HomeMy WebLinkAboutVAIL VILLAGE FILING 1 BLOCK 2 LOT D CHRISTIANA AT VAIL 1992 LEGAL7
/4't
EKd '/arryra!
h (/
t
I
DATE APPLICATION RECEIVED '
,1,
fuil,ry)
'e1l'/revised 9/4/9t
? \\str'
Y\JI.
JIPPLICATION FORM FOR SPECIN. DSVEI.OPD,IENT , \.\
DISTRIcT DEVELOPMENT PLAII *SS\1"'
This procedure is required for any project that would
through the Special Devefopment. District procedure.
The application will not be accepted unLil all information
is submiLted.
(please print or type)
A. APPLICANT
B.APPLICANT, S REPRESENTAT IVB
ADDRESS
owNER (S)
o*, 47lp'a(Al
PHONE
VtuvuY"
D.
E.
PROPERTY
or{NER(S)
MAILING
STGNATURE (S)
ADDRESS
LOCATION OF PROPOSAL:
STREET ADDRESS:
IALor A BLocK zlz suBDrvrsroN
A LIST OF THE NAMES OF OWNERS OF ALL PROPERTY ADJACENT
TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THEIR MAILING ADDRESSES.
II. Four (4) copies of the fotlowing information must be
submitted:
/ A. Detailed written/graphic description of proposali
, B. An environmental irnpact reporl shafl be submitted Lo
the zoning administrator in accordance with Chapter
18.56 hereof unless waived by Section l'8.56-030' exempt
pro jecLs r'
C. An open space and recreational plan sufficient to meet
the demands generated by the developmenL without undue
burden on available or proposed public facil.ities;
D, Existing contours having contour intervals of not more
than five feet if the average slope of the site is
t.wenty percent or less, or with contour intervals of
not more than ten feet if the average slope of the site
is greater than twenty Percent.
'/8. A proposed sile plan, at a scale not smaller than one
inch equals fifty feet, showing the approximate
locations and dimensions of all buildings and
structuresr uses therein, and atl principal siLe
development features, such as landscaped areas,
recreational facilities, pedestrian plazas and
walkways, service ent.ries, driveways, and off-street
parking and Ioading areas with proposed contours after
grading and site development,'
MAILING ADDRESS
FTBAN(
OF VAIL
November 18. 1995
The Town of Vail
ATTN: Mike Mollica
P.O. Box 100
Vail , Co 81658
RE: Letter of Credit No. 900-3835
C}IRISTIA}TIA. LTD. - S41.OOO
Gentlemen :
We have agreed to extend the above-mentioned Letter of Credit for One(1) Year.
The terms of this Letter of credit shall remain the same, excepc Ehac theexpiration date is hereby extended to November 18, 1995 and all drafts must benegotiated no later than Novenber 18, 1996.
If you have questions, please call ne at the bank.
Executive Vice Pres ident
MRR/sjw
e t
'17 vAtL ROAD VA|L, COLORADO 81657 970-476-5686
I t
f,TBA]K
OF VAIL 17 VAtL ROAD VArL. COLORADO 81657 303-476-5686
November lB, 1994
The Town of Vail
ATTN: Mike Mollica
P.O. Box 100
VaiI, CO 81658
RE: Letter of Credir No. 900-3835
CHRISTIANIA. LTD. - S5O.OOO
Centlemen :
we have agreed to extend the above-mentioned Letter of credit for anadditional 0ne(1) Year. The terms of this Letter of Credit sha1l remain the
same, except that the expiration date is hereby extended to November rg, 1995
and all drafts must be negotiated no later than November 18, 1995
If you have questions, please call me at the bank.
Pr:e s ident
MRR/sjw
s tow
cutive \-/ice
\
t-T
OF VAIL
.AIv
BATK
IRREVOCABLE LETTER OF CREDIT
DATE:
AMOUNT:
NUMBER:
EXPIRATION:
17 VA|L ROAD VAIL. COLORADO 81657 303-476.56B6
November 18, 1993
$41,000
900-383s
November 18, 1994
Town of Vail
AEEn: Mike Mollica
P.O. Box 100
Vail, C0 81658
Dear Mr. Mollica:
I.Ie hereby open our rrrevocabre Letter of credit in your fawor available byyour drafts drawn on che FirstBank of Vail, 17 Vail Road, Vail, Colorado
8L657, at sight for any srun not exceeding the total of FoRTY-ONE THoUSAND AND
N0//100 ($41,000) on rhe account of Chrisciania Lrd.
Each draft rnust bear upon its face the clause, "Drawn under Letter of creditNo. 900-3835 dated November 18, 1993, of FirstBank of Vai1, vail, colorado.',
Each draft must be accompanied by a statement executed by the Town Managerstating the following:
"Christiania Ltd. has not completed the construction of the site
improvements in and around the Christiania at Vai1, Town of Vai1,
County of Eagle pursuant to the development improvements agreementwith the Town of Vail dated November 24, IggZ."
we hereby agree that drafts drawn under this Letter of credit and in
compliance with the terms, shall be promptly honored if presented to FirstBankof Vail on or before November 18. 1994.
MRR/ks
Executive Vice President
-4-#10,a
L.l /-3 : 2i 7Ls-
-/d
s i/ls?ry(r,
@"/",,(f, - o ( lo6'.- i ? /zn1
o#
ION
IRREVOCABLE LETTER OF CREDIT
VAIL NAT AL BANK
DATE:
A}TOT'NT:
NUUBER:
EXPIR,ATION:
Novenber 23, L992
$48 , 895. oo
L25
Novenber 23, L993
Town of Vail
75 S. Frontage Road WestVail, Colorado 8L657
TO WHOM IT I'{AY CONCERN:
we hereby open our rrrevocable Letter of credit in your favoravairabre by your drafts drawn on vai-1 National Bank, 108 s.Frontage Road West, VaiI, Colorado gL6S7, at sight for any sum notto exceed the total of FoRTY EIGHT THoUSAND ErGHT HIJNDRED NTNETYFrvE DoLLARS AND No/cENTs (g4B,g95.oo) on the account of cola LLC.,and Paul R. and Sarah A. Johnston.
Each draft must bear upon its face the clause, *Drawn under I_,,etterof credit No. 125 dated November 24, L992 of Vail National Bank,Vail, coloradorr. Each draft will be accompanied by verification oilack of performance by coJ.a, LLc as stiputated in the *Developer
rmprovement Agreementrt signed and dated November 24, 1992 betw-eenPaul R. Johnston and The Town of Vail.
The amount of each draft, which is negotiated pursuant to thisc-redit, together with the date of negotiltion, nult be endorsed onthe reverse side of the Letter of Credit
We hereby agree that drafts drawn under thisin compliance with its terms, shall be honored
Letter of Credit andif presented to VailNatBank on or before November 24, 1993.
Vice President
Vail National Bank Building 108 South Frontage ltoad W. P.O.Box2638 Vail, Colorado81657 3031476-4600 FAX: 3o3t476-2666
I
ft 1,
rnrs AGREEI,IENT, made and entered into this 4: a^y ot/fu4bta/q\,L992t.by and between coL,A, LLc, a coLorado Linited Liability-conpany,,(hereinafter called the 'rDeveloperrt), and the ToI{N OF VAIL, (irereiiraftercalled the |'Townl').
T{ITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the Developer as a condition of approvaL of receiving aTemPorary certificate of occupancy on the christiania Lodge and wishesto enter into a Developer fmprovernent Agreernenti and
_ WHEREAS, thg Developer is obrigated to provide security orcollateral sufficient in the judgrurent bt the Towir to make reasoiableprovisions for courpletion of clrtlin iurprovements set forth belowi and
WHEREAS, the Developer wishes to provide collateral to guaranteeperformance of this agreement, including construction of th; above-referenced improvements by means of the fbllowing:
Developer agrees to provide a r,etter of credit or cash Escrow inthe amount of 948,895.00, such Letter of credit or cash Escrowshal1 provide security for the following:
IMPROVEMENT
a. On Site Improvements
(1) Lg Trees (Aspen and Spruce)* $(2) Relocate Fence and pool
(3) West planter 65 lineal feetstonefaced**(4) Upon completion of the Lodge, theDeveloper and the Town will reviewthe lighting along Hanson Ranch Roadand the Developer agrees to providesuch lighting, if necessary, priorto the issuance of a final_Certificate of Occupancy
g z,ofo.oo
cosT
3 ,700.00
450. 00
3 , 750. 0O
$ 840.00
4,900.00
4 ,225.OO
Subtotal
b. I-rot P-3 Inprovements**?r
(1) xChuteil Curb & Gutter96 linea1 feet(2) Tirnber Wall 700 sguare feet(3) 23 Trees, Grass, potentilla
(4) 4OOO square feet, pavingincluding preparation, base
and asphalt L4,000.00
Subtotal 923,965. o0
c. Lot J fmprovements
(1) Curb and pavers and Landscaping.Greg,s estimate of 915,000.00 S15,ooo.oO
Subtotal 915, OOO. OO
d. Offsite - Tract E non-paved walkingpath I2,OOO.OO
TOTAL
* As per plans and specifications and Nelson-Zeeb
** As per plans and specifications and Tara Masonry.
*** As per plans and specifications and Nelson-zeeb
NOW THEREFORE' in consideration of the following mutual covenantsand agreements, the Developer and the Town agree as iollows:
1. The Developer hereby altrees, at its sole cost and expenses, tofurnish alr equipment and material necessary to perform and coirplete, onor before the following dates:
II'{PROVE}IENT DATE oF coMpLETfON
a. On site improvements July 2, Lg93
b. P-3 inprovements within a reasonabre time
(weather permitting) afterrequest by the Vail TownCouncil to cornplete
c, Lot J improvements within a reasonable tirne
(weather perrnj-tting) afterreguest by the Vail TownCouncil to complete
$as, sfis. oo
The Devel-oper shall conplete, in a good workmanlike manner, alI
improvernents as Iisted above, in accordance with all plans andspecifications filed in the office of the Cornmunity Developrnent
Department, the Town of VaiI, and to do all work incidental thereto
according to and in compliance with the following:
a. AlI laws of the United States of Arnerica, state of Colorado or
the Town of Vail and its respective agencies, affected specialdistricts and/or service districts.
b. Such other designs, drawings, maps, specifications, sketches,
and other matter suburitted by the Developer to be approved by
any of the above-referenced governmental entities. All saidwork shall be done under the inspection of, and to thesatisfaction of the Town Engineer, the Town Building Official ,or other official frorn the Town of Vail , affected specialdistricts or service districts, as their respective interest
may appear, and shall not be deemed complete until approvedand accepted as completed by the Tor,rn of Vail Conrnunity
Development Department and Public Works Department.
2. The total estinated cost of said work and inprovements is the
sum of $48,895.00.
To secure and guarantee performance of its obligations as set forthherein, the Developer agrees to provide security and collateral asfollows:
An irrevocable Letter of Credit in the amount of $48,995.00 fronVail National Bank in a form acceptable to the Town Attorney, shalJ-provide the security for the irnprovernents set forth above if thereis a default under the Agreement by the Developer.
3. The Developer nay at any tiure substitute the collateraloriginally set forth above for another form of collateral acceptable tothe Town to guarantee the faithfut conpletion of those improvementsreferred to herein and the perfonnance of the terms of this Agreement.
Such acceptance by the Town of alternative colLateral shalL be at theTown's sole discretion.
4. The Town shall not, nor shall any officer or employee thereof;be liable or responsible for any accident, loss or damage happening oroccurring to the work specified in this Agreement prior to thecompretion and acceptance of the same, nor sharr the iown, nor anyofficer or employee thereof, be liable for any persons or propertyinjured by reason of the nature of said wolt<, but all bf - saialiabilities shaLL and are hereby assumed by the Developer.
The Developer hereby agrees to indernnify and hold harmless the
Town, and any of its officers, agents and employees against any losses,claims, damages, or liabilities to which the Town or any such of itsofficers, agents, or enployees may become subject to, insofar as anysuch losses, claims, damages or liabilities (or actions in respectthereof) that arise out of or are based upon any performance by the
Developer hereunder; and the Developer shall reimburse the Town for anyand all legal or other expenses reasonably incurred by the Town in
connection with investigating or defending any such loss, clairn, damage,liability or action. This indernnity provision shall be in addition to
any other liability which the Developer nay have.
5. It is rnutually agreed that the Developer rnay apply to the Town
and the Town shal1 authorize for partial release of the collateral eachcategory of improvement at such tirne as such inprovements areconstructed in compliance with aLI plans and specifications asreferenced hereunder and accepted by the Town. By way of example, uponcompletion and acceptance by the Town of the West Planter to beconstructed on the west side of the building the sum of $3,780.00 sballbe released from the Letter of Credit for the palment of such
improvernent.
5. If the Town determines that any of such irnprovements ascontemplated hereunder are not constructed in conpliance with the plans
and specifications set forth herein, or if the Town determines that theDeveloper will not construct any or all of the improvements in
accordance with all of the specifications and tine tables as set, forthherein, the Town shall give the Developer written notice of suchspecific deficiencies and unless such improvements are completed by thedates as set forth above or within a reasonable period after such dateif weather does not permit the completion of such improvements, the Townnay withdraw from the Letter of Credit such funds as may be necessary tocomplete the unfinished improvements but not in an amount greater thanthe amount as set forth opposite the category listed above.
7. The Developer warrants alL r'rork and naterial for a period ofone year after acceptance of all work referred to in this Agreenent bythe Town if such work is located on Torrn of Vail land or road right-of-
way.
8. The parties hereto nutually agree that this Agreement rnay be
amended from time to time, provided that such amendments be in writingand executed by all parties hereto.
Dated the day and year first above written.
COLA,
ATTEST:
By:
My connission exrires on: ?y 1 ,ry?d
/)ntimlul,O+l,+a,ww_t
STATE OF COIORADO
lA/
couNry oF Yry
The foregoinq Develqper Improvementbefore ne this-4#I duy otW_,ErefiqqEf,of CO-f,1, f,f,C, a ioforado timitedI l)
fTr.r/\--'' witness ny hand and official seal .
My commission expires on: b-l4b-
STATE OF COI.ORADO
COUNTY OF EAGLE
SS.
The foregoing Develope;
Witness ny hand and official seal .
Agreement was acknowledged
L992 by Paul R. Johnston as
Liability Company.
ss.
c0P yILI
o
F
7l Soutb Frontage Roail
Vail, Colorado 81657
J 03-479-21 1 I / 47 9 -21 19
November 5, 1992
Department of Community Deztelopment
Mr. Paul Johnston
356 Hanson Ranch Road
Christiania at Vail
Vail, Colorado 81657
RE:Christiania redevelopmenUT.C.O. issues
Dear Paul:
In order to expedite the process for the issuance of a temporary certificate of occupancy for
the Christiania at Vail, I have compiled a list of the items which I believe are currently
outstanding. According to recent conversations I have had with Kurt Segerburg and Jay
Peterson, it is my understanding that some of these items may be requested to be CetaleO
until the Spring of 1993. From the Town's perspective, it is possible to delay the installation
and/or construction of some of the remaining items, however, it will be necessary to execute a
Developer lmprovement Agreement which would collateralize the improvements which are
proposed to be delayed until next spring. Kurt Segerburg has agreed to provide the Town
with a list of the items he believes would not be completed this year, and would be deferred
until 1993' A cost estimate will need to be provided for those improvements. At this time, it is
my understanding that the following items may be included in this punch list:
1. Lot P-S/Hanson Ranch Road Area - General Landscaping and streetscape
lmprovements - this includes the improvements whicfr wele agreed to during
the 1992 PEC/Town Council review process for the SDD and which are further
defined in my letter to you, dated May 8, 1992, a copy of which is attached.
2. Landscaping - all the plantings and site improvements that are on the building
permiUDesign Review Board approved drawings, including the relocation of the
wooden fence behind the pool area, and the removal of the split rail fence
along the Mill Creek stream tract.
3. The walking path along Mill Creek. The general clean-up of the creek must be
completed orior to the Town's issuance of a temoorary certicate of occuoancv.
This would include the removal of the boulders which have rolled into the creek. during construction.
It is my understanding that the above list may not be complete and that Kurt Segerburg will
linalize the list. These items will then be included in the Developer lmprovement Agreement
and a letter of credit will be required to collateralize the cost of these improvements which are
requested to be deferred until the Spring of 1993.
Additionally, the Vail Fire Department has also indicated that the following items need to be
completed before the Town's issuance of a temporary certificate of occupancy:
1. Final sprinkler system inspections are needed.
2. Testing on the alarm system is required.
3. Construction debris needs to be addressed.
I have attached a memorandum lrom the Town's Building Department, dated November 5,
1992, which indicates their issues regarding the issuance of a temporary certificate of
occupancy.
It is my hope that open communication among all of us involved with the project will expedite
the issuance of a temporary certificate of occupancy for your project. lf you should have any
questions on any of the items listed above, please contact me immediately at 479-2138, as
our department wants to ensure that the completion of the project goes smoothly.
Sincerely,
I'JJ- h,+
Mike Mollica
Assistant Director of Planning
xc. Gary Murrain
Kristan Pritz
Fton Phiilips
Mike McGee
Jeff Atencio
Greg Hall
Kurt Segerburg
Jay Peterson
7l Soatb Frontage Rotil
Vail, Colorado 81657
3 03 -47 9 -21 I I / 47 9-21 39
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Departmcnt of Community Deaclopment
Mike Mollica
Gary Murrain, Chief euiiOing Official
November 5, 1992
Christiania Temporary Cefiificate of Occupancy from the
Town o{ Vail Building Department.
All other Departments must have previously approved their items prior to the Building
Depanments inspection. Basically, The Building Department will be looking lor- compliance wiih Chapter 3 of 1991 Uniform Building Code in_regards to Temporary' Certificates ol Occupancy. In summary it would say "All life safety requirements must be
met" and that would include, but no be limited to, fire resistive construction, fire
suppression and fire alarms must be completed and operational. Final electrical must be
approved in lhe areas to be occupied. Final mechanical, including all emergency backup
systems, must be complete and functional. All exits and exit lighting must be in place.
ln summary, all occupied portions of the building must meet the 1991 Buitding,
Mechanical, Plumbing and 1991 Electrical Codes. Areas of the building not to be
occupied must have a minimum of the fire resistance construction, fire supplession and
fire alarm systems in place and operational. Upon that inspection, if we find that lhere
are no other substantial hazards that would effect the occupied areas or any other portion
of the building, a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy may be issued for alimited-period
of time.
t T
IILE COPY
?5 Soutb Frontage Road
I/ail, Colorodo 81657
3 0 3 -.17 9-21 3 I / 47 9 -2 I 3 I
D ep ntm ent of Community D ete lo pm ent
May 8, 1992
Mr. Paul Johnston
356 Hanson Flanch Road
Vail, CO 81657
RE: CHRISTIANTA AT VAIL
Dear Paul:
On May 6, 1992, the Town's Design Review Board approved the final building design for the
Chfr_sliania atVail-and also approved the design concepts lor the proposed streetscape
improvements adjacent to the Christiania. This approval will allow yo! to proceed to the
Uuitaing permit phase for the project, however, the final streetscaPe details will need to come
back tJ ine Onb for final review and approval. The staff is hopeful that the Town and Vail
Associales can come to agreement on the ownership issues regarding Lot P-3 and Lot J so
that the final streetscape design for this area can be completed in a timely manner'
On May 5, 1992, the Town Council also voted unanimously to approve the streetscape
concepi design for the Christiania. This is the same design that was ultimately approved by
the DRB on t'tay 6, 1992. The streetscape concepts which you agreed lo incorporate into
your development plan for the Christiania are as follows:
- The existing planter located north of your surface parking, and immediately south of
the Mil_l Creek Court Building, would be expanded by approximalely 1'112lo 3 feet in
width, and would be rebuilt utilizing stone. A bench may be incorporated into the
planter.
- In lieu of providing payment of one third of the cost to construct the sidewalk along the
west side of the Mill Creek Court chute, it was agreed Hanson Ranch Road
improvements would be more appropriate. Such improvements would include asphalt
removal and the installation of landscaping along the north side of Hanson Ranch
Ftoad, immediately south of Lot P-3 and Lot J. lt is anticipated that approximately 3
feet of asphalt (in width) would be removed beginning at the southeast end of Lot J'
The area of asphalt to be removed would be widened, and increased to approximately
10 feet in width, towards lhe southwest corner of Lot J and extending further west to
the southwest corner of Lot P-3. n cu{ would be installed along the full length of this
area and a double soldier course (pave\eOger) would be installed immediateiy south of
the curb. Landscaping is also proposed'along the north side of Lot p-3.
Landscaping would be installed in all the areas where the asphalt had been removed,
and a proposal to irrigate and maintain these areas will also be required.
Lighting will be further reviewed by staff, with the possibility that one or two new light
fixtures may be required.
ln order to avoid any future confusion regarding the timing of the design work and
implementation ol the streetscape improvemenls, I would like to briefly layout what I believe to
be the three possible scenarios. They are as follows:
Town of Vaivr/ail Associates rbsolution of Lots p-3 and J ownership issues.
DRB approval of the final streetscape design. Design is contingeni upon item 1
above.
construction of the streetscape elements as a part of the christiania project,
during the Summer/Fall 1992.
lssuance ot a T.C.O. for the Christiania.
Town of Vaill/ail Associates resolution of Lots p-3 and J ownership issues.
DRB approval ol the final streetscape design. Design is contingeni upon item 1above.
lf construction of the streetscape improvements is not possibre before a T.c,o.is requested, then it wiil b_e necessary to enter into a Deveroper rmprovementAgreement (cash escrow/letter of cre-oit; witn the Town to cover the costs of theimprovements.
lssuance of a T.C.O. for the Christiania.
Construction of the streetscape elements, during the Spring of 1993, or at alater date if approved by the Town Council.
1.
2.
3.
t. 1.
2.
3.
4.
't.
2.
3.
il.
4.
5.
ilt.
Mr. Paul Johnston
May 8, 1992
Page 3
l hope this is not too confusing, however,if you,should have any questions or comments
regarding any of the "oo"""pi"""l
do not h-esitaltelo contact me at 4Tg-2138'
SincerelY'
MA ftl'zl'r
Mike Mollica
Assistant Director of Planning
' cc: Vail Town Council
Ron PhilliPs, TOV
JaY Peterson ,'
Kurt Segerberg
Kristan Pritz, TOV
-l
-l
1.1r. Pete Burnett
Town of Vail - public Works75 South Frontage Road Westvail, co 8155?
Re: Rocks at MiIl Creek
PRJ/ I I
August 37, 1992
Dear Pete,
I understand there is some misunderstanding about the rocks wehave stored at the edge of Mill creek. Because ih. ro*r, of vaii i.srequiring us to build a foot path along Mil1 creek we have stock_piled rocks along the creek f6r future placement.
It is also my understanding the compraint came from the staffat cvrano's, r have previously filea.o*p-iaints *lir. trr" Tov policeDepartment about cyrano's irlegal use of tte "ir".m tract torparking vehicles and sto_ring equipment. I have yet to hear from theP.D. related to my complaints.- -
-J.56 E. Hanson Rancb Rd. .vail. (blordd1 tt t 6t7
Irlx (.jA.J) 176-0470
Cbristiani{t,at vait
(303) 476-5641 .
oo
Pierce, Segerberg & Spaeh . Architects P.C. A.I.A. f,$:[ji{{r'{ 1?, 19ye
November 11, 1992
Department of Communi ty Devel opment
Town of Vail
75 South Fnontage RoadVail, C0 81657
Dear Mi ke,
Per your request, I am giving you a synops.is of myunderstanding of the st atu s of the "punch Iist" i tems for theChri sti ani a deve lopment.
RE r Lot P3./Hanson Ranch Road,
The encfosed dnawings were revised and redated rr/LL/92 to
c lari fy the fol lowi ng i mpnovement s as di scussed i n ounlI/4/92 meeting.
a. Provi de P3 parki ng I ot wi th t.i mber retai nage and
l andscapi ng. Surface to be aspshal t.
b. Pnovide curb and double soldier course followingthe sout hea st corner of Lot J to the sout hwe st cornerof Lot P3.
c, Remove asphalt and provide landscaping along thesouth edge of Lots p3 and J.
d. Pnovide sloped concnete pans at both Lots p3 and Jent ni es.
e. Provide concrete curb and gutter along west boundnyof Lot P3 at "chute" to Gore Cneek Dn.i ve.
These i mprovements wou ld be started i n the Spr.i ng of 1993.
RE: Landscap ing
Fi ni shed I andscapi ng and si te i mprovements for theChri sti ani a prope rty w.i 'l 1 be started i n the Spri ng of 1993per the enclosed I andscape pl an dated g/23/gz and the si teplan dated lO/23/93.
Main Office; 1000 South Frontage Road West . Vail, Colorado 81657 . 3031476-4433
One Tabor Center . 1200 Seventeenth Street, Suite 515 . Denver, Colorado 80202 . 3031623-3355
Mi ke, T.0. V.
November 12, 1992
Page 2
The fol I owi ng i tems shou I d be noted.
. Provide new p'l anter wall at southwest corner of propenty
along with neu, boulder retainage wa1'l .. Provide (4) new spnuce at south propenty Iine, (6) new
aspen at west property ljne and {6) new aspen at north
pnope nty 1 .l ne .. Pnov'i de three barrier boulders at west property 1ine.. Re locate split rai'l fence at south pnoperty 1i ne,. A'l I finished grading, reseeding of disturbed areas wi'l Ibe started in the Sprlng oF 1993. Innlgation w'l I'l be
con st ructed at that time.
A1'l 'l andscape and si te i mpnovements wi'l 'l be started .i n the
Spning of 1993.
eEr The wal ki nq path al onq Mi I I Cneek
Th'i s work will be compl eted per your request pri or to
i s suance of T.C.0.
Thi s synops i s is my understandi ng of the i tems needed to be
compl eted for the Chri sti ani a devel opment. Pl ease contact meif you have any questi ons.
Be st Regards,
PIERCE, SEGERBERG &
KAS r sb
Segerberg,
HL{] rl ill0lj I 1992
August 3I , 1992
Mr. Pete Burnett
Town of Vail - publie Works75 South Frontage Road WestVail, CO BI6ST
Rel Rocks at Mill Creek
Dear Pete,
r understand there is some mi. sunders t anding about the rocks wehave stored at the edge of lliir-Ji..k. eeeause-irr.-ro*r, of vair isrequiring us to buird a foot path along Milr creek we have stoek-pi I ed rocks al ong the creek f 'oi iuture placement .
rt is also my understandinq the complaint came from the staffat cyrano's. r have_previ-ously titeo complaints with the Tov policeDepartment about cyrano's ii flg.f """' oi--if.""ltru"* tract f orparking vehicles 11d- stori.ng-eq"iJtn.nt. r have yet to hear from theP.D. related to my eomplaints. ----
PRJ/ I I
lkuty'n RtrrtLl: kl t | (t . (.ilor (k,,\ i/\-, '
li'l.\ 1.lr'i j, t-t:, , i -,)
Clcristiania, ot vait lStt L
i it)lj t-l) 5t1.t I .
o
3^.)
FILE COPY
TOIYN OFVAIL
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 816J7
) 0 1 -47 9 -21 3 I / 17 9-2 t 3 9
D epartment of Conmanity Deaelopment
Mr. Paul Johnston
356 Hanson Ranch Road
Vail, CO 81657
FIE: GHRISTIANIA AT VAIL
Dear Paul:
. /rlrz/ A'r/ C^.t Arooc. - /4J h^'d*- -.o"to'-e
lnay 8, 1992
-& ."t^,-,-e.". fo! &r.?>-,
'bna -J? /'.* f /.,^-(/ 4 "c.,l-t?'' fr,
tt'- fha,ar,7,j'ttt-- t
' N*4: o /"e,/-/ ;,+ /b-o
(2 ry /">r-e+', W. Arti'''j" .
e--t u't.Lf<
On May 6, 1992, the Town's Design Beview Board approved the finalbuilding design for the
Christiania at Vail and also approved the design concepts for the proposed streetsCape
improvements adjacent to the Christiania. This approval will allow you lo proceed to the
building permit phase for the project, however, the final streetscape details will need to come
back to the DRB for final review and approval. The staff is hopeful that the Town and Vail
Associates can come to agreement on the ownership issues regarding Lot P-3 and Lot J so
that the final slreetscape design for this area can be completed in a timely manner.
on May 5, 1992, the Town council also voted unanimously lo approve the streetscape
concept design for the Christiania. This is the same design that was ultimately approved by
the DRB on May 6, 1992. The streetscape concepts which you agreed to incorpoiate into
-
your development plan for the Christiania are as follows:
- The existing planter located north of your surface parking, and immediately south of
the MillCreek Court Building, would be expanded by approximately 1-1l2io 3 feet in
width, and would be rebuilt utilizing stone. A bench may be incorporated into the
planter.
- In lieu of providing payment of one third of the cost to construct the sidewalk along the
west side of the Mill creek court chute, it was agreed Hanson Ranch Road
improvements would be more appropriate. Such improvements would include asphalt
removal and the installation of landscaping along the north side of Hanson Ranch
Road' immediately south of Lot P-3 and Lot J. lt is anticipated that approximately 3
feet of asphalt (in width) would be removed beginning at ihe southeast end of Lot J.
The area of asphalt to be removed would be widened, and increased to approximately
10 feet in width, towards the southwest corner of Lot J and extending furth6r west to
{
\
Page 2 \
l. 1.
2.
3,
4.
il. 1.
2.
3.
the southwest corner of Lot p-3- A curb wourd be instarted arong the fu, rength of thisarea and a doubre soroi,e111y1g
1oa""i eol'eilr^roura ue instarr&'i,ir-"oi"t"ry sourh oflhe curb. Landscaping is atso proposed along the north side of Lot p_S.
Landscaping wourd be instailed in ail the areas where.the asphart had been removed,and a proposar to irrigate and maintain tnrrllr.". wi'arso be required.
riltlllt#il?""further reviewed bv staff, with the possibirity that one or two new tight
ln order ro avoid
"ny
f't-T:^:gnfusion regarding the timing of the design work andlmpEmentation of the streetscape improJemenis, r *o"ioii[. io o"ri""'rr 'Lvout
what l berieve tobe the three possibte scenarios. Th"i;;; ;;';orro*.,
Town of VailA/ail Associates resolution of Lots p-3 and J ownership issues.Df,Baoerovarof the nnarstreetsdpJ',lr"ligil' Design is contingent upon item 1
ff;il'Hi"Jr;1j[75";;;fe erements as a part or the christiania project,
lssuance of a T.C.O. for the Christiania.
Town of VairA/air Associates resorution of Lots p-3 and J ownership issues.Df,Baoorovar of the tinat streetscapi i".ig". Design is contingent upon item 1
,l::Tl!:]ign.of the streetscape improvements is not possibte before a T.c.o.rs requested, then it win e.neiessary to-.niri'into
" il";il;;ffilroJrr.",
f"$ff#il.l:lsh escrowlett".oi.r.iiii*iin"in, ro*n ro cover the cosrs onhe
lssuance of a T.C.O. for the Christiania.uonsrruction of the streetscape elements, during the Spring of 19g3, or at alater date if approved by the Town Coun-cil.
-""
No resolution of Lots p_g and J issues.DRB approvat of the tinat streetsip!-jr.ign.lf construction of the streetscape improve-nients is not possibre before a T.c.o.is requested, then it wit u- nui.*af, ,.-".i"ril, a Deveroper rmprovement
firtJt##*::sh escrow/tett..oi"i"liii*i,riinr ro*n to cover the costs or the
lssuance of a T.C.O. for the Christiania.uonsrruction of the streetscape elements, during the spring of 1gg3, or at atater date if approved by the Town Co"ijii""""
4.
5.
lll. 1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
I
Mr. Paul Johnston
May 8, 1992
Page 3
I hope this is not too confusing, however, if you should have any questions or comments
regarding any of the above, please do not hesitate to contact me at 479-2138.
Sincerely,
trlA fl1,24r
Mike Mollica
Assistant Director ol Planning
cc: Vail Town Council
Ron Phillips, TOV
Jay Peterson
Kurl Segerberg
Kristan Pritz. TOV
u l1o, *
l',
4A3246 8*547 P'J44 O8/]4,/g2 l5:o2 p6 t or s firc
JOHNNETTE FHTLLIFS EI+GLE C'AUNTY CL€RK, COLOAAPO 30"OO
o
tloc
0"oo
\rt
l'!
,'''l
ENCROAC}IMENT AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEIIENI, made and entered into this
_"*rf;{ay or!'i+Ju*t , L992, Christiania, Ltd., a Colorado Lirnited Partnership,hereinafter referred to as TTPROPERTY OWNERTT and Hoty Cross ElectricAssociation, hereinafter referred to as ttCompanyrt.
WHEREAS, Property Ovner is presently the owner of thatproperty described on the attached Exhibit [A',, a copy of which isattached hereto and incorporated herein by the reference; and
WHEREAS, the Company is presently in possession of an
easement, which extends through the aforementioned property. which
easement is described in Exhibit [8,] (rEasenent,,), Er copy of which isattached hereto and incorporated herein by this referencei and
WHEREAS, the Property Owner has constructed certainimprovenents encroaching upon the described easement.
NOW, THEREFORE' in consideration of the covenants andpronises herein, the parties undersigned hereby agree as follows:
1. The Conpany shall perrnit a trash enclosure with roof,walkway and garage (rrrmprovementsrr) to encroach upon the Easement asmore fully set forth on the attached Exhibit ,cr, d copy of which isattached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
2. The Property Ouner shal1 indemnify the Company from thecosts of any installation and/or repairs to the conpanyi s uti:-itylines, which may occur, or may have occurred, as a resutt of theImprovements and upon such Easeraent.
3. The Property Owner shall hold harnless the Company fronthe cost of repairing any damage to the rnprovements, which-darnage rnaybe caused by the installation of new utility lines in the Easernent, orby a breah. in present and/or future utility lines of the companyf orcaused by the repairing by the Conpany of such break or othernaintenance of the lines.
4. The Property Owner shatl indernnify the Company from anyincrease in the cost of any installation and/ol repairs- to theDistrictsr utility lines, such increase, if any, due to theencroachnent of the Irnprovenents onto the Easelnent.
5. This Agreement shall bind the successors and assigns ofthe Property owner, and shall be appurtenant to and deemed to iun withand for the benefit of the aforenentioned property in Eagle county,colorado, until such tine that the conpany ablndon said Easement,
at
Encroachnent Agreement
Page 2
and this Agreenent shatt
accordance with the laws
SIGNED AND DALMRED this
rded against said property inState of Colorado.
day of U U47 , L992.
, A COI.,,ORADO LTUITED PARTNERSHIP
ral Partner of Chr
be recoof the
ts'?
CHRISTIANIA
By:
Paul R. Johns
HOLY CROSS ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION
Title:
a, Ltd.
STATE OF
couNTy oF
COIORADO
EAGLE
)
)
)
Witness my hand and official seal .
Notqry'flubliq *.-J''
llycornndrslor Explnil t:A e-4L ''1u
=
-
^tcttsr zs.t?irs'- (r'2-a ,.,- ,(-p {/e J oMy cornrnission expires:
483246 8^587 p^144 08,/t4,t92 15:02 pG20F6
STATE OF COISRADO
COT'NTY OF EAGLE
!!g foregoing lnstrument was acknowledged before ne this
// 'J', day of August, L992, by David Saqeas President of Holy Cross Electric Association, Inc.
ny hand and official seal .
