which seems to place its year-to-year, if notits day-to-day, operations in jeopardy, due to what is apparentlythe use of its primary parking facility on a permissive basis
through the good will of VaiI Associates.
AAAJR: Jxc: Jack Morton Productions, Inc.
RIFF,
afuW r/za/ro,wr1 I
5.
The vote
Tirnber Ridge residents will be allowed to store carsonly on a long term basis on the Holy Cross parcel .
was 6-0 in favor.
8.A wofk session on setback, densitv, common area. and aparFing variance ln order to conslruct additions to thecnristiania f-,oOqe, :se Hanson Ranch Roid,lotl . B1ock Z.Vail Villaqe lst Filinq.
session on the christiania Lodge in order to get some d.irectionfrorn tbe PEC on the following issues:
1. Density variance2. Irnpact of development on view proposed corridors3. Layout of Parking in northern parking Iot
Jill indicated the cornmunity Development Department staff thoughtit was appropriate for Vaj.l Associates and the Christiania toforrnalize any agreeruents rel-ating to the use of parcel p3 andParcel J in the northern parking 1ot prior to Town issuance ofany building perrnits with the understanding that vail Associatessupported the proposal, proceeding through the planning process.
The staff would obtain approval from council to proceed througnthe planning process tornorrow (j,t/27/go) during tne pnc repori.
She further indicated the changes to the plans since they werelast reviewed by the planning Comrnission included:
1. In response to Cornmission comrnents two weeks ago, twoparki.ng spaces had been removed from the northernparking lot. One of the spaces has been replaced inthe western parking lot. This space would be a valet
space given its location in front of the durnpst,er. Thesecond space has been replaced in the drop-off area bythe porte cochere on Chateau Townhorne Association ownedproperty.
2. Dunpster had been pulled back to the south,out of theexisting planter area,
3. The northwest corner roof li_ne has been lowered inresponse to discussions regarding the inpact of theredevelopment on the proposed view corridor.
4. There have been some rnodifications to the landscaping.The applicant will comnit to landscaping the northernand southern periphery of parcel J.
l2
I
Kristan stated tha
mess in the springgraveled L0 years
Joe stated the lotpoint in graveling
Ted Ryzcak of vail
residents at Tirnber
therefore were not.
slated that there
were not V.A. emp
Associates I con
provides Va
t if the lot is not graveled it wil.l be a muddy
. Tey Ryzcak indicated the lot had been
ago and that there was rrroad basert down now.
had been in use since 1970. Da1ton saw no
the 1ot now. Jirn would rather see a trade off
lot. He would rather see a tree planted thanfrom graveli\rg the
the lot grav{ed
Dalton incruir as to the Tolrn's liability if people were injured
while crossing I-70 to get to the lot. He also wanted know if
the police ti individuaLs crossing I-7o.
Discussion fotl
residents walki concernj.ng the habit of the Tinber
across the Interstate and Dalton as
Town of Vail coul
Mike Mollica had
enforce the violatlon. Kristan s
ecked with the vail Police ent
found that they do ticket pedestrians who cross I-7 and
continue to do so.
dgeif thethat
and
w1L1
sociates
dge whoer Vail
other
yees and
Kristan asked if vail sociates would agree reseed at the lotat the end of the ski s ason if it was dete ned that the lot
would not continue to be used bv V.A. or th Town for parking,
and Joe stated that he not feel they uld be asked to
reseed, because in this , the lot had een used for parking
and storage for many years,and rnuch gra t had been brought into
the lot. Kristan then a if he woul aqree to the other 6
conditions. Joe answered
or regraveling the lot and
t he was of supportive of reseeding
thed not bel"ieve granting the
conditional use or variance ect use of the lot.
Kathy warren moved and Connie
conditionaf use perrnit and theper the staff memo based on Fi
t seconded to approve the
iance to the parking standards
A, B, c(1) and C(2) with the
following conditions:
1
2.
The applicant wi grade and gravel the parking lot.
The conditiona use permr will be effective until MaY
of Vail purchases the HolYiI the TownL5, L99L or
Cross site
A11 of
snow f
Associates 30 day advance
parcel.
3.
written notdce to vacate th
mature evergreen s will be protected bY
tion control as proposed4.
ided.
11
y the applicant wi}l be
o
provid ing one enployee5. PauI Johnston had conmitted tounit in hls houre.
6. The appticant had agreed to grade and gravel parce] Jvhich is the vA owned and used western half of thenorthern parking lot.
7. The dropoff area under the porte cochere has been
widened to better accommodate passage of an auto whileanother auto is parked curbside.
8. The roofline of the porte cochere has been pulJ.ed backso as not to encroach into the Hanson Ranch Road right-of-way. However, a zero setbaek variance is still
needed at this location.
,fill stated staff would like the PEC to hear discussionsregarding the effect condoniniunization of the structure would
have on short term rental unit availability.
Specifically, staff is concerned the Christiania witl continue tooperate as a lodge under single nanagement.
In addition to site plan changes, JilI stated there was an errorin the last staff report. Under Public Accomrnodation (PA) zoningthe Christiania realty office shoul.d be caleulated as GRFA andnot as an accessory use. Therefore, no accessory use variancewill be reguired. With this eorrection, there will be 13,105square feet of GRFA on ttre site, leaving 127 sguare feet of GRFArernaining folJ.owing redevelopment. Following redeveLopment therewould also be 145 sguare feet of accessory use renaining.
JilL stated that the applicant had indicated that under theexisting lodge operation, 27 keys were available, following
redevelopment there would still be 27 keys available. Theproposed redevelopment would not inpact the number of keysavailable.
The Board had the foJ-Lowing comrnents regarding the redesign ofthe northern parking lot:
Chuck Crist and Dalton thought that the redesign of the northernparking lot as proposed was acceptable; Diana, Jim and Connieindicated they didhtt care whether the two spaces were removedfron the northern parking Lot and relocated Kathy Warrenindicated that she did not want to see a parking space provlded
on the trestern lot in front of the dunpster or in the dropoffarea in front of the porte cochere.
Discussion by the Board regarding selection of trees to-lri.ttpta+don the periphery of the lot followed. lhe selected trees shouldhave the ability to nithstand snow impacts on then as when the
13
parking lot is cleared, snow will be pushed onto the property
where these.trees would be Located.
The next item to be discussed by the Cornrnissioners was the
Eranting of tbe density variance. Jill stated the applicant hadthe ability to redevelop ttre project without a density varianceslnply by conbining lodge rooms. Staff felt lt was in the best
Lnterest of tbe connunity to allow the applicant to redevelop theproJect by naintainlng the 25 existing accornmodation units and
adding two additional dwelling units. Through the coubinatl-on of
acconnodation units, the applieant would still neet thedefinition of a nLodgeil. Given this situation, the applicant
wanted direction from the PEc regarding tbeir feelings towards
avoiding the density variance and having fewer but larger
acconmodation units or pursuing the density variance and having
smaller but nore acconmodation units. t{tren polled, Commissioners
Dalton, Connie and Kathy indicated that they didnrt have strong
feelings one way or another as to whether or not the density
varlance should be pursued. Kathy further Lndicated that she
wanted to see another loekoff unit provided in association with
the third floor dwelling units.
Discussion then turned towards Conrnission nenbersr reaction to
the irnpact and encroachnent of the redeveloprnent on the proposed
view corridor. Diane Donovan felt that since the view corridor
had not been adopted, the developrnent could occur without
PJ-anning Conmission approval of the encroachment. Kathy Vlarren
stated she was in favor of the proposed lower northwest cornerprofile. She further stated she feLt the photographs provided by
the applicant fairty and accurately represented the existing
situation. she further observed there were exl-sting treesin
front of the Christiania which were higher than the Gore Range
ridge which wouLd obscure the view of the ridge fron the view
point regardless of whether or not the redeveJ-opnent as proposed
occurred. Because of these facts, Kathy did not feel the
proposed redevelopment would negatively irnpact the proposed view
toriiaor. connie Knight indicated she was surprised and
concerned to find out the view corridor had not been officially
adopted by Town Council . Kristan Pritz stated that adoption of
the-view Lorridor would occur when the Red Lion construction was
finished.
Jay Peterson, attorney for the applicant, stated that although
the view corridor was proPosed, no one knew exactly where tl.g
view point would be located or where the lines indicatlng points
above-whlch encroachrnent coUld not occur would be drawn. Dalton
Wiltiarns stated he thought the developer had responded
sensitively to Planning Connrission nembers earller concerns
regarding -encroachment-into the proposed view corridor through
tfr6 toweiing of the roof at the norlhwest corner of the building.
Jay Btatea tne redevelopnent as proposed was well below the
naiinun helght allowed under the PA zone district and further
L4
that the Christiania redevelopnent as proposed would not impactany adonted view corridors. He felt Paul had worked in goodfaith responding to concerns raised by the Corunissioners inprevious work sessions and that under the PA zone district, hisclient had certain rights to construct the developrnent asproposed. Jay felt the project posed very little inpact onadjacent properties. Jack Curtin, concerned citizen and propertyowner, indicated he felt good direction had been given by Councilwith regard to the adoption of the view corridor and that it ruasappropriate to use the proposed view corridor as a criteria inreviewing the Christiania redevelopment proposal. Diane Donovanstated that the proposed view corridor was not a legal viewcorridor and because the view corridor had not been adopted byCouncil could not be used as a basis for denying the proposedredevelopment. She did not feel comfortable with how defensabl-ethe PECrs position would be lf the issue were to go to court.
In addition, Diana felt the developer had considered the impactthe redevelopment would have on the proposed corridor and had
responded positively by lowering the northwest corner roof level .
Kathy Warren stated the l-987 Christiania redevelopment proposal
had ineluded the addition of a third floor. She inquired as to
why the construction of a third floor lras an issue this tirne.
A work session for a ma'ior amendment to SDD No. 4, commonlvreferred to as Cascade Village, Sections l-8.45 Area D, inorder to add office floor area to the GIen Lvon OfficeBuilding,' l-00O South Frontage Road West.Applicant: GIen Lvon Partners
This itern was discussed on site visits. The PEC had noconcerns and felt that a worksession was not necessary atthis time. The itern will be heard on December LO, 1990.
Kathy moved and Chuck seconded to table until L2/1-O iterns 10,11,
and 12. The vote was 6-O in favor.
Kathy moved and Jin seconded to table indefinitely iterns L3through 20. The vote was 6-0 in favor.
9.
l_5
.s^ S< /rcz74 azrqqthrd anq* fu @f /u,ngr4 a>---
-- ,zzoy' (a,"L
neartfi4hz_)
r./an'/ E4tar hftz"z ,lAr aodat t zZ( A.-
e a>re hx
'.' t!(K s4e7 "z-) kn.- ,t
i .%;" .-dfb cn'a-
zLt&
Da1q
,-//n"
(-a'tanzO n oy' CaA4-
/1Lil nul taa-z-
B4 uzr* rb *-:1#^/6
w
A,eng - no/ ar/rVkr/ /75ta.,- Caorry'd.a
(k?// Ao'deuey' /o gyer ,/ett /7twztz^_
-1
l!+&!t/ H-frlr+ ol /dzutt tz/ 't'- fiefu .aW /3 el*/ \'/ - ftfu .a,/W /s &h,uf,O /r./"/ atczdak_
mry*,%" * Va %"L ,rfr'-'aay' /z/t''tz
pl(
;_+''r,JVcz1 /
l-Z:_.r
b/47-EQt rL pretfihqt2'sqtar:'a>-t i
+nAhz&//tzd. &a)rdrn axd be Cazzdqtd az.,r(ftdt"o
Coorr/az
*karz ,/E d. /*zt,,trVazer{ sn**hry! :n**3 9/*t?}ro6
?e4
o
ar'*'Yre
'IRFA -/.rndtu ar&a*a! a,t(k- /3) /o5 a.d
*rc * rbfurzl /',ak//14 /2-? EA lY
14w)'-
Acc,etp /ttrv:ra,.oy 54 Uztezn( 4S sA-,//
,h,#'I 'Uzp''- 27
//.a?@/ "u t7
afuif rc qnca;udr{M/ d'*fn"*fr4 d,r. a. /ool,lady unfu- " e,*
lrrat r'- -a4"/'rcpn/'
-r,tJ/
. PA-;Kaa//1
d uvell &- e4-1,4? 6,4-fr4
.no/@ w ./44/.- A f, no
?/ua,nLD ,.^t// /L
2PFA -z'ndzu ^r4A' /51 /r
I
I
I'l
Ar
,-"\t
the Mountain Be1l Site located to tlre north of the nain VailI-70 fnterlirnge from Agricultural Oper5lpace to Mediurn
Density t'tuU.ple Farnily nore specificaU described as:
Mountain Bell Site described as a trac: of Land in the SouthHalf, of the Southeast Quarter, Secticn 5, Township 5 South,
Range 80 west, of the 6th Principal Meri.dian, Eagle County,Colorado, more particularly described as follows:
lrgfcrr{ag r: r pofa:'L:i-Jt r ifZt'l'' t r 4:r:xcr t :' -
ii5.'!'1 fef tr€: :.tr t6u!:.rt! e?n." at .3rc:Jc:r t, i6r.:tl7 t i.:as=.'lrrEr 80 :.:: !f :ir 5sl ;"1r€1;.1 tarlctr,t, l!i- =':.-r iqin3 af !;3'l::l:;; r:5€ !ai!t I t€lrr o: '-:r l!f.:t"!l . -..,l'l1t':-t{ -'tJ.- of !n:rr:::!r 7!3 *s5<r : 663?3':5- I rls:t =t,. '
'rer: ika a( tlld,3r€:jcr 6 r Ct!:J!.! rl 6::.16 f-:: E.=sf !f.::'::' .j . dr r-=c! sf :5-.,'g t!"? $ r t.{nB s!,'Jr EJt:
laqn{|? Itnr af lrtl/73r:= lrt:jt Fll{3i: *racr I :isat'::' :
.rl.!i :.1{ Er:: lcuncrrl ll[.: df:::.€e cf ]:i.li f!": !: t' "'i€l:: at | €:r€. taic €:lttt rlr. lritq tn g:. .-.€t'-:rilt it!!:-.