))ss
)
+
T.€(Notary nfflic
Cornmission Expires;
443246 B-5A7 F*144 oa/14,/92 J5:o2 r|-.r J UJ. O
4asr46F*saz rQ*-\/crl!.t/'J'2.'JAXUl
]l\:--r-FF T'-n Al(i-1\-Ir-L-1-/; a 11'
oF640F6
T.O4'd RT.n- Ta ,VT\ A/ VAIL VILIAGE, FIRST FILI}.IG, ACCORDI]qG TO THE
RECOililED PLA? T]{EREOF, COUNTY OF EAGLE, STATE OI COLORADO,
EXCEPT T}IAT PART DNSCP.TBED AS FOLI,OWS:
BEGINNING AT TIiE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SATD LOT C, BLOCK 2, SAID
VAIL VILLAGE FIRST.FILING,. TTiENCE IIESTERLY ALONG THE SOUTH LINE
oF SAfD d, 111.21 FEET; THENCE ON AN ANGLE TO THE RfcHT OF 90
DEGP,EES OO HINUTES 00 SECONDS , A DISTANCE OF 67.80
FEFT; THENCE ON AN ANGLE TO THE RIGHT oF 37 DEGREES 12 MTNUTES30 SECONDS, A DISTANCE OF 23.61 FEET TO A POINT OF INTERSECTIONfirri{ THE NORTHERLY LrNE oF sArD Lor <i; THENCE oN AN ANGLE ToTH' RIGHT OF BO DEGREIS 08 MTNUTES 50 SECONDS/ AIONG SAID
NOF.TIiERLY LINE AND AI,ONG A CUF.VE TO THE LEFT }IAViNG A RADIUS OF160.1_7 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGI-q oF 32 DEGR.EES 13 MI}nJTES 14
SECOi'IDS/ AN ARC DISTANCE OF 90.07 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER,OF SATD LOT d,- THENCE ON AN ANGLE TO TI]E RIGHT OF B6 DEGREES 51MINUTES 56 SECONDS AND ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID IOTq; 69.95 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGiNNING, AND EXCEPT THAT PART
DESCR,IBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNTNG AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT d,. BLOCK 2, VAIL
VTLLAGE FIRST FILING; THENCE WESTER,LY ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF
SATD LOT d,, A DISTANCE OF 11]..21 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNEROF THAT TR.A,CT OF I,AND CONVEYED IN THE DEND RECORDED JUNE 5,1968 TN BOOK 212 AT PAGE 880 OF THE RECORDS rN THE OFFTCE OFTIiE CLERK AND RECORDER OF EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO, THN TRUE
POINT oF BEGTNNING; THINCE oN A DEFLECTTON ANGIE To THE RfcHTOF 90 DEGREES OO MINUTES OO SECONDS A DISTANCE OF 67.S5 FEET
ALONG THE EASTERIY LINE OF SATD TRACT COI.NTEYED TN DEED RECORDEDIN BoOK 2L2 AT PAGE 880; THENCE CONTINUfNG ALONG THE EASTERLYLINE OF SAID TR{CT COMTEYED IN DEED RXCORDED IN BOOK 212 AT
PAGE 880 ON A DEFLXCTION AXGLE TO THE RIGHT OF 37 DEGREES ]-5
MINUTES 40 SECOI{DS A DISTA].ICE OF 24.96 FEET TO A POrNT OF
TNTERSECTION WITH THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID I.OT d, BEING A
POrNT ON A CURVE, THENCE AL,ONG THX NORTIiERty LINE Or SAID I"OTd, l.IrilcH Is oN A cuRvE To THE RrGHT ILAVING A RADIUS OF 160.L7I.EET, A CENTIAL ANGLE OF O? DEGREES 12 MINUTES 02 SECONDS, AN
ARC DISTANCE OF 2O.L3 FEET AND WHOSE CHORD DEFLEC?S 95 DEGREES08 HINUTES.46 SECONDS TO THE LEFT FROM THE FRNVIOUS COURSES,20.1L5 FEET DTSTANT; THiNcE oN A DEFLECTION A}lcLE To TtiE LEFT
a\ Er at aUI UJ IJ.f,GIIEES 51 HTNUTES 14 SECONDS FROM SAID CHORD A DISTANCEoF 32.77 FEET; THENCE oN A DEFLEcTfoN ANGLE TO THE RrGiiT OF 52
DEGR.EES 44 MINUTES 20 SECoNDS A DISTANCE oF 31.03 FEET; THENCE
ON A DEFLECTION ANGLE TO THE LEFT OF 90 DEGREES OO MINUTES OO
SECCNDS A DISTANCE OF 72.00 FEET TO A POINT OF INTERSECTION
WTTH THE SOUTHERI,Y I,INE OF SAID LOT d,. THENCE ON A DEFLECTION
I tt/-t Y-ANL-t,r'I'u'l'ttI LEFT OF 90 DEGREXS 0O MIIIIJTES 0O SECONDS AND ALONGSAID SOUTHTRLY I,INE OF LOT d A DISTANCT OF 53. OO FEET TO THE
EXTJItsIT B
TI{E SOUTIIERLY TEN (10) }.EET of- TtiE FoLLor,rrNG DESCRTBED pRopERTy:
2, 1ir:rL i./--T--',:rG-:, F:it.ST l.ILf liG / l_CCCilDIl,lC iLr Ti-:'fH:jiaoF, COUilf'1 Oii }::cr,r, ST?iTE Oa COr=-CpJrDO/
E)iCiP? T}IAT !AI]T DESCR]EED AS FOI,i,OiiS:
BECiN}.IING AT TI1E SOU'1'hE.\ST COFI'IEF. OI SAID LO'i A, BI-OCK 2 / SIIDVAIL VILL\GE FIRST'I'lI,ING; Tji;NCE I.ltSTItRj,y ALONG THp SouTil LINE
Cl S"r,ID d, 111.21 IiIET; T]:ENC: ON Ali ANGLE T,o T;lE RIGHT OF 90DEG?,i;S 0o MINUTES OO SaCONDS / A DIS.IANCE OF 67.80F;:T; '-!'HENCi oN AN Altcl,r ro rHE Rrcar oF 3i DEGR,EES 12 ].irNurES30 SICONDS/ A DISTANCE AF 23.51 FETT TO A POIN? OF ThITERSECTIONir'r?H TllE NoRTiiERLY LINE oF sArD Lor c; TH{}icE o}{ AN tutcLE ToTi1: P.IGHT oF 80 DEGF.I:S OS I{I]{UTES 50 SECONDS, ATONG SAIDi{oRTillF.LY LrNE AND ALcliG A CURVE To ri{E LEFT HAVTNG A p.ADrus oF160.17 FEET, A CENTF]"L ANGL! OF 32 D:GR.EES 13 MI}n]TES 14SECO}JDS/ AN A-R,C DISTANC: OF 90.07 FETT TO THE NORT}iIIAST CORNERotr si.iD Lor d; TiilNCE oN.r-N i-llci-,E To rlii.- RrcHT oF B6 DEGREES 51i{INiJTqS 56 SECONDS AND ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF SATD I-OTd; 6-4.96 FITT TO TI]r POINT oF BEGI}.jNING, AND Exc:pT THAT PAF.'I'DESC!,ItsED AS FOLLOWS:
3ECINNTNG AT THE SOUTH;AST CORNEP. OF SAID LOT d; BLOCK 2, VAILvrLL:.G; FrRST FTLTNG; TTFNCE l]ESTiRly ALONG TtiE sourH LrNE oFSAID LOT d, A DI-CTANCF OF 11]-.21 FEFT TO T}iE SOUTTiEAST CORNE.".oF TF]!-T i.F*Acr oF lAtqD coNvEYED rN TiE DEED RECOF.DED JUNE 5,1968 IN BOOK 212 AT F.\Ci 880 OF T}iT RECORDS rN TiiE OFFTCE OFTiiI CLIF.K AND RECORDEI. OF EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO, TIiE TRUEPOINT oF BEGINNING; Tti:llCE ON A DEIT,FCTfON ANGLE TO THE RIG;iTOF 90 DEGF.EES OO HINTJTES OO SECONDS A DISTA]{C5 OF 67.S5 FEET
ALONG TTiE EASTERI-,Y LINE OF SAID TP3CT CONVEYXD TN DEED RECORDEDrN BOOK 2L2 AI FAGE 880; THENCE CONTINUING AIFNG THE EASTERIYLINE OF SATD TRACT CO}TV-EYED TN DEED R.ECORDED TN BOOK 212 ATPAGA 680 ON A DEi'LECTION A-}IGLE TO TI{I RrG;{T OF 37 DEGRETS 15MINUTFS 40 SECOI{DS A DTSTANCE OF 24.96 FEIT TO A POINT OF
TNTFTE q.ia.nr fl\r r.'r-T Ir'r!.:.\r!\rJ..r-L/1\ wrTH THI NORTHEi.LY LfNE OF SAID LOT d, BIING APoiNT oN A cuRvE, THINCE ALONG THE NOP.THERLY LrNE oF sArD LoTd, h.T:TC5 IS ON A CURVE TO THE RrGiiT L\VING A RADIUS OF 160.]-7FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE oF 07 DEGREIS L2 MINUTES 02 sEcoNDs, AIARC DISTANCE OF 20.13 FEET SigP WiiOSE CT]ORD DEI'LECTS 96 DEGREI508 HINUTIS 46 SECONDS TO TIiE LEFT FROM THE PR.EVTOUS COURSESI20-115 FEET DrsrANT; TlirNct oN A DEFiEcrroN ANGLE fo rHE LEiTOF 83 DEGRITS 51 }IrNUTES ].4 SECONDS FF.OM SArD CSORD A DISTANCsOF 32.i7 FE5T,. THENCE ON A DEFI,:CTTON ANGLE TO THI RIGiiT OF 52DEGAE:S 44 $I}ruTES 20 SECONDS A DIsT.lNcE oF 31.03 FEET; THENCT-\ t\r 1UN A UI.-LTCTION ANGIE TO THI LE:T OF 90 DEGF.ETS OO MINUTXS OOSECsNDS A DISTANCs OF 72.0O Fi'T TO A POiNT OF iNTERSECTIONiilT:i T5I SOUT}iIF.LY LINE OF S},ID LOT i; THINCE ON A DEILECTTON
}. Nc:.; T- TH? r T.r'..,..,.- r,r-iT OF 90 DEGREaS 00 M-'}IIj-TES 00 SECONDS AND ALONGSAID SOUTHIRLy LINE OF LoT ci A DIST.INCE oF 53.00 FEET 19 1'1;;TqITF TOTNT OF RF|:TNNTNG.
I a';- .- !-r I n -;r'
...:..-L-.-_Jl-,Ll lrlJ-q I
l-1
lJ-)
( r'j
g.
tj'i
..1
:\
n
\l
t
N{,ttl
ttt
\|
&
o
--1
trrirl
s)
{t,a>..lf i$ v.lfitfi.tL .ti
i .1
I '$ ",J
I
I
)
{\.l\-
,i
e
(9
Li
rr)\
I'l
\|
--'1
'b
-1
I
\
|r}
I
t-----
\
is
$
9:lni:f
: nti6i
a
'tpc
rgi!ib
'tr
q
vLlFl
q3
EXHIBIT C
Jav K. PBrBnsoN
AITORIITY AT LAW
SUITE 3O7 VAIL NATIONAL BANK BUILDTNG
IOA SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD WEST
VAIL, COLORADO E1667
TELE PHON E
{303r 476 0092
FAX LIN E
r3O3l 479-0467JAY K. PETERSON
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
},TEMORANDI,M
IIrKE MOLLICA, TOWN OF VAIL
JAY K. PETERSON
JUNE 22, L992
CHRISTTANIA I,ODGE BUILDING PERMIT
Dear Mike:
Pursuant to our conversation of todayrs date, this memo is to informyou that until such tirne as ue receiie the encroachment agreement fromHoly cross Erectric we wi]l not construct the trash enclosure as
?uTTentl{ designed. Once the encroachnent agreement has been
i:l+::fl l: vg" it is my understandins that all construcrion,rnctudr-ng the trash enclosure, we will be covered by the buildingpernit.
While it appears to all parties concerned that Holy cross will in factgive the encroachment. ag-reement, in the "":.it"ry-case that they do notwe wi-1l redesign the trish encrosure to stay oul of such easernentarea.
If you have any guestions please contact me at rny office.
June l-9 , L992
Town of Vail
Community Development
75 $outh Fr:ontage Road
Vail, CO 81657
Re: Encroachment Aqre emen t
This letter is tq advise the Town of Vail that Holy Cross Efectric
is currently processing a request by Christiania, Ltd. t-o siqn off
on a utility Easement Encroachment Agreement. said uti1lt),- Easement
is l6cated on the Christiania at Vail site 6n Lcrt 2, Block D' Vail
\ti11age First Filing. Such an agreement requires Board of Directors
action and approvaf should be forthcoming r"it.hin 30 days' Holy
Cross has no known equipment irr the area of qrlestion.
ely
ohn Bo!'d
Engineer
Holr- Cross Electrlc
"'f,l8fil'$',ffiF
^ NOtarY /?oDLLC/){p /54-q .t;lF5-C.-*-"-:'drra a,o
I I
SUBDTVISION
roB N^HE Caetsn,#Jt,4 ,r uh,
UTILITY LOCATION VERIFICATION
BI.OCK /s
Tha locatlorr of ulllltlee, whether they be maln trunk llnes orproposed Ilnes, musb be approved and verlfled by the followlngutllltles for the accompanying slte plan.
?\t arrn f I..''\JL
ADDRESS
NOTE I
L !'ILINC
Authorlzed Sl-gnature Date
* Pleaee bring a slte pJ.an when obtainlng Upper Eagle Valley'Water & Sanitatlon elgnaturee
ii
i r';r :iiii'-,, ri1; -1r',illj;i : i; .$:.r i:j:l:::.: j'
eornpany L!r---
b't t-1rt
k{l"tL
l'hese verlflcatlone do not re]-leve the contractor ofhls responslbillty to obtain a street cut permlt fronthe Town of Vall, Department of Publlo Works and toobtaln utlllty locatlons before dlqglng ln any publlc
right-of-way or easenent in the Town of ValI. Abulldlnq permlt Is not a street cut pernlt. A street
cut, permit must be obLained separately.
This form is to verify servLce availablllty andlocatlon. This should be used in conjunction wlthpreparlng your utlllty plan and schedullnginstallations.
t
Project Application
ProJect Name: C.^4;-.2' *' o-t U ' 0
our" 8'5' 7e
Project Description:
Contact Person and Phone
Owner, Address and Phone:
i.j
Architect, Address and Phone:
Lesar Description, rot lb ,Btock Z ,ent^sV, lJr&no /* .zone-
comments: 35 6 l'l ,, , R, Ar r'
Design Review Board
Motion by;
seconded or, \ no.^--o{
4^o
Date
D ISAPPROVAL
Summary:
Town Plan ner E Statr Approval
1
July 23, 1992
Mike Mol1ika
Town of Vai l
Commun i ty Devell opment75 S. Frontage Road t4,estVail, CO 81657
Dear Mi ke:
Per your nequest, I have marked up a set of the proposed
exteri or Fevisions for the Chri sti ani a Remode I . These
revi sions are constant wi th our di scussions some weeks ago.At the time you felt that these pnoposed revisions weneacceptable, but you sti II needed to have staff review. Therevisions ane as fol I ows r
ski'l ight Additions toUnit "A" and Unit "8"Unit "8" llindow Modifi
Uni t "B" Bedroom ( 437 )
P'l ease Iet me know if theseforuard to hearing from you
Best regards,
u rt A . Sege nberg
Pre si dent
Uni t "8" Loft
Deck Expansi on
cat i on
Ba1 cony Addi t i on
nevi sions are acceptable I look
PT SEGERBERG &SPAEH,ARCHTECTS P. C A.I.A.
NEW SUPER THEnNnLZED
New lrom Wasco engineering-a super
thermalizod venting Skydome with a 9' high
frame and all the exclusive Permatherm
advantages.
SPECIFICATION
Skylights shall be Wasco Thermalizedo Skydomes
Model DDCV9 as manufactured bv Wasco Prod-
ucts, Inc., Santord. Maine. Thev shallconstst of a
9 inch hiqh super thermalized l-rame with dome
glazing. The base cu.bs shall consist of a lop of
curb exlrusion ol rugged. impacl resislant. low
heal t.ansmitting Permatherm6 (whrch has far
lower lhermal conductivity than even the new
'thermal break'aluminum products). This top of
extrusion shall conlain an integral screen lrame
holder and intBgral high pertormance gaskets. The
top of curb exlrusron and int€gral gaskets sl-all be
simultaneously milred for a perlect fit, and both the
extrusion and the antegral gaskets shall be welded
at lhe corners to insure wealher lighlness and low
air infiltration. The Permatherm loo ertrusion shatl
b€ joined to lhe corrosion resrstant inner and outer
vertical aluminum skins by means of a notched
interlocking engagement, and a gasket integral
with the Permatherm curb shall Drovide a conttnu-
ous seal with the aluminum ouler skin. To completo
the super insulaiion and to maximize resistance to
curb condensation, the aluminum inner and outer
skins shall be separatgd at th€ ba6e with a
Permalherm thermal barrier The 1 inch $pace
between lhe aluminum skins shall be insulated
with 1" unlaced tiberglass insulation. A 3' alumi-
num nailing mounting flange shall be providBd at
the base of, and be made integral with, the outer
aluminum skin. The glazing shall consist of an
exte.ior load carrying dome shaped €lement which
is made from looch acrylic sheet ol a thickness
suitable lor a design load ot 40 pil. Domes are
sealed lo minimize Internal domstondensalion
aM dirt infillralion. The bottom dom€ shallbe
continuously seal€d lo the curb with ore ol the
integral vrolded gasksts provided on lhe
Permatherm curb extrusion. The dome glazing
shall be held to the curb with an aluminum retainer
This relainer shall have an appropriate rumber ol
prepunched holes for receiving the ,10 starnless
sl€el screws which are tactory applied to a screwgroove in the Permatherm curb extrusion. The
screws ar€ sizei and spaced to resist a design
wind uplifl loading ol 35 psf. The compl€te EkyliQht
shall have passed the ICBO Ssction 5207 (aX2)-
Class "8" burning brand test as sp€cified in
U.B.C. Slandard No. 32-7, and lhe glazing shall
me6t the fl*e sOread and smok€ contribution
per{ormanc€ rgquirgmsnts lor Light Transmitting
Plastics. A double dome version ol this oroducl
shall have been thermally and air infiltration tested
by an independent laboratory approved lor wrn(bw
ihermal testing by lhe Architectural Alumrnum
Manulacturer6 Association (MMA) and €hall be in
accordancs with AAMA Standard 1603.1n980
"\,foluntary Standard Test Method For Th€rmal
Transmittancs of Skylights." Th6 tota{ thermal loss
lor the entire product, due to conductivity and air
intiltration in the specified 7% mph rryind; shall not
exceed 5.10 BTU/HFfF. The air inliltration in thrs
test Bhall have been found to be negligible (tess
lhan 0.1 cfm/lt. al th€ specified 7% mph wind
velocity).
Standard Sizes
M'DELN'. BxB l",lEl:
DDCV.' 2852 221hx a6V"
DDCV-g 3636 s0th\ sot/"
DDCV.g 3652 3OV2\ 46t/2DDCV-g5236 461h x 3Ot/2
DDCV.S 5252 461hx 46t/2
.150
.125
.150
.150
.1 50
First dimension is the hinged side ot the unir, e.g.
2852 hinged side is on the 28 dimension.
Wasco Skydome U Values
The Wasco thermaliaed commercial Droduct line"U" Value range is .59 to .75 degendnq upon
rnodel tested. "u" vatue = BTU/HR/Ftrl.i
Wasco "U" Values are determined bv an inde-pendent test laboraiory. The test method used is
consFtent wilh the Architectural Aluminum Manu-facturers Associatron (AAMA) Votuntary Standard
Test Method for Thermat Transmittanc6 olSkylights to insure that the consumer is given
the most reliable inlormation.
REMOVAALE SCREEN
WELL LINER, FHAMING.
AND FINISH AY OTHERS
RETAIN€R SCREW
INTEGRAL GASKET
ALUMINUM RETAINER
ALUMINUM INNER SKIN
1' FISERGLASS INSULATION
EXTRUDED PERMATHERM
VINYLCURB WITH INTEGRAL
CONDENSATION GUTTER
lOO% SEALED ACRYLIC
OOUBLE OOMES
ALUMINUM OUTEF SKIN WITH
3" NAILING FLANGE
I
NAILER. ANCHOFS, TRIM
ETC. 8Y OTHERS
ROUGH OPENING
J.q,-] 1.,? t (f-r.r,(' v/-.t r'-!7a
JAHNNETTE F'i]ILLTPS of.,rrr .i7:i7
FAGI tr CALIN r ), C L ER i( ,cir rn,!1,,,' O
r lJ'!"r)ii
o_oo
RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS
WHEREAS, PauI R. Johnston and Sarah A. Johnston (rlOwnersrr) are
the owners of the property described as:
Lot Two (2), Block 2, Vail Valley, First Filing, according to the
recorded plat thereof, county of Eag1e, state of colorado, herein
referred to as the ttsubject propertyr; and
WHEREAS, the owner wishes to place certain restrictions on the
use of a portion of the subject property for the benefit of the Town
of Vail , Colorado (ttthe Townil).
NOW, THEREFORE, the owner does hereby impose, establish,
acknowledge, declare, for the benefit of all persons who may
hereinafter purchase, or lease, or hold the subject property the
following restrictions, covenants, and conditions, all of which sharl_
be deemed to run with the land and inure to the benefit and be binding
upon the owner, its respective grantees, successors, and assigns.
l-. The subject property contains two dwer-ling units as defined by
the Town of vail zoning ordinance. one of the dwelring units
('rsecondary Dwelling unit") is approxirnately five hundred square feet
in size and the owners have agreed to restrict the use of the
Secondary Dwelling Unit as set forth in paragraph 2 below.
2. The secondary Dwelling unit shall- not be ]eased or rented for
any period less than thirty (30) consecutive daysi and, if it shall be
rented, it shall be rented only to tenants who are full-tine employees
of the upper Eagle valrey. The upper Eagle varley shaIl be deemed to
include the Gore val1ey, Minturn, Red criff. Gilman, Eagle-Vair, and.
Avon' and their surrounding areas. A fuIl-ti.rne enployee i_s a person who
works an averal1e of thirty (30) hours or more per week.
3 ' The secondary Dwerting unit shalr not be divided into any
forn of timeshares, interval ownership, or fractional fee ownership,
nor sha1l such secondary Dwelring unit be s.ld, transferred or
o4AO-?SJ ff*_5p41 p^ l7b PG,:'FI
conveyed separately from the priruary dwelling unit.
4. The provisions hereof may be enforced. by the owner or the
Town; however, the Town sha1l not be required to enforce said
provisions.
5. The conditions, restrictions, stipulations, and agreements
contained herein sharl not be waived, abandoned., terrninated or
amended, except by the vritten eonsent of both the Town of vail and
the owner of the subject property.
Dated tn* /4t day of U/r,, , Lssz.
was
Paul
acknowLedged before ne this t,ip
}DR. Johnston and sarah t*9. ',rohnston.
\'--1,tn*,1.
Notary Publ
h$A *rtllnqrr,lbryhfie
Lr C.milbiion erttrr.s At{. A 19*lilefnscu H.Eo lLF
was acknowled.ged before rne this J/i
Rondall \%.rnrrrrn".
Notary Public
- _lmilcaE!0.rrE'il*ftConrltgrSmntr26tttgt!75S.FWrno4val@ 61657
ondall .EiV,P|j^iLl
Town Manag.rd)b
I
ft0a
{o\ol3o, "
DECIJARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRTCTIONS
FOR SHORT TERM RENTAL I]NTT
This Declaration. q.;p covenants, conditions and Restrictions isentered into this /{b day of ,JU/A- , Lss2 by thechristiania, Ltd., a cororaao r,irniEEE-FEEtErEffi, ltrereiiratterreferred to as the ttownerr!),
. IIIHEREAS, the olrner owns the property as set forth on attachedExhibit A (hereinafter referred to ai tha rsubject property'r); and
WHEREAS, the Owner wishes to place certain restrictions,covenants and conditions on the use of a portion of the subjectProperty for the benefit of the Town of Vail (hereinafter r6ferred toas the trTownrt).
NOW, THEREFORE the Owner does hereby irnpose, establish,acknorvledge, and declare for the benefit or lt:. persons who rnayhereinafter purchase, lease or hold the subject broperty or anyportion thereof, the following restrictionsl covenants and conditionsall of which shall run with the land and inure to the benefit and bebinding upon the Owner, its respective grantees, successors andassigns.
l-. The Subject property shall contai-n one dwelling unitdesignated as unit #300, suite 4, located. on the third l6vel onthe plans dated ttray zzt L992, pierce segerberg spach p.c. ArA. suchplans being on file in the cornmunity oevelopment Departrnent of theTown of vail. such designated dwelling unit- (hereinifter referred toas 'tshort Term Rental unittt) is hereby restricted and made subject tothe following:
a. An ohrnerts personal use of his or her short Tern Rental unitshall be restricted to 2g days during the seasonal period ofDecember 24th to January Lst and February rst to Maich 2oth,This seasonal period is hereinafter refeired to as rrHigh
seasontr. rrownerrs personal userr shall be defined as ownerrsoccupancy of a Short Tern Rental Unit or non-paying guest ofthe owner or taking the short, Terrn Rentar unil off oi therental narket during the seasonal periods referred to hereinfor any reason other than for necelsary repairs which cannot be postponed or which may make a slort-Term Rentar unitunrentable- occupancy of the short rerm Rental unit by amanager or staff enpl0yed by the owner to run the subjectProperty, however, shall not be restricted bv thisAgreernent.
/t \? /4.- il5L'L.!."r f -JirJ :--* J +e ,
'.-'Jit rli i- I r; .-:ri', .f ' - c.r
/l _: /?'!!//L-cr1,-_iC..3:
,-Ll.-161 _c t:;3t-/i,J T,i rll, f,tr
./- ir _.i L/'ts 11arr/ _r/1 (a,-L -' L _-( 3r.. i_,r
r,i i L.n0c
t" riO
.:. 'i r
r1't
AI
b.A violation of this Agreenent by the owner shalr subject theowner to dairy assessment rate by the Town of vail oi threetimes the rate considered to be i reasonable daily rentalfor the short rern Rental unit at the tine of the viorationwhich assessment when paid shall be a fi-ne belonging to theTown. All sums assessed against the owner for the vlorationof the ownerrs personal use restriction and which remainsunpaid sharl constitute a lien for the benefit of the Toqrnon-the Subject Property, which lien shall be evidenced by awritten noti.ce, placed of record, in the office of the clerkand Recorder of Eagle County, Colorado and which may becollected by.foreclosure on the Subject property by the Townof vail in like manner as a mortgage or deeh of-trust on thesubject Property. rn the event ritigation results fron theenforcement of a restriction as part of its reward to theprevailing party the court sha11 award said party its courtcosts together with reasonable attorneyrs fees incurred.
The Town of Vail shal1 have the right to reguire of theOwner an annual report of the Ohrnerrs personal use duringthe High season for the Short Term Renlal unit.
The short lerm Rental unit sha11 not be used as a permanentresidence. For the purposes of this sub-paragraph a personshall be presumed to be a permanent resident-if suchperson has resided in the Short Terrn Rental Unit sixconsecutive months, notwithstanding from tirne to tine,during such six month period the person may briefly dwerl inother places.
The Short Term Rental Unit sha1l remain available to ageneral tourist market. This reguirement rnay be rnet byincrusion of the short Term Ren€a1 unit at Lornpaiable ratesin any.local reservation system for the rental of rodge orcondoruinium units in the Town of VaiI.
The restrictions in this Agreernent shall be modified orterninated to be of no further force and effect if sectionL7 .26.075 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail haselnirea or been, finaffy deterrnined to be invalid by a courtof competent jurisdiction or amended in such a manner as topernit removal or nodification of such restriction.
c.
d.
e.
f.
440251 g-5L€4 F-l_r,i O ',,'06 ; !i J o ". J--rL, - Lf a
2. The Short Term Rental Unit sha1l not be divided into anyform of tirneshares, interval ownership or fractional fee ownershi!.
3- The conditions, restrictions, stipulations and agreementscontained herein shall not be waived, abandoned, terminated or amendedaccept as set forth herein or by written consent of both the Town ofVail and the Owner.
THE TOWN o
I'\
N
F
1
VATL
Corporatia lrlunic
Rondall v.
Towfi Manager
ss.
s acknowledged before me thisPaul R. Johnston as General
^1.!.),1 - day of
Partner of
t/t/
v
I1 PSt
and official seaL.
i3iion expires on :
tiiir.ffi,trnrrOqrlla*fll^f,UAEErErEfaiafn
'tiS.Enris
Y|tO ]g
;t8025t s-5ir4 F-146 A7,t06,,/92 J6:42
{-)tt---g{u'trA gl4.M/nMw_r
CHRISTIANIA LTD.f A COLORADO
ton
FC;JAFb
A)
,J
STATE OF COIORADO )) ss.
0
acknouledged before ne this Jlrfi day ofby '4a44iLL V. /#/t LlPS asof the Town of Vail, a Municipal
and official seal .
480251 ,e-5S4 F*J4b O7,tO6,/gI J6:4I FG 4 OF 6
i
,,:.._
J' -' i\
..{ EEITBIT A
PA*:.CEL 1:
LOT d, BIOCK 2, VArL VTLLAGE, FrRS? FrLlNG, ACCCF,DTNG TO TliE
RECORDED PLAT THEREOF, couNTy oF EAGLE, STATE OF COLORADO,
EXCEPT TIL\T PAR.T DESCRIBED AS FOLI,OWS:
BEGTNNTNG AT THE sOUTtiEAs" coRNER. oF SAID LoT d, BI0CK 2r SAIDVAIL VIT,LAGE FIRST'FILTNG,' TliENcE }IESTERLY ALoNG THE SOUTH LINE
oF sArD d, 111'.21 FEET; THENCE oN AN ANGLE To rHE RrcHT oF 90DEGREES 00 MTNUTES O0 SECONDS , A DTSTANCE OF 67.80FEET,. THENCE ON AN A}iGLE TO THE RIGHT OF 37 DEGRXES 12 MTNUTES30 sEcoNDs, A DrsrANcE oF 23.61 FEE? To A PorNT oP INTERsEcrroNWITH THE NORTHERI,Y LINE OF SAID I,oT d; THENCE oN AN ANGLE ToTHE RrcHT oF 80 DEGRETS 08 MTNUTES 50 sEcoNDs, ArsNG sArDNORTHER,LY LTNE AND ATONG A CURVE TO THE LNFT HAVTNG A RADIUS OF160'17 FEE?' A CENTRAL ANGtx oF 32 DEGRIES L3 MTNIJTES L4SECONDS, AN ARC DISTANCE OF 90.07 FEET TO THE NORTHEAS? CORNEROF SATD LOT d,. THENCE ON AN ANGLE TO THE RIGHT OF 86 DEGREES 51MTNUTES 56 SECONDS AND ALONG THE EASTERLY LTNE OF SAID I.OTd; 69.96 FEET To rHE PorNT oF BEGTNNTNG, AND ExcEpr THAT PARTDESCR,IBED AS FOLIOWS:
EIF,/r TtTlr -r rr t'Dcbrr\I\rNtr aI lnE sourHEAS? coRNER oF sArD Lor d,'Br.ocK 2, vArLtttt ? rVJ-!].AGE IIRST FIITNG; THENCE WESTERLY ALoNG THE soUTH LTNE oFSAID LOT d, A DTSTANCE OF 111.21 FEIT TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNEROF THAT TRACT OF I-,AND CONVEYED IN THE DEED RECORDED JUNE 5,1968 IN BOOK 212 AT PAGE 880 OF THE RECORDS IN THE OFFICE 6FTHE CLERK AND RECORDER OF EAGLX COUNTY, COLORADO, THE TRUEPofNT OF BEGiNNTNG; TIiXNC! oN A DEFtEcTfoN ANGLE To THE RIGITTOF 90 DEGREES OO }IrNUT5S OO SECONDS A DTSTANCE OF 67.85 rEETALONG THE EASTERIY LINE OF SAID TRACT CON"\TEYED IN DEED RECORDEDIN BOOK 2L2 AT PAGE 880' THENCE CoNTINUING AITNG THI EASTERIYLTNE OF SATD TR.A.CT CO}NTEYED IN DEED R.ECORDED IN BOOK 212 ATPAGE 880 ON A DETLECTION AI'IGLE TO IHE RTGHT OF 37 DEGREES 15MINUTES 40 SECOIIDS A DTSTAXCE OF 24.96 FEET TO A POINT OFrNTElsEcrroN wrTH THE NoRTHERIY LrNE oF sArD rrT d, BErNG APorNT oN A cuRvE' THENCE AroNG TIiE NORTHERIY LINE or sArD Lord, wHrcH rs oN A cuRvE To rHE RrGIir IIAVrNG A RADrus oF 180.17FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE oF 07 DEGR.EES 12 MTNUTES 02 sEcoNDs, ANARC DTSTAXCE OF 20.13 FEET AXD WHOSE CHORD DEILECTS 96 DEGREES08 HTNUTES 45 sEcoNDs To THE LEIT FROM THE PREvroUs couRsEs,
?9.115 FEET DISTANT' THENCE oN A DEFiEcTIoN ANGI,E To THE LEiTOF 83 DEGREES 51 MINUTES 14 SECONDS FROM SArD C!]ORD A DISTA].ICEoF 32-?7 FEET; TtiENcE oN A DEFLECTToN ANGLE To rHE RrcHT oF 52DEGREES 44 MINUTES 20 SECONDS A DTSTANCE OF 31.03 FEET,. THENCEON A DEFLECTION ANGLE TO THE LEFT OF 90 DEGREES OO MINUTES OOSEC9NDS A DTSTANCE OF 72. OO FEET TO A POINT OF TNTES,SECTTONwrrH fHE sourHERLy LrNE oF sArD Ipr d; THENCE oN A DEFLECTTONANGI,E TO THE LEIT OF 90 DEGREES OO MT}ruTES OO SECONDS AND ALONGSAID SOUTHERI-,Y I,,INE OF LOT d A DISTANCE OF 53. OO FEET TO THETRUE POTNT OF BEGTNNING.
f:1
AI
h,
t
LI
-1.\
iL.
|.
\I
^j|*
F.i
!
4.1
rn
an
ft. E&mflA cont.
PA-RCEL 2:
AN UNDTVTDED
$;f'#$"#F#tril#'**riJr't#.ij"{$;l,'.,R;"t
:r:tmFf,"JTrisi,";l*#,-iiituf.':'iilf i"i j,*liiff ry^.
if :,"ri ?pnur *$i; t$f,*,Tfllffi t1 ii:$,io** #
.
PARCET 3;
t'ffi lt-"f ""tf ".#'#"ili,IJ"js1ffi:*#nir,ilisi,U# i:#l-l{r,'.+}?u'.",rf, "',
ll*il+x**+ *+rii;ffi i"+ij"Ti?+,
:
^.
"
_ . -ut rvo. AND RE ___!v L,e,,r.. 5, .,rllr"r$o5loi"r*
d:t,q/-]:q t ^ ^-. _.vL Jr r: _Jr_t4 F_J 46 07,,/06,/9: tt :42 FGt,OFc'
odlt.
I
rl
l'fr-:
a f i.\t .\
's i-\ ' ^,-
'.,;:,:.:{8A24 f # *5ir'.r i3* ,l,il
JDHNNf T'r E nHJi I -r*trrl
',;l 7,"r,l,:..' i: I,::i .: J.5 iri-; I ,;,j: ir
F;]f;l.f ,:.:iit".rl.t T y CLE:fi,1i,'. lOL.AftAfiLl 0^ #{:
f-.
t
ilt\
ENCRoACHMENT AGREEI'IENT
. ^*\ - THIS AGREEMENT, nade and entered into this l'6 -aay of
!11l)-{_, L992t Christiania, Ltd., a Colorado Lirnited partnership,
hereinafter referred to as TTPROPERTY OWNERTT and U.S. West
Communications, hereinafter referred to as rrCompanyrt.
WHEREAS, Property Owner is presently the owner of thatproperty described on the attached Exhibit ,A", d copy of which isattached hereto and incorporated herein by the referencei and
WIIEREAS, the company J_s presently in possession of aneasement, which extends through the aforementioned property, whicheasement is described in Exhibit trBil (rEasementt,), Er copy of whichattached hereto and incorporated herein by this referencei and
WHEREAS, the Property Owner has constructed certain
improvements encroaching upon the described easement.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants andpromises herein, the parties undersigned hereby agree as follows:
L. The Conpany shall perrnit a trash enclosure with roof,walkway and garage ('rmprovementstr) to encroacb upon the Easement asmore fully set forth on the attached Exhibit t,Ct,, d copy of which isattached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
2. The Property Oqrner shall indemnify the Conpany from thecosts of any installation and/or repairs to the Companyrs utilitylines, which may occur, or may have occurred, as a result of theImprovements and upon such Easement.
3. The Property Owner shall hold harrnless the Company fronthe cost -of repairing any damage to the rmprovements, which darnage naybe caused by the installation of new utirity lines in the Easement, orby a break in present and/or future utility lines of the company, orcaused by the repairing by the Company of luch break or otheimaintenance of the Iines.
4. The Property Ohrner shall indernnify the Company from anyincrease in the cost of any installation and/oi repairs- to theDistrictst utility lines, iuch increase, if any, due to theencroachrnent of the fnprovements onto the Easelnent.
5. This Agreenent shatl bind the successors and assigns ofthe Property owner, and shall be appurtenant to and deemed to iun withand for the benefit of the aforementioned property in Eagle county,colorador untir such tirne that the company abindon said Easement,
at\
?1
IS
Y.lrn
TI
Encroachment Agreement
Page 2
and this Agreernent shal1
accordance with the laws
recorded against said property inthe State of Colorado.
.|l
.::
f,:
.ir
'-t
,rij
u
ii
.n
,'j
(j
.j
!:
l:J
t.l
n..
L-l
:irj,
iJ
al
i.r.
be
of
a, Ltd.
COIORADO
EAGLE
)
)
)
Witness ny hand
instrument
I L992 1 Property Owner
and official seal .
sIGNED AND DEIJIVERED this Jt- day of , I n ,6 , Lssz.
A COI.oRADO LII.TITBD PARTNERSHIP
By:
Paul R.Johnston,General Partner of Chr
U. S.
By:
Titl
STATE OF
COUNTV OF
"7L The foreqoinqib'- day of Uulti -byi= %71;u^= ^1%i)TuF. Ui?f:;rv yn'"
MyComdsehn Exphes
AUGUgl29,tS5
My commission expires:
Nr}1
Tr
(>STATE OF COIORADO
COUNTY OF EAGLE
))ss
)
d-lL The foreg-oing instrument w4q acknowJedged before ure thj-s
ll- dgv of UUD€ , Leez, by i/A+tt FnuEf< , of u.s. west
Conmunications.
Witness ny hand
extrrires:d*,,o z.:...2,/3Y5
A"8/L24
4A0247 S-SS4 F*J42 O7,t'tla,r'92 Je':35 t'G 3 OF *,
ily0omnfeCon Epirss
At GU$T29,199s
and official seal .
?t
I
5\r-lir?-)tif r\l,-\-f"-LLf)-[ i lI
I.oT d, BLOCK 2, vAfl \:1-Ll-cE, FTp.sT FTLTNG/ ACcoRDIh-c 1'O Tt:E
F.ICOR.DED PIAT TIII-REOF,, COUNTY OF EACLE, STATE O: COLOP-ADO,
EXCEPT THAT PART DTSCRTBED AS FOI-,I,OWS:
BEGINNING AT THE SOUTIiEAST COR,NER OF SAID LOT d, BLOCK 2, SAID
VAIL VTLLAGE FIRST. FILING; TIiENCE I,/ESTERLY ALO}TG THE SOUTH Lf NE
OF SAfD d, IJ.\ .21 FEET; THENCE ON AN ANGLE TO THE RIGI{T OF 90
DEGREES 0O I'IINUTES 00 SECONDS , A DISTANCE OF 67.80
FtrET; THENCI ON AN ^A]IGLE TO TI{E RIGi]T oF 37 DEGREES 12 MTNUTES
3O SECONDS, A DISTANCE OF 23.51 FEET TO A POINT OF INTERSECTTON
WITH THE NORTHEF.LY LINE OF SAID I,oT d; THENCE ON AN ANGLE ToTHT P.16i11' OF 80 DEGREIS OS MTNUTES 50 SECONDS, AI,ONG SAID
NORTHEF.LY LTNE AND AI,ONG A CUF.VE TO THE LEFT HAVTNG A F.ADIUS OF160.17 FEET/ A CENTRAL ANGT_.,I or' 32 DEGREES 13 MINUTES 1"4
SECONDS/ AN ARc DISTANCE oF 90.07 FEET To THE NORTHEAST coRNERoF sArD Lor d; THENCE oN AN ANGLE To rHE RrcHT oF BG DEGREES 5tMINUTES 56 SECONDS AND ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOTci; 69.96 FEET To THE poINT OF BEGfNNING, AND EXCEPT THAT PART
DESCI,IBED AS IOLLOWS:
BECINNTNG AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT d; BI-OCK 2, VAILVILL}GE FIRST FILING; TTJENCE WESTERLY ALONG THE SOUTH LTNE oFSAID LOT d, A DISTANCE OF 111.21 FETT TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER,
OF TIiAT TRACT OF I,AND CONVEYED IN THi DEED RECORDED JUNE 5,1968 IN BOOK 2]-2 AT PAGE BBO OF THE RECORDS rN THE OFFTCE OF
THE CLERK AND RECORDER OF EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO, THE TRUE
POINT OF BEGTNNTNG; THENCE oN A DEFLECTION ANGLE To THE RIGHTOF 90 DEGF,EES OO MIMJTES OO SECONDS A DTSTANCE OF 57.85 FEET
ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID TRACT CO}I\TEYED IN DEED RECORDEDIN BOOK 2]-2 AT PAGE 880; THENCE cONTINUING A1ONG THE EASTERIYLINE OF SAID TRACT CO}I\,EYED TN DEED RECORDED IN BOOK 2].2 AT
PAGE 880 ON A DEFI,ECTION ANGLE TO THE RIGHT OF 37 DEGREES 15
MINUTES 40 SECOI{DS A DISTANCE OF 24.96 FEET TO A POINT OF
INTERSECTTON WITH THE NORTHERI.,Y LTNE OF SAID I.OT d, BEING A
FOINT ON A CURVE, THENCE AIONG THE NORTIIERLY LINE OF SAID L,OTd, t^7liICH IS ON A CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A IADTUS OF 160.L7FEET, A CENTIAL ANGLE OF 07 DEGREES ].2 UINUTES 02 SECONDS, AN
ARC DISTANCE OF 20.13 FEXT AND WHOSE CHORD DEFTECTS 96 DEGREXS08 UINUTES-46 SECONDS TO THX I-,EFT FROM THE PRIVIOUS COURSES,20.1L6 FEET DISTANT; TIIENCE ON A DEFLECTION ANGIJ To THE LEFT
OF 83 DEGREES 51 MTNUTES ].4 SECONDS FF.OM SATD CHORD A DISTANCE
OF 32.77 FEET; THENCE ON A DEFI,ECTTON ANGLE TO THE RTGiiT OF 52
DEGA,EES 44 MTNUTES 20 SECONDS A DIST.qNCE OF 31.03 FEET; TTIENCE
ON A DEFLECTION ANGLE TO THE LEFT OF 90 DEGREES OO MINUTES OO
SECSNDS A DISTANCE OF ?2.00 FEET TO A POINT OF INTERSECTION9iIT:{ THE SOUTHERLY LINE oF SAID LOT q; THENCE oN A DEFLECTfoN
ANL-].F'I'O'I'}I.L LEFT OF 90 DEGREES OO MI}WJTES OO SECONDS AND AI,ONGSAID SOUTHERLY LINE OF LOT d A DISTANCE OF 53.00 FEET TO THE
tar;\
'..i
ii,
.i:
1i.
ii-.
+L.
,:tj
f.-
l.j
'--+.