'r?-ie.'cf &r::-::tc i8; 1:!rc! r?c:tf t:id :ar.:e.l-t ,1F21'
trt aa 5r foi ior{ '5 ! =:r:rr: !i | 6'!:-tct aa Zll.J: trtl '' tlaai '.!: :- cf a €2r-tt !: =! rt53:. llfc Gtt: lrt'l:i r
<:;:iri rngli sJ o:q:5':3'. r nat'ir rf :99'l'0 (l,r-2' tgl-t c"
.:cirl:? ! is=:;':ol i :-i:i:r,tst d Z!r.i? f-:: -'l : i;::i'!i: --'a I a:i:::ra= oi ij:-Jo rirr:3; ! .!4o::':o' € r al::iac: ir::3':3'it.:l r i. s-i-'Jii;ii;-i r-lii:ii6-' gr-ri:.-i fr::: !i 5 tit:!'::'
i r :1:::nc: 'ra .t{i.?: l:::: !i 5 ;:€.1:':!' i I al!-tr.: :f
i::.;l lr::; il j i:ir:6'::' E t if:::tit.tJ..33i-i" /e:::.rt --!-;ii::'ii:':- j i:.;"iit'l icE :ci:rr i'.+- :!-:c 'a";c *.
i=,,,* t, tl;, :j f ,*r:" *:.+, ll_ j :, i;. :::* ii:,, :
ii e:.., fi l,::, f il.< rJ r:*-: ln €e cf .:'<-' of l:!'t r'4
i*<:-!" of E::-i.' !Jsa:? - C.tic':-.
Appilcant: Town of Vail and Professictal Developnent
a'^ rn
LL. A request to rezone the followinq prcpe="r.! conmoflly known asthe Pedotto property located to the scurh of Kinnj.ckinnick
Roac in the Internountain Subdivision i:cm Prirnary/Secondaryto Medium Density Multiple Farnily nore specifical-ly
described as:
A parcel of land in the SW L/4 of Sectj.on 1.4, Township 5South, Range 81 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, norepari:cu1arly described as follows:
'51.:1l::9 r: r gol::l ulicrcr I br:s: c:9 rct f:t a
e: =rtt c€r::ei fc-- L-Lr ltq: t V{ af r:ld Scct.l oa !lsc:,:r'I :9r!!'51' l0?1.0s !er:r !:s:a3 lt 7{' olrlt'
3 :N.tS fe=!j '*sac..; l3l.6i tcc: I lit:,t thc rre o( tGs'r t .t!e :19ht rhlca rrc n:!*rd! r ci.c:i bcr:j:gf le':,:r30' I tSt.?i !ml; Llccs: S ?i'10':1'E g:.i?
!!.:i thee€= !.{?. ll ?!€l rJ€tlg L':. r- sf I e:'n trth }l! uhlci i:: tu!:i::d: r-cilli te+;l;; S lE.:5tI?'t l.l!.S! !e:?i Lic::e [ 70'5:'55' B 19.5.55 fe:t; tlc::s:!'i.13 !c:l elc::g L\l r--: of r e:-e tr L:E rlfll yilc:r:: tE:::::C: t c-.csd lcttl:rg 51;':!,:i'E 1{.:0 ir(r...Ec..:€ s l.t.:s: jl' f U0.5i !e:i,. L\*:- s 6a.li.i:.I J:3,00 tcci; tl.::cr !t 19.0?'0:' rl !n-Oo f:r:; tlcrcrt ;i'{3'{1' H f50.13 fr€!; !.,:!::€r S to.il ,Jl' tf :s.iltsc); Llcic: U 87.{0'06' }f J3?.?l fert: C:e5c: !l:'5:'l]' E 1:0.00 lrer tr !,!rc Fcli:r of Legina!:5,e;rtd.:l:5. :.:006 lc:!r | !c.-e oi !css.
tcr-'l-':g frc= G. 1. C, 8*:ii tor So':r\ V? cf rcc.-l:l!jrs lct:rcca Scci,l,ons I l -13.
Applicant: Juanita I. PeCotto, and Prcfessional Developnent
B€ST
t,{ipY
^r'..ill-Sr
v
L2. A request to rezone the following propgrty located to the
3S:1"?: t:"I3{='!:, 5n?}ffi 'r,Hf"},*i.5i'.3'i3!ii,
Densi.ty Multiple Farnily.Applicant: Konrad Oberlohr, John W. and Patricia A. Rickmanfor John Witt, Reuben B. i(night, and professional
Development Corp.
L3. A request for off-street surface parking at the "Iioly Crossparcelr described as folLows:
.l E:aci oi g:cuad i,n tlc itE llA of, Sec:jon lf, !:.:sii; 5 Sou:h,'Rang: 8I
',Jesc of rlc 6ch P:i*ipa1 t{eririiaa, ly:ng rr:-li: :!ac pa::rl, .ccn'rayed !o
cl':e 3ol;r C--css E1e::ric Assccia:jcn, Ilc. by Card :::jrCed ac tec=pcioa Ho.
llil2! cn Jaaua:7 l:, l9e:, il Ble iec:rds oi i:3i: C:unc7, Cclo;aCo,
iesc::ied as:
C::=er-:::g 'ac che llE ccr::e: o.t iaid S:c:i,cn I !; ::rrre Sourl 88'19'19"
ties:, aicng lhe nor:5 liac oi said tli !14' a iis:.:::: oJ 4i.l faer co the
i;:::sectic:: oi c.le p:ciong:cic: oi cre casg li:e ci saii pa::e!; u\eact
Scu:l': 0'C1'33" E:sE, a!,cag said p:cioagacicn, ::3.: fe:! tc Eie ocr:.\e.rsi
c:-a: of saii pa::el 'tthjch is ue pci:c of bcgi::i:3; cbe*:
Scu::0'0i'if" Eas-., aicng sa:d casg l:::e, 2fi.ii ie:: Ec gle soerre3s!
c:=::et oi said pa;cei; !5ence nc:lhresiarly ac::s: s;id palcel through !!a
i:iic'r.'i::g f:r:r c:u:ses: I) Nc::5 23'36'19'' lies:, !i.06 fe::, 2) Nc::5 ..
:3'::':1" L:es;, 8I.46 fe::, 3) tfcr:5 50'48'25"'.ie::, 63.58 feet, a::C 4)
5:u:! 79'49'04" Ilesi, 1i1.45 !ee: tc sle !ror:il'es: c:!:e: of sail pa::rl;
t:'::::c: ::c:--he:scr:1y alcng lhe cc::i line oi sa:j ;a::e1 rhicb is a
n;..-3.i::g:r! (a raiial rc saiC ac::j:r-esi ccrne: !e::.- llor:5 23"39t2t" IJest),
2iii iec: raiius c:.te c.rc3ve 3culhetlyr 254.33 :::: (cenc:al angl: egr:als
5'::':E"J E. Ehe pci:: oi begilni:g.
?::s !--3c:, as riesc:iled, ccn:ai,ls 15r940 sqr:::l !:::, or 0.366 ec:es' !or!
ol !:ss.
Applicant: Vail Associates
14. A request for a parkinq variance j.n orier to constructadCitions to the Christiania Lodge, 355 Hansen Ranch Road,Lct D, Block 2 Vail village J.st Filing.Applicant: PauI R. Johnston
15. A request for a rninor subd,ivision in ord,er to vacate a 1otline between Lots 45 and 47, Vail Village West Filing No. 2.Applicant: ANJA Corporation
16. A request for a height variance and a variance to the numberof satellite dishes permii;ed in order to al1ow for theinsiallation of two satellite Cish antennas on the roof ofthe Marriott Mark Resort, Lots 4 and 7, Block IVail/Lionshead Third Filingr, Lots c and D MorcusSubdivision, located at 7L5 Lionshead Circle.Applicant: Marriott Mark Resort/Tri-County Cablevision
The applications and inforrnation about the proposaLs are
avaiLabLe for public inspection in the Connunity Developrnent
Depart:ent offj-ce.
Town or- Vail
Cornmunity Development Departruent
Published i.n the Vail Trail on Novenber 9, 1990'
tI
/a// r/e.44' f: ar/7 ptep- - Aar,t do.?zz4ia{*J-\-/J/)'
A-il-L.)l ,.:WP. aa&u//U€? /r/E€,p&t CnlU E € ,//A J4,eAg! .ffiA
- . ReDtr: An u/h. utu,( a.ziadlul .t
M/t/Aea/ trll f ?
cartTfut/slr ql /ere,/ €. rrrc
1!/- cqtnk. .qCI/d 2oA 4i Pe"uJt' uft/s
A{MaJh ,#urnsu"ut4 \-/
3.ou,+a/ &ap{- J lo/Ds
J (na4/
/ a.rr:a- ,L 5'o "
Ja% ?
s/tr2/7T?,?,(y' f Pra7"a76t t
{44"rd / ou s " V/s F/ g// i
lef / ou s//
?"' SDu zasy'
tu zDu /4/
nb/u---_<-__** , " -i
ffiAC { pu's ?3o7,
i
ry g/b,* h** ia,o-p* )t .rn,
hP ,a'P'
/)- / // Q ,- ,-A,, rKoy r1f , Lc /lToiui-S
t i' ,Uectt ftltl
tl
I
I
I
i
I205,*'*'. -+--..I ,tn
t ul | |it!ltlil'l
/
Irner.*/ I
I
t)tu!
!
t.,64/ i
iTtC 0's
iTau e
!75
!
zl.'I
I
I
I
lt-.tlll
I
I
J
77
t€4
/7t
Qs
37
/€'
,/7
Q!
'4 t20 A\)''
GEtrA z 3 bf
53q /
AtELpcx-eftuL-
t ,4't, .'t //'2'9o
EXISTTNG
100 Qlrc(rn; Singlc
101 'J'wi ns
102 I'wo deublcs
i 0 3 Twins
104 Two Doubles
105 Queen106 'lwo Dcrubles
107 Queen109 Qucen
201 Twins
202 'l'w(r Doubl c:s
?l)'.1 ]'wi ns
?04 Two Dcrubl es
205 Queen2.06 Tr,ro Doubl cFj
201 Qr.reren209 Queen
Christiani;r at VaiI
Bcdclinry Cot:nt
1990
pRot)osED
llandjcap Batil; 5ki Stor-
Twitrs
Two doub l trg
I'wi n s
Two Doubles
Queen
Two Doublcs; double sofa
Queenoffice
Twins
'l'wo Doublcg
Tlrrn$
Two Doubl es
Queen
Two Doublcs; Queen Sofa
Queen
Qu een
? 14 Que.cn sof a-berl
21 5 Two Dr.rubJ es
Qt:een Scrfa-betl
Quccn
K ing
Qucen; Double
King
Queen
King
Queen
Xi ng; Qtleic:rr-$of a 1;5:1i
Quccn
'l 5 = 3Opeoplc:
15 - 30 tl
41 4 u
4= B "
0= 0 "
^( "'peopl e .,,1 ' llr) 'l,: ^{
* v.
lr
300 lrouble Sof a; King
101 Quc:en302 King
303 Queen; Singl e
304 King
305 Quccn106 K"i rrg307 Quccn308 King309 Queen
Doubles - 13 = 26 preople
Qtrcrens ' 12 = 24 rr
Twins - ll= 4 "
King - 5 -' 10 rl
Singlc - | = 2 "
6,6
Twe rrew trwel Iing Units -16 to 20
tA.
!7
//-2.70
rt k// Eat/ailoa
4x
AU
ea.e 5 .Hr
, a-/a,gd/
o
rNTER-DEPARTMENTAL REVTEW
PROJECT:
DATE SUBMITTED: /O-Ay'. ?O DATE oF pUBLrc HEARTNG //./2.70
/o..1/. 40
THE PROPOSAL:
COMMENTS NEEDED BY:
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF
6P{1
FIRE DEPARTMENT
PUBLTC WORKS
Reviewed by:
Comments;
Reviewed by:
Comments:
Reviewed by:
Comments:
POLTCE DEPARTMENT
Date:
Date:
Date:
z'4' radd- a'/a'etKa'u
"A7A/'
Reviewed nv: 7d O. Dare:
Comments:
,Vzz- /1
}ru- c-<.,rat^*-.-^{ -.,-r_ pL^^__, St--_+
,l
ehrrs*afla-
/0 -")s)17f A
75 soulh lrontage road
vatt, colorado 81657
(303) 479-2138
{303) 47$2139
October 26, 1990
oflice ol communlty development
Mr. PauI JohnstonChristiania Lodge
356 Hansen Ranch RoadVail, Co 8t65?
RE: Christiania Redevelopment
Dear Paul:
Per our telephone conversation of October 17, 1990, I arn writingto you regarding infonnation and drawings which the Town mustreceive by Friday, November 2nd in order to cornplete our reviewof tbe Christiania density and setback variance requests. Thesevariance reguests atre scheduled for public hearing before thePlanning and Environnental Commission (PEC) on November 1.2, J"990.The following is a list of issues which mernbers of the pEC raisedat the October 8, 1990 work session:
1. Please subnlt a compteted landscaping plan for the lodgeproperty, stream tract and parking lot area. The
landscapLng pl.an should indicate plant location, size,spacing and aII plant material should be labeled (connon andlatin name). Also please show location and type of eric{ai*g-vegn'ta€j+rn-an*-€be watering systern to be ernployed in caringfor plant material following its installation. The planshould also differentiate bethreen existing and proposedvegetation.