L.i
L]
-r_1
ar
il:
+*n
!,
EXiIIBIT B
THE SOUT'HEF.I.'Y TEN (10) FEET OF TFIE I'OLLOWING DESCRTBED PROPERTY:
i.,'l1. rl , Bf ,OCji t2 , 'r,ii r-i, j.r il. l -\ilf ,
il ,.'iC..'.-r: D PLA'I.'Iii t: lilO F , COU}, I,l{
:'..C:1.' 'fl.!: p,aJti Dr S*: if r: D ..,.1
EICiNNING AT TH' SOUTHE-AST C'JFJ.IEJI OT' SAID LOT d, BLOCK 2, SAIDVAII, VlLLACE FIRS?.FII,]NG; .Iiiit.ICE l,i'STERLY ALONG TIiE SOUT}] LINE
oF sAr"D d/ 111.21 FEET; THENCE oi'l Al't ^AJ{GLE To rH! RrGHT oF 90DECP.a.S 00 }'IrNUTES 0O SICONDS , .A DISTANCE oF 67. BOF;:'r; THFNCF oN .l-N a'iclE To rtrl Rfc;ir oF 37 Dicp.FES 12 I.ITNUT.LS]O S|CONDS/ A DTST,A.NCE OF 23.61 FE:T TO A POINT OF I}{TERSECTIONiT'ITH THE NORTHFR.LY LINE OF SAID I,oT d,- ?HINCE CN AN ANGLE ToTiiT F.ICi-iT OF 8O DEG?EIS 06 }IIiIUTES 50 SECONDSI AI,ONG SAID
}qOF,T}j'F.LY LTNE AND ALC}iG A CURVE TO THE LEFT }IAVTNG A F,ADIUS OF160.17 FEET, A cElifF,AL ANGLI O? 32 DEGi]EES 13 MlhltTES 14
SFCC}]DS, AN .}-RC DISTANC: OF 90.07 FFTT TO TiiE NORTHEAST CORNEP.oF S;ID LOT d; Tii:NCe ON AN ^L\GLE TO fHr.- RIGHT oi'86 DEGF.EES 5ti{INUT:S 56 SECONDS AND ALONG ?F]E EAS"ERLY LINE OF SATD LOTC; 69.96 FEET TO THF POINT OF SEGIN}{ING/ AND EXCSPT T1JAT PART
DESCP.ISED AS FOLLOWS:
SECINNING AT THE SOUTHFAST COPJ'IER. OF SAID TOT d; BI,OCK 2, VAILVILL-\ca FIRST FILING; TIiENCF l{ESTEp,Ly ALONG TliE SOUTH LINE oFSAID LOT d, A DISTA-]{CE OF 11]..21 FErT TO TI-]F SOUT}iEAST CORNEROF TH.IT TRACT OF I-AND CCNVEYED IN THT DEED R.ECOF.DED JUNE 5,i966 IN BOOK 272 A! P.qGE S60 OF THE F.ECORDS IN TiE OFTTCE OFTIiE CLE.:.K AND RECORDEF. OF EAGLI COUNTY, COLORADO, TiiE TRUE
FOINT oF BEGINNING; TIi:NcE oN A DEFI;CTION ANGLE To THE RrcijTOF 90 DEGR.EES OO HI}ruTES OO SECONDS A DISTANCE OF 67.85 FEET
ALONG TTiE EASTE.R.I,Y LINE OF SAID TRACT CO}TVEYED IN DEED RECORDEDrN BOOK 2L2 AI PAGE 880; THENCE coNTI}ruTNG AI.ONG THE EASTER.LYLINE Or' SAID TFACT COM/EYED IN DEED RNCORDED IN BOOK 212 AT
FAGE 660 ON A DEI'LECTION ANGLE TO THI RTGIiT OF 37 DEGI.E:S 15
MINUTES 40 SECOI{DS A DISTA.}ICE OF 24.96 FEET TO A POINT OF
TNTSR.5ECTION i{ITIi THE NORTHER.LY LINE OF SAID LOT d, BEING APOINT ON A CURVE, TH'NCE AI,ONG THE NORT}iERLY ITNE OF SAID LOTd, IfliIcS IS ON A CURVE TO TfiE RrcHT IL\VING A RADIUS OF t50.L7FEET, A CINTRAL ANGI,E OF 07 DEGR-ENS ].2 MINUTES 02 SECONDS, AN
AT,C DISTANCE OF 20.13 FEIT AND WiiOSE C}IORD DEFI.ICTS 95 DECRXIS08 HINUTES 45 SECONDS TO THE LXFT FROM THE pREVTOUS COURSES,20.1L5 FEET DISTANT; TH:NCE oN A DEFLECTToN AllcLE To TtiE I-,EFTOF 83 DEG;I.EIS 51 MT}ruTES 14 SECONDS FF,OM SAID CSORD A DISfA]iCqOF 32.7'7 FEAT; TIiENCE ON A DEFI,ECTTON ANGLE TO TIiT RTGAT OF 52
DEGRE:S 44 YTNUTES 20 SECONDS A DIST.1-}ICE OF 31.03 FEET; THENCS
ON A DE:LECTION fu\GLE TO THI LEIT OF 90 DEGF.EFS OO MTNUTES OO
SECCNDS A DTSTANCS OF 72.00 FE'T TO A POINT OF INTERSECTIONWITI T5= SOUTHIP.LY LfNE OF SAID LOT c; THFNCE oN A DEI"LECTIONANC- TO TH= LEIT OF 90 DEGR.FiS OO MINUTES OO SECONDS fu\D ALONGSAID SOUTHERLY LINE OF LcT d A DIST.3NC5 OF 53.00 FEET To THTT:IIF DNTNT OF RFCTNNTNG
<|
mTi
i-.tt:siT FtLft.tc/ i.ccoP.Dil{G TO Till
OF iiirCLll , :jTATtr Oi' ClOl,OP.ADO,
FOL,JO; S :
{_:
|:J
--1
?
L.
.i:
t.:
l;
']-ii.i
.J
i!
.9
'f!
'-Jal
,-r
t
EXHIRIT C
l,o
IrT
ili .tn 4\v--'1
S ,r. . *'lan t z -or.'I w'-----_--
-.-,-=--t'-------:1
IA
m
"l
i)" :F
1! rltL di
i$t6
-.1I
I r.'
\r:
!li
$
\.
e
n.
)r.9 iM
;FXiFl
l\
?Pg'!ai\ttTIF
4ild!t:4 7 ,3.-.:ii:?.,{ Ir* jJ.;l r'l)l: ,"i}rj,,/,j;r;i li:::, 'itJ
-! rF n!-rJ ;li 1lsTs s Ir.;; li i:--\i li T
\- ,-'- s /
-\f\ I /-')\\ /..t."\\ \' '
\\\
'.1\',
rr,,1: d J.ti t,
. ,\1 ..r\. tr. i-
, 4Jii;l-l$ n * jjs4 l:'- 1.4 J
' 'ir:it.ri ilI :- I f !.,{i i l .i t'ri
s/rt *
_i!; jli':
-t_ ^ fj,,.._-THrs AGREEMENT, is made and entered into tnis /X- aayot WW€ , 1992, by Christiania, Ltd, hereinafter referred to as
''PTOPETIY OWNET'' ANd thE UPPER EAGLE VALLEY CONSOLIDATED SANITATIONDrsrRrcr' and vArL VALLEY coNSoLTDATED vtATER DrsrRrcr quasi-municipal corporations of the state of colorado, hereinafterreferred to as "Districts".
WHEREAS, Property Owner is presently the owner of certainreal property which is described on Exhibit A, attaehed hereto andincorporated herein by this referencei and
WHEREAS, the Districts are presently in possession of aneasement, 10 feet in width, running through the aforementionedproperty, which easement is described on Exhibit B, attached heretoand incorporat.ed herein by this reference; and
WHEREAS, Property Owner desires to construct a permanentstructure that will encroach upon the described easement in an areaapproximately 10' x L6,, said encroachment being described onExhibit C, attached hereto and incorporated herein by thisreferencet and
WHEREAS, the easement is an active easement presently inuse by the Districts.
NOVI, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants and promisesherein, the parties hereby agree as follows:
L. The Districts shall permit the permanent structureto encroach upon the aforementioned easement.
2. The Property Owner shall indemnify the Dlstrictsfrom the costs of any repairs to the Districts' uuirity lines whichmay occur as a resurt of the construction of the permanentstructure over and upon such easement.
3. The Property Owner shall hold harmless the Districtsfrom the cost of repairing any damage to the structure, whichdamage may be caused by the installation of new ut.ility lines inthis easement, or by a break in present and future utirity lines ofthe Districts, or by the repair of such break by the Districts orby other maintenance of the lines.
4. The Property Owner shall indemnify the Dist,rictsfrom any increase in the cost of construction of any new utiritylines or in the cosL of any repairs to the Districts'utirit|lines, such increase, if any, dueto the proximity of the permanentstructure to the utility lines.
5. This Agreement shall bind the successors and assignsof the Property owner, and sharr be appurtenant to and deemed to
i1.:J.,'{.r,ii.," !: J t' : i7 l:'i.i .l frf 5
i],.'li-,ii, il i,:$iiit ri' ti- |:il,r,i , ir:ll j,/?r+rllrr
ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT
il i:i:
ii. ,jt
t\
$
tlp
\y.i\
md
1r
mnrun with and for the benefit of the aforementioned property in AEagle county, colorado until such time that the District! ablndons ()
said easement. This Agreement sharl be recorded against saidproperty in accordance vrith the laws of the State of Colorado.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have caused thisAgreement to be executed as of the day and year first abovewritten.
By
CHRISTIANI
UPPER EAGLE
VAIL VALLEY
, A COLORADO LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
*1-,
ston, A General Partner of C stiania,
CONSOLIDATED SANITATION DISTRICT/
CONSOLIDATED WATER DISTRICT
L,
!il
ra
,,
j
(rl
r_i
i\
\
I
+.
r_.1
c
":l
d
'rj
l'..3
L-r!
r-.i
Tsl
fJ
ern
Ltd.
AND
By
sv |.F3ttLJ Mtr r,-..-Assistant Secretary
Warren M. Gar
ATTEST:
STATE OF COLORADO
COUNTY OF EAGLE
ss.
neral Manager
,afi The forregoing instrument was 4qknowleCged pefore meythis/6'aay ot Jutt{ - , Lssz, uv '//lat K.c,lafetSTb<J
11, tMs
The foregoing instrument was aqknowledged before me this18th day of June, 1992, by Warren M. Garbe, as GLneral Manager ofthe upper Eagle varley consoridated sanitation District and vairVaIley Consolidated Water District.
ss
My Commission expi.res:
PubLlc
rt\
00nllicrGlm A
T ^.n .:LUl o, rJLuuK 2, VAIL VILLAGE, FIRST FILING/ ACCORDTNG TO THE
RECOR,DED PL,AT THEREOF, coulrl.'y oF EAGLE/ STATE OF COLORADO,
EXCEPT THAT PART DESCRTBED AS FOLI,OWS:
BEGINNTNG AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT d, BLOCK 2, SAIDVAIL VILI,AGE FIRST'FILING; TTiE}JCE IIESTERLY ALONG THE SOUTH LINE
oP SATD d, 111.21 FEET; THENCE ON AN ANGLE To THE RIGHT OF 90DEGRIES 00 }'IINUTES 0O SECONDS , A DISTANCE OF 67.80
FFET; THENCE ON AN A]'TGLE TO THE R]GHT oF 37 DEGREES 12 MINUTES30 SECONDS, A DISTANCE OF 23.61 FEET TO A POINT OF INTERSECTIONI{ITH THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID I,oT d; THENCE oN AN ANGLE ToTHE RIGHT oF 80 DEGRE:S 0B MINUTES 50 SECONDS, AtONc SAID
NORT}iERLY LINE AND ALONG A CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVTNG A RADIUS OF160.17 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE oF 32 DECREES 13 MIMITES 14
SECO}.IDS, AN AF.C DISTANCE OF 90.07 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNERoF sArD Lor d; THENCE oN AN ANGLE To rHE RrcHT oF 86 DEGREES 51}'JINUTES 56 SECONDS AND ALONG TI{E EASTERLY LINE OF SAID I,OTCi; 69.96 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGTNNING, AND EXCEPT THAT PART
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT d,. BLOCK 2, VAIL
VTLLAGE FIRST FILING; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OFSAID LOT d, A DISTANCE OF 111.21 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER,
OT THAT TRACT OF I,AND CONVEYED TN THX DEED RECORDED JUNE 5,1968 IN BOOK 212 AT PAGE BSO OF THE RECORDS IN THE OFFICE OF
THE CLIRK AND RECoRDER OF EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO, THE TRUE
POINT OF BEGTNNING; TIiENCE oN A DEFLECTION ANGLE To THE RIGH?
OF 90 DEGREES OO MTNUTES OO SECONDS A DISTANCE OF 57.85 FEET
ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID TRACT CO}NTEYED IN DEED RECORDED
TN BOOK 2].2 AT PAGE 880; THENCE CONTTNUTNG AI,ONG THE EASTERLYLINE OF SAID TRACT CONI/EYED IN DEED RECORDED IN BOOK 212 AT
PAGE 880 ON A DEFI,ECTION ANGLE TO THE RTGHT OF 37 DEGREES 15
HINUTES 40 SECOI{DS A DTSTANCE OF 24.96 FEET fO A POINT OF
INTERSECTTON WTTH THE NORTHERI,Y LTNE OT SATD T.,OT d, BEING A
POINT ON A CURVE, THENCE AI-ONG TiiE NORTHERIY LTNE OF SAID LOTd, wHIcH rs oN A cuRvE TO THE RrcHT tiAVrNG A XADIUS OF L60.17FEE?, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF O? DEGREES ].2 UTNTJTES 02 SECONDS, ANARC DISTANCE OF 20.13 FEET AND WHOSE CHORD DETLECTS 95 DEGRXES08 HTNUTES.46 SECONDS TO THE LEFT FROM THE PREVTOUS COURSES,20.116 FEET DISTANT; THENCE ON A DET,LECTTON ANGTE TO THE LEFTOF 83 DEGREES 51 MTNUTES ].4 SECONDS FROM SAID CHORD A DISTA]'ICEOF 32.77 FEET,. TIiENCE ON A DEFIJCTTON ANGLE TO THE RrGi]T OF 52
DEGR,EES.44 MTNUTES 20 SECONDS A DISTANCE OF 3J..03 FEET,. THENCSON A DEFLECTION ANGLE TO THE LEFT OF 90 DEGREES OO MINUTES OO
SECSNDS A DISTANCE OF 72. OO FEET TO A POINT OF INTERSECTIONIiITH THE SOUTHERLY LINE oF SATD I,oT d; THENCE oN A DEFLECTTON
ANGLE To THE IEFT oF 90 DEGREES oo MINTJTES oo SECONDS AND ALoNGSAID SOUTHTRLY LINE OF LOT d A DISTANCE OF 53. OO FEET TO THE
.t:
Itr,3t;
+.,':
ir
{ir
!l
'lt
i:
LL
(J
\-j
ti
,'
l'.j
iJ.
i,..i
al
L1
,]
,nY.lirF n^ ?r
EXIiIBfT B
T'}IE SOUT'IIERLY TEN (10) FEET OF THE F'OLLOWING DiISCRIBED ITROPERTY:
L'')'i t, E,l,ocK 2 , v-r',rI., \.r ir,Lr\GE, riRST FiLlriG, rr-r--CoRDrj.rc ro rjjij'l,ri-c.',JrD irLA,T 'riiliitstoF, coLlj','f'y c)ir E-r-GLlr , s'iri?E ur:' CoLop.liDo ,
ll)iC; ?T 't'HirT PlJrt' DHSCFIf EiD AS FOLi-OirS:
E]lCINl{fNG A'I TriE SOUTIIEAST CoR}lER oF SAID LoT d, BLOCK 2, SAIDVAIL VII,LAGE FIRST.FILING; TIiENCE I'JTST'ERLY ALO}'IG TliE SoUl.H Li].I.L
oF SAID d, 111.21 FEET; TljEi{cE oN AN AllcLE To THE RIGHT oF 90DECP.'ES 00 MINUTES 0O SaCONDS r A DISTANCE OF 67.80FIFI; TFiENCE OI'I AN }I.IGLE To TIiE RfG;iT oF 3? DEGP.EES 12 T.iTNUT.LS]O S'CONDS/ A DISTANCE OF 23.61 FEET TO A POIN? OF r}.iTERSEC]'IOI{iirrH TI-IE NORTHERLY LrNE oF sArD r,or d; THENCE oN AN A}tcLE To?Fii P.;5;;1' OF 8O DEGP,F:S OS.I,lIJ{UTES 5O SECONDS, AI,ONG SAID}.[OI.T}-:;P.LY LINE AND AI,O}.IG A CUP,VE TO THE LEF'I I':AVING A RADIUS OF160 ' l-7 FEET, A cEiirRAL ANGI; or 32 DEGR.EES 13 HTMJTES 14SECONDS/ AN ARC DISTANCE OF 90.07 FE:T TO TiJE NORTHEAST CORNEP.oF s,).rD Lor d; TIiENCE oli AH.a-lrGLE To rHE p,rcur oF 86 DEGREES 51i'JINUT'S 56 SECONDS AND ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID I,OTci; 59.96 FEET To rHE PorNT oF BEGrNlirNG, AND EXCrpr rtiAT PARTDESCP.IBED AS FOLLOWS:
:ECiNNTNC AT THE SOUTHIAST CORNE!, OF SATD LOT d; BLOCK 2, VATLvILI;ca FIRST FILING; 1'HENCE wESTEp.Ly ALoNG TIiE SOUTH LINE oiSAID LOT d, A DISTANCE OF 111.21 FEET TO TI]E SOUTIiEAST CORNEP.OF TF.}.T TRACT OF I,AND CONVEYED ]N TH: DEED F€COF.DED JUNE 5,].958 TN BOOK 2:.2 AT PAGE 860 OF THE F.ICORDS IN THr OFFICE OFTiiE CLEP.X AND RECORDER. OF EAGI,,E COUNTY, COLORADO, THN TRUE
POINT oF BEGINNING; Ti1;NcE oN A DEFI;CTION ANGLE To THE RfcHTOF 90 DEGR.XES OO UTNI-JTES OO SECONDS A DISTANCE OF 67. 85 FEET
AIONG TIiE EASTTI,LY LINE OF SAfD TRACT CONVEYED IN DEED RECORDEDrN BOOK 212 AT PAGE B8O; THINCE CoNTINUTNG AI,oNG THE EASTER]-,YLINE OF SAID TRACT coN-vTYED fN DEED R:CORDED IN BOOK 212 ATFAGE 660 ON A DEI'LECTION A-}IGi,i TO TH! RrGiiT OF 37 DEGRETS 15HINUTES 40 SECOI{DS A DTSTANCE OF 24.96 FETT TO A POrNT OF
TNTIP.SECTION WITH THT NORTHEF.LY LINE OF SAID I-OT d, BEING APoINT oN A cURvE, THENCE ALoNG TIiE NoRTHIRIY LINE oF SAID LoTd, i'ii:Ici{ Is oN A CURVE To TliE RIGHT LAVING A RADIUS oF L50.17FEET, A CENTRAT ANGLE OF 07 DEGREES L2 MTNUTES 02 SECONDS, ANARC DiSTANCE OF 20.1,3 FEIT AND I,r-i{OSE CHORD DEFLICTS 96 DEGREES08 }ITNUTES 46 SECONDS TO THE I,EFT FROM THE PR-EVTOUS COURSES,20.1].6 FEET DISTANT,. THENCE ON A DETIECTION ANGIE TO THE I-,EFTOF 83 DEGREES 51 MINUTES 14 5ECONDS FROM SAfD CSORD A DISTANCSOF 32.77 FEST; T}iENCE ON A DEF'LECTTON ANGLE TO fli: RIGiiT OF 52DEGaE:S 44 "YTNUTXS 20 SECONDS A DfST-1NCE oF 31.03 FEET; THENcqON A DEiLECTION fu\GLE TO THI LEST OF 90 DEGA.E'S OO M]NUTES OOSEC3NDS A DISTANCS OF 72.00 FE;T TO A POINT OF INTERSECTTONlirr:i r:ir sourHEp.Ly LrNE oF sArD r.or i.; THENCT oN A DEFLECTTON
-1NL-i-.:i, r'u'r'hr LEFT oF 90 DEGFi:s 0o l'lilruTEs 00 sEccNDS AND Ar,oNGc f, Tn sa'rlITur'?r vI.IfJ-i\!I LINE OF LOT d A DISTANCq OF 53.00 rEFT TO TIiIT!IT' DOTNT OF RFGTNNTNG.
m?i
tt!i
a,:
ajl
-j-t
:4t[
Ji.
l
!i-
r*,1
(i
,:.i
t)
?.
.:]
tJ
f-
'}.
l.t
\j
\{t
L.
t
'.Jt
ir
r-i-- -?
EXItlBIT. C
ntF
trr
nl
A** o$ |
Engrrclqdr.ulet4' i
.ii .t$ c+lrl o'i ij r-{I ".rir E
$
Ir
9 itn;oa.EriEl
a oa
,
o't-
h\
}A
isi\
1PCIti!tF
t
4 ill, t) :: 4 i3 F * -5p,ir t3 - I 4 i () 7,,, :) i:;,,,,,1 :/:rG -1 ;"iF .:-l e ":: rli
-r! !F r!_l.ll li 1l
,s Elir! l. :i
,.i,Ji .s
K-r i,/
'\),'\\\.. \\\ \oi\\,
-------.-
tt k IJo rr4
)'
.+ft,f:":l ir f, " :;i;jt[. F-,t ..+.r rJ 7 ',L,6.,' ii"? I c, _. ;T:i .i:'(; ^i i).r tt
"ii:;/N/r's i'I,1t r:ii-i'i.ri,.ifr.3 frlt)': i ili'l-,l",/f 'r' ;1.ifi'A. i.:r.il.!.l,Tr+trr*r
,r.'ia:i: {;:.
i.) ti'.1
"\)..
11
(-I
h\
ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT
- /L
, 1,.. THIS AGREEMENT, mad.e and entered into this )t -auu ot
. -\j4-!L, L992, christiania, Ltd., a colorado Lirnitea'partneiship,hereinafter referred. to as rpRopERTy owNERr and public serviceConpany, hereinafter referred to as rrcompanyrr.
WHEREAS, property Owner is presently the owner of thatproperty described on the attached Exhibit t,Ai, d copy of which isat,tached hereto and incorporated herein by the referLnce; and
WHEREAS, the Company is presently in possession of aneasement,, which extends through thb aforernentioned property, whicheasement is described in Exhibit rrBrr (rEasement"), i copy of which isattached hereto and ineorporated herein by this referenle; and
WHEREAS, the property Owner has constructed certainirnprovements encroaching upon lne described easement.
Now' THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants andpromises herein, the parties und.ersigned hereby agree as follows:
1. The company sharr pennit a trash enclosure with roof,walkway_and garage (ttrrnprovemenlsrr) to encroach upon the Easenent asmore fu1ly set forth on the attached Exhibit srgr, d copy of rqhich isattached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
2. The Property owner sharr indernnify the cornpany from thecosts of any installation and/or repairs to the Company-r = i-,tif itylines, which may occur, or may have occurred, as a result of theInprovements and upon such Easernent.
3. The.property owner shalr hold harmress the company fromthe cost_of repairing any danage to the rmprovements, whicn-aainage rnaybe caused by the instarlition ot new utiLily lines in the Easemeit, orby a break in present and/or future utirity lines of the company, orcaused by the repairing by the company of such break or othermar.ntenance of the lines.
4. The property Owner shalt indernnify the Cornpany from anyincrease in the cost- of iny installation anafoi iepairs- to- ttreDistricts' utility lines, -uch increase, if any, due to theencroachment of the Irnprovernents onto the Easement.
5. ?his Agreement shalr bind the successors and assigns ofthe Property owner, and sharl be appurtenant to and deemed to run withand for the benefit of the aforemenlionea property in Eagle county,cororado, untir such tine that the conpany ablndon said iasement,'
Fl
d
C3
I'
Encroachment Agreement
Page 2
and this Agreement shallaccordance with the laws
recorded against said property inthe State of Colorado.
srcNED AND DELTvERED this JJlday of i)uatr , L992.
N
d
be
of
CHRISTIANTA COLORADO LIMITED PARTNERSHTP
By:
Paul R.ohnston,General Partner of Chr
PUBLIC S ICE COMPANY
By:
'r'1E1e:
a, L!d.
STATE OF
COUNTY OF
' r|fr'D- day
COLORADO
EAGLE
The forof
)
It
)
oing fore meinstrument was owl
, 1"992, by {-
Property Owner
(SEAL)
48OI4'"1 fi*5fJ4 F*J44 07./t:).;.,ri: l6:,1,;
Witness rny hand and official seal .
r'My conmission expires: f-7-ffi
rrfi : tf i,
!
STATE OF COLORADO
COUNTY OF EAGLE
)
)
)
hand and official seal .
SS
instrument was g.cknowledged before rne thisI 1992, bY HeP-r-Y Fa'oto , of Public ?t
Witness my
45021':1 ,3.*58J
My commissj-on expires:7- 7 - 73
PG 3 tJf t.
o
I
.0lir"J$fi'A
l,CT ri, BLOCK 2, \,'hl.L VIilAGl, FIF.S? FIi,Ilic, ACCOP.DING TO THt
FTCORDED Pr.AT TH'REOF, coullrY oF EAGLtr, srA'rE or coLCP.ADo,
E)iCiPT TIIAT FART DT]SCRIBED AS FOII,OI{S:
EECII{NTNG AT Ti..E sourHEAST ccPllrEF, oF sArD Lor d, Bl,ocK 2, sArD
VAJ]-, VILLAGE FIRST'FfLI}iG; THENCE I.JESTERLY ALONG TT1E SOUTI] iINE
oF SAID d, 111.21 FEFT; THEIICE ON AN AIiGLE.IO TilE RIGHT OF 90DEGP.E;S OO }'IINUTES OO SECO}iDS , A DISTA}JCE OF 67.80Fi;.:,. THFNCE ON AN }.}.IGLE TO TiJE RIGiiT OF J7 DEGF.EES 12 HTNUTFS30 S:CONDS/ A DISTANCS OF 23.61 FEXT TO A POINT OF I}{TERSECTIOi{lrrrrH THE NORTHEP'iY LINE oF sArD r-or d; THENCE or{ AN A-}iGLE ToTHr F'icfir oF 80 DEGRE:S 08 Mri{urES 50 SECONDS, AL0NG sArDNoi.Th-rP'LY L]NE AND AL,C)NG A CURVE To rHE LEFT IaqvrNG A RADrus oF160'17 FEET, A CENTFaL ANGLE oF 32 DEGREES 13 IIrMJTES 14SECO}.IDS, AN AF.C DISTANCE OF 90.07 FtrET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNEF.oF Si\-iD Lor d; T}jENCE oN AN i^IicLE To rHE RrcHT oF 86 DEGRE:S s1}'{iNUTES 56 SECONDS A}'iD ALONG TIIE EASTERLY LrNE oF SAf D Lor
ci ; 69-96 FEFT To rHE PorNT oF BEGTNNTNG, AI.iD EXcEpr rliAT PARTDESCF.IBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGTNNTNG AT THE souriiEAs? coRNER oF sArD Lor d; EtocK 2, vArLVILLAGE FIRST FTLING; THFNCI I;ESTEP.I,Y ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OFSAID LOT d, A DISTANCE OF 11]..21 FEET TO THE SOUTHIAST CORNEI.OF TF-AT TRACT OF IAND CONVEYED IN TIiE DEED RECORDED JUNE 5,1968 TN BOOK 212 AT PAGE 8SO OF THE RECORDS IN TliE OFFiCE OFT}iE CLFRK AND RECORDER OF EAGLI COUNTY, COLORADO, THE TRUEPOINT OF BEGINNING; TIiINCN ON A DEFLICTTON ANGLE To THFI RIGi{TOF 90 DEGR,EES OO I{INUTES OO SECONDS A DISTAI'ICE OF 67.85 FEFT
ALONG THE EASTE.RLY LINE OT' SAID TRACT CONVEYED IN DEED RXCORDEDIN BOOK 2I2 AT PAGE 880' TI]ENCE CONTINIJTNG AIONG THE EASTERLYLINE OF SAID TRACT CO}IVTYED IN DEED RECORDED IN BOOK 212 AT
PAGE 680 ON A DE!"LECTION ANGII TO THE RTGHT OF 37 DEGRESS 15MINUTES 40 SECOI{DS A DiSTS*'\ICE OF 24.96 FEET TO A POrNT OF
TNTIR,SECTTON WITH THE NORTHER.TY LTNE OF SAID LOI d, BEING A
POT]'IT ON A CURVE, THENCS AI.ONG THE NORTHXRLY I,INE OF SATD IOTd, klircH Is oN A CURVE To rHE RrGHT ILNING A xADrUs oF 160.1-7
I'F I"F I /r1]rtnil-r?.Er-:-J, A L-:r\r'r(A! ANGLE OI' 07 DEGREES L2 MINUTES 02 SECONDS, ANARc DTSTANCE oF 20.L3 FEET AND I{-HosE cHoRD DEFLECTS 9G DEGRETS
OB HTNUTES.46 SECONDS TO THE I,EFT FROM THE PRNVIOUS COURSES,20.1].6 FEET DISTANT,. T]iiNCE ON A DEFLECTTON ANGI,E TO THE LEFTOF 83 DEGREFS 51 MIN'UTES 14 SECONDS FROM SAID CHORD A DISTAI'ICIoF 32.77 FEFT; TIiENCF oN A DEFi,EcTfoN ANGLE To TIi: RrciiT OF 52DEGR,E:S,44 MINUTES 20 SECONDS A DIST.\NCE oF 31.03 FFET; T}iENcE
ON A DETLECTION fu\Gi,I fO TJ]i LEIT OF 90 DEGR.EES OO MINUTES OO
SECCNDS A DISTANCE OF 72.00 FIIT TO A POINT OF INTEP.SECTION
wf Tii Tli: SOUTHE-D.LY LINE oF SIID I-oT i; THENCE oN A DEFLECTION
ANCI,: TO THE T,F?T NF AN Ntrr:DT'?C NN MTNTTTFq NN CF'ONNq INN ET/a \I-
Ffl
?l
aJ
':l\:t:
lrl
:1.
I
!*
..t,.
i
+
_3
.:
t;
f.
i'.
frl
:-]
*ltl
l:
a
:l
?.
I
iit.,iilB,'i_T B
'l,iiE ijcuT'I{tR|y T'tj}I (r 0) -|,EE'I, or.TIIE ]IOI,I,Oi.]I}]G DESCR].BED PROPERTY:
: I .. ),,.: .C: ' .. , '.'.r. .
.i , :.'.. 1..1 r. jl:
,
:.-1 .-;:.:;.D Iri.il ,r H.'rirlOF, CtLrUl.i _i,-:i
r:..:'r; -' -i':--;--'^' ^r-3.1T D:lSa,.ir,l! ,-^:FOj,iriiiS:
EfC-!i!iifilG A'f TijE SOUT;jiAS.I' CO {Fp. Ol Sia,.fD LOT a, BLOCK 2, S-4rDVr'-,Ii VILI-AGE FIP.S?'r-ILIt{c; Tjlit{CI I,itSTEF.LY ALCt,rG THE SouTi.j LrNtj
oi s-r,rD c, l-11.21 FEET; T}1:NCE of{ Ari ANGLE To r.-,: RrGFir oF 90D:Gllt:S 00 i'I-ii.iUTES 0O SecoNDS / A DISTFJCI OF G?.gO].T:T; TiJFNC; Oi'i i.N idGLT T,O TiiE RIGHT oF 37 DEG?:FS 12 ],i].NUTrSl0 sacoliDs, A DrsrANCt oF 23.61 FErr ro A rrorr\T oF rNTERsEcrroNirI?H Tjlr NoRT;tFRLy LINE OF SAID LO? d; THIi,iCE Cl{ AN ANGLE To':-: F'rc:ir oF 80 DEGP.::S o6 IIrr{'LirES 50 sECOTIDS/ }.LoNc sArDiioP'T.-.:P.LY :Lri'lE Ah*D ALCiic A cup,r/E To TilE LEFT F,AVIlic A RADIUS oFi60.17 FIET, A clli?pGl ANGIi oF 32 DiGR.FES 13 M:L\-ltfES 1,4S:CO|] DS, AN ARC DISTA]'{C: CF 90.C7 FT:T TO THE NOP.THEAST CORNEP.cF s.:.rD Lor d; Tri:Iicf ori AN,a-NGLE To rH; F.rciir oi E6 DEGF.EES 51I,:IN-U-T:S 56 SECONDS A].iD ALONG T]]F E!SI.pRLY LINF oi SAID LoTc; 6-a'95 Flir ro rli;'Pori{r oF BEcrIiNlNG, AND EXC:pr TH.A.T PAF.TDESC?.IiEf AS FOLLCHS:
:iCIN}..ING AT T]i: SoUTI]i.I,sT CopJ'iE!, oF SArD LoT d; tsLoCK 2, VAIL'';f Li-,:-cr Fr!.sr FTLTNG; TI{TNCF h'EsrFp,Ly ALONG TEr sourH LrNE onS.T.ID iCT d, A DiSii.NCF OF 11]..2]- F'If TO THE SOUTIiEAST CORNE:.O' T]--}.T TF.ACT OF LqND COI{VEYED IN TH; DEFD P€COP,DED JUNE 5 Ii958 Ii.I EOOK 212 AT P-qGI 560 OF THE !.:COR.DS IN TJI OFFTCE OFTH: CLEP.K AND RECOF.DER, OF EAGLE COU}{TY, COLCRADO, TIiF TRUEFOfNT OF BEGINNfNG; TF;:NCE oN A DEfIiCTfoN ANGIE To TI;I RIG;TOF 90 DEGF.E:S OO Mr}ruTES OO SECONDS A DISTANCE OF 57. 85 Fi''TALONG ?HI EA5TEI.I,Y LINE OF SAID TRACT COI.N/EYED TN DEED RECORDEDrN BOOK 2L2 AT P.\GE 880; THINCE CoNTINUTNG ALoNG THI EASTES.]-,YLINE OF' SAID TRACT CONVEYFD IN DEED R:CORDED IN BOOK 2]-2 ATF.}.GE 680 ON A DEFIECTION ANGI.,E TO TiiI RIGiiT OF 37 DEG?.EFS iSMINUTIS 40 SECOI{DS A DISTANCS OF 24.95 FEIT TO A POINT OFTllrFi.A <:r"n-r-\ rr Y.7'rr--'!d--!-J!Lr!'J1\ wrTI{ TIir NoRfIiERLY LrNE oF sArD r,or d, BErNc AForNT oN A cuRVE, THTNCE Ar,oNG Ti:E NOP.THERIY LrNE oF sArn Lori, I./-I.IC:{ IS ON A cURvE To THE RIGiiT F-\VIIG A RADIUS or ].50.17FE:T, A CEIII:UUI, A}{GI.,E OF O? DEGRNES ]-2 MINUTES 02 SECONDS, .UVA-Lc DTSTANCE oF 20.13 FIIT AND lr-liosi C]toRD DEFT.ECTS 9d DEGR.T:S08 H:NUTES 45 SECONDS TO THI LXST FR.Ci{ TIiE PREVTOUS COURSES,20.1].6 FTET DISTANT; TH:NCE ON A DEI'iTCTTON A-}{GE TO T}iE i,rir]F 83 DEG:IT=S 51 HINTJTES 14 SECONDS F!.OM SArD CSORD A DISTANCEJY 32.77 FE5.T; TlirNcF oN A DEFi,rcrroN ANGLE To rii: Rrciir oF s2IEG?.E:S 44.yrNUTEs 20 sncoNDS A Drsr-L\cE oF 31.03 FFET; THENC:]N A DF:LECTION fu\Gi*E TO THF IEiT OF 90 DEGEEFS OO MINUTES OOJ:CINDS A DISTANC5 OF 72.AO FF;T TO } FOINT OF INTE.=.SECTTONirr:i r:ir sourlir-D.r,Y LrNE oF slrD i-oT i; THENC. oN A DEFLECTTON\.NG- TC TE: LEIT OF 90 DFGF.F:S OO }I'i]{I.JTES OO SECONDS AND AI-,ONGlfTn C-I]'rnF-;=rv r--:r! .,!wrrr.:-j\.,Jr r,INE OF LOT d A DIST;NCI OF 53.00 FEET 16 ar;IiIi; DNiNT OF F.FCTNNTNG.
?t
I' i f::j ,r I'ILJ.llG , -r..alcalDIiiG TO T|;oi.' il.:,GL;n- , 'S i?^,:,;:, i-.-' COr,c)rr._'.DO ,
t
*-st.l
i'J
+:
t"l
L'l+
{,.
-a
t"
,1.,
.t
+
T.
::'
1..-;
t)
il,i
':i
I
d-l
1,1-fl
i'
{;; iJ.[ {:.
o
lxlll]lI'i'(l
-'1
l-_-
-+lll i.,*- , -. 1-'-.; ';; " c l;.i 1 . i- - -1 c -;'
tl \'r i:'
t f i'
q,i;
EI!l
!l:i
FI
.A\#
A\JJd
\rF'*l ;,i q)
)! rf-tL .i', tt-tr t ]
ii 't
\;ty
.i{
/!
\/*
)
7
\.
n.
9 io
i:i
6 3:
i ii
fr\-s
]A
t-(
i\
I1tcitittF
I
I
IJ
1 ,_,_l
j ii -i: S] l.
-3 r- tili ln -II lr io ti
-'!; /i\ r./\ \,\^,\\\
'\l- i\\\ \),^r'\ \
FG
I1.r.' .- "{ .?DCJ?.1,".t
J$'J;i.J *?-:l,lJ !:'^ I 45
Jfill/v rr7"f pt"t iLt. IFS
(P l?n ...aaI J(-' '
d ,r,.' ,,-''::r,,i l,l l $ " .JLl .1:,:l I tF ,::
i:ijrijt/_f arit)_1NIl.- .:L s,ql1; , a:r:rj..LlFlr+xfr
,t;,;;
,:ir] - i]#
i)Jr-.
{'" t:}{:
8
t1
li
ri.
ENCROAC}IMENT AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this _ day ofr99z I christiania, Ltd., a colorado Lirnited-EEitneisnip,hereinafter referred. to as i'PRopERTy oi^rNERr and Heritage cablevilionT.V., hereinafter referred to as rrCompanyr.
WHEREAS, Property Owner is presently the owner of thaLproperty described on the attached Exhibit "Ai, d copy of which isattached hereto and incorporated herei-n by the reference; and
WHEREAS, the Company is presently in possession of aneasement, which extends through the aforenrentioired property, whicheasement is described in gv5i5i1 rrgrr (r'Easementr'), I cbpy oi which isattached hereto and incorporated herein by this referenlEi and
WHEREAS, the property Owner has constructed certainimprovements encroaching upon Ltre described easement.
. NOI'I, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants andpromises herei-n, the parties undersigned hereby agree as for.l-ows:
1. The conpany shaIl permit a trash enclosure with roof,walkway-and garage (trmprovemenlsr) to encroach upon the Easement asmore fu1ly set forth on the attached Exhi.bit ,c,, a copy of which isattached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
2. The Property owner shal] indernnify the conpany frorn thecosts of any instalLation and/or repairs to th6 Cornpany-r= iltifityrines, which may occur, or nay have occurred, as a resurt of theInprovements and upon such Easement.
3. The property owner shalr hold harrnress the company fromthe cost_of repairing any darnage to the rmprovements, whicn'aairafe maybe caused by the installation or new utilily rines in the Easemeit, orby a break in present and/or future utility lines of the company, orcaused by the repairing by the conpany of luch break or otheimaintenance of the lints.-
4. The property owner si,rlrr indernnify the conpany frorn anyincrease in the cost of -ny instalrati"n anaf-i ilpair"-to'theDistrictst utility lines, iuch increase, if any, due to theencroachnent of the Irnprovements onto the Easernent.
5- This Agreement shall bind the successors and assigns ofthe Property owner, and sharl be appurtenant to and deemed to run withand for the benefit of the aforernenlioned property in Eagle county,colorado, until such time that the conpany abindon said iasement,'
1\
?.i
Encroachment Agreement
Page 2
and this Agreement shallaccordance with the laws
SIGNED AND DELMRED this
cHRISTIANIA/
By:
PauI R.
HERITAGE CAB
By:
Title:
STATE OF COLORADO
COUNTY OF EAGLE
be recorded against said property inof the State of Colorado.
. .t'rL I!,t day of v(i,r-'t' , 1,992.
rt\
?,'|
+.