2- Please provide infornation regarding the current versusproposed nunber of beds, existing versus proposed sq,footage devoted to accommodation unitsr/dwelling units and,current versus proposed nurnber of accomnodation units and
dwelJ.ing units.
't^l
Paul ifohnston
October 26, 1990
3. Please address memberrs suggestion that condominium units berestricted and remain in the short term rental pool .
4. Please address menberrs suggestion that deed restricted
employee housing be provided on or off-site.
5. Several Commission nembers indicated they would like to seethe various fences on the property relate to oneanother/match. PEC nenbers did not seem to take issue withthe renoval of the split rail fence. Ehe south side(backside) of the pool gate needs to be finished.
6. Existing plant material near the existing trash areaadjacent to Hansen Ranch Road should not be disturbed by theconstruction.
7. Please prepare/subnit eLevations of the proposed trashenclosure and information regarding construction. Theenclosure should include a gate. The trash encl-osureIocation and property lJ-nes in the northwest corner of siteshould be staked for the November 12th PEC neeting sitevisit-
8. Please respond to PEC memberrs reguest that Christianiarepresentatives contact Vail Associates regarding the pavingof the v.A. owned half of the lot in conjunction with theChristiania redevelopment.
9. Please respond to PEC memberrs reguest that an outsideexpert look at the existing evergreen trees on the northside of the Christl-ania to detemine the }ikelihood forsurvival of these trees as a reault of redeveJ-opmentconstruction and what measures could be taken to ensure treesurvival.
10. The Town landscape architect has received a copy of theproject site plan which indicates the proposed l-ocation ofthe strean walk. The strearn walk location is on VailAssociates owned land which has been proposed to betransferred to the Town of Vail . A Christianiarepresentative needs to contact V.A. to obtain perrnission toconstruct the stream walk on V.A. owned property. Pathconstruction paving material is still being reviewed.
l-l-. AII additions, roof overhangs, deck overhangs, propertylines, and the location of the trash enclosure should bestaked for the November l-2, l-99O PEC neeting site visit.
Paul Johnston
October 26, l99O
12. The Town will look to have the strean wallc pattr constructed,the trash enclosure constructed, alJ. plant naterialinstalled and all paving designated for removal renoved inconjunction with the Chrlstiania remodel .
13. PEC members unanimously supported allowing the constructionaf 26 acconnodation units and 3 dwelling units. Thisdensity will requLre approval of a density varlance for theproject.
L4. Mike llcGee of the Vail fire Department had the following
connents regarding the redevelopnent suburission plans:
a. The addition will reguire 1008 retroactive firesprinkler instattation and reworking of the fire alarrn
system.
b. Exit stairs will need building code violationscorrected.
c. Auilding code and fire code violations in rnechanicalpenthouse/aLtie and boiler roon will need to becorrected.
d. Exiting plan is not shown. Mechanical ventj-lation isnot shown. Buil-ding code review for maximum sg. ft.for type of construction shoul-d be done.
e. Specify roof covering.
f. Assurne roof manifold is required.
g. Need to check available fireflow for sg. ft. of type ofconstruction. Improvenents in fireflow are likely.
15. Please subrnit a survey showing easenents, site area, legaldescription, and property ownershipr/interest boundaries forthe Christiania lodge and parking lot parcels.
16. Please subnit lnfornation explaining terurs of any agreements
betileen the owner of the Christianii loage with VailAssociates, Chateau Christian Townhouses Association, fnc.
and any other entity which rnay irnpact your ability to carryout the remode} of the Christiania Lodge as proposed.
L7. Please subnit an updated prelininary title report. Thereport copy which f have received is dated May 29, Lg.t6.
If you have any guestions or conments regarding the abovementioned items please do not hesitate t5 contict ne at 47g-2L38.
Sincerely,
Paul Johnston
October 26, L99O
JEKlpp
cc: Bill Reslock, Gordon pierce ArchitectsJay Peterson
18.
PUBI,TC NOTICE
Corn'nissl.on of the Town of Vail nill hold
accordance with Section 19.66.050 of the
a pr:blJ.c hearlng in
uunl.clpal code of the
1.
Fg
:s l<
t\AM
AKF*
4.
A request for denrlty and Fetback variances Ln order to
construct additlons to the ehristiania Icdqe located at 355
Hansen Ranch Road, I€t D, Block 2 Vall Viliage lst FllinE.Appllcant: Paul R. Johnston
NoErcE Is HER8BITVEN tJrat the planntnS anlnvironnental
Town of vai1 on Ostab*B Ae, lg}g,At 2300 p.u. ln the Town of Vall
l,funicipal Building. Conslderation of:
A request for a condltional use pe:lait lnorder to sell beer at wholesale ana to selI beer for off-sile consunptlon at 143 E. l{eadow Drive, Ipt P, Block 5D,Vail Village lst Fllfng.Applicant: First Breu-t1 of Vatlr/Dean Llotta
A request fori a for a uaJor change toexisting developuent appioval for the Valley, Phase VI.Applieant: Ednard Zneiner
A teguest Jor a sl.te coverage variance and an e:<terioralteration in the Cornrercial Core I ln order to allow
constmetion of an airlock entry at the Szechsan Lion
Restauri,nt, 304 Eridge Street, Ipt E, Block 5A, Vall Village1st Fi]ing.Applicant: ilohn S. Ho,/Szecbwan !l.on Restaurant
A request for off-street surface parking at the nHoly Crossparcelrr described as follolrs:
A tract of ground in thc lrE l/4 of scctlon 12, Tornrship 5 south,'Range El|Jes! of chc 6th Principal llcridian, lying virhia lhat parccl conocycd tothe Boly crosr Elcctric asgocialion, rnc. by dced recorded at Reccption llo.ll5l28 on January 12, l98l , ln thc rccords of Eeglc Counly, Coloraio,dcscribcd es:
Co-eneing et thc llE corncr of ieid Section l2; thcncc South 88.19.29r'lfest, along thc aorrh llne of raid llE ll4, t disrencc of 43.t frcr ro thriorcrscccioa of the prolongation of thc cicc linc of raid perccl; !h.oc!
south 0'01r33" East, rlong raid prolongetionr 3l8.z fcct to thc nortbcgt
corDer of raid parccl uhich ls thc point of bcginling; thrac!
South 0'01r33" Egt, elon3 raid cect linc, 222.31 fcct so thc routhcllrcorocr o! raid parccl; lhence norchncstcrly ecrorr rriid parccl throu3b thcfolloning four coura.s: t) Norrb 28'36r19" Idect, 53.05 fect. 2) l{orrh38'12'34" lJcst, 81.46 fcct, 3) llorth 50'48125r. llcst, 68.68 fict, md 4)
South ?9'49r04r' 9cst, t21.45 fcct to thc aorthccst corncr of raid garcrl;
thencc northc8rterly elong thc aortb tinc of raid parccl sbich is r
non-lfngcag (e radial to raid aorlbrcst corncr bcerr ilorth zz.3gt28" llcrt),
2715 foot rrdlug currc conctvc routhcrly, 264.28 fcct (ccutral rnglc cqueb5'34'38") lo che poiar of begilnlag.
This trrct, es d*cribsd, conlelnr 151940 rqurr! fcct, or 0.366 rcrcr, lorcor lcrs.
Applicant: Vall Associates
TK
6' *J;;H:#il,igid;"::*:i";i.:* tofine propertv ror
ltountaln Bell eite described as a tract of land I'n the
South Half, of the southeast guarter, Section.6r.
TownshiP S'South, Range 8o West of the 6th Prlnclpal
ltericllair, EaEIe iounti, colorado, nore partlcularly
deseribed as f,ollolrs:
lriia,rias r.' .'roi".-'ir!'rt'ii"r doo:i' re'.,'; lr1..oii'oi' : :'
rec.'ri-irli'rioi-tir'i6hiiri iinri-oi-sietloa t. lo:rrtlt-5 ;
3ortt!. trrgl !0 L3t ol tla tllt ,tlrcl9.! ia?tdtrir.Dt!!3 3:!
ii*.::Ii;'.i'ili::il:,:i;il;:* t'lE!z:?':!'rTiHi'1i. . :''i.ii-rior i? irti iicttoi-r i-rirt.ic. ot 533.r0-tr.!i !l!"!!-^MO2t'?t' I r dlltlt.r of 35t!'ta-t!!f t! | tolnl on tr' t'rr
iril:tii'l'ii,i":iliiii'ii:.tfii,lii::'i':i:l:i':t:l;:ti .:';;i;i ;; i toiir. rrtc iuiri-riri-Iiioi-oa ttrr lcrr!rrl;.tl3rtt' '.ii:I;'-if riiifii.ii'ioi-ili"ii-itiir r.rc !e'!t.ill.!it?il'- .Ier ci ttr follor{nt I Cgrrllt: ll I alrillcr rr
ii:ri.l'i"lii :l ;,tii'!: !i:.!il:'fiiioSil.iilll!.!.::er..;:;;iil i'iiiri;td: f-r'irir!"li-ii-r6i.ii' rirc:,ii.;.!i'il'3ii.*'E'i'iii:i"il ii iit.5o-ri.ii-ri I'rec5:'so' t r c'i.lti'iili'iriierii:-i i'iiitiici i;-iililq fuer: n 3 reoss'ri'
E I dlttrnc. at 30!'?! i.i:i-r:-s t!s:l'!9' E r c{riracr cf
ioi.id-iiiii it 3-iioir:ii:'r'l irii'ii'-ir rrl'rc t'ct: n "
3-ii6i3 ; ii;'E- ; I r' t,!ic-'it i,rt F iil;.!,* j*;rtg'S.it
*pllllo..,i$1lll#f;t|,'il::.il' SLll'iielilil, iigro.
[i'iii: i; iie:
'ii;d
ii-'rco'i ri tir orsrcs o1 31s-1 rat
lrcordl at tlf:: CcuGtt. cnlG'tca'
Pedotto Sl.te described aE A parcel of land in tlre SW
],li at Sectien 14, Tomsbip 5 Soutl, RanEe 81 West of
titi etrr-iiinilpii'uerictianl rnore particularly described
as follows:'lrgtrnlng rt I golnt vhcncr t -brrlc cro ret fot I
vtllrcrt sorncr rii"irtl'iilt lt1-ot rrli s:ctlon.ll-il#;:i ;i'';iiti:-16rl.or tcqtr.thcncc r ?r' o5'tt'
[=ibili iicii lricnii'iii.ci-iiit.c]one rho rrc oI I
E riii' io- iii' riiil-ir' iifr - iic- i"it'nar - r ehorrl bcrtlne
i-ai;$;t6;-r- iii'rl'-iiiri-Crr"" 3 ??'ro'ly D 6:'??
i;i;r,!$lrr;tiiii,lii!,ili:;Uiii':!=i.l]ff r!ir::f il!.i6 iliti iionco $-?o"l'33' E
'03'35
lcctt thln-cr
31.i5'iici-iiini tiii rlc ot . Burvc.to th! rls!! $jhtch
iii-iuiicricr I irritc lcirlnc E '?'20r3?'
E rl'20 l'ctf
liinil-i-ir;:E'ii;-i lto.rr-tcct1 thcner ! 6!'1"01'
fl'lio.Oi iooli iionc.. tt 19rgz'03' tl t0'00 fectt thenc'i ii;ia;li;-i'ttd.ii-'ti.ir tncnco s l0'5!'33' r !6'rt
i.ii,l 'itrcnc.
tf
'!?'{oroa' H t3?.?t.fcct: Urcnco ll
ii'ii'ii: i tio.oo tect to tho Polnt of bcainnlngr
corrtrlnlng :.5005 l€retl !o!r oa IGttr
loerlas lron G. &.O. nccord tor Soulh U2 of e'octt on
llne bitvecn Ec€tlonr l{-ft.
oberlohr slte, Lts 5-13' Vall Heights FiIlnE No'l'
:rF-
a.
b,\K
sK€.
The appllcations and lnfomatlon about the proposals are
avaLtable for publlc !.nspectlon ln tlre connunity Developuent
Depattnent office.
'llorn of YaiI
ComunltY DeveloPuent DePattuent
I,trb1!,shedt Ln the vall Trall on october 5, 1990'
476'+{3-3
Phrrz (murAafui /o- /Z - ? o
v,( + < &r/ry_
+ shazo: Eoar o*,*Jr, b/g ca-/rl1/euag /r*4d6{Mgl
l-,.. - / r /Arcl< fouznd t-/zau izl-t/{,k -/6./ao
o,?,
shaztr tx*fuczd' tZ( noluant h a^ez aniA cao#rnd h c/eurasz *g ^4 U3
A//h,fprnzhz>o) -n' h//ert- ./ / .---- - ,tUArti/-/_a1i c/ct*i.^t#' "foO
: S.A. C frfr- fr*4 *rrrfrnqi q-ftf*'t,/acaTou
4,ta,r,* lo -Az.L dnea- ofu::rA #ffi-#
' />'str ,f Pa/L eu&/'2 tua4 ' na;ku-<ii'
' End [orz aa-t S :.,ra-a/ q+rt' , ..,* ileed (onr/o Trroc -.a7/nrraL,hA
< fftrs Perbrt /OoZ e /24/4 a,reVav/ a;fuc,t, /ut r"z{a-
axil -n* /rLl/fi, t& lb,rr,-rglt uno({ ronlz/r,re<za")
;and ,v,/acafro) / fry 6'-,wt qal ma,n7/ da, fo-ff/b6
Tentw 6-kaze, u/ eanala a.aaaC.
,tfrilh1u/s - ryt67.(- .*,{a.oued \
e nyr/*7- hotwtg / trtt* nz t/]+) n) rhw- unh %hP.-
*/ t*JI"; d^4 fttl-vc$'q,\) q)
, P€c atndc /r,,t-t' C/rntha.truL fu canzhr,f l/,4 en:
1x'srb.-A,4 K Wne. 4;,e,. /rq, {"fI I(JI J (J
' 0L la r&nar't ,sd','* fq( thc--
- frntl ^snc/otttnt'i"1^l-ri 6uueL-/---.=-.\
, ' Do -.rto{ Cfi@hd./r, frq, ntnt fiaai ar,<"<,
,*totr fuV Flarnl&u, -' /.f at afr- pbq--* ftn',c-m ]" rrc.kL -,AUae
---.'. *'"..'^..\
lt!:/ .t tib tAnSa^ AA,TLA
. -.;-,,*-,-'- -.-'* ,*. .,----
o
F$!-t f;fipyFEC lrlinutes
LO/22/90 Meeting
l[ended condltlon:
L2. Ibe appllcant has the optlon to reduce tbe lensth oftbe upper road and locate tbe cul de sac f,urther to the€ast.
VOTE: 7-O IN FAVOR
ftem No. 6:drrPibundA reguest foq Fetback variances in orderto construct additions to the Christiania Lodgelocated at 356 Hansen Ranch Road. Lot D, Block 2
ften No. 7:A recruest for off-street surface parking at thetrHoly Cross parcel . tl
Applicant: Vail Associates
A request for a variance to allow a satellitedish in the Gore Creek 50' setback and a requestfor a floodplain nodification on Lot 3, Blos:k. l-,Biqhorn Lst addition, 3907 Lupine Drive.Applicantr Ron Oelbaurn
ltem No. 8:
A rnotion to table items 6 and ? t# Novernber L2, 1990 anditem I indefinitely was made bv Chuck Crist and seconded bvJin Shearer
VOTE: 7.O IN FAVOR
20
PEC Minutes
LO/22/9O Meeting
6. Prior to issuance of buitdinq Pernits for building
envelopes 3 or 4' the applicant shall submit Plansshowino Ehit the proposed buildinct meets the internal-
nitioation recruirernents of the Mears report dated
SeDtember. 1990.
7.The anplicant has the option of includiqq-a caretaker
unit within each structure uglng an addtltional ,So9 s<r.
tt. of 6nFA to the anount allocated to eacb buLlilinq
Gnvelop€ for the caretaker unit. The units muqt conl)lv
rtith Section 18.13.080 (Bl . Up to 4OO square feet of
unused GRFA frorn the primary unit mav b,e tralsferred to
the caretaker unit, bowever, no caretalcer unit shall
exceed 1200 sq. f,t.
8.The applicant shall desl-qn all retaininq ltal1s located
in the front yard setback with terracinq so that none
exceed three feet in height.
9.Prlor to tlre Lasuanae of q certificate of occu?ancy or
,f in
cuI
10. Prior to the issuance of anv building-pernils for this
ffillcant slatt proviae a. tett9r frgn
@."ont"rinn th" "e"oostruction of
the trail that crosses thl's DroDerty.
11.
Shearer felt that there should be
de sac on the upper road, to show
ftexibilj.tY to shorten the
Iess asphalt.
road and Bueffer cre€k Road.
19
SENT BY!Pa I ace Explorati0n Co, i10-17-90 il2i05Pl']| ;2125931?87-'303 4?0 04?0i# 2
Rrcnnno D. $IEGAL
ATTO FI N EY AT LAW
rELE ptroN E (tl8) g3!.ittO
lJfPl! nn--."-uuUti
Brgg0
rot p^il( AvEilutt f{Ew yoRt(, H, y, tooet
October 1?r 1990
Chateau Chtiatj.an folrnhouBe Acgociater_r. Inc. by itr executlvecorunrftee aEErrovcs_ tr'e--;;;;o*ll- r.*-reiihs.;r irna "aetttor," rolil: ;ii*tlinia r,oas;.- "w;:;;;,rase rhl-i6*n -of'v.rt to approv.
Very truly yourt,,h'r{
#::i#1, sl-esar
cn<
OFILE COPY
PLANNING AND ENVIRON}TENTAI, COI,TMTSSIONoctober 8, 1990
Present
Chuck Crist
Diana Donovan
Connie Knight
l,udwig KurzJim Shearer
Kathy WarrenDalton Williarns
Staff
Kristan Pritz
Mike MollicaJiII KannererShelly Me11o
Andy Knudtsen
Betsy Rosolack
Penny Perry
rn the interest of visiting the christiania Lodge site prior tothe work session, site visits were moved to the beginniirg of themeeting.
The work session portion of the neeting was carled to order at1:l-0 p.n. by Diana Donovan, Chairperson. All nenbers of theBoard were present.
Jllt _KanTerer explained that a revised nemo had been given to theBoard prior to the site visits. Al-l the areas in bold werechanges to the rnerno which had been sent out in the corunissionpacket. The reason the memo had been rnodified was because anumber of dwelring uni-ts had been changed to accommodation unitsthrough the deletl?n.of cooking facilif.ies (i.e. microwaves) i"the units. rn addition to the dwe11i.ng to accommodation unit,schanges prior to.the meeting, the applicant brought in froor ftu'nodifications which proposed- the coiniination ot icconunodationunits. These unit combinations wourd increase the size ofcertain accommodation units and decrease the overall projectdensity to the point where no density variance ror-,ta Le ieguireo.
Jil1 explained that the appricant was proposing to constructadditions to the.chrlstiania Lod.ge. Jilr-revi6wed the backgroundof the project, describing the pioposed remodel by 1evel . if,evariances reguested incluaing a- 202 conmon area viriance andsetback variances. Jill then reviewed the zoning considerations,related policies in the VaiI Village Master plan and thept?p"_",?lls compliance with the Urbin Design Guide plan for thevail virrage. There hras a list of items ior pnC discussion atthe end of the staff neno.
R. Johnetor
L.
In order to be considered a Itl,odgerr under the zoning definition,a lodge must have nore square feet of acconmodation units thendwelling units. Subsequently, this was the reason for thedwelling to accommodation unit proposal rnodifications and
accomrnodation unit cornbinations nodification.
Jay Peterson, representing the applicant, cornmented that he felta typographical error had been made on Page 6 of the raerno whichstated the l-990 proposed conmon area sq. footage as 59.5?. Hiscalculations indicated the 1990 proposed cornrqon area sg. footagewas 338.
Jay continued by reviewing background of the project andexplaining why the 1987 approval !'ras never built. The 1987approval was for general improvernent--i.e. baths, handicappedaccess etq. Economically the improvements were not feasiblewithout a bed expansion as wel1. The present proposal would addtwo dwelling units on the apartment level. The proceeds fron thesale of those units would make the project economically feasible.He stated that the concept of the nlodgetr would remain the same,however, small lodges needed the same conmon area facilities asIarge lodges. The floor plans presented prior to the pEC neetinghad (in order to elirninate the need for a density variance)proposed conbining 3 lodge rooms with adjacent rooms. However,the applicant would be willing to reverse the conbination ofunits and pursue a density variance if instructed to do so by the
PEC.
Regarding the setback variances, Jay stated that they wereessentially the same as the l-9BZ redevelopnent proposal setbackencroachments. He felt that the 20? cornmon area allowance wasnot enough for a hotel . Presentl_y, the lodge conforrned. Theincrease was due to bathroons with handicap access, hallways, anincreased lobby, and the addition of one central laundry. -
Presently, laundry facilities were scattered throughout 6 smallclosets. Also contributing to the increased conmon area was theproposed enlargement of Sarahrs Bar which was used forcontinental breakfasts, and a ski storage area.
Jay commented that rnost of the areas that encroached into thesetbacks were due to the existing building already encroaching.The porte cochere encroached, but was an unenclosed covered spaceand bettered the aesthetics.
This neeting being a work session, Jay asked for preliminary
comrnents. He mentioned that the applicant had already receivedprelirninary Design Board approval .
PEC Minutes
LO/8/90 Meeting
Diana suggested that the board go down the work sessiondiscussion list found in the memo one by one.
Kathy wanted the applicant or asite plan and building plan and
room reconfigurations.
representative to go through theexplain the encroachnents and
BiIl Reslock, architect representing the applicant, reviewed therevised site plan and setback encroachments. BilI and the Boardspent an extensive period of tirne reviewing the plans. Billhightighted the areas of building and cantilevered encroachmentsin pink, deck encroachrnents in blue. He also pointed outextended roof overhangs.
Kathy coramented that there were essentially 4 areas of minorencroachments and the porte cochere and asked to review the floorplan and have the common areas explained.
Bill Reslock proceeded to review the plans as follor,,rs:
Ground Floor: -Common Bathrooms
lst Floor:
-Ski Storage/slope access
-Housekeeping
-New entry for Christiania Realty
-Elevator
-Lobby/upgrade (current lobby was basically a
hallway)
-New stairways
-l-08 addition to Sarahrs Bar (Accessory Use)
-New Hallways
-Stairways-Elevator Shaft
-New stairwells.Apartments:
Kristan suggested the addition of an employee unit.
Jill- asked about the fireplace in sarahts Bar and paul Johnstonstated they would be converring the fireplace to gas. Al1fireplaces in the remodeled strucLure would be gai fireplaces.
connie Knight riras concerned about the roof overhanqs and Kristanexplained that the porte cochere was the only area to overhanganother property (T.O.V. Right-of-way) .
2nd Floor:
PEC Minutesto/8/9o Meeting
Connie rras also concerned with the deck encroachments into thesetbacks and Kristan explained that decks were allohred to extendI/2 t,lre distance into the setback. There were no proposed areasthat would extend beyond what was allor,ved. There sras a proposed
deck that would encroach onto the Chateau Condoroinium property.
Connie asked the applicant if the only reason for cornbining thecombination unit with another accornnodation unit and the Realtyoffice on the ground floor and the conbination of 2 other
accommodation units with another accommodation unit on the Lstand 2nd floors was solely to elininate the need for a densityvariance and BilI Reslock answered rtysstt. Connie cornrnented thatshe personally would rather see nore accommodation units provided
and a density variance.
Jay explained that the only 2 units to be sold would be those onthe apartnent 1evel (3rd floor).
Jin Shearer asked if the applicant planned to include a sprinklersystem and Paul Johnston answered that the Fire Department wasreguiring the installation of sprinklers in the old and newareas.
Jim Shearer conmented that he would like to see as many trees aspossible saved. Paul Johnston conmented that the cluster at thewest end would stay. Jirn stated that he felt it was irnportant tolandscape the parking 1ot, especially if the applicant wasplanning to remove trees.
Kathy warren commented that she had no major concerns with thesetbacks but would like to see a site plan which clearlyindicated the foundation of the building, decks and rooioverhangs as well as the setbacks. Kathy agreed that the parkinglot needed to be upgraded.
Jim shearer conmented that it rnight be possible for the appricantto.move the dunpster and free up additional parking spaces. Ji1lpointed out that the applicant did not own the properly where Jirnhlas suggesting the durnpster be rerocated. vail Associites ownedthe property at the northwest corner of the site.
Kathy felt that the trash enclosure area needed to be studiedfurther and the area staked for the next neeting. Kathy agreedwith the path/walkway concept as presented in the rnemo. She alsocommented that the back of the gate to the swirnrning poor needed.to be finished. Regarding the density, she felt sirongly thatemployee housing needed to be addressed. In reality, she feltthe applicant was removing a dwelling unit and making it into an
PEC Minutes
Lo/8/9o Meeting
accommodation unit when it could be made into an employee unit.
She conmented that if the applicant preferred, she could agree toan off-site ernployee unit.
Chuck Crist had no problern with the setbaclc encroachments. Heagreed the parking lot needed to be upgraded and that the trashenclosure needed refinement. He felt comfortable rrith the portecochere. He could not agree with the removal of trees.