I'j
IB
t
tnth
+,
T
it-
$.
tn
o.\
Jl
i.j
instrument
, L9g2,
Witness my hand and official
RADO LIII{ITED PARTNERSHTP
eral Partner of Chr a, Ltd.
J}trlC
!c\
i\J
Lj-tl
, .fr The foqegoing
I '/ ' day of [-, u,r- c
(sEAL)
My commission tffiaefte Arytso,nea veL co-sissz
STATE OF COLORADO
COUNTY OF EAGLE
SS
rt
sL. The f?regoing instrument
= + qay. or t'U lv z , 1,992, bycaFlevJ_slon T.V_
owledged before:.> , of
me this
Heritage
Witness rny hand and official seal .
(sEAL)
My cornmission expires: U4milAsItg{&,A/dfi,lffi
480250 8*5S4 F*J45 07,,/05,/',.12 J6:40 FGSOFd
a
i : l-_:.-;__-) - -t-r ,\):,r::-,- j- i) 1,. I 1'\
I,OT d, BLOCK 2, VATI-, I/ILLA,GE, FTP.S? FILfNG, ACCORD[]{G TO T}iE
PECORDED PL\T TI:ER.EOF, COUNTY OF EAGLE, STATE oF COLCFJ\DO,
EXCTPT TiiAT PA*tr." DESCF.IBED AS FOLLCTT.S:
BEcrl"NrNG AT THE solr-THEAST coR-t'iER oF SATD Lof c, BLocK 2, sArDVAIL Vf LIAGE FIRST' FILING; TIiENCE rriESTEF.Ly ALoiiG TtiE SoUTit LIN_E
oF SAfD d, 111.21 FEET; Tl{Eh'CE oN AN ANGLE TO THE RIGHT OF 90DECIiES 00 MINUTES CO SECONDS , A DISTANCE OF 67.80F;:T; TIIENCE ON AN A-}JGLE 'To THE RIGiiT oF 37 DEGP.EES 12 }ITNUTTS]O S'CONDS, A DISTANCS OF 23.6]. FEFT TO A POINT OF INTERSECTIONh'IT}i THN NORTFIERLY LINtr OF SAID I,oT d; TI{ENCE ON AN ANGLE TOTHi pr5g1 oF 80 DEGRE:.S 08 HTNUTES 50 sEcoNDS/ ALONG sArDNORTHER.iY LINE AND AI,O}.{G A CUP.VE TO THE LEFT }IAVING A RADIUS OI-160'17 FEET, A CENTRAL ANcLx oF 32 DEGREES 13 MTMJTES 14SECO}.IDS, AN ARC DISTANCE OF 90.07 FIET TO THE NOR,THEAST CORNER,oF SAID LOT C,'firFNCE ON AN ANGLE TO THE RIGFiT oF 86 DEGR.EES 5Il4rNUTis 56 sEcoNDS AND ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE oF sArD Lord; 69.96 FEET To rHE PorNT oF BEcr]'{NrNG, AND EXCtpr rHAr PARTDESC!.IEED AS FOLLOWS:
BEcrNNrNc AT rHE sourHEAST coRNER oF sArD Lo? d; Br,ocK 2, vArLvrli;cE FrRsr FTLTNG; THENCE wEsrEp.r.,y ALONG THE sourH LrNE oFSAID LOT d, A DISTANCE OF 111-21 FE:T TO TIii SOUTHIAST CORNEF.OF TF.AT TRACT OF I,AND CONVEYED IN Tiii DEED R.ECORDED JUNE 5,1966 iN BOOK 212 AT PAGE SBO OF THE RICORDS rN TiiE OFFTCE OFTiiE CLER.K AND RECORDER oF EAGLE coUNTY, coLoRADo, THE TRUEPOINT oF BEGfNNING; TIirNcE ON A DEFLICTION ANGLE TO THE RIGiITOF 90 DEGREES OO }IINUTIS OO SECONDS A DTSTANCE OF 67.85 FEETALONG THE EASTERI,Y LINE OF SAID TRACT CON\TEYED IN DEED RECORDEDIN BOOK 2]-2 AT PAGE 880; THENCE CONTINUTNG AIONG THE EASTERLYLINE O!'' SATD TRACT CO}NTEYED TN DEED RSCORDED IN BOOK 212 ATPAGi 880 ON A DEFI,ECTION A-}.IGLE TO TIiE RIGI{T OF 37 DEGREES 15MINUTsS 40 SECOI'IDS A DTSTA.bICE OF 24.96 FEET TO A POINT OFr-NTERSEcTioN wrrH THE NoRTHERIY LINE oF sArD rFT d, BEING APoINT oN A CURVE, THENCE AIoNG THE NoRTHERI,y IrNE oF sArD LoTd, 1]-f:TCH TS ON A CURVE TO THE RIGITT IiAVING A RADIUS OF 160.17FFFiF I /,rftrrnr-\ r ?r 'E L! , A Lr.\'r't(AL ANGLE oF 07 DEGREES 12 MINUTES 02 sEcoNDS, Alr
A-R.C DISTA.NCE OF 20.13 FEET AND WHOSE CIIORD DEFI,ECTS 95 DEGREES08 HINUTES-46 SECONDS TO THE I.,EFT FROM rHX PREVTOUS COURSES,20.1].5 FEET DTSTA}iT,. THFNCE ON A DEFLECTION ANGIE TO THE LEiTOF 83 DEGR,ESS 51 MTNUTES 14 SECONDS FR.OM SAID CSORD A DISTANCSoF 32-?7 FEET; TliENcE oN A DEFr,EcrroN ANGLE To rtiE Rrciir oF 52
DEGR.EES 44 MTNUTES 20 sEcoNDs A DIST.{NCE oF 31.03 FEFT; THTNCEON A DEI'LECTION fu\GLE TO THE LE5T OF 90 DEGREES OO MINUTES OOSECTNDS A DISTANCS OF 72. OO FEET TO A POINT OF iNTERSECTTONwrrii r:'iE sourHEP.LY LrNE oF sArD r,or c; THENCF oN A DEFLECTTONANr::.= 'F- lrtfF 7 rr...FT OF 90 DEGR€TS OO }{T'TT[]TES OO SECCNDS INN IT^Nla
J
i1
:-j-t
a4
'n
ar
l
i
t+
n
..
.
rj
rr.
.i:!.
a)
cl
'n
i:
-;ll.'jr r [)* m E)
'lIIx souf'FlrjRlll rEN (10) rEE:f oF T,ritr !'ol,]-oi{ilqc DEscRLBED p:l,:;pE;D,.Ty:
; -' _:, jrjLOCri: 2, 1,iliII., \.r:LI;\C.j, i.r-f:ST i._Ir-firG, 1\-CtaOR!)il,lij i.O I,i.,,r":-l-c:'-l:ll Irr.;:iT 'r:;:Rrjc)!', Lro-.,iii.r'v' oir rr:c r--E, s |-LlrE c -r. cro;o,1,]iDO,
-.,-:.-rr 1'rr.-\'f r'-if D:S:l-,rr.JL) ;.: f OLr.ar;S i
lll-:11'lliillc A:l rilr scuTHi-,lsr copj.JER oF sArD Lol i, Bl-ocx 2, s-l,rDVi.IL I'i:iLL\Gil FIF.ST FILII':G; TliiliicE I,ItSTERLY ALOI{G TH:- SOUTi.l l_!i,il
ci s'l'rD d/ !1 r-21 FEFT; TH:NCE oN ANr ANGLE TC T;rIr RrGIi? oF 9nD:Ci.arS 00 l.1I}iUTES OO SECOI{DS , A DIS?;\NCI oF 67.80F'=T; 'THFNCT oi.j i-|.t il{clE To rHE RrGaT oF 3? DEG?EES t_2 t,irNuTasl0 s:csiiDs/ A DrsrANct oF 23.61 FE:T To A porN? oF rt'irERsEcTioiiiir:r r-:E NoR'ilHERLy LriE oF sArD i-or q; Tl-t:i.rcE ci{ AN ANGLE To:i-:' RICI,? OF SO DEGF.F:S O6 Itfi{UTES 5O SECONDS, ALCNG SAIDiic:i.::P.LY Lr].rE AND Alcl.ic A cuP.vE To rHE LEFT EAVrilG A FGDrus oFli60 ' f 7 FIET, A C:NTRAL ANGLI oF 32 DEGR.F:S 13 Hflru:lEs 14slccNDs/ AN ,rllc DrsrANC: oF 90.07 FErr ro rtiE NoRTHrAsr coR.NEF.Ca S.:.lD LOT ri; THaNCq Oil Ai.l FJtGr,E TO fIiE F.rcltT OF,BO DEGREES 5l-l':-r-Nr-r-lrs 55 si:ccNDS AND Al-ot{c rHE Ei,srERr,y LrNE oF sArD LoTC; 6.9.96 Fiq.f 19 THi p6i1;1' oF tsFGrNNING, .}.ND EXC:IT THAT PA!,.T].SC?.I:TD AS FOLLOWS :
:ECI\}.']NG AT TIii SOUTI.Ii.\ST COR.}{EP. OF SAID LCT O; BI,OCK 2, VAIL:"ri;r.G: fIF.S:l FfLfNG; TI-:;NCE WESTFP.LY ALONG TEF SOUTii LINE OaSiID ICT d, J\ DiS?ANCF oF 1].1.2]. FErT To T]]E SoUTiiEAST CoRNE-:.CF !,...}.T TP.AC:] OF IA-}{D CONVEYED rN THI DEED R.ECOF.DED JIJNE 5,i963 r]'l BooK 2L2 I\T PAGE 6s0 oi'THE F.ECORDS rN T i oFFrcE oFTi:: CL:!K AND RECORDER. OF E-i.cL"I COUNTY, COLORADO, THI 1pg;?OINT OF BEGINNING; TTiINCE oN A DFFLECTION ANGLE To THE RIGTTOF -OO DFGAEE5; OO ]{INT]TES OO SECONDS A DISTANCE OF 67.S5 FEITAT.O}{G T5i EASTE.P,LY LINE OF SATD TRACT CO}NiEYED I]-T DEED RECORDEDIN BOOK 2L2 }.,T PAGE 880; TH?NCE coNTI}fiJTNG AI-oNG THE EASTERIYLINE OF SAID TF3.CT CONTVTYED TN DEED RICORDED IN BOOK 2].2 ATF.I.G' E6O ON }. DETI..ECTION AXGLI TO Tiir RIGET OF 37 DEG?.IES rS|IINUTES 40 SI]COI{DS A DISTA-I.ICE OF 24.95 FIif TO A POINT OFTNT?:f <;..FTl-r]\I TJT I+-'r--\-i,-.\,!-iL/r\ wrTH THn NORTIiE!.LY LfNE OF SAID LOT d, BEING APOINT ON A CUT.VE, THINCS AI.ONG TiiE NORTHTR]-,Y LTNE OF SATD LOTi, I{trc:i rs cN A cuRvE To ri:r Rrciir L\vrNG A RADrus oF l-c0.17FE:T, A CFNTIAL fu\GLE OF 07 DEGI.EIS 12 MINUTES 02 SECONDS, NVl-P.c DIST.\I{CE oF 20.13 FI;T AND ry-i{osi cHoRD DEFLECTS 95 DEGR.E:S38 ]'IfNUTTS 46 SECONDS TO THE LXTT FROM THE PREVIOUS COURSES,20'1:-5 FIET DrsrANT; TH:Nctr oN a DEFiEcrroN A-t'tcii ro Tiix Lrir]F 83 DEGi.EFS 51 HTNUTES 14 SECONDS FROM SAID C:{ORD A DIST.FJ.IC?)F 32.77 FEAT; TIiINCS oN A DEFiEcTIoN ANGLE To TIi= RrG;jT oF 52)EGaE:S.44.yrNUTES 20 SFCCNDS A DfST-1NCE OF 31-O: FErl,- THENCi]N A DE:LECTION fu\GLE TO TI{F LETT OF 90 DEGF,EES OO MINUTES OOJICsNDS A DIST.iNC9 OF 72. OO F:iT TO A POINT OF INTERSECTTON
Y-TT'-' .t-*-; q -r;rrl r--;:.-,.,.,-.....,-.,.LY LiNE OF S;rD LOT i; THENCTI ON A DEI"LICTfON:-lqcii TC TIi; LEIT oF 90 DEG?_E:5 OO l,lfNTlTES 0O SECCNDS tu\D AICNG:f,Tl q-l'i.r.s;=r v y"-r.!J J\v,!,/rri:---\.r.r.r. L-IN; OF LCT d A DIST-\NCq OF 53 - 00 FEal 16 t.r.-o.iiI; TNTNT OF RFi:TNNTNC
ri
3t
.i:
lir
a_l
!:1
rl.;
Iilt
T,.
.r
L.{
*
-n
f_,
l,i.
.,j
ij
i,.
9.
l:3
-1-j
li)
l-J'n
o{- t--l
c.l
AI
I
ii
i\l l\J'-( l.n+r iitL "i
) ",r\rt
EXIIlBIT. C
iii
|Ii
ns
tl
G
.rl
I
).
b\
iiF
all.Ef
_ trt'ij --.
)_;
-t+1)1
+S,lj.f '.r i; . 5t+ p" l.+.: :..) .i" i)1:,,,'.!i;l .l r! .j.4,-,
t'$
ar
ItFl; o6
6 3tiis
:
1P[it{
1rF
! 5E n!'j .li _r\
; \l l:; l- r!
o li,-'' t ,/i\ o,/
\\\,
-Nr,: -)\l. )'\\ \
.irii i; iF' ,.:
4ail
Qrcg$sn JUL 7 rggz
xc ,' Tc- l,/
June 30, 1992
Honorable Margaret Osterfoss
Town of Vail
75 South Frontage Road West
Vail, CO 81657
Dear Mayor Osterfoss:
Just a short note to express mv thanks to vou and theTown Council for all oi'your eifo.ts on the Christianiaproject. It was certainly a sensitive area that required
qompromiss and understanding. You and the Town
Council certainly gave this the ittention that it deserved,
and I believe that the compromise has basically
sssqmlodated every constituent. For the first time, I
have the feeling that town officials do recognize and sharethe concerns of many property owners.
The P3-& J site hopefully will have a champion, and I'm
doing all I can behind the scenes to get that effort moving.
4t the same time, I understand the iesponsibility of the "
Christiania working with the town to etrha.rce that if theparking-development, which we're working on, does notmaterialize.
I'Il look forward to working with you, the Town Counciland the East Village Homeowners Association with atbcus and an effort to conti.nue to enhanco our specialvillage.
Continued best wishes
Wrr- r,r-s.la I.Moarox
William Mo
wM/bj
cc: Town Council
aL: hLLLtil^#-
Town Council
Town of Vail
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
Dear Mayor Osterfoss and Town Council:
On behalf of the East Village Homeowners Association. I wish to extend to you our
appreciation for your efforts to modify and improve the christiania speciil
Development .District proposal. we are confide nt that the redevelopment of thechristiania will become an even greater asset to the neighborhood and thecommunity.
We are panicularly gratified with the specific streetscape improvements that wereincorporated into your decisions regarding this matter. It is our understanding thatthe final decision with regard to improvernents associated with the North side of theP-3 and J sites are still to be determined. We look forward to working with you and theplanning staff when the matter is considered for final desisn review.
We are grateful for your considerable effort to insure thatneighborhood improvements resulted from the creation of
Development District. The restraint e xercised in granting
standards is appreciated.
ROBERT W. GA LVIN
I3O3 EAST ALCONOUIN ROAD
SCHAUM BURG, ILL'NOI5 6OI96.IO65
June 10. 1992
RECEIVTO jrlj 161992
4r>^
utjii
,
):.at
,'".{?
both community and
the Christiania Special
deviations from zoning
l^ a1 jnlormed that you will soon begin a review of proposed amendments to thesnecial ,Development District provision of the zoning b.dinance. In the spirit ofinformed discussion we hope that our participarion in your deliberations will bereceived as a positive and constructive -voice.
We are hopeful that the participation of our Homeowners Association was a beneficialcontribution to your deliberations regarding the Christiarria Lo,Jge. Your decision hasaffirmed our confidence that we can worl toge ther towards gi.^t". improvements forour neighborhood.
Robert W. Galvin
President, East Village
Homeowners Association
RWG:kh
cci Jim Lamont
t
)PI.ANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
June 8, 1992
Present Staff
Greg Amsden Kristanffi8lH'jgi"i"", {ll$?1ffi[g,
Kathy Langenwalter Mik6 Mollica
Dalton Wiltiams Sheily Meilo
Mary Caster
Absent
Gena Whitten
The meeting was called to order at 12:45 p.m. by chairperson Diana Donovan.
1. Worksession on progress made on the Town of Vail Water Quality Study for Non-Point
Source Pollution.
Presenters: Lane Wyatt, Northwest Council of Governments
Susan Scanlan, Town of Vail
The PEC viewed a video which explained the basics of non-point source pollution,
Staff then explained the progress of the study to date and the direction to be tollowed
in the future. A general question and answer session followed to address
specifications.
2. I request for a worksession for a minor suMivision and a zone district change from
Primary/Secondary Residential to Low Density Multiple Family, for the Schmetzko
property, generally located at 2239 Chamonix Lane.
Appticant: Erich SchmetskoPlanner: Andy Knudtsen
Public Hearino
3. Kathy Langenwalter made a motion to adjoum to Executive Session and Dalton
Williams seconded the motion. A unanimous vote was taken and the Planning and
EnvironmentalCommission then adjourned to go into Executive Session to diJcuss
legal matters with Larry Eskwith, Town Attorney.
4. The next item on the agenda was a referral for TOV Comments from the United Stiates
Foresl Service Regarding a Proposed Request for an 80'Tall Tower lo be Erected at
the End of the Runaway Truck Ramp in East Vail.
12.
the applicant on the overall project. Greg Amsden expressed his leeling that an
altemative solution could have been reached when he tirst remodeling plans were
drarn up and felt hat this request could not bo bas€d on a hardship. Kathy
langenwalter felt this would be a granting of speciat pivilege b attow tre aiplicant to
prgceed with this request. The applicant, Jay peterson, stiated that the property had
sold, and that he may appeal his request to the Tourn council or come up with an
altemative plan. After some dissssion, Kathy Langenwalter made a moiion to deny
this request based on no hardship. chuck crist secorxJed the motion. A vote was
taken and the motion passed unanimously, 5-0.
A request for the establishment of a 60 or g0 day review period for an exterior
alteration in commercial core ll, for the Lionshead center Building commercial
expansion, 520 E. Lionshead Circle, Lot 5, Block 1, Vail Lionshead First Filing.
Andy Knudtrsen, Town Planner, reviewed this request with the Commission, stating that
this was an application being submitted tor the ccl and cGlt bi-annuat submittal
process and he recommended a 90day revieur period. He stated that this was the
only application the Town had received for this deadline. After some discussion, Greg
Amsden made a motion to approve this request with a go-day review period, and
Dalton williams seconded $e motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed
unanimously, 5-0.
A request for an extension of a previously approved variance for the
ChrisUania Lodge,356 Hanson Ranch Road/Lot D, Block 2, Vait Vilage
First Filing.
Applicant: Paut& Salty JohnstonPlanner: Mike Mollica
Mike Mollica, Town Planner, informed the commission that the applicants, paul and
Sally Johnston, have formally withdrawn tlreir request at this time.
Appointment of a PEC member to serve on the DRB for the month of JUNE.
Kristan Pritz, Gommunity Development Director, spoke to lhe commission concerning
the importance of having a PEC member attend scheduled DRB meetings and site
visits, especially with so many poects being done this summer.
The PEC members agreed to fte following DRB schedule:
Diana Donovan -
Chuck Crist -
Greg Amsden -
Kathy l-angenwalter -
June 17th
July and August
Seplember and October
November and December
Discussion of tre appointment of a pEC member to serve as a altemate for the DRB.
Diana Donovan volunteered to be the altemate pEC member for DRB meetings.
13.
14.
15.
b. >- ,?z
r----------1-I I s;e- /Z---)
Ofu----C 1t^'n*? /,^/'.f a.4&'- 4
fu @.,a) fr -h/ a..4,.^," t; a,z-*>(,
c"-gc*.2^-*^.
l'/z( ,* 5,
7
oR- )F N""1 z /ryft@/"-r,r-i\
a*'&r*.# TeU"f
X vi'^- .fr',,-1+,% ffirK Y,*uJ
NOTICE lS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of he Town of
Vailwill hold a public hearing in accordance with Section 18.66.060 of the Municipal Code of
the Town of Vail on May 11, 1992 at 2:00 p.m. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building.
Consideration of:
1. A request for an extension of a previously approved variance for the Ghristiania Lodge,
2.
356 Hanson Ranch Road/Lot D, Block 2, Vail Village First Filing.
Applicant: Paul & Saily JohnstonPlanner: Mike Mollica
A request to rezone the 'Ski Museum'pocket park site from Public Accommod:ltion to
Public Use District. The site is located at the northwest intersection of Vail Road and
West Meadow Drive, and more specifically described as follows:
A part of Lot "B', Amended Map of Vail Village, Second Filing, Gounty of Eagle, State
of Colorado, more particularly described as follows:
Commencing at the Northeast Corner of Section 7, Township 5 South, Range 80 West
of the 6th P.M.: thence Southerly along the East Line of said Section 7 a distance of
390.78 ft; thence on an angle to the right ol 90"00'00" a distance of 25.00 ft to a point
on the East Line of said Lot "B', said point being 73.00 feet Northerly frorh the SE
corner of said Lot 'B" and the true point of beginning; thence continuing along the
aforesaid course a distance ol 98.75 ft to a point on the Southwesterly line of said Lot
'B", which is the Northeasterly line of W. Meadow Dr.; thence on an angle to the left ot
121o43'21" and along the curve to the right having a radius of 175.00 feet and a
central angle of 02"06'21 and an arc distance of 6.113 ft to a point of tangent; thence
continuing along said tangent a distance of 33.97 fi to a point of curve; thence on a
curve to the left having a radius of 75.00 ft and a central angle of 60"23'00' and an arc
distance of 79.04 ft to a point of tangent; thence continuing along said tangent a
distance of 13.48 ft to lhe Soulheasterly corner of said Lot 'B', said corner being 25.00
ft Westerly of the East line of said Section 7; thence on an angle to the left of
90'00'00" and along the Easterly line of said Lot "8" and along a line parallel to the
East line of said Section 7 a distance of 73.00 ft to he true point of beginning, more
generally known as NW corner of Vail Road and West Meadow Drive, Vail, Colorado.
Applicant: Town of VailPlanner: Mike Mollica
A request for an extension of a previously approved setback variance for the Pitto
Residence, Lot 3, Block 1, Vail Village Eleventh Filingl2920 Booth Creek Drive.
Applicant: J. Russell PittoPlanner: Mike Mollica
A request to expand a previously approved conditional use permit allowing a public
utility and a request for a variance from Section 18.58.320 regulaling satellite dish
antennas for 501 N. Frontage Road West/Lot 8, Block 2, Vail Potato Patch.
Applicant: U.S. Wesi New VeclorPlanner: Andy Knudtsen/Jill Kammerer
3.
4.
/"^l''/';?-?z
-,
5. A request for a conditional use permit for the Vail Team Tennis facility, generally
located to the south of he Uonshead Skier Bridge and north of Forest Road on the
existing tennis courts.
Applicant: VailAssociatesA/ailRecreationDistrictPlanner: Mike Mollica
6. Any items tabled from the April 27,1992 meeting.
The applications and information about the proposals are available for public review in the
Communig Development Department office.
Town of Vail
Gommunity Development Department
Published in he VailTrailon April24, 1992
FILE COPY
TOWN OF VAIL
75 Soutb Frontage Roail
Vail, Colorado 816J7
t0t -479-2t t I / 479-2 1 )9
May 8, 1992
D e partrnent of Community Dea e lopment
Mr. Paul Johnston
356 Hanson Ranch Road
Vail, CO 81657
RE: CHRISTIANIA AT VAIL
Dear Paul:
On May 6' 1992, the Town's Design Review Board approved the final building design for theGhristiania at Vail and also app^roved the design coniepts for the proposed stieetsCape
improvements adjacent to the Christiania. ThG approvit will allow you to proceed to thebullding permit phase lor the project, however, the'final streetscape details will need to comeback to the DRB lor final review and approval. The staff is hopeiul that the Town and VailAssociates can come to agreement on the ownership issues regarding Lot p-3 and Lot J sothat the final streetscape design for this area can be completed-in a ti-mely manner.
on May 5, 1992, the Town council also voted unanimously to approve the streetscapecongept design for the Christiania. This is the same Oesig-n tnat was ultimately approved bythe DRB on May 6, 1992. The-streetscape concepts which you agreed to inc6rpbiate into'your development plan for the Christiania are as follows:
- The gxis-ting planter located north of your surlace parking, and immediately south ofthe Mill Creek Court Building, would be expanded by ap[roximatety 1-Il2io3 feet inwidth' and would be rebuilt utilizing stone. A bench may Oe incorporated into theplanter.
- ln lieu of providing payment of one third of the cost to construct the sidewalk along thewest side of the Mill creek court chute, it was agreed Hanson Ranch Roadimprovements would be more appropriate. Sucfiimprovements would indude asphaltremoval and the installation of landscaping along the north side of Hanson RanchRoad, immediately south of Lot P-3 and Lot.l. tt is anticipated that approximately 3teet of asphalt (in width) would be removed beginning at ihe southeast end of Lot J.The area of asphalt to be removed would be wiOeneO, and increased to approximately10 feet in width, towards the southwest corner of Lot J and extending furthir west to
Mr. Paul Johnston
May 7, 1992
Page 2
lhe southwest corner of Lot P-3. A curb would be installed along the full length of this
area and a double soldier course (paved edger) would be installed immediatdly south of
the curb. Landscaping is also proposed'along the north side of Lot p-3.
- Landscaping would be installed in all the areas where the asphalt had been removed,
and a proposal to irrigate and maintiain these areas will also be required.
- Lighting will be further revierrred by staff, with the possibility that one or two new light
fixtures may be required.
In order to avoid any future confusion regarding the timing of the design work and
implementation of the streetscape improvements, I would like to briefly layout what I believe to
be the three possible scenarios. They are as follows:
Town of Vaiil/ail Associates resolution ol Lots P-3 and J ownership issues.
DRB approval ot the final streetscape design. Design is contingent upon item 1
above.
Construction of the streetscape elements as a part of the Christiania project,
during the Summer/Fall 1992.
lssuance of a T.C.O. for the Christiania.
Town of Vailfuail Associates resolution of Lots P-3 and J ownership issues.
DFIB approval of the final streetscape design. Design is contingent upon item 1
above.
lf construction of the streetscape improvements is not possible before a T.C.O.
is requested, then it will be necessary to enter into a Developer lmprovement
Agreement (cash escrow/letter of credit) with the Town to cover the costs of the
improvements.
lssuance of a T.C.O. for the Christiania.
Construction of the streetscape elements, during the Spring of 1993, or at a
later date if approved by the Town Council.
No resolution of Lots P-3 and J issues.
DRB approval of the final streetscape design.
lf construction of the streetscape improvements is not possible before a T.C.O.
is requested, then it will be necessary to enter into a Developer lmprovemenl
Agreement (cash escrodletter of credit) with the Town to cover the costs of the
improvements.
lssuance of a T.C.O. lor the Christiania.
Construction of the streetscape elements, during the Spring of 1993, or at a
later date if approved by the Town Council.
l. 1.
2.
3.
4.
il. 1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
ilt. 1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Mr. Paul Johnston
May 8, 1992
Page 3
I hope this is not too confusing, howevsr, if you should have any questions or comments
regarding any of the above, please do not hesitate to contact me at 479-2138'
Sincerely,
trl"A fr1,44^\
Mike Mollica
Assistant Director of Planning
cc: Vail Town Council
Ron Phillips, TOV
Jay Peterson
Kurt Segerberg
Kristan Pritz, TOV
"IYJ
j-o
5, F.?z
Irt
I
(/,*A;*; 6i
t
L
,l t
\.ffi'lllr, SCtggl
To:
EVHA TRANSMISSION
17 pages including cover.
Department of Community Development
Attn: Mike Mollica
From: Jim Lamont 1t -/
rf c]-.'
L,I
Date: Thursday, April 30, 1992
Please contact:
East Village Homeowners Association
Attn: Jim Lamont
Post Office Box 238
Vail, Colorado 81658
Phone Number: 303-827-5680
Fax Number: 303-827-5856
Subject: Christiania Lodge SDD: Design Review Board application
Special Instruction: Please forward attached letter as well as the letter to Town
Council with exhibits to the Design Review Board for their consideration.
frf'l: ril',p 3 0pg?
To: Town of Vail, Design Review Board
From: Jirn Larnont, Planning Consult^nt 1 f,.---''--l.-s.=
Date: April 30, Lggz L/'Y
RE: Christiania Lodge SDD, Design Review
On behalf of Jack Morton Associates, Inc., andparticularly BilI Morton, the owner of a'condorninium unit inthe f.Iill Creek Court Building as weII as the East Village
Honeowners Association requeSts ttrat the followingirnprovenents be included a-s part of the design rerTiewapproval of the Christiania Lodge.
A. Streetscape inprovements as provided for in theStreetscape Master Plan rrSMPrr (see attached letter to theTown Council, dated April 21-, L9921 . An estimate of theimprovernents are as follows. Reference to the appropriatesection of the SMP are included.
L. Area #1: Christiania Property (South side HansonRanch Road):
102 Lineal feet decorative pavement edginq (page 48 SMP)
65 Lineal feet decorative rock planter waII 18il to 24xinches in height to replace -existing tie tinberplanter (page l-07-108 SilP) .
\-1 Oecorative Street Lights as per approved lightingplan (page 120 figure 2s S!,tP) .
650 Sguare Feet of irrigated Landscape Area in Planterwith suitable plant rnaterials to screen service area(page 87 SMp).
.- 780 Square Feet of decorative pavers between Mill Creek\1, and Hanson Ranch Road, Southern L/2 of street right-- of-way (Village Core Illustration).
MilI Creek Walking Path (as per illustrative plan).
2. Area f2: P-3 improvements:
195 Lineal Feet of decorative pavenent edging (page 48
sl{P) .
1 decorative Street Light (page 32).
1305 Sguare feet of irrigated Landscaped area (should
i include appropriate ground cover and trees) (page eZ
sMP)
To: Town of Vad.l, Design Review BoardFrom: Jim Lamont, Planning ConsultantDate: April 20, L992RE: Christiania Lodge sDD, Design ReviewPage 2
'f(
+^10fi----.- 14O Lineal feet Rocked Faced Retaininq l{all at averaqe
\ of 5. feet in height as per design-guidelines for-retaining wal.ls (page 107-109 SUp).
8O Lineal feet 1/3 cost of 5 foot wide sidewalk on Miltcreek Chute (as per illustrative plan).
3. Area #3: P-3 improvements: (if 1968 agreement iseffectuate) .
15O Lineal Feet of decorative pavernent edging (page 48
SMP).
2 decorative Street Light (page 82 SMP).
140o square feet of irrigated landscaped area (shouldinclude appropriate ground cover and trees) (page 87
SMP) .
80 Lineal Feet of Rock Faced Retaining WaIl at averageheight of 6 feet in height (page 107-10s Sl{p)
B. The doors for the trash enclosure are requested tomatch those of the garage doors.
cc: Bob GalvinBilI Morton
ffr'f tr''d j ilgu'
To: Town of Vail, Town Council
Fron: Jirn Lanont, planning consultant
Date: Aprj_l_ 21, L992
RE: East Village Homeowners Association
On behalf of the East ViLlage Homeowners Association,please consider the attached as in addendum to the urateriilspreviously subrnitted by the Associatl_on reqardinq the pendincrapplication of the Chr-istiania special Dev6lopneit oistrict. -
Attached are copies of appropriate sections of the Townof !ai!, Streetscape-Master piin is it affects theChristiania and P-3 sites. It is requested that the sectionsbe taken into consideration during yo-ur review of the SpecialDevelopnent District application.
cc: Bob Galvin
N
&
e
c
E
tl
6
t)
I
gF$FFFgiff$fg ffiE,I fE
-
<J
vt
BPri
.(
5o
';l*
{
i$*s
sq)
r
(
I
a
p
6
.:
^H
c:,F
t
I
I
I ,J
ri
:6
PCFfi9<EE
Fo
oop>
9A:r
9,o
t
82o
a!ti
o
o,-:
O
-<t-
-
m
rn
I
(,
tri>;
Ri
ut I:tl
rrl Iml-'l I
Or
!'
_t
tgo e.Eb J
: E i? ifiiiiiiir:dt;
.i
N
2r
ii
7\9Ict
T
T'I
!_to
m
=
P
::
i/.
:,o
At
I
I
I
?;
l;
')o
N
&
F
e
@t!
Etd
I
9,
o
I
Fz
Fl
E
E
s
.s
a
j
F
z
C)
m
z
I
I
ro
t
F
E
x
q,
6
E
;:gt Fg€
Eggq €j;
EgEE F?i
EFEEI*€
:if,E Fgi
f$giEt;
i:gE,EttEApEA ,Fil€
Eflg$f in idS,gFS F,Hs
E $: g
gEE s s
$$ff{
$ig$i,
iEsErg
iii€33
;j::s E$ E
$ii#f;f{$
Eti$*s$$i
tgt;iEEEg
tf{ifiggi€s
FgEisE €it tE
g E{g*E {i$ el
ggtH$fifE€gF
r1x
A
+)At(
Ex
t(g
FFI
v
Hcd q)er hor;€
RS
s3tl)ri
I
I
I
I
m
F
t-\
z
b
z
E
a-'t
tit
r
co
s
a,
a
=E.e
99
I
.p
l*re n'jl;Eg;i E{€$ il.tFEEf'H-
:€;*rrtEr€EfEEqfEH{Eiiiil{€,E$$€ TEHTSI{g; ;Es{ a ;1€i{g*.'
r{Fiiii{iiiiiiiiiEt{giiilli
i{tgf Eitii;E{i :$s€r iSgEHi{*slt5l# ;ii*alriE :
: I?ii gfiIiiE${gg lEi{i {- F
3
'
gEiis
r;ee i I*tEgrigFH !a;rr n€ .
i
P
;'i
.tg
q)\J
^q)
$
A
ao
q)
qt
:st'r
t
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
ao
ao
&6
&
!l
!
E i;; Hg8 EE€ 6Hts f.ifl Ea'!, EEF {gi Hli firT .F=H C)A; {ir [ti {EE €,+E tdt s.t3 €ss Hc'1 ;3E qES-.er.E $Ei.€' rfiT .fl.;
EE BE!g iE
Ift{$isir;E frtif Eir, f;f E$ s€;
*tgiI$g
rE {igr t $
EgIEE$f!g
ttx$$[gEE
iE?E{€E,IE
n E*i !;
I Bs €g. Fs E*I t € Et i$
I i i ii {ir ; s gE €iI ! * HE !H
| 3 [ {g 'xE * tr EfI ? i ;# aE€ H -* tE
r E 5 {; *€Y " FR' efI i z :{c ;F
s 3 $FE sf ;l=
s
n.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
r
x
&
d
alF
o
a
E
,l
q
a)
1'|
o
Ft
I
s-3$Ifi$iE?
iggg$sfltilt*is
ii$El$f,g{{$IEE
sgggg*l:$*gEglr
$ {;EE t E$ EEHI f E
E ${EF t $3 Ei:f E s
F gEi€ E {
l, ;git Ec t*
al IE{{ {{ iE{g i;€€ E€ fE
Hi [E$H #$ 3t
H$ *asr #3 iiit E+li ir ;r
$s3$€EE$E$i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
it(J
U
u0I
I
I
I
c-
&
F'
eq
E
E.4
st
d
'
+l€lgEEiE;i+l3Bi€slEia€tt3i
iliii{r iEi tl{iiilii$ iiil BliaE
E*€EFrii-rtutif,t;{E6ftErEEri;?
tiaiitiiissgliEigggfltfiiggii,:;* iiEtt€ *=*E $?flt;E;€3$ itS; EElil
tt 3i'*E* iffi
'lEffHiiEi
siiB iiE€*
I
I
t
I
H
z
s
,.1
14a
o
g
r,l q{i rFi'-(3i!ffijF] h
I
I
I
I
l
I
I
I
I
I
&tr
cl
a
x
,)
!
itgiiglifiligitiEei
glligigigglgggggagigililggtgi,
'*!:rEEE,r gtiiEsf3 EsiE I il if€jjgcg
efFgjEFg{ iitff{i3 rEfE i${ giitig$!
g frEE H E E EE fgEF{$EE IIfifr fl g? $jgtEiflI
I
r;r
i
il
I
J
J
T
J
d
d
d
J
il
t
t
I
T
taa
t6s
d
e
E.6tt
1)
ct)
o
t
: f Htset* E, =[Hti iE *3ftE Ig E{$;i f,E fi$Ifi; i s^ $'n 8'Ein Eil gE:.?
E€ Fg ;E$E
Eg gr e EFtfi ,glii+e;gtt
;i tF # $€€f3
sE fS ,$ #fE'i8
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
T
T
t
I
T
r
,,9il .1
E. F
{$iJ
ilh
L
$T
J
n#t
#j
ffi
#
ffi
#
s
ffi
ffi
ffi
ffi
ffi
ffi
ho
,
F
&i!
x
'
€l _c b9 .i 9-t{€F 3 f;'E8.Ei 6 H q,ESE P ,65
Et* E f;ex . k .rd5e* & ..5atel "E $3gOh I '6erF @.X X ,r tr:E oiF43 -8 .3;-'A- r. !l i!;t"iE ; gf
it$E Ec jE
!S I q B '?t tc, g Et o I d-d**is 3E ;A'Eit= eT -EE$iB4 $3 T;{$Hi iT i3
E$$E EH jHg#Y.E €E 33? a 9 e jJ q'^E.;€h *E ?3gSgE Ef; frH'c f tr.4.H X -'dcg tr (d'61.i 6 q).!d€ H d! . .
DIcH
F
a
FIF.
J
U
FII
Er
E.gs I
-o(oa€!.cI c
!t:E :
EEF g
g E€ *bg:€tt E=
r€!E
H3 E.'I E.e s$iii
.b oEJ;5Ei
E g::
HE.c b
H! i $ii:t(6 -.F .9
-*-.D$ e 8E F
H".iF 6 H
i€H*$
I
t
I
t
i
I
il
T
t
ilt
il
I
J
I
T
lIt
l|
a
D
z
aHH{
a-l
FF
a
Fl
B
+
I
I
s
E
o
I
o
'
ID!l
E
E
Uz
!a
d
z
Yt
Y
E
q)
b!
F06
.5*.-r ir'ax6;3
,IE
?>l6-a
ra c)-rH_!, a)E9'Bs
9oE4
o:
t9
e@c!ifiF
6.:o.tr
66
g69 r.'.soho'e -J
.t-{ 0)q5rtr
x4 c)
A(.-!€ 6.F 83
R'o €-9cg'99
E r_3'F oASJ3.E F
:gHH'j {: -9B€ g(rlha)
E+fEE OJ ort0J>osE1*(aO:hRECggfsi
R r.E;;6€ti=*ror
='t o<Ex5+)6 o.:.,E:tE
E A+5
b &.9 g
5 (!X x^EHaH
EEEEkx*<unfi
bhootr>
o
+,HE3
ra (.{ J
Qoj oC# sE8^;.EEEdEss,HE,,iEI + $e €E } IE €; s 9s -E7 i :EEG E t!.I gA A IH F: E; *.fr rH +} H> :f sI ;f Eb €: E! s5 EE }f FE .a I bE 1f *g ;F #
= ,-ih" d8 B
l. '. >,rt =
l;
q)
I 8-I b.9E6r cEI sF
'gI T€I ;trT FE
cl
'0-d)I .s*I ?i
.a+,I sEr gj
:(^{(!d
ItrI or9-
=86;- h:I €I| >,.i
" oE
I
nFz
E
F{o
r-.!z
>1HOQ
E
I
I
I
I
| '.