Darton ffilriarus fert confortable vith the setback encroachmentsand porte cochere. Regarding the parking lot, he felt VailAssociates should also clean up their half. Regarding the MiI1Creek Path, he would Like to see a stream walk and the split railfence renoved. He fett the trash enclosure should be more than afence. It shoul-d be fully enclosed and well screened withIandscaping. Dalton felt strongly that employee housing shouldbe provided. He agreed with Kathy, if the applicant preferred,
he would be comfortable r.rith it being located off-site.
Ludwig Kurz asked what increase in staff was expected by theexpansion. Paul Johnston responded to Ludwig Kurzts guestion bystating a possible concierge and possibly some housekeeping staif(2 or 3 people) .
Ludwig comnented that he had no problems with the setbacks andagreed with Kathy, that he would like to see the foundat,ionIines, roof overhangs etc. shown nore specifically on the siteplan. Ludwig was comfortable with the porte cochere setbacksince it appeared to enhance the streetscape. Ludwig agreed withthe rest of the board regarding the density. He would iather seea density variance than the loss of accommodation rooms. Ludwisgras concerned about the Loss of trees.
Diana asked that the landscape plan be shown on the final plan.
She also wanted to see a restricted eurployee unit and theapartment condos restricted for short term rental with the keysbeing issued at the front desk. She felt the pool and walkwalrarea shouLd include more conmon area. Diana hid no problens witha density variance. she commented that the project had the GRFAavailable. She would like to see the lodqe units remain. Shealso wanted to see the foundation 1ines, roof overhangs, decklines etc. on the site plan as nentioned by urany of the Boardmembers. She did want to see the parking paved and landscapedand the trash enclosure screened.
PEC Minutes
Lo/8/9o Meeting
In order to give the applicant a consensus to plan by, Diana
asked by a show of hands how many board members would like t,o seethe 3 acconmodation units remain and a density variance granted.
The infonoal vote was 7-O in favor.
Diana connented that since the project had the available GRFA,
she felt the Council night be more receptive to a density
variance.
The work session was adjourned.
The regular meeting of the Planning and Environmental Commission
was called to order at 2:30 p.m. by Diana Donovan, Chairperson.
Item No. 1: Approval of minutes from the Septenber 10. 1990
rneetinq.
Kathy Warren asked to have a sentence on page -l deleted.
A notion to approve the rninutes for the Septenber l-0. L990
meetincr with corrections was nade by Chuck Crist and
seconded by Jirn Shearer.
VOTE: 7-0 fN FAVOR
Since ltern No. 2 and Ttem No. 3 were so closely related, theylrere discussed together.
ften No. 2: A recruest to arnend section L8.04.130--definitionof Floor area, gross residential (GRFA) ; 18.09.080Hillside Residential District densitv control;
18.1-0.090 Sinale Fanilv District densitv control;
1-8.12.090 Two Farnilv Residential District densitvcontrol andr l-8.13.080 Prinarv,/Secondarv Districtdensity control , of the Municipal Code.Applicant: Town of Vail
' o+ql) RqD t
vss',,'o Ot\r;*l er' i or ff6af-f$ g s n*ks
k\'t, tilol,k tro htlraN rdbo&huM^t
0,nr,r-t-, Crnou.ud nbot* JrrM ruuh*as
erL \to.r- wrclLq-[ ttrt- {'#'rtodl CIM-\"{ ?oaa'.. .ffin^A N fi W io auo^!000{.
tq!, ,\o!rL +D ba-
^ddtnruJ{"qi u-,,o1acr-frucN
nD el+ |rDav]llns Nflh.' \k:\uIJ("L \ie10x0/J-S,:*qp\ ilAND d1 ,,bl\,41
{rykrrq-'urrtu {uEM \ bu.:\am
IIC+J l,*r rylsq irll^u{u\du-
4
Sr,.rp\u.rog \^a*
/- Il\ l\ nD{ an sd0-
?5n uor rg o uq.fu/e
l- Sutr.
^3
D,.tt,
)l
I r \^.5h a,u,a I{- L\(f
@
) Pirr\\rq?\*b f
t^*+\,on ryft* p%^
5u04\
t*fl
L--
I
nEvrsED Lo/8/9o tr1tt,) .,..,/i.-.t .,. ..+,i,..... . - , J 4d jrwt ,,...: .,., ' ' t
To: PLanning and Environmental ConniJsion Li,,t; "
Connunity Development Departnent
October 8, 1990
A reguest for a qrork session for density and setbackvariances in order to al1on construction of an additionto and the remodeling of the Christiania Lodge, 356
llansen Ranch Road, L,ot D, Block 2 Vail Village lstFiling.Applicant: Paul R. Johnston
I. BACKGROUND
On ltay 1.L, L987, the Planning and Environrnental Cornmission
voted to approve density and setback variances in order toallow the construction of additions to the ChristlaniaLodge. It was the Conmunity Development Departnent staffrsopinion that approvaL of an increaee in density would be agrant of special privilege and therefore the staff had
recommended the request be denied. At the tine the PEc
considered the L987 redevelopnent proposal , public hearings
had been held to review the Vail Village ltaster Plan.
However, the plan was stitl in draft form and had not beenfonnally adopted by Council . The Goals and ObJectives ofthe Vail Village Master Plan supported the 1997 rernodelingproposaL and therefore the PEC voted to approve the density
and setback variances. Subsequent to the 198? PEC approvalof the variance request, no building pernit has been
reguested so no construction has occurred.
A comparj-son of the 1987 redevelopnent submission, 1990
redevelopment subnission and existing conditLons follows inthe Description of the Proposal section of this memo.
II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED REMODEIJ
Ur. PauI Johnston, onner of the Christiania Lodge, proposesto add a third floor to the existinq structure, to remodelthe structurers interior, to construct a porte corchere, to
expand Sarahrs Bar, and to add conmon area to the Lodgeunder this proposal . This reguest will require density andsetback variances. The following is a sunnary of the
development proposal:
FROI'!:
DATE:
RE:
A. Ground Floor (Garden Level)
-(L dwelling unit e 511 sg. ft.) cbang€d fron D.U. to
A.g. ls a result of nLerorav€ r€noval (tltchen)
-(6, 7 acconmodation units I 1563 sq. ft. + 511 = 2074
aq. ft.
-common area 0 2179 sq. ft.
-chateau nechanical area € 271 sq. ft.
-ChriEtianLa Realty office (conditional use permit has
been obtained) I 237 sq. ft.
B. First Floor
-(1 dwelling unit 0 ssr sg. ft.) cbalg€d to l.U.
-(7) I accomnodation units I L775 sq. ft. + 551 = 2?26
sq. ft.
-Common area € L422 sg. ft.
-Airloclts € 141. sq. ft.
-Restaurant € 1178 sq. ft.
-Fireplaces: 2
c. Second Floor
-(5) 1 dwelling unit e (2os4) {92 sq' ft' cbanged I
D.It.3 to A.U.3
-(7) 11 accommodation units e 2053 sq' ft' + 1562 =3615 sg. ft.
-conmon area € 623 sq. ft.
-FirepLaces:2
D. Third Floor (Apartnent Level)
-2 dwelling units
East unit g 2135 sg. ft.
West Unlt 0 zrSe sq. ft. = 1291' sg' ft'
-common area 0 164 sq. ft.
-Fireplaces: 4
E. Mechanical Loft
-ltechanical G 205 sq. ft.
-Connon area 2 13 sq. ft.
F. All fireplaces are gas except for one nood burning unit
in Sarahts Bar.
Note: Sunmary of Total 89. ft.
3 D.Ir.s at 4783 sq. ft.
26 A.It.s at 8015 sq. ft. = 13 D.U.8
--;;;-o? 2lAtll'
III. DESERIPTION OF THE VARIANCES REOUESTED
A. 208 Conmon Area Variance
Common area includes halls, closets, lobbies, stairways
and connon enclosed recreation faciLities. The aLlowed
common area on this site is 2,646 sq. ft. Presently,
21255 sq. ft. of conrnon area exists. The proposal adds
2,192 sq. ft. of additional hall space, lobby area,
acqessory office, and storage. A variance is necessarvfor the 2.192'Ect. ft. of connon area over the allosableof 2.646 scr. ft.
B. Setback Variances
Tbe PubLic Accommodation zone district reguires 20 foot
setbacks on aII sides of the property. The existingfront 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 property as the Christiania
Lodge connects directly uith the chateau Condominiumsto the east. A L7 foot setback exists on the west side
. of the property as the southwest corner of the building
encroaches three feet into the 20 foot eetback area,
The rear setback is 2O feet.
The proposed additions will further encroach into thefront, rear and west-side setbacks.
A proposed porte cochere off of the nain entrance will
have a support column that will be located at theproperty line. A zero setback is needed for the
roof overhang would not extend nd the existing 3foot planter encroachment.
The proposed Christiania Realty Office's covered
entrance at the northwest end of the site will encroach
11 ft. into the setback. Currently the corner of thebuilding at this location encroaches 5r-6rr into thesetback. With the construction of the coveredentrance, the resulting setback would be 9r-Oil.
lwo addltions are proposed to the front facade of the
buitding. One of the additions is a new entry to
Sarahrs lounge, the other is to the lobby. These two
additions wil.l not encroach any further into the front
setback then the lr-6r the existlng face of the
buildtnq currently encroacheE. The covering of the
entranee to sarahra Bar will not extend beyond the
existing 6r-6n planter encroachment.
lxtre we5tern most additlon witl encroach I ft. into the
rear setback. At this same location the 3rd floor
apartnent overhang encroaches 1O ft. into the rear
setback and a second floor deck overhang encroaches 14
ft. into the rear setback.
Because the second floor deck overhanE encroaches the
greatest amount into the rear setbaclt, a variance is
necessary for the 14 ft. encroachment.
The final addition to occur on the site is the
expansion of Sarahrs Bar. This expaneion wiII not
encroach into required setbasks.
In addition to the above mentioned encroachments' to
the front, west-side and rear setbacks, the roof
overhang on the proposed new lobby addition will
project-into the zelo east-side setback situation'
IV. ZONING CONS;IDERATIONS
A. Zone District: Public Acconmodation
B. Site Area: .38 acres or 16'540 sq. ft.
c. Density: (25 d.u.s allotled per acre, 1" d.u = 2 a'u')
Allowed: 9 d.u.s = 18 a.u.s
Existing: 2 d.u.s and 25 a.u.s = 14.5 d'u's
Existing over allowable: 5.5 d-u-s
198? Proposed: 1 d.u. and 28 a.u. = 15 d.u.s
1990 Proposed: (6) 3 d.u.s and (20) 26 a.u.s = 16
d.u. s
1990 Difference fron existing: 1.5 d.u.s
Total amount over
aLlowed after l-99o remodeL: (7) 5.5 d.u.s
ofD.GRFA: (80 sq. ft. of GRFA allowable per 100 sq. ft.buildable site area.)
Allowed: L3,2_32 sq. ft.Existing: -l ,lgz sS. ft.
1987 Proposed: lOrO75 sq. ft.
l99O Proposed: L2r758 sq. ft.
Rernaining after 1990 redevelopnent:,474 sg.
E.Conmon Area: (2Og of allor'rable GRFA)
ft. )
al.lowable GRFA
al.lowable GRFA
Allowed: 2,646 sq. ft.Existing: 2,255 sq. ft.
1987 Proposed: 4r22O sg. ft.
1990 Proposed: 4,447 sq. ft.
l-99O amount over allowed: 1,801
Accessory: Christiania Realty office
(1-o* of allowable GRFA):
AlLolred: L.323 sq. ft.Existing: 780 sq. f.t
1987 Proposed: 11146 sg. ft.
L990 Proposed: 1,415 sg. ft.
1990 anount over allolred: 92
Setbacks:
Reguired: 20 ft. all sides
Existing
Front 15 ft.East Side 0 ft.
West Side 17 ft.Rear 20 tt-.
Site Coverage: (.55 of site area)
Allowed: 9,O97 sg. ft.Existing: 5,235 sq. ft.
1987 Proposed: 61090 sq. ft.
1990 Proposed: 5,984 sq. ft.
1990 Renaining: 3,113 sq. ft.
5
and Sarahrs
sq. ft.
1990 Proposed
o ft.o ft.
5!-6tr encroachnent
14! encroachnent
W
r.
G.
H.
. Use
[.r Accommodation Units:
i' Dwelling Units:
.\ Sarahrs Lounge:
V Realty office:'
,. Christiania Condos:
'x,. i Total
'vhl\,v \
B\\er\
t\\
\
I. Landscaping; (3ot of site area)
Required: 4,962 sq. ft.Existing: 7,49O sq. ft.
1987 Proposed: 6,635 sg. ft.
1990 Proposed: 5t943 sq. ft.
J. Height:
Al-lowed: 4S ft. sloping roof 45 ft. flat roof
Existing: 36 ft. sloping
Proposed: approximately 44 ft. ftat
K. Parking:
Existing
# spaces
25 units = Tl
2 units = 4
6
L
9
37
or
37 spaces reguired
34 on site3 spaces grandfathered
Proposed
(2O, 26 unita( 6) 3 units
# spaces
=(14) 18.1!
=(17) 5.5II.9
(49) {2.9 or {3
or(49) a3 spaces reguired
- 3 qrandfathered
(46) l0 spaces which nust
be provided to mee
parking
requirements.
V. REI,ATED POLTCIES IN rHE VAIL VILI,AGE !'!ASTER PI,AN
Ttre foltowing is a list of the Vail Village lrtaster Plan
Goals and objectives which relate to this project:
GOAL #]" - ENCOUR.AGE HIGH QUALITY REDEVEIPPI'TENT VIHII,E
PRESERVING THE UNIQUE ARCHITECTUNAI, SCAI,E OT THE
VILI-,AGE IN ORDER TO SUSTAIN ITS SENSE OF COUI'IUNITY
AND IDET{TITY.
L.2 Obiective:
bn-ourage the upgradinq and redevelopment of
resideniial and iornmercial facilities.
1.2.1 Policv:Additional developrnent may be allowed asidentified by the Action Plan and as Ls-consistent with the vail Village Master Plan
and Urban Design Guj-de PLan.
GOAL #2 - TO FOSTER A STRONG TOI]RTST TNDUSTRY Al{D PRot'fOTE
YEAR.AROUND ECONOUIC IIEALgfl A}TD VIABII,ITY FOR THE
VILI,AGE AND FOR THE COI,T!,IT'NITY AS A WHOLE.
2.3 Obiective:
Increase the nunber of residential units availablefor short tern overnight accomnodations.
2.3.1 Policv:
The developnent of short term acconnodationunits is strongly encouraged. Residentialunits that are developed above existingdensity levels are required to be designed or
rnanaged in a nanner that makes then availablefor short term overnight rental .
2.5 objective:
Encourage the continued upgrading, renovation and
maintenance of existinq lodging and conmerciatfacllities to better serve the needs of ourguests.
GOAL #3 - TO RECOGNIZE AS A TOP PRIORITY THE ENHANCEI.TENT OF
THE WALKING EXPERIENCE BIIROUGIIOUT TTIE VILI,AGE.
3.1 Obiective:Physically inprove the existing pedestrian ways by
landscaping and other inprovements.
3.1.1 Policy:Private development projects sballincorporate streetscape inprovements (such aspaver treatments, landscaping, Ligbting andseating areas), along adjacent pedestrian
rfays.
GOAL #4 - TO PRESERVE EXISTING OPEN SPACE AREAS AND EXPAND
GREENSPACE OPPORWNITIES.
4.1 obiective:
Improve existing open space areas and create nelrt
plazas with greenspace and pocket parks.
Recognize the difference roles of each type of
open space in forming the overall fabric of the
Village.
GOAL #5 - INCREASE AND IMPROVE TTTE CAPACITY, EFFICIENCY, AND
AESTHETICS OF THE TRANSPORTATION AND CTRCULATION
SYSTEU THROUGHOUT THE VU.,L,AGE.
VI. COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN GUTDE PIJ\N FOR VAII, VILIAGE
Sub-Area Concept No. 8:
t'Mil-l Creek walking path, west side MilI Creek. Path
completes linkage irorn pirate ship and mountain path to
Gore creek Drive.
The Urban Design Guide plan calls out for the path
connection between the bike path and Hanson Ranch Road. The
addition of a stone foot path would be a positive
improvernent to the pedestiian experience in the Village
area.
Even though the path was originally proposed for the west
side of ltirr creEk, staff believes that the east side
provides a more attractive walking experience. The west
liae or the creek has a trash room for cyranors as welL as
several utillty boxes which roake it an unpleasant area to
walk through.
VII. WORK SESSION DISCUSSIoN ITEI'IS
1. Setback variances.
2. Upgrading of existing parking area through paving and
landscaping.
The applicant needs to demonstrate how the required
parking will be provided. Staff rrould like to see the
ipplicint upgradE the existing christiania parking lot
IoLated across the street from the lodge as a part of
this proposal . VaLl Associates owns the entire lot and
uses the-western portion of the parking area. Thg
Christiania has a Long term lease with vaiL Agsoeiates
for the eastern half of the Lot.
3.
Staff will require that the applicant landscape theentire lot and asphalt the portion of the lot which isleased. Plant naterials should be pLaced along the
southern and northern periphery of the lot in order to
screen the lot fron adJacent properties and pedestrianways. The provLsion of this landscaping was acondition for approving the pl.an in 1987.
Construction of MilL Creek Path/Trash EncloEure.
Staff suggests the applicant construct a foot path wltha snall seating area along the east side of Uill Creek.
The path would be an lnfornal stepping stone path witha seating bench adJacent to the creek. The path wouLd
be located between the ChriEtiania split rail fence andMill Creek.
Screening of trash enclosure and Relocation ontoapplicantrs property.
Staff will reguire that the applicant relocate andconstruct a trash enclosure to screen the lodgrers trasharea. Currently the lodgers dumpster and a portion ofa paved parking area is located on V.A. owned property
adjacent to MilI Creek. The Town proposes to construct
an off-street Ioading area for the Village on this ,property in addition to the above nentioned MiIl Creekpath in order to allow for the construction of the Mill
Creek path and to allow for the construction of an off-street loading area, this paved area should be removed
and the dunpster located on christiania property.
The construction of the lfill Creek Path and Trash
Enclosure were also conditions for approvlng the planin r.997.
Porte corchere encroachnent.
Condo:niniura Notification of redevelopnent proposal.
Lease on parking--is an off-site parking approvalreguired from Council or ls arrangenent with Vail
Associates a grandfathered situation.
4.
5.
6.
7.
to/(g r'- -\(/tv--/
| . ;-Jh ',/ ti*64)r
'79" lr rarnnza'?;z F-'uzz'4 hf - &/rni/;-{<:zzz,-'W @ :
/c//2,;' furrhrzz-.,/LcZ{/zv{.tt1
/rtAr'fttr1 lirh{
" N ( 1!r.i//7-at--2.
u 5r+<a.-1,,/zt bzatga.rtA4 ,(rf oltl-fu4,fla)
#Tuhul
g/a?4, F,ro| trWl'/a.'T uru/) Ar.J rrr,$t
ft; :ffi ar'z47ro"u"a-/7''th"'' \
zaztrrte': 1"/ azr+4a17 o,rl, Za L{
." {rn // ) trifr Paoott - /i/( r../trt ?
&tt+:V -4 -r' kr)t/5 trr'itor/ fr '4nu( a' renfulr':mzz'"*
hz'r* *n / t ta1 t'/ /r 5<( V t''' A (/ -s
;i: o-r; /'a*t / (u(,-z'*tawl- d"ry"- t /t' uho''-'
,,tti.i/t n*{_. ly' / a.anl /tr'J.i-,- d*n"-"
*-,a.ttl 'fuznn' *nT/
I i.tzil,rya/ //u/-e r./'
I
SITE VISITS
2
FI,ANNING
11:30
l,: OO
AND ENVIRON!.TENTAL COMMISSION , ...\ - \. -r
october 8' leeo i ;)tt) i""''\ I
J1l'' Y/ ' t
A request for a sork session for denslty
and setback variances in order toconstruct additions to the Christlania
Lodge located at 356 Hansen Ranch Road,Lot D, Block 2 Vail Village Lst Filing.Applicant: Paul R. .fohnston
Site Visits
2: OO Public Hearing
1. Approval of minutes from the Septenber 10,
t99O neeting.
2. A request to amend section 18.04.130--definition of Floor area, qtross residential
(GRFA) r 18.09.080 Hi}lside ResidentialDistriet density eontrol, 18.10.09O SingleFanily District density controlr 18.12.o90
Two Fanily Residential District density .control and; 18.L3.o80 nrimary/SecondaryDistrict density control , of the Municipal
Code.
AppJ-icant: Tonn of Vail
3. A reguest to amend sections 18.04.360--deflnition of site coveragei 18.09.090--Itillside Resl-dential District site coverallei18.10.I.lO--Single Farnily District sitecoveragei 18.12.110--T!ro Fanily District sitecoveraltei 18. 13. o9o-'prinary SecondaryDistrict site coveragei 18.14.110--Residential Cluster District site coveragei
18.16.110--Low Density Residential Dlstrietsite coverage; 18.18.llO--Medium DensityResidential site coveraqtei 18.20.110--Hi9hDensity Residential District site coveragei
L8.22. l10--Public Accommodation District sitecoveraltei 18.24.150--Conrnercial Core IDistrict site coveragei 18.26. l20--ConmercialCore ff District site coveragei L8.27.090--
ConmercLal Core fff site coveragei
18.28.l2O--Conmercial Service Center Districteite coveragei L8.29.Og0--Arterial BusinessDistrict site coverager 18.30.110--Heav]tSenice District site coveragei 18.32.110--Agricultural and Open Space District site
coveraEe andr 18.39.lgO'-Ski Base/RecreationDistrict sj.te coverage, of the Municipal
Code.applieant: Town of Vail
1
4. A request to amend section L8.52. 160--Off
Stredt Parking and Loading Exerptions, of the
MuniciPal Code.Applicant: Town of Vail
5. A reguest for a side yard setback and stream
setbick variance ln oider to renodel unlt l-1,
A E B of the Vail Rowhouse8 ' 303 Gore Creek
Drive, I,ot 11' Block 5, Vail Village FLrst
FiIing.Appticant: B. A. Bridgewater
6. A request for a condl'tional use permit in.
ordei to construct a four foot antenna set on
the roof of the Solar Vail building located
at 501 N. Frontage Road West, Part of Lot 8,
Block 2, Vail Potato Patch.
epplicant: U. s. West Connunications/Storns
consultants
7. A reguest for a height variance in order to
cons{ruct an addition to Condoniniun Unit E-
6, L.ot P, Block 5D, Vail Village First
fiting, 141 East Meadow Drive.
Applicint: H. Willian Surith, Jr'
8. A reguest for an amendment to the approved-
acceis plan for Lots 5 and 6, Block 7, ValI
Village- lst Filing, 145 and 126 Forest Road'
Applicant: Ron BYrne
g. A request for a variance to allow a satellite
dish-in the Gore Creek 5Or setback and a
request for a floodplain nodification on L'ot
3, Block 1, Bighorn-rst addition, 3907 Lupine
Drive.Applicant: Ron oelbaun
10. A request for a conditional use per:nit in--
ordei to sell beer at wholesale and to sell
beer for off-site consumption'at X43 E'
Ueadow Drive, I,ot P' Block 5D, Vait viLlage
1st Filing.epplicanti pirst Brewery of vail,/Dean Liotta
11. A request for a for a naJor change to-xis€ing developnent approval for The Valley'
Phase vf.Applicant: Edward Zneimer
TABI.,ED UNIILocr. 22
TABTED I,'NTILoc!. 22
TABIJD UNTILocr. 22
TABIJED UNTIL
ocT. 22
TABLED I'NTIIJ
oc8. 22
ho/
,.ruu_ L/,.n4
f ilru;4
6( oK-
a.F
fu.*
rtdad
d(7rufia27
lqd&
#a1., c
op
o( a)- h/
!r'
-- e@q/rbs; st%acz
/. s < paurd
/s ort
-r
/L
;rl]: i!.
EEIEzl,tll
I I IJlll#I I ll3
r.1i :'
)13
,5
iFE
\l{ '
1:.
('
ai
F'L t c0
tSPy
ao
9r..la!l@
EaoEoOEiE
*€6oo -:'oEF>
*-]X"e/eo s I puBLrc Norrc' t
Norrcn rs HEREBv cwEN that the plannins .r. #t E^$,gPy
conmission of the Town of vail wirl hoLd a pubrlc hearing iir
accordance with section 18.66.060 of, the nunicipal code of the
Town of Val.1 on October B, 1990 at 2:00 p.n. in the Torm of Vail
l{unicipal Building. Consideration of:
1. A request to anend section 18.04.L30--definl.tion of Floorarea, gross residential (GRFA) r 19.09.090 HillsldeResidential District density controlt L8.10.O9O SingleFanily Distrlct density control; 18.12.090 Two farnilyResidEntl.al Distrlct dinsity c-ntrof-ana; 1g. 13.080Prj.raryrrsecrndary D-i.striet density control .. of the Municj-pal
Code.Applicant: Tonn of Vail
,aa$$\quest to anend sections 18.04.360--definition of site
- C \r\)coverage; 18.09.ogo--Hillside Residential District site
f,\\ L - coveragei 18.10.llo--single Farnily District site coveragei
\ \v- 18.12.110--frdo Fanily District site coveragei 18.13.090--rinary Secondary District sLte coverage; 18.14.110--Residential cruster District site coveiage; 18.16.t10--r€stDensity Residential District site coverage; 19.18.110--Medium Density Residential site coveragei 19.20.110--ttighDensity Resldential District site coveiage; Lg.22.110--Public Accounodation District site coverige; l.B.24.l5O--Connercial Core f District sLte coveragei Lg.26.1ZO--
CornrnerciaL Core fI District site coveragei Lg.27.O9O--corrrercial Core IrI site coveragei Xg.t8.lzo--connercialsenrlce center District site eoverager LB.2g.o9o--ArterialBusiness District site coveragei 18.30.ll0--lleavy senriceDistrict site coveragei 18.3r.Uo--Agricultural ind open
Space District site coverage and; 19.39.190--SkiBase/Recreation District site coverage, of the Municipaleode-
ApplJ.cant: Town of Vall
3. A request to arnend section 18.52.160--Off Street parkJ_ng andIoading Exernptions, of the liunicipal Code.Applicant: Town of Vail
4. A^request for a uaJor anenctnent to SDD No. 4, CascadeViIIage, Area C Ln- order to rnodify the Mastei DevelopnentPlan for Lots 39-1. and 39-2 of the clen l_,yon Subdivi;ion Lnorder to increase the height lirnitation fion 25 ft. to 35ft. and to increase the maximun allowable GRFA per 1ot fron3100 sq. ft. to 5500 sq. ft.Applicant: Andrew D. Norris
5. A request for a side yard setback and strean setbackvariance Ln crder to rernodel Unit 11 , A & B of the Vail
Rowhouses, 303 Gore Creek Drive, Lot 11, Block 5, VailVillage First Flting.Applicant: B. A. Bridgewater
6.