./
^
-DRB APPLTCAIION - TOWN OF \TATL,
DATE APPLICATION RECEIVED T
DATE OF DRB MEETING:
I r"-'=t"d. g/4tgl-
coLoRADO ldr'
**********
TIIIS APPLICT.TION I{ILL NOT BE ACCEPTED
I'NTIL AI,L REQI'IRED INFORMATION IS SUBT.{ITTED
****t**it*
PR,OJEC: INFORMATTON:
A.DESCRIPTlON:
B,TYPE OF REVIEW:
New Construction ($200.00) X Minor Alteration ($20.00)
Addition ($50.00)Revigw, ($0)
C. ADDRESS:
D.LEGAL DESCRIPqIPN:
Subdivi s i on L
If propercy is described by
rloqr-ri nr i nn rr'l o=co lrrnrri doyr!g9vy!vw4uL
-r-F-^l^ *^ -l-,i - --.\'11i nr+i^ncrLLcr(-rr L\, tlt_f -| ctPrJ I -L \v q L -! vr r .
zoNrNG , 1bf>
Block 4/
a meets and bounds
on a separate sheet
legaI
and
E.
E.I nT ARtrA. Tf radrri y^.l. r! !cYLlJ.!r=\,4,
qt 2rnrta d crrrrrarr ef-.rowrng
NAME OF APPL]CANT:
M;i Iinrr Addracc.
appLicant mustl-ot area.
hone t&
NAME OF REPRES
NAI4E OF OWNERS:
srGNl,TuRE (S)
Mailing Addr
Phone
J. Condomi-nium Approval if applicable.
K. DRB FEE: DRB fees, as shown above, are to be paid at
t.he time of subnitlal of DRB application. Lat.er, whenapplying for a building permitr please identify the
accurate valuation of the proposal-. The Town of Vailwill adjust the fee according to the table below, to
ensure the correct fee is paid.
FEE PATD: $
FEE SCHEDULE:
VALUATIONs 0 - s 10,000$ 10,001 - $ 50,000
$ 50,001 - $ 150,000
$150,001 - $ 500,000
$500,001 - s1,000,000$ Over S1,000,000
* DESIGN REVIEW BOARD APPROVAI EXPIRES ONE YEAR ATTER FTNAI
APPROVAI TINLESS A BUILDING PERMIT IS ISSUED AND CONSTRUCTION IS
STARTED.
**NO APPLICATION WILL BE PROCESSED WIESOUT OWNER'S SIGNATURE
APPLICANT,
r\ /.1/.1 -^^-,
FEE
t zu, vu
D JU, UU
$100.00
$200.00
$100.00
$500.00
ra1\t 1 rla : t-rl rraitt-
LIST OF MATERIALS
/NAME OF PROJECT:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT BLOCK
STREET ADDRESS:
DESCR.IPTION OF PBOJECT:
Frashinss tffill,6 \V t
Ch irnnevs
Trash E:icf csures
GryefEtr,rses
':->.d
B.LANDSCAPING: Name of De
PLANT MATER]ALS:Botanical Name
rorrrri rori fnr
annra\rtr'l nrn
submittal
ha rri rron.
,l-^ tha llaqi rrn
Otranf iIrr (izo*
The fojlowing information is
Rev-iew Board bef ore a f i-na1
A. BUlLDlNG T4ATERIALS :
Roof
Siding
Other Wa11 Materials
Fascia
Scffits
Windcws
Windcw Trim
Doors
Door Trrm
Hand or Deck Rai. ls
(^rt")
lq
'Indicate caI iper for deciduous E.rees, Minimum cal_iper fordeciduous trees is 2 inches. rndicate n@strees. Minimum height for cgniferous trees is 5 feet.
Dhnna.
f'4at -:
EXISTIi]G TF.EES TO
of proposed shrubs. Minimum size of shrubs is
PLANT MATERTAO Botanicar Name cormon Gg euantit.v size*
PROPOSED SHRUBS
?zlr
trXT q T T N'I/: qHPIIAE
TO BE REMOVED
* Indicate size
6 rreI1n-
641.Vtr' p
GROUND COVERS
SOD
SEED
TYPE
OF IRRIGATION
TYPF OR MtrTHAN /]E-
F.Rr1( T Al'.i anr\TTar] r
LANDSCAPE LIGHTTNG: If exterior Iighting is proposed, pleaseshow the number of fixtures and locations on- a ieparatelighting plan. Identify each fixture from the li;hting planon the list below and provj.de the wattage, height abovegrade and cype of tight proposed
v f l'l tf t1.LANDSCAPE PEATURFa / ra+ a.{ -.l *- .,- r I Q . fannoq cr.ri mrr ':) trerarn:-ng wa]-Is, fences, swimming
"!-..1 Pl-ease specify. Indicate heights of retaininfMaximum height of wa1ls within the front setback ii. Maxj.mum height of walls elsewhere on the propertyi$ 6
MINUTES
V-AI_L T'OWN COTB{CIL MEETING
MAY 5, 1992
7:30 P.M.
A negrrlar meetine of the--va' Town council .was held on T\resday, May b, rg92, in the
$;uncit
chambers of the Vail n'rG"ipJ"sJiding. 1he meeting vras caled ro order at z:bb
MEMBERS PRESEI{T:Pegry Osterfoss, Mayor
Merv Lapin, Mayor pro-Tem
Jim Gibson
Jim Shearer
Tom Steinberg
Rob I*Vine
Bob Buckley
TOWN OFFICIALS pRESENI: Ron phillips, Town Managerpam Brandmeyer, Assistait to the Town Manager
The first item on th9 ag-endq was two rcv,T*l .Year Employee Recogaition presentations.Pam sluod-ever introluc"a .l"t"il"nt*:-u"u, Adn;jstr;;;;ll*4ro for the ee,op,rnilyDevelopment Dep64*uotr, u"a se"g*-iJl Russen, To; of v; pohce DepartmenL .
second on the agenda was citizen Participation. Byron Brown, resident of the west vailarea known as vail das schone, p"".;;;;etitjgn co1layrng sixty-nine signatures ofotherproperty o"o'ers and/or residents of thararra. 5e.8{d the;ii?Jo
".oiea f.he message ofthose individuals conce_m-ed *tl """""I pipo"rr, b"i";"b;;"ii;g.**g the rezonins ofrors 1' 2' 3' and 4 "f va'- ,La+;;+, ail+r #2, Block n. rr" p"tium states the sierersoppose rezoning of thalpruperty as they CIriit "'oJa u" i*nn--fi"* and out of characterwith existing uses wirhin.ti," "-rgnl""t*i p"e;GteT;Jr;*l,n"o was evidenttv amisunderstandiog aFuj the issue] s;cl-;tl-qtF{#ffi;h! it was bought withmixed-use in mind' It had !s"" pir*r*ui'*itn RETT fu"d" Jnii! *oura be rpimbursed.she noted there was a possib:lity n'o zonii"f Jh"og"" rro.rtd be invorvea unless me was neededto create green space, and there
"noJa-t " public process associated with that.
Item No' 3 was a consent Agenda consisting of one item: Approval of the minutes of theApril 7, 1992, and April 21,-199i """Joi-*etioer. Jim Giisln moved ro approve th.e;ffiTl,ftrlt#?; ;;-fr;"il; steinbe-rg. A ""1. ffi taken and lfr" *otioo
Item No' 4 was ordinanee-No' 14, series of 1gg2, first relqing, an ordinance repearing andreenacting Chapter b.08 - Businer. u"a-ililrprtiog Tax: SH ilftr, Jrrou Uo,,ianal Code ofthe Town of vail. Mavor osterfoss ['ua"rtJiiu" i,' tux. elr;-JLr", stepped down due toconllict of interest' In Lrry E;k*th';;silce, atto"oey Tom Downey, from the firu Downev& Knickrehm, brieflv explained the;;;;-;;;'tfi;"";1?admissions tax on thepurchase of li-ft tickets from any rni *La "'itni" *e roq-.'li"ri r,.p*, Tom steinberg, andRob Levine asked forclarifi"tti"" "r""i"""rLu. "f r*-;"di;;;" presented. Joe Macv.Mountain Pla-uner with v"il a""*t.L.r'.;;th"t *"re not philosophicany in agreement withthis ordinance and asked_it*t;b;;?";;;1d weeks. ro. stiou"rg moved to tabre thesldinsass until Mav 19r l9gz, rtth;;;;u'rg- Merv Lapin. A vote was taken and themotion passed, 6-0_1, wirh Sof S"J.I*y-;ffi^og.
Bob Buckley then rejoined Council.
Item No' 5 was the revies of a Town of vail Agre_ement for Fire prevention services betweenthe Town of va' and va' A":"-;; riL' ?*r Associates had approached the va' FireDepartment to conduct fi* ..f"tl;;;;;9_npropertv out of rown limits. Dick Duranexplaingd the asreement pepils, ;i;JJ; v"i d;;;il;A to start as soon aspossible. Jim Gibson hqT"_*a irin" ""*i* i"" to u" "r*g"Ji"-iltd equipment use cost.Dick explained the fee *o"ra "ou"iV"riiJri"p""t*.ot "o!t aoa *,"* tne same rate chargedlj::ljljr'_-. requesting lhe:;; ;;;. "nole.ugns ;;ffi;;*e agreement was forrnspe*ron purposes, not for fire suppression. Bob B;"k6*.d;;;_ wourd agaia forego
voting due to con-flict of interest. Jim Gibson moved to approve the agreement, with a second
from Tom Steinberg. A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0-1, with Bob Buckley
abstaining.
Item No. 6 was a discussion regardirg proposed Forest Service policies for the Eagles Nest
Wilderness Area. In a letter dated March 24, 1992, ftom lililliam Wood, Holy Cross District
Ranger, and JeffE. Bailey, Dillon District Ranger, it was explained the Holy Cross and Dillon
Forest Service Ranger Districts were in the process of developing a lVilderrress
Implementation Schedule (WIS) for the Eagles Nest Wilderness, White River, and Arapaho
Nalional Forests to identify and analyze projects and policies to help achieve and maintsin
the quality of the Wilderness areas. The Forest Service letter ilcluded the Eagles Nest
Wilderness Implementatioa Schedule Questionnaire8ebruary 1992, andrequestedinputfrom
TOV. Andy Knudtsen said the Planning and Enviro.''nental Commission (PEC) had
discussed the issue on April 27,1rgg2, and had summarized their comments il a draft reply
letter #2320, dated April 30, 1992. Andy said Council's comments would be added to the
reply. Council agreed with tbe PEC's decision not to regulate access to wildenress areas
through the use of a permit system or to reduce the number ofheartbeats unless there was
severe impact, but disagreed with PEC's decision to close overused areas altogether for a
period of a few years. Council felt reduction of parking areas was not viewed as a solution
at all. Bob Buckley said the trail system in Eagles Nest Wildemess was inadequately
maintained and the Forest Service needed to better mark the trail system. Further,
alternative trails were not being built as they were in the past. Bob wanted to see the Forest
Service spend siguificant dollars on the Booth Creek Trails, the Pitkin Creek Trail, and the
C'ore Creek Trails. He felt these had been woefully neglected over the last 10 years. Tom
Steinberg said he would agree to go with a permit system if there werre no other way to get
the dollars to improve the trails, but only if the permit system's fees wert retumed to be used
directly in the wilderness area here. Jim Gibson noted the Hecla Junstion area was now
managed by the State of Colorado and was still part of the U.S. Forest Service. He said
funds collected were managed by the State and 87% of t}rem cpme back to the Hecla Junction
area. Bob said that was not the case with the trails in Eagles Nest, and Jim Gibson asked
Kristan Pritz to pu$ue those same arrangements for Eagles Nest. Tom suggested putting
up signs asking for donations if the donations go back to the trail maintenance of that
particular section of the mountain. Council felt areas should not be closed, but restricted by
suggesting alternate trails. Improved trails were noted as a priority. Pemits were agreed
to be a last resort measure.
Before adjournment, several items not on the agenda were raised.
Mayor Osterfoss announced the results of the Vail Recreation District Board election. She
advised Ken Wilson and Gail Molloy were both re-elected for four'year terms.
Kristan Pritz and Mike Mollica updated Cou:rcil on ongoing streetscape improvement issues
related to the Christiania prujsgt. Council reviewed the project site plans. Kristan reminded
Council when the plarrs were approved, they had given stalf direction to be certain the plan
complied with the Streetscape Plan. Iftistan now sought Council's approval to continue with
the project with the current proposal involving paver edgers, curbs, Iandscaping,
eidewalks/walkways, and lighting. She also said staff would review the lighting at night to
determine the number of additionat lights. She said Jim Lamont had written a letter dated
April 30, 1992, on behalf of Jack Morton Associates, Inc., and Bill Morton, owner of a condo
unit in the Mill Creek Court Building, expressing further concents of the East Village
Homeowner's Association. She wanted to address Mr. Lamont's concerns and be certain
Council felt the propoeal Paul Johnston, Jay Peterson, and she had detailed were adequate
solutions in line with the Streetscape Plan. After further fiscussion, Jim Gibson noved to
change the condition ofapproval relating to tbe sidewalk by adjusting that specific condition
so the funds for the sidewalk would be added to the landscaping and edgine improvements
on the north side of Hanson Ranch Road. Tom Steinberg secpnded the motion. A vote was
taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0.
Kristan Pritz and Shelly Mello asked Council to clarifu their intent with respect to their April
2L,Lggz, decision pertaining to an appeal of a Desig:l Review Board (DRB) decision regarding
exterior detailing of the George Caulkins, Jr., residence at 3010 Booth Creek Drive, Lot 4,
Block 3, Vail Village llth Filing. On April !, L992, the DRB [ad unani'nously approved a
request by the owner to allow the exterior shutt€rddoors to remain as they currently existed
with blue and white detailing. At the April 2L,1992, Town Council meeting, Jim Gibson had
moved to overtum that DRB decision. Men' Lapin had seconded that motion. Council saidtheir intent was to overtum the April 1, 1992 Dlsign Review Board decisio", *a tn"ofo"qthe blue and white detailing was not to be anywhJre on the building, includlng the doors.
Ron Phillips briefly commented on several topics:
The countywide Goal sharing session date had been changed to Monday, June 22, 1gg2, from2:00 P.M. to g:00 P.M.
He asked Council to thinlt about the parking on Frontage Road at Ford park issue. Herecalled council had indicated a desireto enf6rce oo p*dog Jo"g tn"o.
He advised +'!e City Council of Aurora would be coming to Vail for their retreat. In the past,it has been their custom to invite Council members tJ- fOv to attena a dianer with tien.That dinner has been set forJune b, lgg2.
He said Real Estate Transfer Tax for April, 19g2, was considerably above budget.
He noted the Wildlife Commission was considering Statewide regulations with regard totrapping. He would be attending the Wildlife Coirnission meetilg on May ta, f-ggg, inDurango. Another letter sim:d by peggy was sent to them, e*pnasi"ilg vail rown cogncil,sposition sa $Q'nininrrm sgtlagks. ---
Ht suggested the Ski Museum pocket park be nsmed "St. Moritz park" after TO\Is Sistercity and asked for hput. He noted'council had yst€d unanimouslv to do ;*;t;th
Ttt"T-,t i" tbPt Pqk. F-" encouraged Council to discuss this further, uut counlt naJarreacty ctetermined they did not want bathrooms in the park.
Merv l'apin felt something needed to be done about the process of where we vote on days liketoday' He felt it would behoove us to have both Districtr ,rot" rl tn" fr,fnoi"ip"f B"iliiG;;some place more accessible tha:r the sanitation facility in A;- Hu "'u"t"a a letter writtenand war:ren Garbe said that would need to be addres'sed t" in" p*ria""t;;;ffi:"*
Further election results were announced by Merv Lapin. Walter Kirch was re-elected and
'r^n{rery-arm*4og and--Da:rell Wegert were elected io ""*r-ro**"a" t""-. dn the boardof the Upper Eagle Valley Consolidated Sani6lioo District. paul TJ*"i;'";;B;;;Brown were re-elected and Rick Sackbauer was elected to se*e fo""*""" terms on the boardof the Vail Valley Consolidated Water District.
There beiag no further business, a motion to_adjourn the meeting was made and passedunanimously. The meeting was adjoumed at g:86 p.m.
Respectfu lly submitted,
Margaret A. Osterfoss, Mayor
ATTEST:
Martha S. Raecker, Town Clerk
Minules taken by Dorianne S. Deto
C:WlilsMAY5.92
()L
fuvre"rrj
il,l rY*Te
tlo^; tr--C yq\ \\.Q- urat[rx,; o*r" \u !e uurfuakd
b+f. iL ir n{ua\\ uNlF\L&t q\-L ur" t",-*in^. tb+ {
!rY*J i( $dryl pkjt )\ r\a1\u F ft\
"10"{ {^ ftr,,.s,o{,
[a^,,o-l ofuud w ' t\4{ tk'\ ur} trt[ unr, !*del. 0
{o.r -il,,,q. *0,&J uo\,"1&-.$rL,{ui-di @lJ'q\ ,n w,lL,'t\\ trt& (ArA
I LrX\\n l\*J*c, g{,p,,'n4, onril \n^n&.0.p,,,a npil1u L!- \uokd-
6+'L\e*%, ta^dj u4,^.*\.-qA'
{1^n*" ," r\".n
3
\
\''Y1,....{}r
V
M*i,\,r q^*" {rttwr Tu fogru,r" witr UL-S&/ hbEa*,a,. o*d_
trtq^d uRil $ovru ;ilrtl ;^d^dill 4.{ ' v \ v
to
6 \'nt+ x\ t! Cq\.{ d tlo,'ro-Qo,{h/U0r.A Un\h,1 Driuq
i;l '",,!;$,{i{L't'P-t/ to{ 5,
t thtta* \i*t\ Ph,+r
ul-t!- \nh Clnt'\ar',1 6t11 f ,\\ " \,Eu+ " ,'
Ulcrt' €-.(5*ol., &*)
d\ 4r,n \ftr roi# ia k 4^t +r $ua qe,Ct +^\ p,*
u"fo,r t c^."0 q,^
^*, f|$; $; Ird Ltrc
l^rA,,-dL{'^ (qto{ gnctaj ,-^$ i,otp
zo
t-
UoJ
rlJflH
E
E]Fv)r\.
o
EJ
V)oAoE
l-r,.- l<
>
F
|rlz<
-F
U)
-!4F'I
O
,/
u\I
dt,
u-
d_
tI_
$
\r)
$
k$
1$
P
$ilf
s
lrl
I
,\
\\\/ ll,/ /,il/
I (\
*,
-'/
-/ "*R-s\e
r$H
).'
T-N-f=€;# -G?€=-${f av'6st-\ \
E$
$F
+_J
tt
$
$
Chrlstiania Lodp proposed
;13?:: l'1";:,;*';;i"il
Nov, 11, I991
c0P yFII- E
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colortdo 81657
1 0J-479 -2 11 I / 479-2 1 t 9
April30, 1992
D epartrnent of Comnunity D etelopment
Barbara C. Welles
1130 Race Street, 11 South
Denver, CO 80206
Re: Ghrlstiania at Vail Special Development Dlstrict
Dear Ms. Welles:
Thank you for your letter expressing your concerns and comments regarding the Christiania at Vail SpecialDevelopment District application. A copy of your letter was fonvardeci'to each of the Town Councit membersfor their review during the public hearing process.
On April 21 ' 1992' the Town of Vail Town Council unanimously approved, by a vote of 6-0, the SpecialDevelopment District application for the Christiania at Vail.
Thank you again for your input. lf you should have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 47g-2138.
Sincerely,
k1.4 fttA
Mike Mollica
Assistant Director of Planning
lab
FIL T COPY
TOW OFVAIL
75 Soutb Frontage Road
Vail,, Colorado 81657
1 03 -479 -2 I 3 I / 47 9-2 I 19
April30, 1992
D epartmeut of Cornmunity Dea elopment
Jim Lamont
P.O. Box 7
Red Cliff, CO 81649
Re: Chrlstiania at Vail Special Development Dlstrlct
Dear Jim:
Thank you tor your letter.expressing your concerns and comments regarding the christiania at vail SpecialDevelopment District applicatiorr. A copy of your letter was fonvarded'to each of the Town Council membersfor their review during the public hearing proiess.
On April 21, 1992, the Town of Vail Town Council unanimously approved, by a vote of 6-0, the SpecialDevelopment District application for the Christiania at Vail.
Thank you again for your input. lf you should have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 47g-2138.
Sincerely,
lrl4 1"1,4
Mike Mollica
Assistant Director of Planning
lab
.a
i ie- 6.l i3E3 V
75 Soutb Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
1 0t-47 9-21 1 I / 47 9-2 I 3 9
D ep artment of Commanity D et elopment
April30, 1992
Robert W. Galvin
1303 East Algonquin Road
Schaumburg, lL 60196-1065
Re: Chrlstiania at Vall Special Development Dlstrict
Dear Mr. Galvin:
Thank you for your letter expressing your concerns and comments regarding the Christiania at Vail Special
Development District application. A copy of your letter was fonryarded to each of the Town Council members
for their review during the public hearing process.
On April 21,1992, the Town of VailTown Councilunanimously approved, by a vote of 6-0, the Special
Development District application for the Christiania at Vail.
Thank you again for your input. lf you should have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 47g-
2138.
Sincerely,tlt har;
Mike Mollica
Assistrant Director of Planning
lab
$ iL{. iliifl,Y
7J Soath Frontage Roail
Yail, Colorado 81657
tat -47 9-21 3 I / 47 9 -2 t 39
Deptrtnent of Connunity D ea elopment
April30, 1992
William l. Morton
Jack Morton Productions
641 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10011
Re: Chrlstiania at Vail Special Devetopment District
Dear Mr. Morton:
Thank you for your letter expressing your concerns and comments regarding the Christiania at Vail Special
Development District application. A copy of your letter was forwarded to each of the Town Council members
for their review during the public hearing process.
On April 21, 1S92, the Town ol Vail Town Council unanimously approved, by a vote of 6-0, the Special
Development District application for the Christiania at Vail.
Thank you again for your input. lf you should have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 479-
2138.
Sincerely,
tL& h,a;,
Mike Mollica
Assistant Director of Planning
lab
lY a
MINUTES
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING
APRTL 21, 1992
7:30 P.M.
A regular meeting of the Vail Town C,ouncil was
Chambers ol the Vail Munbipat Buitding.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
MEMBERS ABSENT:
TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT:
The lirst item on the agenda was Citizen Participation. Tom Fitch, representing the Eagle Valley Humane Society,gave a brief update on the trapping and leghold setback issue activity at tne Cinrado diuision ot widife (CDOw).
He advhed CDOW was considering 15-30' setbacks, as opposed to t-he minimum 50'setback footage temporarily in
place and supported by TOV. Further, he added CDOW was not clear as to whether they wanted to enacl a statewiderule regulating the seback lootage, or have individual communities appoach them with custom-tailored setback
requirements. Mr. Fitch asked C,ouncil to wrile to CDOW again to reinforce TOV's desire to keep at least the 50'sehack lrom trails lor all leghold trapping in the Vail area. He also asked ToV to send a represeniative to CDOws
next meeting on May 14' 1992, in Durango. The final regulation will be read and enacted in R. Cottins in July, 19g2.
Peggy Osterfoss indicated there was council consensus iegarding the Humane society's requests. she thanked Tom
for the update, and for the time and etfort he had invested.
Second on the agenda was a presentation o{ granls lrom the Colorado State Forest Service to ToV, Todd
oppenheimer introduced John Laut, local represeilative to the State Forester. Mr. Laut first presented a check lor
$1'000 for the Trees for vail Project in response to a grant request prepared by Todd. Mr. Laut indicated those funds
came lrom the general lund approprialion ol the State Legislaiure.' ui. taut next presented an additional$500 fromlhe Colorado State Forest Service in conjunciion with the dobrado Parks and Recreation Association Foundarion, thedelivery agents in the Slate of C,olorado for the Global Relief Program, an international program of funding for treeplanting programs. Finally, Mr. Laut noted Todd had proposed puttirq toganer a brochure to be distributed to theresidenis of vail about how to plant and care for trees ln tnis arei, andnaisubmitted a grant request for this proiect
to the e,obrado State Forest's Cobrado Tree Coalition. In response to that granl requesl Mr. t-aut presenteo'a tirirocheck in the amount of $1,096 f rom the America the Beautiful Piognm for the-creation and distribution of the proposed
planling brochlre. Finally, Mr. Laut noted TOV met all criteria t6 qualify for national recognition as a Tree'City, and
encouraged TOV to submit an application by Fall '92 to become a Tiee iity. P4gy Osterfoss thanked Mr. Laut, iodd,
and members of the mmmunity who had organized the Trees lor val frogram.--uerv Lapin noted $20,000 had been
collec{ed for that program to date.. The prcgram was expected to culmirate in a massive planting ot 900400 lreesbetween Frontage Road and f70 by a group of approximately 1,000 votunteers. The planting was icheduted to beginJune 13. 1992.
lem !0. 3 was a presenlation by TCI Cabievision, parent company of the local cable mmpany, Heritage Cablevision.Stan McKinzie, General Manager of Heritage, thanked Council ior the time to allow rbrs'upper r.nrgg;.nito
address concerns expressed lo him. He saio tct wished to continue open lines ol communication, and proceed withfranchile-reneural negotiationsthat would benefitToV, its residents, ano rct. He introduced the TCI attendees: Sc0ttHiigle' TCI cenlral Division otfice V,P., Jim Dagenhardt, Division Engineer, EarlJones, Division GovernmsntalAffairs
Director, Dave Hashisaki, TCI State of Coloraoo Ottice engineer, Mikd Canillo, Assistant Srate Manager, Juan Henera,Stale Marketing Coordinator, and Brian shirk, Tcl Cotoralo State Manager. M;. st'rft;;r. brief stide presentationwltich included graphs showing Vall vs, Denver product and nousing cos mmparisoni, and a graph of'TCl's BasicPlus Expanded Basb Package rate comparison ior a variety of other colorado systems. Mr. shirk proposed, in thenearfuture, informal negotiations for a new lranchise providing a long term commiiment on ootn rclsani rovs pirt.TCI would commit to rebuilding the system in Vail with a JueoHtre-art fiber optics systems to grsaly enhancechannel capacity, and povide the ability to offer pay-per-view on multiple channel's. He'believed ri6er oitics wouroallow them lo tier their services. In the meantime, lie saic they were committed to continuing to reorb .h.,g*Heritage ht9 99q.n charging lor additional outlets, totally etiminating the charges within 2€ yeais maximum. Atih;
conclusion of rcl's presentation, Mayor osterfoss calbd lor counciiquestioniino eorrents. Tom steinberg staledhaving so many represenlatiyes at this presentation sent a negative image of TClto people wno were-atreaOy
complaining about paying such high rates for service. He advisdTCl not tdpresent tnu type ot image in the fulure,
and suggested one representative would be sutlicient. Merv Lapin asked a variety of lechnicat and financial questbns.
Merv estimated 98% ol TCI's revsnue was from cable+elated fees, of which TOV received a 5% franchise fee. and
I
x,,ffi*ry'"\ "{1 l:.'
held on Tuesday, April21, 1992, at 7:30 P.M., in the C,ouncil
Peggy Oslerloss, Mayor
Merv Lapin, Mayor Pro-Tem
Jim Gibson
Jim Shearer
Tom Sleinberg
Rob LeVine
Bob Buckley
Larry Eskwith, Town Attorney
Pam Brandmeyer, Assistant t0 the Town Manager
Martha Raecker, Town Clerk
P Tr.O TC1 if they would reduce their rates by that 5olo if TOV eliminaled the Syo fee. They said they would. Mr.
Hiigle said TCI did not have separate financialstatements for Vail, bul such a local report could-be prepared, and Merv
requested such reporl showing income and expenses be prepared and sent to Ron Phiilips. Merv then estimated the
totalsystem revenue for the Vail area at approximately $4 million, 60% being from TOV aione. Merv commended TCI
on their confibutions to local organizations, but estimaled less than 1% of their revenues were going to local non-profit
groups' and encouraged them 1o do more. Merv also asked if TCI was planning a "lileline" service lor the Vail area,
a service with a greatly reduced rate availabb for subscribers who only wanted to receive ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN:
ESPN, or whatever could be included. TCI said they were open to that, and in tact, had recently negoliated a lranchise
in Sterling with such a service oflering a twelve ihannel package with just the off-air oroaocas signals at rate ol
$10.75. Jim Gibson expressed concern with the cost ol what TCI was dilivering to subscribers. He asked to see a
simplified, direct cost breakdown ol one home, detailing how a g3 produd cost eicalated to over g22 per month. Mr.
Hiigle said lhat detail muld be pncvided. Peggy Osterfoss summarized by indknting TOV's basic'mncerns were
improved quality ol service and increased benefits to members of the crmmunity, including cost benefits. She felt a
number of suggestions had been made by Council, and appreciated the lact TCI had afle;ded to them, particularly
the lifeline service and some modification of their liering system so that il would be possible, perhap at a suUs6y tevet
0n their part' to have more popular stations in the basic expanded g23 service. Sire also appreciated their good raitn
geslure 0l ofiering to supply the specific financial information for the Vail area, Further, she rEuested i OetaiteO
timeline lor rebuilding the system, but TCI said they wanted to discuss that as part ol ren€otiating the franchise.
Item No. 4 was a presentation by Trout Unlimiled. Bruce Keep advised the Eagle Valley Chapter ol Trout Unlimired
had recently completed a survey regarding Gore Creek's statuie as an angling aid recreation resource. He summed
up the survey results which indicated Gore Creek was on the decline, and oelaiteo ttre major reasons for the decline
emphasizing use ol illegal tackle, lack ol active patrolling and regulation enlorcement at tire site, and pollution lrom
silver contamination. He noted Gore Creek, running from the influx of Red Sandstone Creek to the coniluence of the
Eagle River, received Gold Medal designation in 1978, and he was concerned with the steady decrease of the originalqualifications which earned the creek that status. He said Trout Unlimited felt cunent trends needed to be addresieJ,
and requested ToV's assislance with implementalion of a long term public education, assessmenl, and mainlenance
{oOrlm' as well as Vail police inrolvemeflt in public relatbns and enforcement ol regulations at Gore Creek. peggy
gtl9{Tl sakl she appreciated Mr. Keep's presentation, and suggested educationat &tortr ue spearheaded ry Tffi
lnlilittA and encouraged self-policing by that group. She added Council woutd ask statf lo meet with the giouph
help lind agencies more appropriate than Vail police to assist with lishing violation enforcement. The Recreation
District was mentioned as one such agency.
Item No. 5 was a Consefi Agenda consisting of three items:
A' Ordinance No. 5, Series of 1992, second reading, an ordinance amending Tille 9, Section 5 of the
vail Municipal Code by the Addition of Chaptei 9.54 - Restrictions on ihe possession of Gtass
Containers.
B. Ordinance No. 7, Series 1992, second reading, an ordinance adopting the Town ol Vail Art in public
Places program policies and guidelines; establishing a board tor ine iocess of reviewing proposed
public artwork lor the Town of Vail; and setting loilh details in regard thereto.
ordinange lrlg. 8, seri_es 19g2, semnd reading,.an ordinance providing for ihe establishment olppecrar uevebpment Districl N0. 29, _christiania atJail; adopting a developmenl plan for special
Development Dislrict No. 28 in accordance with Chafrer 18.40 of tfie Vait l,turiicipat iooe ano setting
forth details in regard thereto. (Appllxnt: paul Johnston)
Mayor Osterfoss said there had been a number ol requests for additional discussion of item c. Jim Gibson moved
t0 approve Consent Agenda items A and B, and he read those iitles in full. Tom Steinberg seconded the motion. Avote was taken and lhe motion passed unanimously, 6-0.
Discussion ol item C followed. Mayor Oslerfoss read the title in full. Kristan pritz detailed additional information lrom
the applicant regarding location of the trash dumpster. lt was confirmed the change in location was made to decrease
the impact on Hanson Ranch Road. Discussion about encroachmenls and view dnidor impacts lollowed. Merv Lapin
asked it any of the five staff recommeldation 0n page 12 of the Community oeuJroprent Department,s tvtarch lg,1992 memo had been unanswered. Kdgan advised-the issue of the curb ai'o guttri hrd not yet been finalized, buithe applicant had agreed to allol the recommendations and all five were coverio in the ordinance. Briel discussionregarding the curb and gutter issue, paver edgers, and drainage specifics followed. Tom Steinberg as11g6 if ;tprogress had been made on any agreement about the pafting issue. Applicanl paul Johnston said tt[y nad agreedt0 enter into a developer's improvement agreemenl wnereby they wourd esaow monies lor anyrthing ftt;rfu;a
by the time a lemporary Certilicate of .Occupancy (T.C,O.) needed to be issued. Kristan added whin the applicantwanted a T.C.o.,. the parking area and other site improvements would need to be finished off the way it waj 'on
tnepresent approved plans or they would have to provide a letter ol credit. A linal Certilicde ol Occupancy woutO not leissued on the project until lhe work was finisired. Kristan detailed parking requirements in response lo additionalquestions Merv had about P3 and Lot J. Jim Lamont, representing ine ealt viilage Homeowners Asociation, saidhe was still concerned about the setbacks and, iri nis btter ol April 2l,lggztoToin councit, requested the sectionshe indicated ol ToV's Streetscape Master Plan as it atfected the christiania and p3 sites be taken into consideration.Atter brief discussion, Jim Gibson moved to approve ordinance l,lo. 8, Series ol '19g2, on se@nd reading, with the
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
tf Oumpster modification. Rob LeVine seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Tom Steinberg indlcated he lelt
/ thtf should be as much compliance as possible with the Streetscape Master Plan. George Knox e-xpressed suppod
/ 10r tne prolect. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 6-0.
-ltrt t'lo. 6 was Resolution No. 8, Series of 1gg2, a resolulion recognizing 'June as Recycling Month.' Jim Gibson
moved 10 approve Resolution No. 8, Series ol 1992, with a second from Tom Steinberg. A vote was taken and the
motion passed unanimously, 6-0.
lem No. 7 was an appeal of a Design Review Board (DRB) decision regarding exterior detailing ol the George
Caulkins, Jr. residence at 3010 Booth Creek Drive, Lot 4, Btock 3, Vait Vilaie 11th Fiting. Wemer aid Gitda Kaptan
were the appellanls. Shelly Mdb explained the chronology ol the project starting with initial July 11, 1990, DRB
appovd of this residence which specified the shutten/doors were to be a wash/stain treatmenl versus opaque. There
was no mention of the detailing being required to be solid in color. The DRB decision was appealed and on August
7' 1990, Council voted 4-3 to approve the residence with a number of mnditions, including the shutters be donein a
solid color. On April 1, 1992, the DRB unanimously approved a request 4r the owner lo allow the exterior
shuttersidoors to remain as they currently exist with blue and white detailin'g. The applicant had, in faci, violated their
approval and painted the details blue and white. The DRB found the scale ot tne OuitOing, the lanGcaping, and the
exterior linishes were mmpatible with the neighborhood, but adjacent property owners, Weiner and Gilda Fe-plan were
appealing thal decision' Jim Morter of 2985 Booth Creek Drive specificall'y retalbd Coundl's August 7, 199d approvar
stating the shutters were to be done in a solid color. Mr. Morter sald his primary concern wiih this issue was meprocess' and he feh the _owners should be required to abide by the original ruling made. Werner Kaplan showed
Council recent photos of lhe shutlers and distributed a petition signed by-Mr, ttortei, ttre Nyslnom's, and the Ligon's,
neighborhood residents opposed to the blue and white striped s-hutters. Mr, Kaplan also reminded Council of lheir
August 7, 1990 vote to approve the residence with the condition lhe shuflers be done in a solid color, added no
evidence of hardship exisled at the Caulkin's residence, and encounged Council to uphold the decision. Nancy
Nystrom of 3070 Booth Creek Drive said she had gone to added expensd and time building her home in order to abiqe
by all rules she was required 1o follow, and had a pioblem now observing another resident j-ust doing whal they nanteo,
She felt consideralion for one's neighbors was a key, as well as followirig the process of regulationl George baukins,
spokesperson lor George Caulkins, Jr., relerred toihe First Amendment ot tne Constitution, and spoke ;bout artisticlreedom. He indicated the shutters and doors were now painted in traditional Tyrolean style, and had been painted
thal way to preserve lhe architectural integrity of that style. He added he had offered to paint the snuters on t'he sioe
facing the Kaplan residence solid, but Mr. Kaplan hadielused that offer. Mr. Kaplan explained he refused the offer
because_he lelt the original ruling should be enforced. After additional discussion, Jim Glbson moved to overturn tne
Design Review Board's decisior ol April 1, 1992. Merv Lapin seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Jrm
Shearer noled he appreciated Tyrolean architecture, but lelithe rules needed to be followed uy aff. uarrt Hacniital,
representing the applicant, said he told the contractor to paint the shutters after the DRB had ipproved il,e rrriffig.
He added that the painting had been the result ol misunderstanding and had not been a deliberati action againsr theruling. A vote was lhen taken, and the motion to overturn the ORA;s Oecision passed, 4-2, peggy o$erfossind Tom
Steinberg opposed.
Itg* !0. 8 was the reappointmenl of Mark Rislow to serve a five year term on the Town o{ Vail Housing Authority.
Merv Lapin moved to reappointment Mark Ristow to serve a five year term on the Town of Vail ttousing nuinority, witn
a second from Jim Gibson. A vote was laken and the motion passed unanimously, 6-0.
There being no lurther business, a motion to adiourn the meeting was made and passed unanimously. The meeting
was adlourned at l0:45 p.m.
Respectf ully submitted,
Margaret A. Osterfoss, Mayor
ATTEST:
Marlha S. Raed<er, Town Clerk
Minutes talGn by Dodanne S. Deto
3
c:UllllAPR21.92
oRDINANCENO.8 ti, .':.1i)
Series of 1992 '-Y' :: , '' l[ ",X-r- . - .
AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF II\i1.' '/
SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 28, \.'.
CHRISTIANIA AT VAIL; ADOpTtNc A
DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO.28
IN ACCORDANGE WITH CHAPTER 18.40 OF THE VAIL MUNICIPAL CODE
AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO.
WHEREAS' Chapter 18.40 of the Vail Municipal Code authorizes Special Development
Districts within the Torvn in order to encourage flexibility in the developrnent of land; and
WHEREAS, application has been made for Special Development District approvalfor a
certain parcel ol property within the Town, legally described as Lot D, Block 2, Vail Village First
Filing, and Lot P-3, Btock 5-A, Vait Viilage Fifffr Fiting; and
WHEFEAS' in accordance with Section 18.66.140, the Planning and Environmental
Commission held a public hearing on the proposed SDD, and has submitted a recommendalion
for approval to the Town Council; and
WHEREAS, all notices as required by Section 18.66.080 have been sent to the
appropriate parties; and
WHEREAS' tho Town Council has h6ld a public hearing as required by Chapter 18.66 of
the Vail Municipal Code.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF
VAIL, COLORADO THAT:
Section 1
The Town Council finds that alt the procedures for Spoclal Development Districts in
chapter 18.40 of the Municipal code of lhe Town of Vail have been fully satisfied.
development plan for Special Development District No.
28 meets each ol the standards set forth in Section 18.40.080 of the Municipal Code of the Town
of Vail or demonstrates that either one or more of them is not applicable, or that a practical
solution consislent with the public interest has been achieved. In accordance with Section
18.40.040, the development plan for Special Development District No. 28 is approved. The
development plan is comprised of those ptans submitted by pierce, segerberg & spaeh
Architects, and consists of the following documents:
Section2 --r
\
The Town Council finds that the
-1 ! -.
,\-Ivt:?I 'l.iiir:l ,"'t n.t,",i:
1 ' sheet No. A1 , dated January 27 , 1gg2 and revised March 1 6, 1 992 (site plan).
2. sheet Nos. A2-As, dated January 27,1ggz and revised March 16, 1gg2 (first,
second, third and fourth floor plans)..
3. Sheet No. 46, dated January 27,1gg2 (roof plan).
4. sheet Nos. A7-A9, dated January zr,lggz and revised March 16, 1992 (North,
South, East and West elevations).
5' sheet No. Ll, dated January zT,lggzand revised March 6 and March 16, 1992
(landscape ptan).
6. Parking Plan for Lot p-3, dated F€bruary g, lg92 and revised February lg, 1gg2
and March 16, 1992.
7. North elevation of lobby, dated April 22, .|991.
8. Proposed Dumpster Retocation, dated April A1, 1992.
Section 3
The Town Council finds that any deviation of the development standards from the
underlying zone district providas benefib to the Town that outneigh the adverse effects of such
deviation. The development standards for Special Development District No. 2g are approved by
the Town council as a part of the approved deveropment pran as foilows:
A. SETBACKS:
Setbacks shall be as designated on the development plans set forth in Section 2
of this Ordinance.
B. HEtcHX,
Building height' tor a sloping roof, shall not exceed 48 feet from existing or finished
grade, whichever is more restrictive; or for a flat or mansard roof, shall not exceed
45 feet from existing or finished grade, whichever is more restrictive.
C. DENSITY:
Development in SDD No. 28 shallbe limited to a maximum of 3 dwelling units and
21 accommodation units, as designated on the floor plans set forth in Section 2
of this Ordinance, and as follows:
t. The Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) shail be timited to a maximum
ot 14,117 sq. ft., of which 7,335 sq. ft shalt be dedicated to accommodation
3.
units, 5,041 sq. ft. shail be dedicated to dweiling units and 1,741 sq. ft.
shall be dedicated to excess common area. lt should also be noted that
the provision for an addilional42s sq. ft. of GRFA, which is applicable to
certain zone districts, does nol apply to this special Development District.
'rhe applicant or his successors in interest agree to permanenily restrict
one off-site dwelling unit, (the secondary unit in a primary/secondary
residence located at 1184 cabin circle/Lot 2, Block 2, Vail Vafiey First
Filing, for use by employees of the Upper Eagle Valley (employee housing
unit) in the following manner:
a. The employee housing unit shall be provided with a full kitchen
(refrigerator, stove, sink, oven/microwave) and shall not be leased
or rented for any period less than 30 consecutive days and shall be
rented only to tenants who are full time employees in the Upper
Eagle Vailey.
b. The Upper Eagle Vailey shall be deemed to include fhe Gore
Valley, Minturn, Red Cliff, Eagle-Vail and Avon and their
surrounding areas,
c. A full-time employee is a person who works an average of thirty
hours per week.
d. The applicant or his successors in interest shall file a declaration of
covenants and restrictions with the clerk and Flecorder ot Eagle
county in a lorm approved by the Town Attorney for the bensfit of
the Town to insure the restrictions set torth herein sharl run with the
land. said declaration shall not be amended or terminated without
the written approval of the Town of Vail. Subsequent to the
effective date of this ordinance, no buirding permit shall be issued
for the redevelopment of this special Development District No. 29
until said declaration of covenants and restrictions are executed
and filed with the Eagle County Clerk and Ftecorder.
The appllcant or his successors in interest agree to permanently restrict
one on-site dwelling unit, (the third floor dwelling unit in the christiania
Lodge) located at 356 Hanson Ranch Road/Lot D, Btock 2, Vail village
First Fifing, according to Section 17.26.015 - Condominium Conversion, of
the Town of Vail Zoning code. The applicant or his successors in interest
shall lile a declaration of covenants and restrictions with the clerk and
Recorder of Eagle county in aform approved by the Town Attorney for the
benefit ol the Town to insure the restrictions set lorth herein shall run with
the land. said declaration shall not be amended or terminated without the
written approval of the Town of Vail. subsequent to the effective date of
lhis ordinance, no building permit shall be issued for the redevelopment of
this special Development District No. 28 until said declaration of covenants
and restrictions are executed and filed with the Eagle county clerfr and
Recorder.
D. SITE COVERAGE:
The maximum allowable siF coverage for Lot D shall not exceed 3g% of tfre
buildable lot size and shall be as designated on the development plans set forth
in Section 2 of this Ordinance.
E. LANDSCIPING:
At least thirty-two percent (32%) of Lot D shail be tandscaped and shail be as
designated on the development plans set forth in Section 2 of this Ordinance.
F. PARKING:
Parking for sDD No. 28 shallbe met as designated on the development plans set
forth in Section 2 of this Ordinance.
Section 4
The applicant or his successors in interest agrees to perform the following:
1. The applicant or his succsssors in Interest shall obtain a revocable right-of-way
permit from the Town in order to add the proposed landscaping at the entrance to
the Lot P-3 parking area, as desenated on lhe development plans set forth in
Section 2 of this Ordinance.
2. The applicant or his successors in interest has agreed to financially participate in
the construction of a sidewalk along the west side of the Mill Creek Court Chute,
from Hanson Ranch Road to west Gore creek Drive, as designated in the Town's
adopted Streetscape Master Plan. Such financial contribution shall not exceed
one third of the total cost of the sidewalk.
3. The applicant or his succ€ssors in interest has agreed that should any of the
relocated evergreens not survive two growing seasons, such tree shall be replaced
wilh an 8-10'evergreen on a one-to-one ratio.
4. lf and when the Town of Vail or other party develops a parking/loaoing o"liu"ry
facility on Parcels p-3 and Lot J, Btock 5-A, vail Village Eth Fiting, the applicant
or his successors in interest shall not remonstrate against the development of a
parking/loading facility as long as he amount of parking that the applicant cunently
has on parcel P-3, Block 5-A, Vail Village 5th Filing, including either ths right-of-
way to the east or west, is incorporated into the parklng/loading facility. The
number of spaces shall not include valet parking.
Section 5
Amendments to the approved development plan may be granted pursuant to Section 1g.40
of the Municipal code of the Town of Vail.
Section 6
lf any part, section, subsection, sentsncs, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any
reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not effect the validity of the remaining portions of
this ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance, and
each parl, section' subsection, senlence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any
one or more parts' sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid.
Section 7
The Town Gouncil hereby finds, determines and declares that this ordinance is necessary
and proper for the health, safety and welfare of the Town of Vail and the inhabitants thereof.
5
Section 8
The repeal or the repeal and reenactment of any provision of the Vail Municipal Code as
provided in this ordinance shall not affect any right.which has accrued, any duty imposed, any
violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any
other action or proceeding as commenced under of by virtue of the provision repealed or repealed
and reenacted. The repeal of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any
ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein.
Section g
All bylaws, orders, resolutions and ordinances, or parts thereof, inconsistent herewilh are
repealed to the extent only of such inconsistency. This repealer shall not be construed to revise
any bylaw' order, resolution or ordinance, or part thereof, theretofore repealed.
INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, APPROVED AND ORDERED PUBLISHED
ONCE lN FULL, this _day of 1992. A public hearing shallbe hetd hereon
on the _ day of 1992, at the regular meeting of the Town Council ol the
Town of Vail, Colorado, in the Municipal Building of the Town.
ATTEST:
Margaret A. Osterfrcss, Mayor
Martha S. Raecker, Town Clerk
READ AND APPHOVED ON SECOND READING AND OHDERED PUBLISHED
this -=- day of _____-_____ 1992.
ATTEST:
Margaret A. Osterfoss, Mayor
Martha S. Raecker, Town Clerk
tJr' i-)1 ^,'l'r' ,)
ORDINANCE NO.8
Series of 1992
AN ORDINANCE PFOVIDING FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF
SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRTCT NO. 28,
CHFISTIANIA AT VAIL; ADOPT|NG A
DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 28
IN ACCORDANCE WITH CHAPTEB 18.40 OF THE VAIL MUNIC]PAL CODE
AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO.
WHEREAS' Chapter 18.40 of the Vail Municipal Code authorizes Special Development
Districts within the Town in order to encourage flexibility in the development of land; and
WHEREAS' application has been made for Special Development District approval for a
certain parcel of property within the Town, legally described as Lot D, Block 2, Vail Village First
Filing, and Lot P-3, Btock 5-A, Vail Viilage Fifth Fiting; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 18.66.140, the Planning and Environmenlal
Commission held a public hearing on the proposed SDD, and has submitted a recommendation
for approval to the Town Council; and
WHEREAS, all notices as required by Section 18.66.080 have been sent to the
appropriate parties; and
WHEBEAS, the Town Councilhas held a public hearing as required by Chapter 18.66 of
the Vail Municipal Code.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF
VAIL, COLOHADO THAT:
Section 1
The Town Council finds that all the procedures for Special Development Districts in
chapter 18.40 of the Municipal code of the Town of Vail have been fuily satisfied.
Section 2
The Town Council finds that the development plan for Special Development District No.
28 meets each of the standards set forth in Section 18.40.080 of the Municipal Code of the Town
of Vail or demonstrates that either one or more of them is not applicable, or that a practical
solution consistent with the public interest has been achieved. In accordance with Section
18'40.040, the development plan for Special Development District No.28 is approved. The
development plan is comprised of those plans submitted by pierce, segerberg & spaeh
Architecls, and consists of the following documents:
1. Sheet No. A1, dated January 27, 1992 and revised March 16, 1992 (site plan).
2. Sheet Nos. A2-A5, dated January 27, 1992 and revised March 16, 1992 (first,
second, third and tourth floor plans).
3. Sheet No. A6, dated January 27,1992 (roof plan).
4. Sheet Nos. A7-A9, dated January 27,1ggl and revised March 16, 1992 (North,
South, East and West elevations).
5. Sheet No. Ll , dated January 27,1992 and revised March 6 and March 16, 1992
(landscape plan).
6. Parking Plan for Lot P-3, dated February 8, 1992 and revised February 18, 1992
and March 16, 1992.
7. North elevation of lobby, dated April 22, 1991.
Section 3
The Town Council linds that any deviation of the development slandards from the
underlying zone district provides benefits to the Town ihat outweigh the adverse effects of such
deviation. The development standards for Special Development District No. 28 are approved by
the Town Council as a part of the approved development plan as follows:
A. SETBACKS:
Setbacks shall be as designated on the development plans set forth in Section 2
ol this Ordinance.
B. HEIGHT:
Building height, for a sloping roof, shall not exceed 48 feet from existing or finished
grade, whichever is more restrictive; or {or a flat or mansard roof, shall not exceed
45 feet from existing or finished grade, whichever is more restrictive.
C. DENSITY:
Development in SDD No. 28 shall be limited to a maximum of 3 dwelling units and
21 accommodation unib, as designated on the floor plans set forth in Section 2
ol this Ordinance, and as follows:
1. The Gross Besidential Floor Area (GRFA) shall be limited to a maximum
of 14,1 17 sq. ft., of which 7,335 sq. flshall be dedicated to accommodation
units,5,041 sq. ft. shall be dedicated to dwelling units and 1,741 sq' ft'
shall be dedicated lo excess common area. ll should also be noted that
the provision for an additional425 sq. ft. of GRFA, which is applicabte to
certain zone districts, does not apply to this Special Developmenl District,
2' The applicant or his succ€ssors in interest agree to permanenily restrict
one off-sile dwelling unit, (the secondary unit in a primaryisecondary
residence located at 1184 Cabin Circle/Lot 2, Block 2, Vail Valley Firsl
Filing, for use by employees of the Upper Eagle Valley (employee housing
unit) in the foltowing manner:
a. The employee housing unit shall be provided with a full kitchen
(refrigerator, stove, sink, oven/microwave) and shall not be leased
or renled for any period less than 30 consecutive days and shall be
rented only to tenants who are full time employees in the Upper
Eagle Valley.
b. The Upper Eagle Valley shall be deemed to include the Gore
Valley, Minturn, Red Cliff, Eagle-Vail and Avon and their
surrounding areas.
c. A full-time employee is a person who works an average of thirty
hours per week.
d. The applicant or his successors in interest shall file a declaration of
covenanls and restrictions with the Clerk and Recorder of Eagle
County in a form approved by the Town Attorney for the benefit of
the Town lo insure the restrictions set forth herein shall run with the
land. Said declaration shall not be amended or terminated without
lhe written approval ol the Town of Vail. Subsequent to the
effective date of this ordinance, no building permit shall be issued
for the redevelopment of this Special Development District No. 28
until said declaration of covenants and restrictions are executed
and liled with the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder.
3. The applicant or his successors in Interest agree to permanenily restrict
one on-sile dwelling unit, (lhe third floor dwelling unit in the Christiania
Lodge) located al 356 Hanson Ranch Road/Lot D, Block 2, Vail Village
First Filing, according to Section 17.26.075 - Condominium Conversion, of
D.
the Town of Vail Zoning Code. The applicant or his successors in interest
shall file a declaration of covenants and restrictions with the Clerk and
Becorder of Eagle County in a form approved by the Town Attorney for the
benefit of the Town to insure the restrictions set forth herein shall run with
the land. Said declaration shall not be amended or terminated without the
written approval of the Town of Vail. Subsequent to the effective date of
this ordinance, no building permit shall be issued lor the redevelopmenl of
this Special Development District No. 28 until said declaration of covenants
and restrictions are executed and filed with the Eagle County Clerk and
Recorder.
SITE GOVERAGE:
The maximum allowable sile coverage for Lot D shall not exceed 39% of the
buildable lot size and shall be as designaled on the developmenl plans set forth
in Seclion 2 of this Ordinance.
LANDSCAPING:
At least thirty-two percent (32%) ol Lot D shall be landscaped and shall be as
designated on the development plans set forth in Section 2 of this Ordinance.
F. PARKING:
Parking lor SDD No. 28 shall be met as designated on the development plans set
forth in Section 2 of this Ordinance.
Section 4
The applicant or his successors in interest agroes to perform the following:
The applicant or his successors in interest shall obtain a revocable right-of-way
permit lrom the Town in order to add the proposed landscaping at the entrance to
the Lot P-3 parking area, as designated on the development plans set lorth in
Section 2 of this Ordinance.
Z. The applicant or his successors In interest has agreed to financially participate in
lhe construclion ol a sidewalk along the west side of the Mill Creek Court Chute'
E.
1.
from Hanson Ranch Road to west Gore creek Drive, as designated in the Town's
adopted streetscape Master Plan. such financial contribution shall not exceed
one third of the total cosl of the sidewalk.
3. The applicant or his successors in interest has agreed that shoutd any of the
relocated evergreens not survive two growing seasons, such tree shall be replaced
with an 8-10'evergreen on a one-to-one ratio.
Section 5
Amendments to the approved development plan may be granted pursuant to Section 18.40
of the Municipal code of the Town of Vail.
Section 6
ll any part, section, subsection, senlence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any
reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not effect the validity of lhe remaining portions of
lhis ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance, and
each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any
one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid.
Section 7
The Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this ordinance is necessary
and proper for the health, safety and welfare of the Town of Vail and the inhabitants thereot.
Section 8
The repeal or the repeal and reenaclment of any provision of the Vail Municipal Code as
provided in this ordinance shall not alfect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any
violation that occurred prior to the efiective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any
other action or proceeding as commenced under of by virtue of the provision repealed or repealed
and reenacted. The repeal of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any
ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein.
Section 9
All bylaws, orders, resolutions and ordinances, or parts thereof, inconsislenl herewith are
repealed to the extent only of such inconsistency. This repealer shall not be conslrued to revise
any bylaw, order, resolution or ordinance, or part thereol, theretofore repealed.
INTRODUCED. FIEAD ON FIRST READING, APPROVED AND ORDERED PUBLISHED
ONCE lN FULL, ihis 7 rh d3y sf Aprll , '1992. A public hearing shall be held hereon
sn 15s 21st day of Aprrt , 1992, at the regular meeting of the Town Council ol the
Town of Vail, Golorado, in the Municipal Building of the Town.
Margaret A. Oslerloss, Mayor
ATTEST:
Martha S. Raecker, Town Clerk
READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED
611 21st day of APril , 1992.
Margaret A. Osterfoss, Mayor
ATTEST:
Martha S. Raecker. Town Clerk
6
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
MEMORANDUM
Planning and Environmental Commission
Community Development Department
March 23, 1992
A request for the establishment of a s'pecial Development District at the
christiania at Vail, 356 Hanson Ranch Road/Lot D,-Block 2, Vail village First
Filing, and Lot P-3, Btock 5-A, Vait Viltage Fifth Fiting.Applicant: Paul JohnstonPlanner: Mike Mollica
I. INTRODUCTION
Paul Johnston, owner and operator of the Christianla at Vail, has filed a request for the
gstablishment of a Special Development District, for his property located at 356 HansonRanch.Road. The purpose for this SDD establishment is to all6w for lhe expansion and
redevelopment of the existing Christiania Lodge.
The Christiania at Vail has an existing, Town approved development plan. This developmentplan was approved by the Planning and EnvironmentalCommission on April g, lgg1. ihis
approval granled a setback variance in order to allow for the expansion oi the Christiania
Lodge's lobby and a 44 sq. ft. expansion of GRFA (on the proposed fourth floor), into the
setback. This setback variance is valid until April 8, 1992.
'subsequent
to this pEC approval
of the variance, the Design Review Board, on June 5, 1991 , unanimously approved tfre final
design for the Christiania redevelopment. This redevelopment included ihe expansion of the
existing lobby, the addition of mechanical space beneath the lobby, and the addition of a new
fourth floor, which included two new dwelling units.
II. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
The applicant's redevelopment proposal generally includes the upgrade and renovalion of the
existing Chrisliania Lodge, as follows:
' The addition of a new fourth floor on the existing structure, which would consist
of two dwelling units.
' A general reconfiguration of the existing first, second and third floors of the
Lodge, by reconfiguring accommodation units, adding dwelling units as well as
common area. A total of 21 accommodation units and 3 dwelling units,
comprising 14,117 sq. ft. of GRFA, is proposed.
' The expansion of the existing sarah's Bar, from 774sq. n. to 1,i71 sq. ft. in
size (an increase of 397 sq. ft.).
' The conslruction of a garage which would provide two on-site covered parking
spaces. The garage would be localed at the southwest corner of the building,
Addilional GRFA would be located over the garage area, on floors two, three
and four.
ilt.
fne consmln of 19 valet (surface) parking spacefo be located on the
adjacent Parcel P-3, to the north. This parking area would be surfaced with
asphalt, and would be landscaped around its perimeter.
The reslriction of one ol the three dwelling units, according to the Condominium
Conversion seclion of the zonino code.
. The provision of one otf-site, permanently restricled employee housing unit.
. The construction of a walking path, along the east side of Mill Creek (this will
require approval from Vail Associates, owner of the tract). The existing split rail
fence, localed adjacent to Mill Creek, would be removed, as would the
approximately 550 sq. ft. ol asphalt area, currently used lor parking and the
trash dumpster. The relocation and enclosure of ihe trash dumpsler, to the
northwest corner of the Christiania property.
. Additional landscaping would be added on and adjacent lo the Mill Creek
strsam tract (which is owned by Vail Associates) and adjacent to the recreation
palh.
. Tho screen fence located around the swimming pool would be relocated onto
the Christiania Lodge's property, (it is currently on the stream tract).
. Of the seven proposed fireplaces, six are proposed to be gas. The existing
woodburning fireplace located in Sarah's Bar will remain woodburning.
BACKGROUND AND HISTORY
A. May 11, 1987 - ttre Planning and Environmental Commission voted to approve
density and setback variances in order to allow for lhe construction of additions
to the Christiania Lodge. Subsequent to the 1987 PEC approval ol the
variance request, no construction has occurred.
B. March 6, 1991 - a redevelopment proposal which did not require any
variance/PEC approvals was reviewed and approved by the Design Fleview
Board (DRB). Under this redevelopment proposal, the applicant proposed to
add a new fourth floor to the existing structure lo accommodate 2 new dwelling
units, to remodel the structure's interior, to construct a walking path along Mill
Creek, lo screen the existing dumpster, to pave and landscape the eastern half
of the northern parking lot (when ownership and rights to this lot are resolved),
and to remove a portion of an existing asphalted area adiacent to the proposed
Mill Creek walking path.
C. April 8, 1991 - the Planning and Environmenlal Commission unanimously
approved a setback variance for the Christiania Lodge in order to allow for the
expansion of the Lodge's lobby and a44 sq. ft. expansion of GRFA (on the
proposed fourth floor), into ihe front setback area.
D. June 5, 1991 - the Design Review Board unanimously granted linal design
approval for the redevelopment ol the Christiania Lodge, as approved by the
PEC on AprilS, 1991.
Ttv.
Zone Dlstrlct: Public Accommodation
Slte Area: 0.380 acres or 16,593 sq. ft.
Thelollowing zoning analysis highlights lhe SDD's departures, from lhe PA zone district, by lhe use of
bold type:
Underlylng Zonlng
{PA}
A. Denslty (25 DUs per 9 DUs
bulldable acre: 1 DU = 2
AUs)
B. AU GRFA'
DU GRFA'
Excess Common
C. Tolal GRFA' (80o/o ol
rhe bulldable slt6 srea)
D- Common Area (35% of rt,635 sq. ft.
the allowable GRFA) (3S%)
E. Accessory (10% of 1,324 sq. ft.
construcled GRFA) (10o/.)
F. OfficE N/A
ExlstlnE Prolect 1991 Approval
2 DUs and 25 AUs 2 DUs and 14 AUs
- 14.5 DUs - I DUs
G. Gross Area"
H. Setbacks
North/Front
East Sid€
West Side
Soulh/Rear
L Site Coverage (55% ol
sile area)
J. Landscaping (30% of
sile area)
K. Height
L. Parklng
Spacos Roqulred
Spaces Fequlred/
Non-Conformlng"'
Spaces Provlded
N/A
N/A
N/A
13,242 sq. ft.
(80o/.)
N/A
20 fl. all sides
9,104 sq. tt.
(ss%)
4,966 sq. tl.
(30/.)
48 ft. sloping roof/
45 fr. flat roof
N/A
N/A
N/A
6,720 sq. fl.
1,082 sq. tl.
145 sq. ft.
7,802 sq. fl.
(47%',)
13,428 sq. ft.
15'-0"
nt
'\i
8'-6' (dock)
5,235 sq. ll.
(32%)
7,490 sq. 11.
(45o/")
36 11. sloping
36
33
3
7,850 sq. tl.
4,i153 sq. ll,.|,02'l sq. tt.
13,324 sq. tt.
(80e/.)
18,930 sq. ft.
15'-0'
0'-0"
l710'
8'-6'
5,738 sq. ft.
(3s%)
5,943 sq. lt.
(36%)
43 tl. f lat
20,574 sq. fl.
15'.0"
0'-0"
10Lo"
8'-6"
6,450 sq. ft.
(3e%)
5,356 sq. ft.
(32%l
44 lt. llal
1992 SDD
3 DUB and 21
DUs
7,335 sq. fl.
5,041 sq. fl.
1,741 sq. ll.
14,117 8q. tt.
(85o/.)
AUs = 13.5
4,780 sq. ft. 5,656 sq. ft. 6,376 sq. ft.(360/") (43%) (4806)
774sq.tl. 774sq.ft. 1,171 sq.fl.(10"/.) (6%) (8%)
72 sq. ft. (approved |97 sq. ft. I97 sq. tt.
by conditional use in (approved by1989) conditional use in
1989)
41
33
25
34
33
it
' For comparison purposes, all GRFA calculations were compleled using the Town's 1992
definilion ol GRFA.
Gross area calculalions include AU GRFA, DU GRFA, common, accessory, otfice and garage
areas.
Spaces required/non-conforming are the "grandfalhered" pafting spaces as discussed in
Section V,C of this memo.
V. SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT CRITERIA
The criteria to be used to evaluate this proposal are the 9 Special Development District (SDD)
development standards set forth in the special development district chapter of the Zoning
Code. The criteria are as tollows:
A. Ileslgn compatlblllty and sensltlvlty to the lmmedlate envlronment,
nelghborhood and adlacent propertles relatlve to archltectural deslgn,
scale, bulk, bulldlng helght, buffer zones, ldentlty, character, vlsual
lntegrlty and orlentailon.
It is the staff's opinion that the proposed redevelopment of the Christiania Lodge will be
compatible wilh the existing land uses surrounding lhe project. We believe that the
proposed mass and bulk for this structure is acceptable, given the existing footprint ol
the Christiania Lodge, and the adjacent Chateau Condominiums. The projecl would
have a maximum height of 44leel, which is iust slightly under lhe maximum allowable
height of the PA zone district. Additionally, the proposed height would also be within
the acceptable limits as outlined in the Vail Village Master Plan, which recommends
that this property have a maximum height range of 3-4 stories in height (27-36 feet,
excluding roof).
This project has been analyzed according to the proposed Frivolous Sals View
Corridor. This view corridor was approved by the Town Council on first reading, 0n
May 7, 1991, with the stipulation that anv previouslv aooroved projects could be built,
even though they may encroach into the view corridor. At the time of first reading, it
was anticipated that the Christiania redevelopment would encroach into this view
corridor. Since the 1991 approval of the Christiania redevelopment, there have been
some slight design modilications which would affect the proposed Frivolous Sals View
Corridor. Changes to the roof configuration on the northwest corner of the Christiania
Lodge would create an additional encroachment into the corridor. However, the
northernmost portion of the building would be pulled out of the proposed view corridor.
Overall, the staff believes the applicant's proposal is reasonable, given the fact that the
Frivolous Sals View Corridor has not been formally adopted upon second reading.
Although the proposed SDD would exceed the maximum allowable GRFA by 875 sq.
ft., it should be noted that 1,741 sq. ft. of GRFA is directly attribulable lo "excess"
common area. The common areas in the Lodge include the mechanical areas, lhe
hallways, stairs, storage areas, lobby and hotel offices. lt should also be noted that
the residentialpart of the GRFA, which constitutes 12,376 sq. lt., is actually under the
maximum allowable GRFA, as designated in the PA zone district. Please refer to
Exhibit A for a detailed breakdown of the proposed GRFA.
B. Uses, actlvlty and denslty which provlde a compatlble, efllclent and
workable relatlonshlp wlth surroundlng uses and actlvlty.
Under the proposed redevelopment scenario, the applicant will be reducing the overall
density of the proposed project by one dwelling unit. This is in contrast with the
existing project, which has a total ot 14.5 dwelling units. ln summarv, a total of three
9qgllinq units and twentv-one accommodation units are prooosed with this sDD. As
indicated in Section lV(D) ol lhis memorandum, the Vail Village Master plan
encoutages the provision of short term, overnight hotel rooms (accommodation units).
The proposed christiania sDD is in compliance with the definilion of "Lodge", in which
'the gross residential flosr area devoted to accommodation units exceeds the gross
residential floor area devoted to dwelling units." As further indicated in the attached
Exhibit A, the GRFA devoted to accommodation units exceeds 5g% of the total GRFA
for the project.
Because this sDD request exceeds the maximum allowable density for the pA zone
district, the applicant has agreed to restrict the third floor dwelling unit according to
Section 17.26.075 - Condominium Conversion, of the Town,s zoning code. This
section of lhe code includes rental restrictions and generally provides that
condominium units shall be included in the short term rental market for certain periods
of lime. Staff believes placing the rental restriction on only one of the three dwelling
unils is acceptable because the applicant is reducing the overall density of the project
by one dwelling unit (versus the existing project), and the fact that the GHFA
exceedance is due to the overage of common areas. Additionally, the applicant has
agreed to provide one off-site, permanently restricted employee dwelling unit. This unit
would be the secondary unit in a primary/secondary residence owned by the applicant.
The restricted employee unit will be located at 1 194 cabin circle/Lot 2, Btock 2, Vail
Valley First Filing.
Although this sDD proposalwould provide four less accommodation units then the
existing project (21 versus 25), staff believes that when the christiania special
Development District is reviewed in its entirety, the project meets the sDD criteria.
There are public benefits, such as the employee restricted dwelling unit, the Mill Creek
walking path, additional landscaping, two enclosed parking spaces, a paved parking
area, etc., which should be considered. we believe the project provides a workable
relationship with surrounding uses and activity as described above.
C. Compllance wlth parklng and loadlng requlrements as oufllned In Chapter
18.52.
This sDD proposal calls for the addition of a two-car garage, (to be located in the
southwesl corner of the proposed addition), two surface parking spaces to be provided
immediately north of the garage, and two surface parking spaces north of the lobby
(on-site). Additionally, the applicant is proposing 19 valel (surface) parking spaces on
the adjacent Lot P-3, north of Hanson Ranch Road (please see the attached site plan).
The proposed parking area on Lot P-3 would be surfaced wilh asphalt, would include
landscaping around its perimeter, and a retaining wall on the west side of the lol. With
this SDD, the total number of proposed parking spaces would be 25.
,.:
Existino 1992 SDDUse # Soaces Required # Spaces Fleouired
Accommodation Units: (25 AUs) = 16.4 (21 AUs) = 15.6
Dwelling Units: (2 DUs)= 4.0 (3 DUs) = 7.0
Accessory (Sarah's Lounge): 6,0 8.5
Really Office: 0.3 0.8
Christian Chateau Townhomes:9.0 9.0sub-Total 35.7 40.s
Grandfathered Spaces -321_ -321_
Grand Total 3.0* 8.2 = 9.0
'The Town of Vail recognizes that the Christiania Lodge has 3 existing parking spaces.
These three parking spaces are located on the Christiania Lodge site and are
considered legal, nonconforming spaces due to their location within the required lronl
setback.
In summarv. this SDD requires that a tolal ol 6 new parkinq spaces be provided on-
site. The applicanl is proposing a total of 25 parking spaces for the projecl,22 ot
which are new. However, the proposed parking plan deviates from the parking
requirements of the PA zone district as follows:
1. The parking is not provided enlirely on-site.2. 75/" ol the required parking is nol located within the main building or
buildings and hidden from public view.3. The on-site surface parking spaces would be located within the front
setback area.
The Christiania is technically 32.7 parking spaces short, as required per the zoning
code. However, the proposed SDD will meet the incremental increase of required
parking with the P-3 parking lot, the on-site valet parking and the proposed garage.
Historically, the Christiania has parked on portions of the property to the north (Lot J),
however, this arrangement has not been officially recognized by the Town. Given the
siting of the existing Christiania Lodge, and the fact that the applicant has a perpetual
easement to park on the adjacent Lot P-3, staff believes the applicant's proposed
parking scheme is acceptable, and will be an improvement over the existing parking
configuration.
Also, according to Section 18.52.060 of the Town's Zoning Code, "the Town Council
may permit off-site or jointly used parking facilities if located within three hundred feel
of the use served". This provision only applies to unenclosed parking spaces. The
staff believes it is appropriate to recognize that the P-3 parking is formally associated
with the project.
I
Loadlng: The existing Christiania Lodge has a requirement for one loading berth. No
loading berths are cunently provided for the Lodge, and the loading requirement is
considered "grandfathered'. The proposed redevelopment of the Lodge does not
increass the loading non-conformity, as the new proposal also has a requirement for
one loading berth.
The proposed parking scheme, on the adjacent Lot p-s, does require that the entry to
the parking area be relocated approximately 25 feet to the east. This relocateO entry
does provide for safer ingress and egress out of Lot P-3, and also allows for the saferpassage of vehicles utilizing the Mill creek court "chute". However. this relocated
entry would remove one of the existing public loading and delivery spaces along
Hanson Ranch Road. The loss of one public loading/delivery space'in the Villa-ge Core
is not a positive change and it is a major concern to the stafi, however, we
acknowledge that the applicant does have a right to safely access Lot p-3. To
mitigate the loss of the one loading/delivery space, the applicant will provide a
loading/delivery berth on-site (adjacent to the dumpster), for use by the christiania.
D. Conformlty wlth appllcable elements ot the vall comprehenslve plan,
Town pollcles and Urban Deslgn plans.
It is staff's opinion that the proposed redevelopment meets the goals and objectives of
the Vail Village Master Plan. The Master plan emphasizes the upgrading of lodges,
the improvement of the pedestrian experience, as well as the enhancement of o-pen
space.
This proposal supports the Masler plan's objectives by the addition of 7 new
accommodation units (versus the 1991 approval) and by improving and expanding the
existing lobby and bar areas, while generally complying with the Town,s site
development standards, except as noted in the memo. Additionally, the proposed Mill
creek pedestrian path will enhance open space for use by the public. The iollowing is
a lisl of the Vail Village Master Plan Goals, Objectives and Policies which relate to this
project:
GOAL #1 - ENCOURAGE HIGH QUALITY REDEVELOPMENT WHILE
PRESERVING THE UNIQUE ARCHITECTURAL SCALE OF THE
VILLAGE IN ORDER TO SUSTAIN ITS SENSE OF
COMMUN ITY AND IDENTITY.
1,2 Obiective:
Encourage the upgrading and redevelopment of residential and commercial
facilities.
1.3 Obiective:
Enhance new development and redevelopment through public improvements
done by private developers working in cooperation with the Town.
f
1.3.1 Obiective:
Public improvements shall be developed with the participation of the private
sector working with the Town.
GOAL #2 - TO FOSTER A STRONG TOURIST INDUSTRY AND PROMOTE
YEAR-AROUND ECONOMIC HEALTH AND VIABILITY FOR
THE VILLAGE AND FOR THE COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE.
2.3 Obiective:
Increase the number of residential units available for short term overnight
accommodations.
2.3.1 Pollcy:
The development of short lerm accommodalion units is slrongly
encouraged. Residential units that are developed above existing density
levels are required to be designed or managed in a manner thal makes
them available for short term overnight rental.
2,4.2 Pollcy:
Activity that provides night life and evening enlertainment for both the
guest and the community shall be encouraged.
2.5 Obiective:
Encourage the continued upgrading, renovation and maintenance of existing
lodging and commercial lacilities to better serve the needs of our guests.
2.6 Obiective:
Encourage the development of affordable housing units through the efforts ol
the private sector.
2.6.1 Pollcy:
Employee housing units may be required as part of any new or
redevelopment project requesting density over that allowed by existing
zoning.
2.6.2 Pollcy:
Employee housing shall be developed with appropriate restrictions so as
to insure their availability and affordability to the local work lorce.
GOAL Tg - TO RECOGNIZE AS A TOP PRIORITY THE ENHANCEMENT
OF THE WALKING EXPEBIENCE THROUGHOUT THE
VILLAGE.
3.1 Obiective:
Physically improve the existing pedestrian ways by landscaping and other
improvements.
3.4 Obiectives:
Develop addilional sidewalks, pedesfian-only walkways and accessible green
space areas, including pocket parks and stream access.
GOAL #4 - TO PRESERVE EXISTING OPEN SPACE AREAS AND
EXPAND GREENSPACE OPPORTUNITIES.
The Vail vlllage Master Plan sub-area concepts which directly relates to this
redevelop_menl proposal are concepts No. 3-8, Mill creek streamwalk, and concept
No. 7-1, Christiania.A/A Study Area:
#3-8 Mill Creek Streamwatk
A walking only path along Mill Creek between pirate Ship park and
Gore Greek, further completing the pedestrian network and providing
public access to the creek. Specific design and location shall be
sensitive to adjacent uses and the creek environment.
#7-1 ChristianiaA/A Studv Area
Presently zoned for lodging, this parcel cunently provides parking for the
Christiania Lodge and Vail Associates. lssues to be addressed in the
development of this property include covenants restricling the use of this
property to parking, accommodation of existing parking as well as
demand created by new development and a formally adopted view
corridor, looking toward lhe Gore Flange. Public purpose uses that may
be appropriate for this site include park/open space andlor a central
loading and delivery lacility for the Village core.
The staff believes that the applicant's proposal to utilize Lot P-3 for surface parking will
not prohibit the potential luture use of the Lot P-3 as discussed above in the Master
Plan.
The Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan addresses this proposal through sub-Area
Concept No. 8:
.Mill Creek walking path, west side Mill Creek. Path completes linkage
from pirate ship and mountain path to Gore Creek Drive."
The Vailvillage Master Plan and rhe urban Design Guide Plan both call for the
construction of a pedestrian path connection between the bike path and Hanson Ranch
Road. The addition of a foot path would be a positive improvement to the pedestrian
experience in the Village area. Even though the Urban Design Guide Plan calls for
the path to be located on the wesl side of Mill Creek, staff believes that the east side
provides a more attractive walking experience. The west side ol the creek has a trash
room for Cyrano's, as well as several utility boxes, which make it an unpleasant area
to walk through.
In further support of the above sub-area concepts, the applicant has committed to
remove approximately 550 sq. ft. of asphalt area adjacent to Mill Creek. This paved
area, which is currently used by the Christiania for parking and dumpster storage, is
located on Vail Associates and Christiania owned property.
This proposal was reviewed according to the recently adopted Streetscape Master
Plan. There are no specific streetscape concepts which apply to this site, however, the
Plan does propose a sidewalk on the west side of the Mill Creek Court Chute. lt is the
staff's position that the installation of this sidewalk should not be a requirement of the
Christiania redevelopment as we believe the SDD will not directly impact the
pedestrian movements in this area.
E. ldentlflcatlon and mltlgatlon of natural and/or geologlc hazards that atlect
the property on whlch the speclal development dlstrlct ls proposed.
There ars no natural and/or geologic hazards which would affect this property and/or
redevelopment proposal. The project is also located out of the established 1O0-year
floodplain. ,,..
F. Slte plan, bulldlng deslgn and locatlon and open space provlslons
deslgned tO produce a functlonal development responslve and sensltlve
to natural features, vegetatlon and overall aesthetlc quallty ol the
communlty.
The existing front setback is 15 feet due to the encroachment of the northwest corner
ol the Lodge. Curently, the west side setback is 17 feet due to an encroachment of
the southwesi corner of the building inlo the 20-foot setback. The existing rear setback
is 8 -6", as ihe existing Sarah's deck prolects 1 1'-6" into the z0-foot rear setback (see
attached site plan), .An existing legal, non-conforming east side setback of zero teel
results from the Ctrristiania's connection to the Chateau condominiums. By adding a
new fourth floor, 44 square feet of additional GRFA will be added into the side setback'
At the tightest point, the west setback will be reduced from the existing 17 feet, down
to 10'-0';, with the addition of the two-car garage. The second and third floors (GRFA)
would encroach 4'-6" into the setback and the fourth lloor (GRFA) would encroach 2'-
9" into the setbaek. Because the zoning code and the Vail Village Master Plan both
encourage the construction of covered parking, and the fact that this portion of the site
is very heavily screened lrom adjacent properties, staff is able to support the
applicant's reque$t lo further encroach inlo the required 20-foot setback.
G. A clrculatlon system deslgned for both vehlcles and pedestrlans
addresslng on and off'slte trafflc clrculatlon.
The proposed Christiania redevelopment will have a minimal impact on the existing
vehicular and pedestrian circulation systems adjacent to the Christiania Lodge
property. The proposed parking scheme, on the adiacent Lot P-3, does require that
ine'entry to the parking area be relocated approximately 25 leet to the east. This
relocate-d entry does provide for safer ingress and egress out of Lot P-3, and also
10
allows for the safer passage of vehicles utilizing the Mill Creek Court "chute".
However, this relocated entry would remove one of the existing loading and delivery
spaces along Hanson Ranch Road.
H. Functlonal and aesthetlc landscaplng and open space In order to optlmlze
and preserve natural features, recreailon, vlews and funcllons.
As indicated on the attached site plan, there are some existing large, mature
evergresns located very close to the existing Lodge. The redovelopment proposal
calls for the removal, and relocation, of nine of these large evergreen trees. The
applicant has proposed to add nine new aspens (3" caliper) adjacent to the Mill Creek
stream tract (to screen the on-site parking) and near the recreation path. Six new
aspens (3" caliper) will be added adjacent to the front, or north, entry to the Lodge. To
further open up the Mill Creek stream tract, the applicant has agreed to remove the
existing split rail fence which is located upon the Vail Associates' owned stream tract.
The wood screen fence around the swimming pool will be relocated upon the Lodge's
property, as it is alrrently located upon the stream tract (Tract E).
The staff feels that the landscaping design is positive because of the applicant's
proposal to relocale all nine of the large evergreens and to add the 15 new aspens on
site. The relocated evergreens would be placed in the adjacent slream tract, and this
relocation etfort would be coordinated with the Town Landscape Architect and Vail
Associates. Should these relocated'evergreens not survive two growing seasons, the
applicant has agreed to replace any dead or dying tree with an 8-10' evergreen.
Additional off-site landscaping will be added around the perimeter of Lot P-3. This
landscaping would consist of 17 new evergreens (6-8'in height), and 10 Potentilla
shrubs along the base of the proposed retaining wall (on lhe Mill Creek Courl Chute).