7.
,*rln order ao "orr".*.'a forrf foot antenna on the roof of tfre Solar VaiI buiLding
locatbd at 5ox N. Frontage Road West, Palt of Lot 8, Block
2, Vail Potato Patch.
Applicant: u. s. west conmunications,/storns Consultants
A reguest for a conditional use permlt in order to sell beer
at wholesale and to seLl beer for off-site consumption at
143 E. lteadow Drive, Lot P, Block 5D, VaiI Village tst
Fillng.Applicant: First Brewery of Vail/Dean tiotta
A request for density and setback variances in order to
const-ruct additlons lo tlre Christlania LodEe located at 356
Hansen Ranch Road, Lot D' Block 2 Vall Village X'st FllJ-ng.
lpplicant: PauI R. Johnston
A request for a for a najor clrange to exlstlng developuent
approval for the Valley, Fhase VI .
AppLtcant: Ed$ard Znelner
10. A request for a height variance Ln order to construct an
aaai€ion to Condorniniun Unit E-5, Lot P' Block SDlr$"ail
Village First Filing, 141 East lleadow Drive. ' |
,Applicant: H. l{illiarn Smith, Jr.
11. A request for an amendment to the approved- ,-acceis plan for Lots 5 and 6, Block ?, Vail village 1st
Filing, 146 and 126 Forest Road-
Applicant: Ron Byrne
L2. A request for a variance to al-Low a satellite' dlsh-in the Gore Creek 5or setback and a reguest for a
floodptain modj-fication on Lot 3, BLock 1, Bighorn xst
addition, 3907 LuPine Drive.
Applicant: Ron Oelbaum
llhe applications and info::matlon about the proposals are
aval-lable for public inspection in the Conrnunity Developnent
Deg:artuent office.
Town of vail
Cornnunity Developnent Departnent
Rrblished in the Vail Trail on Septeuber 2L, 1990'
9.
I
r!"
III
Igl
(9t
q- .::_!
i,l, -r.f,:."-r
-,r: I
:)l4a,tIt
II
'Ilc:
l.'f
{.--
/JAT'iJf
/FS
J;*-s
i*eE-
,?F
:,4
liL
tar
,ro
()
na
li! :1E
_*
I
I
-:!i'
.*-
I
I
t
II
\
,j
:
t
\
i
1
I
I
i
\
I
I
1I
itiii
lll r
\\\\ \
ri;i!
, !i'';
,i[,1r\ I r'tr, i'1;iilri, ij j{tJ f;illlil\\i
r.
A.k\\ct'\"\\S.P\
, .\
\J
.^.'{ \\\ P
\
1 v'\rss'\ crl!\J\\g
F-={
I
I
I
I
.''.) . i!': a=" {J i li.. 1r {
"ir ' 'o/'
F*\o
x
s
\
$$
H$
!6e5g9
6q,troOE5g
-cO
=o5nat -,:'ItFF>
Norrc' rs rrER'lcrrnu trralu::tffll, J"""l.ronnenta1
Con:nission of the Town of Vail rilt lrold a public hearinE ln
accordance with Section 18.60.060 of, the raunicipal eode of the
Town of Vail on october 22, LggO at 2:OO p.n. ln the Towa of Vall
Uunicipal Building. ConEideratlon of:
A reguest for a conditLonal use perruit J.n
order to sell beer at wholesale ana to sell beer for off-site conslroptlon at 143 E. lteadon Drlve, Ipt P, Block 5D,Vail Village lst Flling.Appllcant: First Brevery of Vall/Dean Llotta
A reguest, for a for a uaJor cbange to
exlsting'develcpnent appiovaL for tlie ilalley, Plrase 'fi.
Applicant: Edrrard Zneiner
A reguest for a eite coverage varLanee anrl an e:rterior
alteration Ln the Conrnercial Core I in order to allow
conEt:rrction of an airlock entry at the Szechwan L,ion
- 1-,Restaurant, 304 Brldge Street, iot tt, Block 5A, Vail Village J la
lst Fill.nE.Applicant: Jobn 8. no/szechwan tion Restaurant
1.
2.
3.
l\s
r\^M
AKfE*
4.A reguest for off-street surface parkinE at the rrHo1y cross
parceln described as follows: .
A tract of ground in the NE l/4 of Scctlon 12, Tounchip 5 Southr'Rangc 8l
Hest of thc 6th Principal Hcridian, lying vithia that parccl convcycd to
the Boly Cross Elcctric Associetion, Inc. by dccd rccorded ar Rcccpllon No.ll5l28 on January t2, l98tr ia thc rccords of Eegle Corrnly, Colorado,
describcd es:
Coaneneing at the NE corncr of r'aid Scction t2; tbcncc Soutb 88'19'29"llest, ilong thc lorth llnc of rsid lgE ll4, t ditlrncc of 43.1 fccr to thc
ingcrscction of the prolongation of thc Gsst lin. of reid parccl; thcocr
South 0'0lr33rr Elst, rtong said prolongrtionr 318.2 fcct !o thc aorlhaart
corn€r of raid parcel phich ii th. pciis e! l*3iaeirg; tharcs
Souch 0'01 r33" Eart, elon3 raid csl3 lhc, 222.31 fcct to thc routhcest
corncr of caid parccl; lhencr northnsttcrly ecrorr taid parcct throuth tbr
follocing four courl.l: l) Norrh 28'36rt9o gcst, 53.06 fcct, 2) Norrh
38'12'34" tlest, 81.46 fc:t, 3) l{orth 50'48'25" 9isr, 68.68 fiet, rnd 4)
South 79'49'04' lles!, 121.45 fccc to thc northecst corncr of trid perccl;
lhcncr northceslerly alonj thc north tinc of raid parcct rbich ir r
aon-tenlcnr (a redial to raid norlhecEt corncr bcsrr tlorth 22'39'28" lfcct),
2715 foot redius currc cooclvc routhcrly,- 264.28 fcct (cantral an3lc cquals
5'34138") ro rhc poiat of beginniug.
?his trlctt eg dcscribcd, conlalnr 15r940
or lcrs.
Applicant: Vail lssociates
aqurr! fcct, or 0.366 rctcr, uorc
A reguest for densLty and setback variances ln order to
cons€nrct addLtions io the Christiania Icdse located at 356
Hansen Ranch Road, Ift D, Block 2 Vail Vlliage lst Filing.
Applicant: Paul R. Johnston
SK
O. A worksesfn tor rezonlng of the torfrng ProPerty fornaffordablE housingr developnent:
a. Uountain BeIl slte described as a tract of land I'n the
South Half, of the Southeast Quatter, Eectlon 6,
Ueridian, Eagle Counti, Colorado, rore partlcularly
described as tollo$s:
lrilaninc .t .'ioi"i:iiirtii"r deai'rr r i-ct1t."il-rr ::
585.'60 icrt tiot tia tortlar3t 3!+tat !t S.cllst l. To$3rtt t i.
3cut!. lrall !0 Lrt c? tlr Stlr trlrc{trl ittldl'tr I lrtlt *r'trcr tcl|rt !t blSl8aftl: rirc hlrt t toh! oa ti. fo?tlstft ' .'.itsit-or-rrr or-irrtrrriiti'io:,-irdcr i oooa!'tg'-r rllrg tlr .' .irit-liae o? rrtl ircrioi-f r
-lirirncr rl 333.30 fr'!r tltric' -
!.!::31;'l;': :i l:iiff:,!l'5i*ltlill'l',i.1!l'i 83'li:'irE
.rloag lita Erlt lcrndlrl tr!. I dl33$cr ct lst.Z: fttt 3t-'..';;i;i ii i iiiir'-.rlic iuiri-riri !irrt oa th' ic'3!'"lt-lriit"'it.lrl ol trta"3trta t0i ri.tta r!o;9 3rl.l Eo"3!l'"It !ril:'B;'irv-oi irr-iiitiJiii i-icJiiii: ii-r-cir'4"3r ot li'.sl tr'rrii"i til-ric st I iu"r-io-ili ii3-t.-r1!c sa?!' rrriil r -iiiii.i-i"gii ii 6a;ir'ir;. i erctlr-!r ltto'0 t"3' rntl-r-ac"'
i:i:ii:.i.i:';i' li;. ii'i:*;iF';l,li! i lE.'i'!'.iif1lilii.iii,"i.jti'ii's ii=is:ii;'E i-liiriie.: ir-lllrlq !:et :.il 3-f ?e5!'31'
' t I ilriracr at 30!.!3 ?tti:3.' S l:r:l'15' f | "t:t631
DI
ioi.iti-iiiii tl 3-iidiciii;-3-i irrt-rnsr.o? 3!6'r0 tcc?:.rr--
3-;iai3;i;:'r'; irii.iie ir io6.iai!.r to g. a!-rg-lgr+ t'f .
i:iifi^i"tg:'ljli'*;t'l';*i.;t' 3i.li'll.liiil. iiii'n.
tr ?:s. rr l:g. iiili'ii-'rioli'ri if;r atrrie It tlc'r rid
hcorder if Elgi: Ccuegt. Ctlo"ta3.
sk-
b.Pedotto SLte described as A parce] of land in
L/4 of Sectlon 14, llownsblp 5 soutb, Range 81
tire sth Prlncipal-lleridian, aore partieularly
as follows:
the Stf
West of
described
\K
sKG.
'trgtaalng et r polnt vlrcncl a -brml GrP rct lgr 'iilicrr'iornor ]oi"itt.'tloii ffr of llli scetlon-tl-
[a#t'x iairaitl'-tdil.oi-icltr thcnco ll ?r' 05'!t'
I'ibl:i ii.[i l[cnii lii.c r:ot rione ghs erc ot I
i"ivi - io- ir,i' r iir, [-it' icti
- iic- rub trnd! :r Ghord h q!r4q
i-i,;rt;!dr-r-iif.rl ir.li-ttrcacc 3 ??'r0rrI' 2 32177
i"Iir -lrtlico-t ii. ii- tiit -itong th. -rrc os' e'rrnc - to- - -G.-icii-iiiier, rii'ru[[i"al-i'"Lcia brrrlag N 15'tcrl?'
fiti.io lrctt thcncs I ?ot5:r55' I 106'35 fcttl tbcnct
Srlio'iici-riini tti r;c er . st!!9 t9-!h! t{o!! Itttcttiii-ruitincr r indrd bcarlng 5 a?'10'l?' E {r'20 f'ett
trrinio-i--it'rs'ii' - tro.1t-1c9!, -t^hrnc t 6t'lrr0l'
tt iio.Oo icoli ittcncr. tl lgroTro!' x 10'00 trctt thcnc'
i ii;ii;.i--i'tao'is'lcrtt thcnco 6 10'5!'13' r 36'r'
fuii,l itrcnca U't7rlo'05'* t3?.?2 t.ct! ticnco tl
li"i'tt;'a tlo.oo lcet to tho Pornt of bcainntngr
coltrlntng 2.3005 lclrtr !Ea. cr lcal.
tlrllng ftoo G.&.o. lccord-for Soulh l/2 o! rictlon
llnc bctvccn 6cctlorrr ll-f3.
Oberlohr Sl.te, Iots 5-13, Vail Eelghts Fillng No'l'
The appllcations and lnfornation a.bout ttre proposals are
avaLlable for pnbllc inspestlon ln tlre coDDunlty Developnent
Departoent offl.ce.
llern of Vail
Comunlty DeveloPnent DePartnent
Publlshadl t'n the ValI Trail on oetober 5, 1990'
i^a PUBLIC NOTICE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Envirorunental
Conmission of the Town of Vail will hold a public hearing in
accordance with Section L8.6C.060 of the municipal code of
Town of Vail on Novenber 12, 1990 at 2:00 p.n. in the Town
Vail uunicipal Building. Consideration of:
1. A request for off-street surface parking at the trl{oly Cross
- parcelrr descrj-bed as follows:
A tracr of ground in the NE l/4 of Section 12, ?orrnship 5 South,'Range 8l
I,;esc of thc 6Eh Principal Xeridian, lying nichia thar P6tce1 conveyed !.o
the EoIy Cross Electric AssociaCion, Inc. by deed recdrded aU Recepcion No.
ll5l28 on January 12, 1981, in the records of Eagle CounEy, ColoraCo,
descri.bed as:
Corunencing at the NE corner of iaid Section l2; chence Souch 88"19t29'r
Iles!, along lhe north line of said NE Ll4, a distance of 43.1 feer to the
inc.erseccion of Ehe prolongacion of Che cist line of said parcel; lheoce
Souch 0n0l'33t'Eas!, along said ProlongaEion, 318.2 feec to the northeast
corn€r of said parcel rhich is the Poinc of beginning; rhence
Sourh 0'0It33tt East, along said GasE line, 222-31 feet to the soucheasl
corner of said parccl; lhence norEheesterly across said parcel thfough thc
folloning four courses: I) North 28'36'19" lJest, 53.06 feec, 2) North
38'12'34n $est, 8I.46 feet, 3) Norrh 50'48'25" 9est, 68.68 feer, and 4)
Souch 79'49'04" ues!, 121.45 feeE !o Ehe norlheest corner of said parce!,;
thence norlheasEetly along the norch line of said parcel nhich is a
non-Eangenr (e radial go said northses! corner bears North 22o39t28" Ifest),
2?t5 foot radius cufve concave southerly, 264.28 feer (cenlral angle equals
5"34'38") to rhe point of beginning.