(According to the zoning code, the olFsite landscaping can not be included in the
required landscaping.)
l. Phaslng plan or subdlvlslon plan that wlll malntaln a workable, lunctlonal
and efflclent relatlonshlp throughout the devetopment of the speclal
development dlstrlct.
The applicant has proposed that the SDD redevelopment plan for the Christiania Lodge
be completed at one time. No phasing plan is proposed.
VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
We believe that the Christiania redevelopment meets the criteria for the establishment of a
SDD, as discussed above. The staff recommendation for the proposed establishment of a
Special Development District for the Christiania Lodge is for approval. The applicant has
incorporated the following elements into the proposed development plan:
11
f
1.
2.
3.
4.
The proposed dwelling unit, to be located on lhe third floor of the Lodge, will be
restricted according to Section 17.26.075 - Condominium Conversion, of the
Town of Vail Zoning Code.
One employee dwelling unit, which shall be provided with a full kitchen
(refrigerator, stove, sink, oven or microwave), will be permanently restricted as
an employee dwelling unil, per Section 18.13.080(BX1Oxb-d) of the Town of
Vail Zoning Code, prior to the Town's issuance of any building permils for this
redevelopment.
The applicant will obtain a revocable right-of-way permit from the Town in order
to add the proposed landscaping al the entrance to lhe Lot P-3 parking area.
Prior to the Town's issuance of an)l buiftJing permits for this redevelopment, the
Town Engineer must grant linal approval for the P-3 parking design. The Town
Engineer is concerned with the design of the proposed retaining wall adjacent
to the Mill Creek Court "Chute". A curlr and gutler section may be necessary to
accommodate drainage in lhis area. ', ,',. .' . ,, ri
The applicant has agreed that shoulddny ol the relocated evergreens not
survive two growing seasons, such tree shall be replaced with an 8-10'
evergreen on a one-to-one ratio.
, i : I.
5.
12
J
j
j
1.First Level
6 AUs
Office (197 sq. ft./250)
Second Level
TAUs =
Sarah's Bar (1,020/1 5/8)
Third Level
SAUs =1DU =
Fourlh Level
2 DUs
Christian Chateau Townhomes
TotalGHFA: 12,376 sq. ft.
Exhlblt A
GBFA and Parklng
GRFA
1,932 sq. ft. =
2,4i11 sq. ft. =
2,972 sq. ft. =
551 sq. ft. =
4,490 sq. ft.
Required
Parkinq
4.332
0.788
5.173
8.5
6.146
2.0
5.000
9.000
40.939
- 32.70 (Grandfathered
spaces)
8.239 = 9 Required spaces
2.
3.
4.
t
TotalGRFA:12,376 sq. ft,
Excess Common Area: + 1,741 sq. ft.
Grand Total: 14,117 sq. ft.
Total Density: 21 AUs and 3 DUs
AU GBFA = 7,335 sq.lt., or 59% ol the total GRFA
DU GRFA = 5,041 sq. ft., or 41T" ol the total GRFA
13
''.
lt.. ;:.-l-l'
';1 r'il'{
Exhlblt B
Common Area
3,104 sq. ft.
1,785 sq. ft.
727 sq.lt.
760 sq. tt
6,376 sq. ft.
First Level
Second Level
Third Level
Fourth Level
Allowable GRFA
Total:'a
13,242 sq. fl.x .35 (35%)
4,635 sq. ft.
6,376 sq. ll.
- 4.635 sq, ft. : . :
1,741 sq. ft. - excess common (added !o GRFA)
:' ':::
1:,:; :
' ',),'
:,{
1".
rl
I
:' t.
1
I
:,t.]'
'-:: -t ..l it-:
; ..li
-L'
Fl:
14
4.1' ?z
(l,I
V*Af ola,.4 )
a* K-,4 f o^/ tth.E 6174
r S^, PtA,*- - ,,-.e-J -C/< fu -qa /",4i4- .* -/<T:-o-f-rltuN
-'A n;r4 .4,/rt, .^(<o-,/ \-- ,./4 - r(/
r)
&a- Aa-.*4^
-tu'-t^ S ^ i,*r/ h-/a oy--
-& 4tu- t. G'ro- zlmzr ,., 7*z< A4\
h^#"*- kr4Ar/ff.-"^; 4a-t, - /x^ 4
W .* 7-7,t. )" A-Td # /??/ ,ff^d.
b^to K,a-
II @
f4or-- frl "'r*4u -7-T--
,-u)tc-r^- *l' fr"l- ff Ebb
/ o^/" - Fa
nr.tu,7L f /o;1 /,97"".
RiG' ""-!
b; s"rrrr'rcr
d*6'_- z4 ry ;4 oK
{|7. - .,,*// /u/**i.. .4
- b*G re
7b- S. * q*a*^te ,*
*7|
I
l4rrt< "r-, I
er( 8. Gd - ,^zJ? -rt ^/-T-e ,--- y'^-L
.*u,za* "J#/ .a ,kr d-€^.
fo^^- lr/"^ cna6'<Ed; df .* //-A,,k zr^Zd-*( a / /'V-3 a*( S "^t42e4.
r,444 fr
I/76tr 7S "a4 !
/
rtT*
il.
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
MEMORANDUM
Planning and Environmental Commission
Community Development Department
March 23, 1992
A request for the estabrishment of a speciar Deveropment District at thechristiania ar Vair, 356 Hanson nancn'noalzr-oi o, 'gtock e, viilVirLJ. ri"tFiling, and Lot p-3, Btock 5-A, Vait Vittage flttn fiting,Applicant: paul JohnstonPlanner: Mike Mollica
I. INTRODUCTION
Paul Jctr' .. :,1, owner and operator of the christiania at vail, has fired a request for theestabrisi ,.ent of a special De,,-,-... - . 1 Dist;c1 for his pronor.ty rocateo at 356 HansonRanch Road' The purpose 1', estabrishment ii oiiow torlh-e expansion andredevelopment ol the existing i-,,,,,srrania L"dg;.
The christiania at Vair hasiln existing, Town approved deveropment pran. This deveropmentqg -*": approved by the.prannins #d inuirolin"nt"r commission dn nprir 8, 1991. Thisapproval granted a setback variance in order to allow for tfre expansion of the christianiaLodge's lobby and a 44 sq. ft. expansion oic'nrn 1on the proposed tourth froor), into thesetback. This setback variance,ii varid untir nprir s,_r s.e^1 . sr-or"q""nt io this pEC approvalof the variance, the Design Review soil, ;n J;ne 5, 1991, unanimousry approvecr the finaldesign for the christianiaredevelopr"nt. 'ir'ir
ledevetopment incruJJine expansion of theexisting lobby, the addition of mechanicat space oeneath the lobby, and the addition of a newfourth floor, which inctuded two newdw"ifNb ,rit".
The applicant's redevelopment proposal generally includes the upgrade and renovation of theexisting Christiania Lodge, as tottows:
' The addition of a new fourth floor on the existing structure, which would consistof two dwelling units.
' A general reconliguration of the existing first, second and third floors of theLodge, by reconfiguring accommodatioi units,.adoing l*"iring units as weil ascommon area. A totar of 21 accommodation units ario-c cwerring units,conprising 14,11I sq. ft. of GRFA, is proposed.
' The exoanglg, of the_existing sarah's Bar, from 774sq.ft. to 1,171 sq. ft. insize (an increase of 397 sq. it.).
' The construction of a garage which wourd provide two on-site covered parkingspaces' The garage would be located at the southwest corner of the building.Additionar GRFA wourd be rocated over the garage area, on froors two, threeand four.
A.
B.
rne construcl of 1g valet (surface) parking .p".rfl be locate.d_on the
adiacent parcel p-S, to tnr nbrtn.-fdii parflng'area fioutO be surfaced with
arirn"ft, and would be landscaped around its perimeter'
The restriction of one of the three dwelling units, according to the condominium
Conversion section of the zoning code'
Theprovisionofoneotf-site'permanent|yrestrictedemp|oyeehousingunit'
The construction ot a walking path, along the east side of Mill Creek (this will
require approvat tro, vlii'nlsG"i"i, oiln"r of the tract). The existing split rail
fence, located aolacent lo Uriri Creef, tould be removed' as would the
#;;;i;"t"lt s-'o
"q.
ft. of asphalt area., currently used for parkin.g,and the
trash dumpster. The reiocation and enclosure otine trash dumpster' to the
northwest corner of the Christiania property'
Additional landscaping would be added on and adjacent.to the lrtlill Creek
stream tract (which is owned by Vail Associates) ind adjacent to the recreation
path.
The screen fence rocated around the swimming poor wourd be. rerocated onto
tne Cnristiania Lodge's property, (it is currently on the stream tract)'
Of the seven proposed fireplaces, six areproposed to be gas' The existing
woodburning fireplace rocaieo in barah's Bar will remain woodburning'
c.
2
III. BACKGROUND AND HISTORY
May11,1987-theP|anningandEnvironmenta|'Commissionvotedtoapprove
density and setback variant"es in orOat to allow for the construction of additions
to the Christiania t-ooge. Sftequent to the 1987 PEC approval of the
variance request, no construction has occurreo'
March 6, 1991 - a redevelopment proposal which did not require any
variance/PEO approvats wJs reviewed and approved by the- Design Rwiew
i""iJ tonEi unoff this redevelopment proposal, the applicant proposed to
add a new fourth ftoor to tit. r*i.tiiig structuie to accommodate 2 new dwelling
units, to remodel tn" ttt.iut" "
inteiio|., to construct a walking path along Mill
creek, to screen the existing dumpster, to.pave,and randscape the eastern hall
of the northern parking ioiti,nrn 6wnersnii and ri.hts to this lot are resolved),
and to remove a portion-of'an existing asphated irea adlacent to the proposed
Mill Creek walking Path'
April8,1991-thePlanningandEnvironmentalCommissionunanimously
approved a setback ""ri"r"."-f*
tne bnristiania Lodge in order to allow for the
exoansion of the Lodge:t it6oy ""0
a 44 s9' ft' expansion o{ GRFA (on the
ptifiosea fourth floor), into the front setback area'
June 5, 1991 - the Design Review Board unanimously granted final design
approval for the redeveli;t;;i;itne cnristiania Lodge' as approved bv the
PEC on APril 8, 1991.
D.
IV. ZONING CONSIDER}NS
Zone Dlslrict: Public Accomnpdation
Slte Area: 0.380 acres or 16,553 sq. ft.
The lollowino zonino analvsis highlights the SDD's departures, from the PA zone districl, by lhe use of
o
Underlylng Zonlng
(PA)
9 DUsA. Itenslty (25 DUs p€r
bulldable acre: 1 DU = 2
AUs)
B. AU GRFA'
DU GRFA'
Excess Common
c. Tot.l GRFA. (8006 of
lhe buildabl€ she area)
E. Accessory (10% of
constructed GRFA)
F. Off ice
)( cross Area'*
H. Setlcac*s
North/Front
East Side
West Side
Soulh/Rear
l. Sile Coverage (55o/o of
sile area)
J. Landscaping (30% ol
sile area)
K. Height
L. Parklng
Spaces Requhed
Spaces Required/
\ton-Conformlng"'
Spaces Provlded
N/A
N/A
N/A
1,324 sq. tl.
(ofk)
N/A
9,104 sq. ft.
(5s%)
4,966 sq. tt.
(30%)
48 tt. sloping rool/
45 ft. flat roof
N/A
N/A
N/A
ExlstlnE Project
2 DUs and 25 AUs
= 14.5 DUs
6,720 sq. ft.
1,082 sq. ft.
145 sq. ft.
7,802 sq. ft.
147"/")
4,780 sq. ft.
(36%)
774 sq. tl.
(10%)
72 sq. ft. (approved
by conditional use in
198e)
13,428 sq. tt.
15'-0"
17',-0'
8'-6" (deck)
5,235 sq. ft.
(3?/")
7,490 sq. ft.
(45%)
36 ft. sloping
1991 Approval
2 DUs and 14 AUs
=9DUs
7,850 sq. fi.
4,453 sq. tt.
1,021 sq. tt.
13,324 sq. tt.
(80%)
5,656 sq. ft.
(43%)
774 sq. tt.
(6%l
197 sq. tl.
(approved by
ccnditional use in
1989)
18,930 sq. ft.
1992 SDD
3 DUs and 21 AUs = 13.5
DUs
7,335 sq. ft.
5,041 sq. ft.
1,741 sq. ft.
14,117 sq. ft.
(85o/c)
6,376 sq. ft.
(48./"1
1,171 sq. tt.
(8%)
197 sq. ft.
20,574 sq. tl.
15'{"
.EE
QEg:.>
8'-6'
6,1150 sq. ft.
(3e%)
5,356 sq. ft.
(3?/"',1
44 fl. llal
D. Gommon Area (35o of /,--46;E:i>
the allowabfe GRFA) lJgSy-y-/
15'-0"
0'-0"(--17d"\
8'-6"
5,738 sq. 11.
(3s%)
5,943 sq. ft.
(36%)
d3 ft. llat
41
33
25
34
e2
3
36
ee
a
For comparison purposes, all GRFA calculations were compleled using lhe Town's 1992
definition ol GRFA.
Gross area calculalions include AU GRFA, DU GRFA, common, a@essory, office and garage
areas.
spaces required/non-contorming are the "grandfathered" parking spaces as discussed in
Seclion V,C of this memo.
V. SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT CRITERIA
The criteria to be used to evaluate this proposal are the 9 Special Development District (SDD)
development standards set lorth in the special development district chapter of the Zoning
Code. The criteria are as follows:
A. Deslgn compatlblllty and sensltlvlty to the lmmedlate envlronmenl,
nelghborhood and adlacent propertles relatlve to archltectural deslgn,
. scale, bulk, bulldlng helght, buffer zones, ldentlty, character, vlsual
Integrlty and orlentatlon.
It is the staff's opinion that the proposed redevelopment of the Christiania Lodge will be
compatible with the existing land uses surrounding the project. We believe that the
proposed mass and bulk for this structure is acceptable, given the existing footprint of
the Christiania Lodge, and the adjacent Chateau Condominiums. I!9-BtgieS!1ry9u,ld
hgvC-a-CIAl!$um height of 44 feet, which is just slightly under the maximum allowable
Ietsh.eiont oJ-oht ot trc-PA-Ednfui-smit. 7-trdli"ronatty, tfo ht would also be within
in the V
that this property have a maximum heiqht ranqe of 3-4 stories in height I
excluding roof).
This project has been analyzed according to the proposed Frivolous Sals View
Corridor. This view corridor was approved by the Town Council on first reading' on
May 7,1991, ryith thq lation that could be
eJ$lholguhly_lEy_gncroach into the view corridor. At the time of first reading' it
was anticipated that t@oud encroach into this viewvcorridor. Since the 1991 approval of the Christiania redevelopment, there have been
some slight design modifications which would affect the proposed Frivolous Sals View
Conidor. Changes to the roof configuration on the northwest corner of the Christiania
Lodge would create an additional encroachment into the corridor. However, the
northernmost portion of the building would be pulled out of the proposed view corridor.
Overall, the staff believes the applicant's proposal is reasonable, given the fact that the
Frivolous Sals View Corridor has not been formally adopted upon second reading.
Although the proposed SDD would exceed the maximum allowable GRFA by 875 sq.
ft., it should be noted that 1,741 sq. ft. of GRFA is directly attributable to "excess"
common area. The common areas in the Lodge include the mechanical areas, the
hallways, stairs, storage areas, lobby and hotel offices. lt should also be noted that
the residential part of the GRFA, which constitutes 12,376 sq. ft., is actually under the
maximum allowable GRFA, as designated in the PA zone district. Please reter to
Exhibit A for a detailed breakdown of the proposed GRFA,
B. " Uses, aetivlty and denslty which provlde a compatlble, efflclent and
workable relatlonship wlth surroundlng uses and actlvlty.
Under the proposed redevelopment scenario, the applicant will be reducing the overall
density of the proposed project bv one dwelling unit. This is in contrast with the
GxEti-ngproject, which-IasEtotal of 14.5 dwelling units. @
dwellino units and twentv-one accommodation units are proposed with this sDD. As
indicated in Section lV(D) of this memorandum, the Vail Village Master ptan
encourages the provision of short term, overnight hotel rooms (accommodation units).
The proposed christiania sDD is in compliance with the definition of "Lodge", in which
'the gross residential floor area devoted to accommodation units exceedslhe gross
residential floor area devoted to dwelling units.' As further indicated in the attached
Exhibit A, he GRFA devoted to accommodation units exceeds 59/' ot the total GRFA
for the project.
Because this sDD request exceeds the maximum allowable density for the pA zone
district, the applicant has agreed to restrict the hird floor dwelling unit according to
section 17.26.075 - condominium conversion, of the Town's zoning code. Thii
section of the code includes rental restrictions and generally provides that
condominium units shall be included in the short term rental markei for cerlain periods
of time. Staff believes placing the rental restriction on only one of the three dwelling
units is acceptable because the applicant is reducing the overall density of the project
by one dwelling unit (versus the existing project), and the fact that the GRFA
exceedance is due to the overage of common areas. Additionally, the applicant has
agreed to provide one off-site, permanently restricted employee dwelling unit. This unit
would be the secondary unit in a primary/secondary residence owned by the applicant.
The restricted employee unit wiil be tocated at 1194 cabin circte/Lot 2, Btock 2, vail
Valley First Filing.
four less units then the
meets the SDD criteria.
)(ere are public benefits, such as the employee restricted dGjiing u ek
walking path, additional landscaping, two enclosed parking spaces, a paved parking
area, elc., which should be considered. we believe the project provides a workable
relationship with surrounding uses and activity as described above.
c. compllance with parking and toading requirements as oufllned in Ghapter
18.52.
This sDD proposal calls for the addition of a two-car garage, (to be located in the
southwest corner of the proposed addition), two surface parking spaces to be provided
immediately north of the garage, and two surface parking spaces north of tne iooby(on-site). Additionally, the appticant is proposing 1g vabl (iurface) parking spaces on
the adjacent Lot P-3, north of Hanson Ranch Road (please see the attached'site plan).
The proposed parking area on Lot p-g would be surfaced with asphalt, would include
landscaping around its perimeter, and a retaining wall on the west side of the lot. With
this SDD, the total number of proposed parking spaces would be 25,
Use
SuFTotal
Grandfathered Spaces
Grand Total
Existinq
# Soaces Reouired
35.7
-nt_
3.0*
1992 SDD
# Soaces Required
(21 AUs) = 15.6
(3 DUs) = 7.0
8.5
0.8
9.0
40.9
-321-
8.2 = 9.0
Accommodation Units: (25 AUs) = 16.4
Dwelling Units: (2 DUs)= 4.0
Accessory (Sarah's Lounge): 6.0
Realty Office:0.3
Christian Chateau Townhomes: 9.0
*The Town of Vail recognizes that the Christiania Lodge has 3 existing parking spaces.
These three parking spaces are located on the Christiania Lodge site and are
considered legal, nonconforming spaces due to their location within the required front
setback.
In summarv, this SDD requires that a tolal ot 6 new oarkinq sDaces be proviclecl on-
site. The
whichFnew. However, the proposed parking plan deviates from the
requirements of the PA zone district as lollows:
1. The parking is not provided entirely on-site'
2. 75/" ol the required parking is nol located within the main building or
buildings and hidden from public view.
3. The on-site surface parking spaces would be located within the front
setback area.
The Christiania is technically 32.7 parking spaces short, as required per the zoning
code. However, the proposed SDD will meet the incremental increase of required
parking with the P-3 parking lot, the on-site valet parking and the proposed garage.
Historibalf, the Christiania has parked on portions of the property to the north (Lot J)'
however, this arrangement has not been officially recognized by the Town. Given the
siting of the existing Christiania Lodge, and the fact that the applicant has a perpetual
easement to park on the adjacent Lot P-3, stalf believes the applicant's proposed
parking scheme is acceptable, and will be an improvement over the existing parking
configuration.
Also, according to Section 18.52.060 of the Town's Zoning Code, "the Town Council
may permit off-site or jointly used parking {acilities if located within three hundred feet
ol the use served". This provision only applies to unenclosed parking spaces. The
staff believes it is appropriate to recognize that the P-3 parking is formally associated
with the project.
loadlng: The existing Christiania Lodge has a requirement for one loading berth. No
loading berths are currently provided for the Lodge, and the loading requirement is
considered 'grandfathered". The proposed redevelopment of the Lodge does not
increase fte loading non-conformity, as the new proposal also has a requirement for
one loading berth.
The proposed parking scheme, on the adjacent Lot P-3, does require that the entry to
the parking area be relocated approximatelv 25 feet to the east. This relocated entry
does provide for saterlnlGs anO egress out ot t-ot e-S, anO also allows for the safer
passage of vehicles utilizing the Mill Creek Court'chute'. However, this relocated
entry would remove one of the existing public loading and delivery spaces along
Hanson Ranch Road. The loss of one public loading/delivery space in the Village Core
is not a positive change and it is a major concern to the staff, however, we
acknowledge that the applicant does have a right to safely access Lot p-3. To
mitigate the loss of the one loading/delivery space, the applicant will provide a
loading/delivery berth on-site (adjacent to the dumpster), lor use by the christiania.
D. Conformlty wlth appllcable Elements ot the Vall Comprehenslve plan,
Town pollcles and Urban Deslgn plans.
It is statf's opinion that the proposed redevelopment meets the goals and objectives of
the Vail village Master Plan. The Master Plan emphasizes the upgrading of lodges,
the improvement of the pedestrian experience, as well as the enhancement of open
space.
This proposal supports the Master Plan's objectives by the addition of 7 new
accommodation units (versus the 1991 approval) and by improving and expanding the
existing lobby and bar areas, while generally complying with the Town's site
development standards, except as noted in the memo. Additionally, the proposed Mill
creek pedestrian path will enhance open space for use by the public. The following is
a list of the Vail Village Master Plan Goals, Objectives and Policies which relate to this
project:
GOAL #1 - ENCOURAGE HIGH QUALITY REDEVELOPMENT WHILE
PRESERVING THE UNIQUE ARCHITECTURAL SCALE OF THE
VILLAGE IN OHDER TO SUSTAIN ITS SENSE OF
COMMUNITY AND IDENTITY.
'1.2 Obiective:
Encourage the upgrading and redevelopment of residential and commercial
facilities.
1.3 Obiective:
Enhance new development and redevelopment through public improvements
done by private developers working in cooperation with the Town.
1.3.1 Obiective:
puOtic irnprovernents shall be developed with the participation of the private
sector working with the Town.
GOAL #J2 - TO FOSTER A STRONG TOURIST INDUSTRY AND PROMOTE
YEAR.AROUND ECONOMIC HEALTH AND VIABILITY FOR
THE VILLAGE AND FOR THE COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE.
2.3 9biective:
lncreasE-iffi ngmber of residential units available for short term overnight
accommodations.
2.3.1 Polley:
The development of short term accommodation units is strongly
encouraged. Residential units that are developed above existing density
levels ar-e required to be designed or managed in a manner that makes
them available for short term overnight rental'
2.4.2 PollcY:
Activity that provides night life and evening entertainment lor both the
guest and the community shall be encouraged'
2.5 Obiective:
EncourdfiE-the continued upgrading, renovation and maintenance of existing
lodging ind commercial facilities to better serve the needs of our guests.
2.6 Obiective:
Encourl$Ti6?-evelopment ol affordable housing units through the eflorts of
the private sector.
2,6.1 PolicY:
Employee housing units may be required as part of any new or
redevelopment prolect requesting density over that allowed by existing
zoning.
2.6.2 Policy:
Employee housing shall be developed with appropriate restrictions so as
to insure their availability and affordability to the local work force.
GOAL #3 -TO RECOGNIZE AS A TOP PRIORITY THE ENHANCEMENT
OF THE WALKING EXPEBIENCE THROUGHOUT THE
VILLAGE.
3.1 Obiective:
fnysicflmprwe the existing pedestrian ways by landscaping and other
improvements.
t
3.4 Obiectives:
Develop additionalsidewalks, pedestrian-only walkways and accessible green
space areas, including pocket parks and stream access.
GOAL #4 - TO PRESERVE EXISTING OPEN SPACE AREAS AND
EXPAND GREENSPACE OPPORTUNITIES.
The Vail Village Master Plan sub-area concepts which direcily relates to this
redevelopment proposal are Concepts No, 3-8, Mill Creek Streamwalk, and Concept
No. 7-1, Christiania.A/A Study Area:
#3-8 Mill Creek Streamwalk
A walking only path along Mill Creek between Pirate Ship Park and.-<----Gore@g the pedestrian network and providing
public access to the creek. Specific design and location shall be
sensitive to adjacent uses and the creek environment.
#7-1 ChristianiaA/A Studv Area
Presently zoned for lodging, this parcel currently provides parking for the
Christiania Lodge and Vail Associates. lssues to be addressed in the
clevelopment of this property include covenants restricting the use of this
property to parking, accommodation of existing parking as well as
demand created by new development and a formally adopted view
corridor, looking toward the Gore Range. Public purpose uses that may
be appropriate for this site include parUopen space and/or a central
loading and delivery facility for the Village core.
The staff believes that the applicant's proposal to utilize Lot P-3 for surface parking will
not prohibit the potential future use of the Lot P-3 as discussed above in the Master
Plan.
The Vail Villaoe Urban Design Guide Plan addresses this proposal through sub-Area
Concept No. 8:
.Mill Creek walking path, west side Mill Creek. path completes linkage
@ntain path to Gore Creek Drive.,
The vail Village Master Plan and rhe Urban Design Guide plan both call for the
construction of a pedestrian path connection between the bike path and Hanson Ranch
Road. The addition of a foot path would be a positive improvement to the pedestrian
experience in the village area. Even though the Urban Design Guide plan calls for
the path to be located on the west side of Mill Creek, staff believes that the east side
provides a more attractive walking experience. The west side of the creek has a trash
room for cyrano's, as well as several utility boxes, which make it an unpleasant area
to walk through.
I
,FO
e1Pi ,/""4 ,
0h 4n'
In further support of the above sub-area concepts, the applieent has committed to
remove arrFroximately 550 so. ft. of asphalt area adiacent to Mill Creqk. This paved
area, which is currently used by the Christiania for parking and dumpster storage, is
located on Vail Associates and Christiania owned property.
This proposal was reviewed according to the recently adopted 9lreetscggg-!4aster
Plan. Tlere are no specific to this site,
does orooose a
staff's
E. ldentificailon and mlilgation ot natural and/or geologic hazards that affect
the property on whlch the speclal development dlstrlct ls proposed.
There are no natural and/or geologic hazards which would atlect this propefi and/or
redevelopment proposal. The project is also located out of the established 1O0-year
floodplain.
F. Slte ptan, bulldlng deslgn and locatlon and open space provlslons
designed to produce a functlonal development responslve and sensltlve
to natural features, vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the
community.
The existing front setback is 15 feet due to the encroachment of the northwest corner
of the Lodge. Currently, the west side setback is 17 feet due to an encroachment of
the southwest corner of the building into the 20-foot setback. The existing rear setback
is 8'-6", as the existing Sarah's deck projects 11'-6" into the 20-foot rear setback (see
attached site plan). An existing legal, non-conforming east side setback of zero feet
results from the Christiania's connection to the Chateau condominiums. By adding a
new fourth lloor,44 square feet of additional GRFA will be added into the side setback.
At the tightest point, the west setback will be reduced from the existing 17 feet, down
to 10'-0't, with the addition of the two-car garage. The second and third floors (GRFA)
would encroach 4'-6" into the setback and the fourth floor (GRFA) would encroach 2'-
9" into the setback. Because the zoning code and the Vail Village Master Plan both
encourage the construction ol covered parking, and the fact that this portion of the site
is very heavily screened from adjacent properties, staf{ is able to support the
applicant's request to lurther encroach into the required 2O{oot setback'
G. A clrculation system deslgned for both vehlcles and pedestrlans
addresslng on and off-slte trafflc clrculatlon,
The proposed Christiania redevelopment will have a minimal impact on the existing
vehicular and pedestrian circulation systems adjacent to the Christiania Lodge
property. The proposed parking scheme, on the adjacent Lot P-3' does require that
the entry to the parking area be relocated approximately 25 feet to the east. This
relocated entry does provide for safer ingress and egress out of Lot P-3, and also
movements in this area.
10
allows for the safer passage of vehicles utilizing the Mill Creek Court "chute".
However, this relocated entry would remove one of the existing loading and delivery
spaces along Hanson Hanch Road.
H. Functlonaland aesthetlc landscaplng and open spaee ln order to opilmlze
and preserve natural features, recreailon, vlews and funcilons.
As indicated on the ailached site plan. there are some existing large, mature
evergreens located vEry close to the existing Lodge. The redevelopment proposal
calls for the removal, and relocation, of nine of these large evergreen trees. The
applicant has proposed to add nine ne$, EFpens (3. caliper) adjacent to the Mill Creek
stream tract (to screen the on-site parking) and near the recreation path. Six new
aspens (3" caliper) will be added adjacent to the front, or north, entry to the Lodge. To
further open up the Mill Creek stream tract, the applicant has agreed to remove the
existing split rail fence which is located upon the Vail Associates' owned stream tract.
The wood screen fence around lhe swimming pool will be relocated upon the Lodge's
property, as it is currently located upon the stream tract (Tract E).
The staff feels that the landscaping design is positive because of the applicant's
proposal to relocate all nine of the large evergreens and to add the 15 new aspens on
site. The relocated evergreens would be placed in the adjacent stream tract, and this
relocation effort would be coordinated with the Town Landscape Architect and Vail
Associates. Should these relocated evergreens not survive two growing seasons, the
applicant has agreed to replace any dead or dying tree with an g-1 0' evergreen.
Additional otf-site landscaping will be added around the perimeter of Lot P-3. This
landscaping would consist of 17 new evergreens (6-8' in height), and 10 Potentilla
shrubs along the base of the proposed retaining wall (on the Mill Creek Court Chute).
(According to the zoning code, the off-site landscaping can not be included in the
required landscaping.)
l. Phaslng plan or subdlvlslon plan that wlll malntain a workable, funcflonal
and etflclent relatlonship throughout the development of the speclal
development dlstrict.
The applicant has proposed that the SDD redevelopment plan for the Chrisliania Lodge
be completed at one time. No phasing plan is proposed.
VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
We believe that the Christiania redevelopment meets the criteria for the establishment of a
SDD, as discussed above. The staff recommendation for the proposed establishment of a
Special Development District for the Christiania Lodge is for approval. The applicant has
incorporated the lollowing elements into the proposed development plan:
11
1. The proposed dwelling unit, to be located on the third lloor of the Lodge, will be
restricted according to Section 17.26.075 - Condominium Conversion' of the
Town of Vail Zoning Code.
2. one employee dwelling unit, which shall be provided with a full kitchen
(refrigeritoi, stove, sin-k, oven or microwave), will be permanently restricted as
in eirptoyee dwetling unit, per Section 18.13.080(BX1gxb-d) of the Town of
Vail Zdnirig Gode, prior to tire Town's issuance of any building permits for this
redevelopment.
3. The applicant will obtain a revocable right-of-way permit from the Town in order
to adci ine proposed landscaping at the entrance to the Lot P-3 parking area'
4. Prior to the Town's issuance of any building permits for this redevelopmenl the
Town Engineer must grant final approval for the P-3 parking design' The Town
Engineer-is concemeJ with the design of the proposed retaining.wall adjacent
to the Mill Creek Court "Chute". A curb and gutter section may be necessary to
accommodate drainage in this area.
5. The applicant has agreed that should any of the relocated evergreens not
survive'two growingleasons, such tree shall be replaced w1h an 8-10'
evergreen on a one-to-one ratio.
tf lEc ^!rs?N,*^/"'*- f fr*J 6 n-/ 7i' t?t\, & 4-o'
* i /rft. f*- */( /',^//'<
12
First Level
6 AUs
Otfice (197 sq. ft./2s0)
Second Level
7 AUs
Sarah's Fl f 1,020/1 5/8)
ft'
8" o =1GU =
Fourth Level
2 DUs
5.Christian Chateau Townhomes
TotalGRFA: 12,376 sq. ft.
Exhlblt A
GRFA and Parklng
GRFA
1,932 sq. ft. =
2,2131 sq. ft.
2,972 sq. ft.
551 sq. ft.
4,490 sq. ft.
5.173
8.5
6.146
2.0
5.000
9.000
40.939
- 32.70 (Grandfathered
spaces)
8.239 = 9 Required spaces
Required
Parkinq
1.
2.
3.
4.
4.332
0,788
Total GRFA: 12,376 sq. ft.
Excess Common Area: tl,Zll_Sq.!.
Grand Total: 14,117 sq. ft.
Total Density: 21 AUs and 3 DUs
AU GRFA = 7,335 sq. ft., or 59% ol the total GRFA
DU GBFA = 5,041 sq. ft., or 41"h ot the total GRFA
13
o
First Level
Second Level
Third Level
Fourth Level
Exhlblt B
Common Area
3,104 sq. ft.
1,785 sq. ft.
727 sq.ft.
760 so. ft
6,376 sq. ft.Total:
Allowable GRFA 13,242 sq. ft.
x .3s (35%)
4,635 sq. ft.
6,376 sq. ft.
- 4.635 so. ft.
1,741 sq. ft. - excess common (added to GRFA)
14
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, APRTL 7,1992
7:30 P.M.
EXPANDED AGENDA
7:30 p.m.
Ron Phillips
7:45 p.m.
7:50 p.m.
Andy Knudtsen
8:00 p.m.
Larry Eskwith
8:10 p.m.
Shelly Mello
1.
2.
e
Ten Year Employee Recognition.* Kevin Whelan, Fire Department.
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION.
Consent Agenda:
A. Approvalof Minutes of March 3, 1992, and March 17.
1992 evening meeting minutes.
B. Ordinance No.4, Series of i992, second reading, an
amendment to Chapter 18.34 of the Vait Municipat Code
adding construction staging sites as a conditional use in
the Parking Zone District. (Applicant: Johannes
Faessler)
Ordinance No.5, Series of 1992, first reading, an ordinance
amending Title 9, Section S of the Vail Municipal Code by the
Addition of Chapter g.S4 - Restrictions on the possession of
Glass Containers.
Actio!_EeqUested of Co uncit : Approve/deny/modify Ordi nance
No. 5, Series of 1992, on first reading.
Backoround Rationale: The Vail Recreation District has
requested the passage of this ordinance to deal with a problem
they are having with glass containers in parks and athletic fields.
Staff Recommendation: Approve Ordinance No. 5, Series of
1992, on first reading.
Ordinance No. 7, Series 1992, first reading, an ordinance
adopting the Town of Vail Art in public places program
policies and guidelines; establishing a board for the process of
reviewing proposed public artwork for the Town of Vail; and
setting forth details in regard thereto.
@: Approve/deny/modify Ordinance
No. 7, Series of 1992, on first reading.
Bachg.ro_und Ftationale: ln July, 198g, a resolution was approved
establis,hing a temporary Alpp Board and program. Ordinance
No. 7, Series of 1992, will permanently esiablish the program.
Staff Recommendation: Approve Ordinance No. 7, Series of
1992, on first reading.
4.
5.
8:20 p.m. 6. Ordinance No. 8, Series 1992, first reading, an ordinance
Mike Mollica providing for the establishment of special Development
District No. 28, Christiania at Vail; adopting a development plan
for Special Development District No. 28 in accordance with
Chapter 18.40 of the Vail Municipal Code and setting forth details
in regard thereto. (Applicant: Paul Johnston)
Action Requested of Council: Approve/deny/modify Ordinance
No. 8, Series of 1992, on first reading.
Backoround Rationale: The Planning and Environmental
Commission, on March 23, 1992, in a public hearing,
unanimously recommended approval (by a vote of 4-0) of the
esiablishment of an SDD for the Christiania at Vail.
Staff Recommendation: Statf recommends approval of the
establishment of the sDD request per the staff memo enclosed,
which is dated March 23.1992.
9:50 p.m. 7. Resolution No. g, Series of 1992, a resolution approving the Vail
Greg Hall Transportation Master Plan for the Town of Vail;and setting forth
details in regard thereto.
Action Requested of Council: Review the final report relating to
the Vail Transportation Master Plan.
Backqround Rationale: Council has reviewed and revised the
recommendations relating to the Vail Transportation Master Plan.
The final changes have been included in the final report to the
Council, which is now ready for final Council approval.
Staff Recommendation: Approve Resolution No. 9, Series of
1992.
10:20 p.m. 8. Appointment of Art in Public Places board member.
Shelly Mello
Action Requested ol Council: Appoint one board member.
Background Rationale: Candidate(s) were interviewed at today's
work session.
9. Adjournment.
C:!qGENDA.TCE
t
ORDINANCE NO. 8
Series of 1992
AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF
SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 28,
CHRISTIAN|A AT VAIL; ADOPT|NG A
DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DTSTRICT NO, 28IN ACCORDANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.40 OF THE VAIL MUNICIPAL CODE
AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO.
WHEREAS, Chapter 18.40 of the Vail Municipat Code authorizes Special Development
Districts within the Town in order to encourage flexibility in the development of land; and
WHEREAS, application has been made for Special Development District approval for a
cerlain parcel of property within the Town, legally described as Lot D, Block 2, Vail Village First
Filing, and Lot P-3, Btock 5-A, Vait Viilage Fifth Fiting; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 18.66.140, the Planning and Environmental
Commission held a public hearing on the proposed SDD, and has submitted a recommendation
lor approval to the Town Council; and
WHEREAS, all notices as required by Section 18.66.080 have been sent to the
appropriate parties; and
WHEREAS, the Town Council has held a public hearing as required by Chapter 18.66 of
the Vail Municipal Code.
NOW, THEREFOFIE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF
VAIL, COLORADO THAT:
Section 1
The Town Council finds that all the procedures for Special Development Districts in
Chapter 18.40 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail have been fullv satisfied.
Section 2
The Town Council finds that the development plan for Special Devetopment District No.
28 meets each of the standards set forth in Section 18.40.080 of the Municipal Code of the Town
of Vail or demonstrates that either one or more of them is not applicable, or that a practical
solution consistent with the public inlerest has been achieved. In accordance with Section
18'40'040, the development plan for special Development District No.28 is approved. The
development plan is comprised of those prans submitted by pierce, segerberg & spaeh
Architects, and consists of the following documents:
t
1. Sheet No. A1, dated January 27,1992 and revised March 16, 1992 (site plan).
2. Sheet Nos. A2-A5, dated January 27,1992 and revised March 16, 1992 (first,
second, third and fourth floor plans).
3. Sheet No. A6, dated January 27, 1992 (roof plan).
4. Sheet Nos. A7-A9, dated January 27,1992 and revised March 16, 1992 (North,
South, East and West elevations).
5. sheet No. 11, dated January 27,1992 and revised March 6 and March 16, 1992
(landscape plan).
6. Parking Plan for Lot P-3, dated February 8, 1992 and revised February 18, 1992
and March 16, 1992.
7. North elevation of lobby, dated April 22, 1991.
Section 3
The Town Council finds lhat any deviation of the development standards from the
underlying zone district provides benefits to the Town that outweigh the adverse effects of such
deviation. The development standards for Special Development District No. 28 are approved by
the Town Council as a part of the approved development plan as follows:
A. SETBACKS:
Setbacks shall be as designated on the development plans set forth in Section 2
ol this Ordinance.
B. HEIGHT:
Building height, for a sloping roof, shall not exceed 48 feet lrom existing or finished
grade, whichever is more restrictive; or for a flat or mansard roof, shall not exceed
45 leet from existing or linished grade, whichever is more restrictive.
C. DENSITY:
Development in SDD No. 28 shall be limited to a maximum of 3 dwelling units and
21 accommodation units, as designated on the floor plans set forth in Seclion 2
of this Ordinance, and as follows:
1. The Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) shall be limited to a maximum
ot 14,117 sq. ft., of which 7,335 sq. ft shall be dedicated to accommodation
units,5,041sq.ft.sha||bededicatedtodwe||ingunitsand1,741sq'ft.
I shall be dedicated to excess common area. lt should also be noted that
the provision for an additionar 42s sq. ft. of GRFA, which is appricabre to
certain zone districts, does not apply to this special Development District.