This tracE, 8s described, conEains 15,940 square feet, or 0.366 acres, oorc
or less.
Applicant: vail Associates
A request for setback and density variances in order toconstruct addj-tions to the Christj-ania l-,odge, 356 Hansen
Ranch Road, L€t D, Block 2 Vail Village 1st Filing.Applicant: Paul R. Johnston
A request for a front setback variance to allow for a garage
on Lot 10, Block 4, Lions Ridge Filing No. 4 i t464 Aspen
Grove Lane.Applicant: Carrol P. Orrison
A request for side setback variances, a landscape variance,
and an exterior alteration for the Village Center
Condoniniums, located at 124 lfillow Bridge Road, A part ofTract C and Lot K, Block 5-8, Vail Village J.st Filing.Applicant: Village Center Condominium Association
)
ot
x N 2.
/\'/1 n,V -e.J;, oYtg) ,.
ry
u'
i3
4.
--r *'- - -----E
' 10.
A request for a height variance to a1lou for theinstallati4r of two satellite dish antArnas on the roof of *the l,larri[. Mark Resort, Lots 4 and tBlosk 1-
Vail/Lionsliead Third Filing, Lots C and D lt[orcusSubdivision, located at 715 W. Lionshead CircleApplicant: Marriott Uark Resort/Tri-County Cablevision
A reguest for a bed & breakfast conditional use pernit at
2754 S. Frontage Roadt Lot B, Stephen's SubdivisionApplicant: DarLene Schweinsberg
A request for a front setback variance in order to constructa garage and a wall height variance in order to constructretaining walls in the front setback at 1448 Vail Valley
Drive,' Lot L8, Block 3, Vail Valley First Filing.Applicant: John and Barbara Schofield
A request to anend section 18.04.13O--definition of Floor
area, 9lross residential (GRFA)r 18.09.080 EillsideResidential District density controlr 18.10.090 Single
Fanily District density control , 1-8.t2.090 lwo fanily
Residential District density control and; L8.13.080
Prirnary/Secondary District density control , of the Municipal
Code.Applicant: Town of Vail
A reguest to aurend sections 18.04.360--definition of site
coveragei 18.09.090--Hi11side Residential District site
coverage; l-8.10.IlO--Single Faurily District site coverage;
18.12.110--Two Fanily District site coverage; 18.13.090--
Prinary Secondary District site coveragei l-8,1-4.1-L0--
Residential Cluster District sj.te coveragei l-8.15.Ll0--Low
Density Residential District site coveragei L8.18.1L0--
Mediurn Density Residential site coveragei L8.20.1l0--High
Density Residential District site coveragei ]-8.22.1-l-0--
Public Accommodation District site coveraqJei L8.24. 150--
Commercial Core I District site coveraqei L8.26.120--
Comnercial core II oistrict site coverage; L8.27.090--
Comnercial- Core III site coverage; 18.28.120--Corurercial
Service Center District site coverage; 18.29.O90--Arterial
Business District site coverage; 18.30.LLO--Heavy Service
District site coverage; L8.32.llO--AgriculturaL and Open
Spaee District site coverage and; 18.39.190--ski
Base/Recreation District site coverage, of the Municipal :
Code.Applicant: Town of Vail
A request to amend chapter 18.71 of the Vail Munisipal Code-
-AdditionaL Gross Residential Floor Area (250 ordinance) .
Applicant: Town of Vail
Ft
6.
7.
8.
9.
t^.a 11. A request to1 rezone the follorring properly commonly known as
the MountaiJelf site located to the nJh of the nain vailI-70 Intercil'rge fron AgricuLtural Openlpace to Mediun
Density MuJ.tipLe Faurily more specifically described as:
Mountain Bell Site described as a tract of land in the SouthHalf, of the Southeast Quarter, Section 5, lownsbip 5 South,
Range 80 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, EagJ-e County,
Colorado, more particularly described as follows: '
lriio'riaq rt r gotar'i:i:-ir-r dazr.t6' t r ct:trlcl d .' '
6t6.60 fcat ttst tl. tout.l..tt Coa.r of t.c:lst 6. lourrlt ! :
Soutl, trngr Eo ibt! cf $r 6tt-ir:taclt:I frr{cfrn, !.!:i =t . .l'!''a !ci[: of Dril;;l;;; ri|. !ai!t l toin! os g.!. lor'.lrtlt . - .- ,tlgirt-of-'ilt of !rt!r:t.t! ?ll; altlcr a 60'?E'i5' l .Ict9 r!... :Errt lisa of trfd 3.c:tsr 6 | clglrssr cf 6J-3.r0 f!r33 ti6al
| &tc?t'21' g I dlt::ncr ot 2523.76 tr€! !! . tclrE on-tl. Ert!
bcurcl'' ltr. of frlt/Fo!i33 ?rlcit iilrci? t;lnsr S o8st?'tz' g
.11069 tald Er3! lostdrr? l{r? ! dtt:rtrcr cf 35i.!: tr"t g, r'polli at a c3rr!. trld gutta ll'o !.ios qr Li. l.ct'llPlt i{Eit'.'a{-'a.t cl lnter::r!c t0: :.t.rst alarg 3.id iot:l?.i! rrF:':t-
f.t ot !!. follar{a3 E c3:rt.t: !i r tt'rt::tct 3t ?!r.!3 trat
rlo,r; t!! :?€ of a 6l.rta E! ltr tl9tt. trlc c:tt" lrtlni I
crnrrrl rnile 6f !!016'!8'. | 'rclBs tf 3!t90-0 fe!!. r!9-f-q9lr
.lcrrlrq f aS331 '10'g I clti sr cl 2lr.5a t.":: :; : 8i:::-'56: --€ r d!i::nie oi ii:.Eo-rir:i 3i r'.rro55'50' E t 4!3irn+ l{-rl :t0icsr: ll S t9o:6'23' E r alitraca of-rzl.lo fcr:: 5l s t?e!!'3:'
t I ilsiancc 61 30-'.?? ir::: 5i S ?:s:l'35' 8 r a'!r:rl3! !t
:0i-i0 fr.l: 7) 5 s:tslo'29' 5 t glr:rntr of,.f!5.tn r.t::.ll--
s i:o:]'rs' E : disl*cq e{ tdg. Io f::i to {h' tr.re- fli fil F.
iori*inS-.:t-.";" tn4 €.-tn iciei oct: sr lc:s: :rc:?- ::::--' '
Portrsn o! ljil :olc"'i5ii-i't i::':::r :.*a- ;.'3r::io'' ll?lO'ir a:s, f3 t:3, ftlrc 6t fl(t'! In;G cftJce of c:'-t }i3
l.€3rdr" !f 5r9:t 3oca:t. C.rrc':a:.
Applicant: Town of Vail and Professional Development
Corp.
L2. A request to rezone the following property corrnonly known asthe Pedotto property located to the south of Kinnickinnick
Road in the Internountain Subdivision from Prirnary/Secondaryto Medium Density Multiple Farnily more specifically
described as:
A parcel of land in the SW L/4 of Section l-4, Township 5
South, Range 81 West of the 5th Principal Meridian, moreparticularly described as follows:
'lrstarr las .t r Dolnt vhcacc t brar c!9 let fo! aullrerr 6or:rer ?os Urr fiort l/l af rrld Scetlon ll
bcrrt'H 29'28'51' l0tl.0s !ct!l thcnce tt 7l' 03rlt'
8 10.?a tcet, 'Urcnc{, ltl.62 fcat oioog tlre ltc oI I
c-u:"ra to $ro gtght rhlcl rse tubtlodr I chord bcflacf !8112'lo' I lit.?i f.rlr thcce: 3 ??'tot:I' E 6:.??latll theace t{?.ll frct rtons tlre rrc of I ctrfl! toth. l.tE shlch ire lubtcnds r-Clcld beerlng I l6't6rt?'t 115.60 !ce?r Llrcncr il ?Or5:'55' g 40d.55 fcet, !h.rc!
5{.10 tcet rlong L\r rrc of. cu!n. to L\. llghB }hlchrrc lubtcndr r c.lord D..rlng 5 {7'20':?' E l{.20 fr.i,
Lhcncr S 1.1':5'!lr F U0.51 tecti the:rcs S 58't8r0l'I t20.00 fcolt thcnc!. lt 19'07'05' H 50.00 fect; lhcncrt ??rall'll' tf 160.ls !ce!; thence S lo'51'13' tl t6.18tccll thcnc: lr t7'{0f06' tJ 33?.72 fectl thencc tll'5:rt3' E 130.00 lect !o tho polnt of beginntagr
cortrj,ntng 2.5006 t€lsrr Bo!€ or lcss. .
i
rcartag frca G.L.0. Rccsrd lor Soutlr !,,r2 of coc'Jonllnc bc tnecn Scctiona ll-13.
Applicant: ,Juanita I. Pedotto, and Professional Development
13.- A request-to rezone the.-following prope5ty located to the - -'.
north or s4feuav and chanont.rmt'3"ffrxlit.3'i3ffi' * -:;:::t&=if'I"T:i:;i i' r roE P:
Applieant: Konrad Oberlohr, ilohn W. and Patricia A. Riclmanfor John Witt, Reuben B. Knight, and Professional
Developnent Cory.
The applications and
avail-able for publ.ic
Departnent office.
Town of VaLl.
Cornrnunity Developnent
Published in the Vail
infornation about the proposals are
inspection in the Connunity Development
Department
Trail on October 25, L990.
I
-.v
INTER-DEPARTI4ENTAL REVIEW
PRorEcr. Cl r9h'ta,q Q'k'ttfr '
7{)t- /,tDATE oF puBl,rc HEARTNG ,/o/ [["'' /tYz"
BRIEF DESCRIPTTON OT THE PROPOSAL:' bt&,raZ,at 746117y'rt:,: .fl"a^"t
2EP .4,--- /
r r" " I
PUBLIC WORKS
Reviewed by:
Comments:
RECREATION DEPARTMENT
DATE SUBMITTED:
COMMENTS NEEDED
r/. ca-?'lt-2 o
Date:
>/JeffiT.fn:{,i'>f# "fto 2 povzo.a <:'.tuF'/' N--
tfl .a-/ 4F <€R,/,v {. r>/'Ln.- h oJ 7 F r/Z'z-ax',e/< /"/r..t- n tnn:
-::
t::
3) 6 t z' tzn,,z* <- ff ,{f 4 .,?42, 7,
rfr;:;; !
POLICE DEPARTMENT , trerr\, ,{r/.t,! .,... ,'
Reviewed by: Date:
Comments a i ,/ , -"-, :t-7, -a--.r-:/o w ""
?)zrtrrl-.c 7 /.J ,.r ,vof 54r*J, ,Et"t/*o*t'-oz- (/zrn''772'"'V'r'o*r n"v/a''/
r/,.--t .344 <2*'4 '4zaraJV/are fytL/1 '#
rfrF<
y'.o,-ttto"*=!'^' : 4'-'J 8'/- a4''---"
tl t*'// '@*noo''E' tn-./ ---ca".,atdT-s,//ae:21 Fq
') r*:;fl""!, :s{fi ); :; J'i71ff,"^
FIRE DEPARTMENT
Reviewed by:
Comrnents:
t)Zrzr;'t'-Y.
UIO/,aize.J-s Ic2 41r4'--zta
Revi.ewed by:Date:
/l ,t, ,7L'U4 U/L<-/<
A"#4;L-
fltra #.h E-d-f-a|
ftdil . h F/6s7
tql
Larrq H*c'r'rer
P0 6ex Z
/a*{ t//r f
.,y-,/i if lT* = Yr.,*,**2 5l,.rn"*--Fd E
-_.-' L--- |l.:.rt iTtArnta-
APd rCfllvl-?,? ny { f2-\ahnsrox)"tE (. ft,,W*o.. Fdt fr{rr.* fr*a_N
7r* -fu {try
#-ry
,"da'*t frN/-/l* &rr/t. &-""
h, t?r"i*d ,/- r'./,t - , /+*lrrg /l-&" /t"A*, ' J,i-& /ldt*i ''w ff-hra n t @r/.I,"^{
*-tr /"* uf ?p\
/O,azr,
, fu tosa
, ty' fJ /;,Ly. & F/6_, /
b
\J ./
,';t:,-41 L/. /*#,ffi*/&,e fr*,4, Srtop., , /,rrr,( /-;i,hl,fr$. ,'W-
4!tflau*qa d t/ fosr
/E^d /d.j* a/ro .zzaif /.a;
fu s ,er-4 fi-*A a.iln -A f/6r,
T'J