2' The applicant or his successors in interest agree to permanentry restrict
.ne off-site dweiling unit, (the secondary unit in a primary/secondary
residence located at 1194 cabin circle/Lot 2, Block 2, vair Valrey First
Filing, for use by employees of the Upper Eagle Valley (employee housing
unit) in the following manner:
a' The emproyee housing unit shafi be provided with a fuil kitchen
(refrigerator, stove, sink, oven/microwave) and shal not be reased
or rented for any period ress than 30 consecutive days and shail be
rented only to tenants who are full time employees in the Upper
Eagle Valtey.
b. The Upper Eagle Valley shall be deemed to include the Gore
Valley, Minturn, Red Cliff, Eagle_Vail and Avon and their
surrounding areas.
c. A full{ime employee is a person who works an average of thirty
hours per week.
d' The applicant or his successors in interest shall file a declaration of
covenants and restrictions with the crerk and Recorder of Eagre
County in a form approved by the Town Attorney for the benefit of
rhe Town to insure the restrictions sel forth herein sharr run with the
land. said decraration shail not be amended or terminated without
the written approvar of the Town of Vail. subsequent to the
effective date of this ordinance, no buirding permit shail be issued
for the redeveropment of this speciar Deveropment District No. 2g
until said decraration of covenants and restrictions are executed
and tiled with the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder.
3. The applicant or his successors in interest agree to permanently restrict
one on-site dwelling unit, (the third floor dwelling unit in the christiania
Lodge) located at 3s6 Hanson Ftanch Road/Lot D, Block 2, vat Viltage
First Filing, according to section 17.26.07s - condominium conversion, of
I
D.
the Town of Vail Zoning Code. The applicant or his successors in inlerest
shall file a declaration of covenants and restrictions with the Clerk and
Recorder of Eagle County in a form approved by the Town Attorney for the
benefit of the Town to insure the restrictions set forth herein shall run with
the land. Said declaration shall not be amended or terminated without the
writlen approval of the Town of Vail. Subsequent to the effective date of
this ordinance, no building permit shall be issued for the redevelopment of
this Special Development District No. 28 until said declaration of covenants
and restrictions are executed and filed with the Eagle County Clerk and
Recorder.
SITE COVERAGE:
The maximum allowable site coverage for Lot D shall not exceed 39% of the
buildable lot size and shall be as designated on the development plans set forth
in Section 2 of this Ordinance.
LANDSCAPING:
At feast thirty-two percent (32%) ot Lot D shall be landscaped and shall be as
designated on the development plans set forth in Section 2 of this Ordinance'
F. PARKING:
Parking for SDD No. 28 shall be met as designated on the development plans set
forth in Section 2 of this Ordinance.
Section 4
The applicant or his successors in interest agrees to perform the following:
The applicant or his successors in interest shall obtain a revocable right-of-way
permit from the Town in order to add the proposed landscaping at the entrance to
the Lot P-3 parking area, as designated on the development plans set forth in
Section 2 of this Ordinance.
2. The applicant or his successors in interest has agreed to financially participate in
the construction of a sidewalk along the west side of the Mill Creek Court Chute,
E.
t.
ttI
from Hanson Ranch Ftoad to west Gore creek Drive, as designated in the Town's
adopted streetscape Master Plan. such financial contribution shall not exceed
one third of the total cost of the sidewalk.
3. The applicant or his successors in interest has agreed that should any of the
relocated evergreens not survive two growing seasons, such tree shall be replaced
with an 8-10'evergreen on a one-to-one ratio.
Section 5
Amendments to the approved development plan may be granted pursuant to Section 18.40
of the Municipal code of the Town of Vail.
Section 6
lf any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any
reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not effect the validity of the remaining portions of
this ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance, and
each part, section' subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any
One or more parts' sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid.
Section 7
The Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this ordinance is necessary
and proper for the health, safety and welfare of the Town of Vail and the inhabitants thereof.
Section 8
The repeal or the repeal and reenactment of any provision of the Vail Municipal Code as
provided in this ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any
violation lhat occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any
other action or proceeding as commenced under of by virtue of the provision repealed or repealed
and reenacted. The repeal of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any
ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein.
tI
Section 9
All bylaws, orders, resolutions and ordinances, or parts thereof, inconsistent herewilh are
repealed to the extent only of such inconsistency. This repealer shall not be construed to revise
any bylaw, order, resolution or ordinance, or part thereof, theretofore repealed.
INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, APPROVED AND ORDERED PUBLISHED
ONCE lN FULL, this _day of 1992. A public hearing shall be held hereon
on the _ day of 1992, at the regular meeting of the Town Council of the
Town of Vail, Colorado, in the Municipal Building of the Town.
Margaret A. Osterfoss, MaYor
ATTEST:
Martha S. Raecker, Town Clerk
READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDEBED PUBLISHED
this _ day of
-,
1992.
Margaret A. Osterfoss, MaYor
ATTEST:
Martha S. Flaecker, Town Clerk
,L
'Wrr-r-rn ru LMoRToN
April S, 1992
Ms. Kristan Pritz
75 South Frontage Road Road
Vail, CO 81657
Dear Ms. Pritz:
I wi-gh to convey to you my concerns regarding the
{pplication for a Special Development District by the
Christiania at Vail.
As an adjacent property owner, with a residential
condominium in the Mill Creek Court Building, I am
directly impacted by the Christiania proposal. the closeproximity of the remodel project to my residence will havc
a significant impact. I would ask that you consider my
concerns_during the public hearing on this matter. They
are as follows:
1. Setback Encroachments: The proposed expansion,
exclusive ofbalconies, intrudes into tire iequired setback'
on different floors from 2'-G" to 4'-6". The -encroachments
will intrude into the views from my apartment. As you
know,-our neighborhood is not pro[ect-ed by view "o""idotsand, therefore, I must rely on the enforcement of the
setback in order to insure that my views and open spaces
are protected. I would ask that you deny the setbacli
encroachments on the upper floors of the building.
2. , Garage Encroachment/Garbage Dumpster: The
existence ofgarbage dumpsters and-sheds throughout the
community is_unsightly and, in many cases, unJanitary.
The proposal for the handling of refuie from theChrisitania has just not been thought out thoroughly or inwhat would be the best interest of the pedestrians-ut a att
of us in the surrounding community. -Since
one of the
stated purposes of the remodeling project is to upgrade
the.propcrty, I would suggest that-enilosing the d'umpsterwithin the structure of the building shouldle consid&ed.It's easy to recognize that existing-or proposed
Ms. Kristan Pitz
April S, 1992
Page 2
Iandscaping would not sufficiently obscure the trash
dumpster from public view. I would suggest the setback
for the garage be denied unless the dumpster could be
incorporated nrith the building.
3. Streetscape fmprovements: I have read about the
Streetscape plan recently adopted by the Town Council.
As such, there are opportunities for the applicant to
incorporate into the development plan some or all of these
ideas that would certainly enhance the project. This
would include upgrading street edges using brick or
concrete block pavers, improving landscaping, a stone
planter replacing the tie-timber planter on Hanson Ranch
Road, decorative street lights, and facing the retaining
wall on the P-3 site with native stone, curbs and gutters.
4. Special Development District: Aft,er reading the
rules and regulations about SDD, I would suggest the use
of that for the Christiania project is inappropriate. My
interpretation would be the intention of SDD is for new
development, and this certainly is not. Further, most
categories where the proposal exceeds standard zoning
requiremenl;s, would not be permitted by the limitations
placed upon the expansion of non-conforming uses or
variances. My feeling is the SDD is being used as a
means to avoid the limitations placed upon the expansion
of existing non-conforming uses and, therefore, tliis
request for SDD should be denied.
!t-is not my intent to attempt to deny the owners of
Christiania at Vail their legitimate property development
rights. I have no opposition to the apprbvalthat wai
granted in 1991. However, I cannot support a building
glpansion that gives special privileges and benefits to the
Christiania at the expense of my rights as well as those of
other adjacent property owners.
Ms. Kristan Pritz
April S, 1992
Page 3
I wish that I could be there to personally present my
views. Instead, I hope you will accept this letter and its
consideration.
William Morton
cc: Paul Johnston
RffEtvFnAPRf3tee2
ROBERT W. GALVIN
I3O3 EAST ALGONOU IN ROAD
SCHAU M BURG, ILLINOIS 60I96.I065
Apil 6, 1992
Mayor and Town Council
Town of Vail
75 South Fronrage Road West
Vail, CO 81657
Dear Mayor Osterfoss and Town Council Memtrers:
I- wish to bring to your attention, on behalf of the members of the East village
Homeowners Association, our concerns with regard to the Special De velopm-entDistrict being proposed by the Christiania ar V;il.
It is the general perspective of the Homeowners Association that the Christianiaproposal- is an inappropriate application of the special Development District pro-vision of the Town of Vail zoning codc. We are concerned thai if the applicati,on isapproved that there will be a setting of a precedent that will blur and confuse thepurpose of the SDD provision.
The members of the Board of Directors and myself have revicwed the Special De-velopment District provision and the christianii application. Ir is our positionthat the purpose of the Special Development Districi is for new development or forthe substantial tear down of an existing building and the redevelopment of thesite. It is our contention that the Chriitiania does not conform to ihe stated pur-pose of the SDD provision.
We do not believe it is appropriate that the Special Development Districr provisioncan be used as a means of
. circumvcnting the requirements of its underlying zoncdistrict- _ specifically, at a minimum all zoning standards must be met before aSpecial Development District can be considered.
It^ is ina,ppropriare, we believe, ro use rhe special Development District as a rneansof avoiding prohibitions found in the nonconforming and variance provisions ofthe zoning code' We find that the degree and numbir of the requested categoriesthat exceed standard zoning requiremen-ts would suggest a grant of special -privi-
lege.
It is our contention that the exisring sDD provision allows for the continued ex-pansion of the christiania bcyond underlying zoning Iimitation. The provisionallows for staff approved minor amendmentJ and major amendments thal removes.ubstantial protections for adjacent propcrty owners guaranteed by standard zoncdistricts. we are grearly troubled by trre broad latitudi described by this provi-sron.
Mayor Osterfoss and Town Council Members
April 6, 1992
Page Two
we also concur with the points and criticisms raised in the March 9, lg92 memo-
randum submitted to the Planning and Environmental commission by our plan-
ning Consultant. We ask that thcse items be specifically and thoroughly addressedby thc town staff and the applicant.
It is not our intent to attempt to deny the owners of Christiania at Vail their legit-
imate property development righr.s. we have no opposition to the approval thal
was granted in 1991. Howcver, we cannot support a building expansion that gives
special privileges and benefits ro the christiania at the expense of the rights se-cured by the zoning code for adjacent property owners.
Robert W. Galvin
President
East Vill age Homeowners Assoc.
RWG:ch
cc: Jim Lamont
t-
f
To: Tohrn of VailPlanning and Environrnental Conmission
From: Jirn Lamont, planning Consultant
Date: March gr L992
IFt.a.request- for the establishment of a Special DevelopmentDistrict at the Christiania at Vail
The East Village.Homeowners Association, Inc. is inreceipt of public notices, application docunrents, andD-epartnent of community Deveibpnent rnemoranda asiociated withthe reques! t9 establish a speiial Developnent District a! ---
the Christiania at Vail
On behalf of the East ViIIage Homeowners Association.our review of the docurnentation frovided to date indicate!the following:
I. There is insufficient iustification for theestablishnent of a_ Special Dev6lopurent District at theChristiania at Vail.-
l-. There are insufficient improvements in the publicinterest to warrant the degree of'variance n-Ing reiuestedfrom established zoning deieloprnent standards.
a. The,providing of one off-site enployee dwelling unitancl one on-site short tern restricted aweitiirq unit are-notsufficient -public improvements to warrant in-ieJ-inq tneg9l:rty and c-ongestion that currently exists in the-Eastvrl-J-age neighborhood.
b. The renoval of asphalt, reLocation of a fence off ofpublic property, and the c-onstruction of . p"Ce=tiian walkincrpaE,n on stream tract land are not a sufficient publicimprovenent to offset the irnposition Ji-in;;;;68;-aensity andsetback incursions.
- 9.. The application increases the violation of
Yll:tllllg zoning, standards rather than bring the building
lltg ql:3:er^conpliance with zoning standardi. The propo6alls ?.grant. of special privilege th;t is not generalliavarl-abre to other property o*ners in the safre zone &istrictor neighborhood.
2. The analysis.of review criteria provided by theDevelopmelF 9f Comrnunity Development staf? is in-ornilete,and insufficient- Theri is a lick of documenteo eviaenc6 uythe applicant. or the town staff "r pioi"cf iiipi"t= and that
:l:_pl?ppsed. rmprovernents wiII directly offseL the impactscreaEed by the proposal.
To: Town of VaiIPlanning and Environmental CommissionFrom: Jim Larnont, Planning ConsultantDate: March 9, ]-992
3T:.A.reguest for the establish:nent of a Special DevelopmentDistrict at the Christiania at VailPage Two
a. rrGrandfathering,tr of parking, loading, and setbackincursions is an inappropriat-e justiiication-ior thecontinuation.of practice-s that,-by allowing increases inaLlowed.density,- aggravates kniwn-problems-of function andcongestlon.
b. The evaluation of the Special Development Districtcriteria is incomplete. Neither Lhe staff rep-ort nor theapplication speciiically addresses the proposil'sconpatibility and sensilivity to the "naishborhood andadjacent properties,,r accordi.nq to the est.ablished criteriaof architectural design, scale, butk, building height, bufferzones, identity, character, visual integrity ind oiieirtation.
c. The justification of GRFA increases over allowedunderlying zoning,Iinits based upon changes in definition ofGRFA is inappropriate.
d. The justification of GRFA and Common Area overallowed underlying zoning linrits based upon excessiverncreases in proposed cornmon area is inappropriate.
e. The justification for the manner in whichconformance with parkinq requirements are achieve is notconp-atible-with underlying ioning requirernents and provisionsof the Vail village Mastei plan.- eoils and policie-s do notprovide for off-site parking.
f. The justification for the proposal based upon arecitation of sel_ected goals and objeclives from tha VailVillage iiaster Plan is Incornplete. -The site is notdesignated as an in-fill sit6.
S. The justification that the proposal conforns toolhg-r planning and design policies i3 iirconplete. portionsof the Streetscape plan-apply.
h. The evidence to justify that one off-site employee
fousing unit^is an adequale inc3ntive to allow severai rniiorrncursions of underlying zoning is insuffj-cient.
i. The evidence to justify that one on-site short termrestrict dwelling unit is-an ad-equate incentive to allowseveral roajor incursions of underlying zoning isinsufficieit -
t"
To: Town of VailPlanning and Environnental CornmissionFrom: Jirn Lamont, planning ConsultantDate: March 9, L99Z
ITi-l-.1:S,rgs!. for the establishnent of a Special Developmentf,rrstrtct at the Christiani.a at VailPage Three
, _i: .Thg evidence to justify setback incursions isrnsul ! ICJ.ent .
k. The evj_dence that existing traffic congestion onpublic.streets wiII be improved by-the proposal islnsurtlclent. Traffic congestion-is a mai-or problen at theintersection of Hanson nan6h aoad ind t[J'lriri-ciEek chute.
Sunmary:
Due to the incompleteness of the evidence anddocumentation, please- note that our conments and criticismare not necessarily liuited to subjects that are addressed inthis mernorandum.
?he Board of Directors of the East Villaqe HomeownersAssociation, rnc. requests that suriicient-e;an;;L"tion indevrqence ne. provided so that an adequate evaluation of thermpacts of this project can be compieted.
At thj.s time, there is insufficient -iustification forthe.creation of a special Developmeni pi=tii"r-i"i-trr"Christiania at Valr.
The. Board of Directors of the EastAssociation, Inc. objects to the proj"ctnot support the projects as propo^sedl
It is. requested that the Town of vail planning anit-E;nvlronmental commission deny the application as pioposed.
Village Homeownersas proposed and does
t tt f{qcc d. , tl 6s}tt\
bc.cr'ltf (O SDaoto
tf.\c,rch < r ugll---
.Ra,oeh-Rqa^d. . - €tc-
:c- *\L{rr-----?a=S
=- cagg{rc,ro*rcL r4ru-C :\rsr**lai+_ EEjrr--{r4u** :b:--zr'*a}rri>h. -a,--:groiaJ* }rrUr.toprornt'
r=Jrict--s!:-\ilnt- (lrriatracrla"* - q* .l c.-i !-. , aG (o Hanraq_.==-
.- rn--tu;n-+rof.f-t\l 'y,J*:u- --nI+ ne$--rIte: \c^,,' L -brcorout _+n __-o-$trhu i l* _g4oe_
-- lt --V:oFa \\lnt-,lP i :'ai on-oord-f,n"rn*,-
Ll -Uilt ftrcrarr.cr -.-_ co d-\Unt- {aIUa- -ofhpatz-._ tE-+. bqck_iqu- --cts -+o- -o0r-
L \Ar-\\ O4g\ t t-,ra*e*-- Ogr"+\
hetrp -rcr r+r"r\: ftqafd*
?-rcrc
hor&=xc'- C -
-'nLf
' Jl''
i?ij '-'
Jlll Kanrnerer, Senior planner
Town of Vail Conrmunity Development75 South Frontage RoadVaiI, Colorado gl-657
Re: Your file - christiania Lodge, special Development District
Dear JilI:
This letter is written in response to a reguest frorn ilayPeterson, attorney for Christiania Lodge. Specificalty, VaiiAssociates, rnc. ("vA") has been r"quelted t-o provide irittenconfirmation that christiania may continue to irse property owned. byvA for christiania.parking. Although va is not preparea Lo conrnitto provide any additional parking required by thl clristianiaspeciar Development DistriLt ptan, va is agrLeable to christianiarsparking- on.vA's property to tLe extent vA is legally obligatedunder the terms of that certain warranty oeed dited-July 5, 1963,recorded in Book.LiT aE page Lz7 and ttrlt certain agreeireni, by andanong vail Associates, rnc., christiania-at-vail , rnc. and Town ofvaiL dated March L5, L978, recorded in Book 2]-2 at paqe 877 (therlAgreementrr). However, please be advised that it appears to us,based 9n al irnprovements location map Drepared Uy niqfe Valleysurveying dated (revised) January rsl issi, chri;tia;ia is noicurrentry parking in the location specified in the Agreement, butlnsteact is using other v_A property and a portion of platted roadwaydedicated to the Town of vlir. vi hereby acknowledgis and isagreement with such current parking rocalion until i,he foregoingissues, presently being studied, aie resorved among vA, christiiniaand Town of Vail.
Although VA has no objection to christianiars continuingthrough the Town of Vail speciar Development District review-proges?, VA specifically retains the right to review thechristiania special Dev-ropurent Distric€ plan and express anyconcerns and/or objections we may have regarding the-projeetl
OraiL@
Vail Associates, Inc.
Cteators and Operators of Vail and Beaver Creel€ Resorts
March 5, L992
Posr Office Box 7 r Vail, Colorado 81658 . USA - 001) 4?6-5601
JiIl Kannarerllarch 5, L992
Page 2
If you have any questions or concernsof VA relating to the application for theSpecial Developnent District, please feel-
Department at 479-31-00.
regarding the position
Christiania Lodgersfree to contact the Legal
Very truly yours,
socrATES, rNc.
Larry Er
Executive President
cc: PauI Johnson
Jay Peterson
Lichli
Vice
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
MEMORANDUM
Planning and Environmental Commission
Community Development Department
March 9, 1 992 (Re$lsedltrlaf$h ..-23; ;if,992)
A request for the establishment of a Special Development District at the
Christiania at Vail, 356 Hanson Ranch Road/Lot D, Block 2, Vail Village First
Filing, and Lot P-3, Block 5-A, Vail Village Fifth Filing.
Applicant: Paul JohnstonPlanner: Mike Mollica
I. INTRODUCTION
Paul Johnston, owner and operator of the Christiania at Vail, has liled a request for the
establishment of a Special Development District, for his property located at 355 Hanson
Banch Road. The purpose for this SDD establishment is to allow for the expansion and
redevelopment of the existing Christiania Lodge.
The Christiania at Vail has an existing, Town approved development plan. This development
planwasapprovedbythePlanningandEnvironmental CommissiononApril 8, 1991. This
approval granted a setback variance in order to allow for the expansion of the Christiania
Lodge's lobby and a 44 sq. ft. expansion of GRFA (on the proposed fourth floor), into the
setback. This setback variance is valid untir 1;r'il 8, 1992. Subsequent to this PEC approval
ol the variance, the Design Review Board, orr;i.ne 5, 1991 , unanimously approved the final
design for the Christiania redevelopment. This redevelopment included the expansion of the
existing lobby, the addition of mechanical space beneath the lobby, and the addition of a new
fourth floor, which included two new dwelling units.
II. DESCRIPTION OF THE REOUEST
The applicant's redevelopment proposal generally includes the upgrade and renovation of the
existing Christiania Lodge, as follows:
' The addition of a new fourth floor on the existing structure, which would consist
of two dwelling units.
. A general reconfiguration of the existing first, second and third floors of the
Lodge, by reconfiguring accommodation units, adding dwelling units as well as
common area. A total of 21 accommodation units and 3 dwelling units,
comprising ',14;117 sq. ft. of GRFA, is proposed.
The expansion of the existing Sarah's Bar, from 774sq. ft. to 1,171 sq. ft. in
size (an increase of 397 sq. ft.).
The construction of a garage which would provide two on-site covered parking
spaces. The garage would be located at the southwest corner of the building.
Addilionel.GRF,Al,would,,be, tocated.|,ovcql.thei:igaiag6.]aiea,,,,on,,!!.oo"1$,two,,1hree
and {our.
1il.
' Tl.. constrrf n of ,!9 vare! (surface) parking ,p".fio be rocated on the
adjacenl Parcel P-3, to the north. This parking area would be surfaced with
asphalt, and would be landscaped around its perimeter.
' The restriction of one of the three dwelling units, according to the Condominium
Conversion section of the zoning code.
' The provision of one off-site, permanently restricted employee housing unit.
' The construction of a walking path, along the east side of Mill creek (this witl
require approval from Vail Associates, owner of the tract). The existing split rail
fence, located adjacent to Mill Creek, would be removed. as would the
approximately 550 sq. tt. of asphalt area, currenfly used for parking and the
trash dumpster. The relocation and enclosure of the trash dumpster, t6,the
northwes! corner,:of lhe: chrisllanla ;piopeity
' Additional landscaping would be added on and adjacent to the Mill creek
stream tract (which !$ .oWned.,by,Vail,:A5s0ciates) and adjacent to the recreation
oath.
' The screen fence located around the swimming pool would be relocated onto
the Christiania Lodge's property, (it is curren|y on the slream trac.i).
' of the seven proposed fireplaces, six are proposed to be gas. The existing
woodburning fireplace located in sarah's Bar will remain woodburnino.
BACKGROUND AND HISTORY
A' May 11, 1987 - the Planning and Environmental commission voted to approve
density and setback variances in order to allow lor the construction of additions
to the Christiania Lodge. Subsequent to the 1987 pEC approvalof the
variance request, no construction has occurred.
B. March 6, 1991 - a redevelopment proposal which did not require any
variance/PEC approvals was reviewed and approved by the Design Fleview
Board (DBB). Under this redevelopment proposal, the applicant proposed to
add a new fourth floor to the existing structure to accommodate 2 new dwelling
units, to remodel the structure's interior, to construct a walking path along Mill
creek, to screen the existing dumpster, to pave and landscap-e the eastern half
of the northern parking lot (when ownership and rights to this lot are resolved),
and to remove a portion of an existing asphalted area adjacent to the proposed
Mill Creek walking path.
c. April 8, 1991 - the Planning and Environmental commission unanimously
approved a setback variance for the Christiania Lodge in order to allow for the
expansion of the Lodge's lobby and a44 sq. ft. expansion of GFTFA (on the
proposed fourth floor), into the tront setback area.
D. June 5, 1991 - the Design Review Board unanimously granted final design- approval for the redevelopment of the Christiania Lodge, as approved by the
PEC on April 8, 1991.
tv. zoNrNG coNsrpERlNS
Zone District: Public Accommodation
Slte Area:0.380 acres or 16,553 sq. ft.
The following zoning analysis highlights the SDD's deparlures, from lhe PA zone district, by the use of
bold type:
Underlylng Zoning
(PA)
9 DUsA. Denslty (25 DUs per
bulldable acre: 1 DU = 2
AUs)
8,.,.,AU, GRFAj
::tit:t:::tDU
'9P54.i:tl :!: :::EICegSr:COmmon,
C. Total GRFA" (80ol" of
the bulldsble site ares)
G. GroCS Aiea"
H. Setbacks
NorthiFront
East Side
West Side
Soulh/Rear
l. Site Coverage (55% of
site area)
J. Landscaping (30% of
sile area)
K. Heighl
N/A
20 ft. all sides
9,104 sq. ft.
(5s%)
4,966 sq. lt.
(30%)
48 ll. sloping rool/
45 11. llat roof
18;93! sql tt;
1s',-0"
0'-0"
17'-0"
8'-6"
5,738 sq. {1.
(3s%)
5,943 sq. f't.
(36%)
43 ft. flat
N/A
l.'l/a
!!/A
13,242 sq. it.
(80"/.)
ExistinE Project
2 DUs and 25 AUs-fi45Dus-
6i.72o sqr lli
1r;082 sq; ft;
:l: ril.tf5rr Sq::r tti!
7;802 sq. fl.
(*7.1,j)
l3i4?8 tgi:tt;
r5'-0"
17'-0"
8'-6'(deck)
5,235 sq. ft.
(3?/.',)
7,490 sq. ft.
(4sv.)
36 ft. sloping
1991 Approval
2 DUs and 14 AUs
-9DUs
7.;850. sq,,,{1.
4;453 bq,ifl;
il i:02:l: ,Pg i. fil
13i324 sq. ft.
(80i1c)
1992 sDD
3 DUs and 21 AUs = 13.5-E0s .-
7.;435.::tq,::ft,:
F;04t1 ::sE:i,:Jr,:
ll.i|$;! .,su,,ft,'
l,4jlil7 sq. fl.
(897.1
20;574',sa, ft.
't5'-0"
0'-0"
10'-0"
g'-6"
6,450 sq. ft.
(3e%)
5,356 sq. fl.
(32i1pl
44 ii. f lat
D. Common Area (35ol. of 4,635 sq. ft.
the allowable GRFA) (35%)
E. Accessory (10% of 1,324 sq. ft.
conslructed GRFA) (10%)
F. Office NiA
f;:7.80- sq. lt. 5:656 sq. lt. 6,376 sq. ft.
(96L") (+1i/.c) (48v.l
774 sq. fi. 774 sq.fi. 1,171 sq. ft.
(10o/.) (6./") (8%)
72 sq. ft. (approved 197 sq. ft. 197 sq. tl.
by conditional use in (approved by
1989) conditional use in
1989)
L. Parking
Spaces Required N/A 36 34 41
Spaces Requlred/ N/A 33 33 33
Non-Conforming"'
Spaces Provided N/A 3 3 25
' For comparison purposes, all GRFA calculalions were compleled using the Town's 1992
definition of GRFA.
Gross area Cekxrlalions:indudpAUiGBFAi:TDUTGHF :;::Dommon;,,accessory;: ofiice,:and garage
A{eas::
SFaces :reouiied/nohr0ntoimirq ,,are,!he,,iigfandfathe.iedl,]:parking SpaCeS,,as discussed:in
Seclion V;C of this,meqp,,
V. SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTFIICT CRITERIA
The criteria to be used to evaluate this proposal are the 9 Special Development District (SDD)
development standards set forth in the special development district chapter of the Zoning
Code. The criteria are as follows:
A. Deslgn compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment,
nelghborhood and adjacent properties relative to architectural design,
scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, ideniity, character, visual
Integrity and orientation.
It is the staff's opinion that the proposed redevelopment of the Christiania Lodge will be
compatible with the existing land uses surrounding the project. We believe that the
proposed mass and bulk for this structure is acceptable, given the existing footprint of
the Christiania Lodge, and the adjacent Chateau Condominiums. The projecl would
have a maximum height of 44 feet, which is just slightly under the maximum allowable
height of the PA zone district. Additionally, the proposed height would also be within
the acceptable limits as outlined in the Vail Village Master Plan, which recommends
that this property have a maximum height range of 3-4 stories in height (27-36 feet,
excluding roof).
This project has been analyzed according to the proposed Frivolous Sals View
Corridor. This view corridor was approved by the Town Council on first reading, on
May 7, 1991, with the stipulation that anv previouslv approved projects could be built,
even though they may encroach into the view corridor. At the time of first reading, it
was anticipated that the Christiania redevelopment would encroach into this view
corridor. Since the 1991 approval of the Christiania redevelopment, there have been
some slight design modifications which would affect the proposed Frivolous Sals View
Corridor. Changes to the roof configuration on the northwest corner of the Christiania
Lodge would create an additional encroachment into the corridor. However, the
northernmost portion of the building would be pulled out of the proposed view corridor.
Overall, the staff believes the applicant's proposal is reasonable, given the fact that the
Frivolous Sals View Corridor has not been formally adopted upon second reading.
Although the proposed SDD would exceed the maximum allowable GRFA by 875 sq.
ft., it should be noted that 1,741 sq. ft. of GRFA is directly attributable to "excess"
common area. The common areas in the Lodge include the mechanical areas, the
hallways, stairs, storage areas, lobby and hotel offices. lt should also be noted that
the residential part of the GRFA, which constitutes rll:2,376 sq. ft., is actually under the
maximum allowable GRFA, as designated in the PA zone district. Please refer to
Exhibit A for a detailed breakdown of the proposed GRFA.
B. Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efticienl and
workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity.
Under the proposed redevelopment scenario, the applicant will be reducing the overall
density of the proposed project by one dwelling unit. This is in contrast with the
existing project, which has a total of 14.5 dwelling units. In summary, a total oi three
dwellinq units and twenty-one accommodation units are proposed with this SDD. As
indicated in Section lV(D) of this memorandum, the Vail Village Master Plan
encourages the provision of shorl term, overnight hotel rooms (accommodation units).
The proposed Christiania SDD is in compliance with the definition of "Lodge", in which
"the gross residential floor area devoted to accommodation units exceeds the gross
residential floor area devoted to dwelling units." As further indicated in the attached
Exhibit A, the GRFA devoted to accommodation units exceeds 59% ol the total GRFA
for the project.
Because this SDD request exceeds the maximum allowable density for the PA zone
district, the applicant has agreed to restrict the third floor dwelling unit according to
Section 17.26.075 - Condominium Conversion, of the Town's zoning code. This
section of the code includes rental restrictions and generally provides that
condominium units shall be included in the short term rental market for certain periods
of time. Staff believes placing the rental restriclion on only one of the three dwelling
units is acceptable because the applicant is reducing the overall density of the project
by one dwelling unit (versus the existing project), and the fact that the GRFA
exceedance is due to the overage of common areas. Additionally, the applicant has
agreed to provide one off-site, permanently restricted employee dwelling unit. This unit
would be the secondary unit in a primary/secondary residence owned by the applicant.
The restricted employee unitwillbe located al 1184 Cabin Circle/Lot 2, Block 2, Vail
Valley First Filing.
Although this SDD proposal would provide four less accommodation units then the
existing project (21 versus 25), staff believes that when the Christiania Special
Development District is reviewed in its entirety, the project meets the SDD qriteria.
There are public benefits, such as the employee restricted dwelling unit, the Mill Creek
walking path, additional landscaping, two enclosed parking spaces, a paved parking
area, etc., which should be considered. We believe the prolect provides a workable
relationship with surrounding uses and activity as described above.
C. Compliance with parking and loadlng requirements as outlined in Chapter
18.52.
This SDD proposal calls for the addition of a two-car garage, (to be located in the
southwest corner of the proposed addition), two surface parking spaces to be provided
immediately north of the garage, and,.two,Su,rIaCe,parking spaCe.slnorth,b.f.''lne..,tObb}
{on-site). Additionally, the applicant is proposing;19valet (surface) parking spaces on
the adjacent Lot P-3, north of Hanson Banch Road (please see the attached site plan).
The proposed parking area on Lot P-3 would be surfaced with asphalt, would include
landscaping around its perimeter, and a retaining wall on the west side of the lot. Wjth
this:,SDDi :rhe !o!at., n,Umbei:!o!: prioprosed ipar:king ,spaces,would be 25.
Use
Sub-Total
Grandfathered Spaces
Grand Total
Existino
# Soaces Reouired
JJ. /
-32J_
3,0*
1992 SDD
# Spaces Flequired
(21 AUs) = 15.6
(3 DUs) = 7.0
8.5
no
9.0
40.9
-32f,-
8.2 = 9.0
Accommodation Units: (25 AUs) = 16.4
Dwelling Units: (2 DUs)= 4.0
Accessory (Sarah's Lounge): 6.0
Realty Office: 0.3
Christian Chateau Townhomes: 9.0
'The Town of Vail recognizes that the Christiania Lodge has 3 existing parking spaces.
These three parking spaces are located on the Christiania Lodge site and are
considered legal, nonconforming spaces due to their location within the required front
setback.
In summary, this SDD requires that a total ot 6 new oarkino spaces be provided on-
site. The applicant is proposing a total of 25 parking spaces for the projecl,22 ot
whidh:a!:e nbw. However, the proposed parking plan deviates from the parking
reouirements of the PA zone district as follows:
The parking is not provided entirely on-site.
75% ot the required parking is not located within the main building or
buildings and hidden from public view.
The Christiania is technically 32.7 parking spaces short, as required per the zoning
code. However, the proposed SDD will meet the incremental increase of required
parking with the P-3 parking lot, the oh'site valet parking and the pioposed garage.
Historically, the ChriS$ania has.,pqked o.n porlions:of lhe proper! to the ndrth dtot J),
however, this arrangement haS:,not been officially,,le-Cognlzed by the Tbwn. Given the
siting of the existing Christiania Lodge, and the fact that the applicant has a perpetual
easement to park on the adjacent Lot P-3, staff believes the applicant's proposed
parking scheme is acceptable, and will be an improvement over the existing parking
con{iguration.
Also, according to Section 18.52.060 of the Town's Zoning Code, "the Town Council
may permit off-site or jointly used parking lacilities if located within three hundred feet
't.
z-
Loadlng: The existing Christiania Lodge has a requirement for one loading berth. No
loading berths are currently provided for the Lodge, and the loading requirement is
considered "grandfathered". The proposed redevelopment of the Lodge does not
increase the loading non-conformity, as the new proposal also has a requirement for
one loading berth.
The proposed parking scheme, on the adjacent Lot P-3, does require that the entry to
the parking area be relocated approximately 25 feet to the east. This relocated entry
does provide for safer ingress and egress out of Lot P-3, and also allows for the safer
passage of vehicles utilizing the Mill Creek Court 'chute". However, this relocated
entry would remove one of the existing public loading and delivery spaces along
Hanson Ranch Road. The loss of one public loading/delivery space in the Village Core
is not a positive change and it is a major concern to the staff, however, we
acknowledge that the applicant does have a right to safely access Lot P-3. To
mitigate the loss of the one loading/delivery space, the applicant will provide a
loading/delivery berth on-site (adjacent to the dumpster), lor use by the Christiania.
D. Conformity with applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan,
Town pollcles and Urban Design Plans.
It is staff's opinion that the proposed redevelopment meets the goals and objectives of
the Vail Village Master Plan. The Master Plan emphasizes the upgrading of lodges,
the improvement of the pedestrian experience, as well as the enhancement of open
space.
This proposal supports the Master Plan's objectives by the addition of 7 new
accommodation units (versus the 1991 approval) and by improving and expanding the
existing lobby and bar areas, while generally complying with the Town's site
development standards, exoept,,as.:,noted,:in:the,:memo. Additionally, the proposed Mill
Creek pedestrian path will enhance open space for use by the public. The following is
a list of the Vail Village Master Plan Goals, Objectives and Policies which relate to this
project:
GOAL #1 - ENCOUHAGE HIGH QUALITY REDEVELOPMENT WHILE
PRESERVING THE UNIQUE ARCHITECTURAL SCALE OF THE
VILLAGE IN OBDEB TO SUSTAIN ITS SENSE OF
COMMUNITY AND IDENTITY.
1.2 Obiective:
Encourage the upgrading and redevelopment of residential and commercial
facilities.
1.3 Obiective:
Enhance new development and redevelopment through public improvements
done by private developers working in cooperation with the Town.
1.3.1 Obiective:
Public improvements shall be developed with the participation of the private
sector working with the Town.
GOAL #2 - TO FOSTER A STRONG TOURIST INDUSTRY AND PROMOTE
YEAR-AROUND ECONOMIC HEALTH AND VIABILITY FOR
THE VILLAGE AND FOR THE COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE.
2.3 Obiective:
Increase the number of residential units available tor short term overnight
accommodations.
2.3.1 Policy:
The development of short term accommodation units is strongly
encouraged. Residential units that are developed above existing density
levels are required to be designed or managed in a manner that makes
them available for short term overnioht rental.
2.4.2 Policy:
Activity that provides night life and evening entertainment for both the
guest and the community shall be encouraged.
2.5 Obiective:
Encourage the continued upgrading, renovation and maintenance of existing
lodging and commercial facilities to better serve the needs of our guests,
2.6 Obiective:
Encourage the development of affordable housing units through the efforts of
the orivate sector.
2.6.1 Policy:
Employee housing units may be required as part of any new or
redevelopment project requesting density over that allowed by existing
zoning.
2.6.2 Policy:
Employee housing shall be developed with appropriate restrictions so as
to insure their availability and affordability to the local work force.
GOAL #3 - TO RECOGNIZE AS A TOP PRIOHITY THE ENHANCEMENT
OF THE WALKING EXPERIENCE THROUGHOUT THE
VILLAGE.
3.1 Obiective:
Physically improve the existing pedestrian ways by landscaping and other
improvements.
3.4 Obiectives:
Develop additional sidewalks, pedestrian-only walkways and accessible green
space areas, including pocket parks and stream access.
GOAL #4 - TO PRESERVE EXISTING OPEN SPACE AREAS AND
EXPAND GREENSPACE OPPORTUN ITIES.
The Vail Village Master Plan sub-area concepts which directly relates to this
redevelopment proposal are Concepts No. 3-8, Mill Creek Streamwalk, RhcliCohCEpt
;No;.::,7: 1 i.,,Ohrisfi aniffi ;S!Udy'Afea:
#3-8 Mill Creek Streamwalk
A walking only path along Mill Creek between Pirate Ship Park and
Gore Creek, further completing the pedestrian network and providing
public access to the creek. Specific design and location shall be
sensitive to adjacent uses and the creek environment.
#7::1,:: Gh rBtieniaA/ArrStUdVrrAtee
The Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan addresses this proposal through Sub-Area
Concept No. 8:
"Mill Creek walking path, west side Mill Creek. Palh completes linkage
from pirate ship and mountain path to Gore Creek Drive."
The Vail Village Master Plan and The Urlcan Design Guide Plan both call for the
construction of a pedestrian path conneclion between the bike path and Hanson Ranch
Road. The addilion of a foot path would be a positive improvement to the pedestrian
experience in the Village area. Even though the Urban Design Guide Plan calls for
the path to be located on the west side of Mill Creek, staff believes that the east side
provides a more aftractive walking experience. The west side of the creek has a trash
room for Cyrano's, as well as several utility boxes, which make it an unpleasanl area
to walk through.
ln further support of the above sub-area concepts, the applicant has committed to
remove approximately 550 sq. ft. of asphalt area adjacent to Mill Creek. This paved
area, which is currently used by the Christiania for parking and dumpster storage, is
located on Vail Associates and Christiania owned property.
E. ldentification and mitigatlon of natural and/or geologic hazards that affect
the property on whlch the special developmeni dlstrict is proposed,
There are no natural and/or geologic hazards which would affect this property and/or
redevelopment proposal. The project is also located out of the established 1oo-year
floodplain.
F. Site plan, building design and localion and open space provisions
designed to produce a lunctional developmenl responsive and sensitive
to natural features, vegetation and overall aesthetic quality ol the
community.
The existing front setback is 15 feet due to the encroachment of the northwest corner
of the Lodge. Currently, the west side setback is 17 feet due to an encroachment of
the southwest corner of the building into the 2O-foot setback. The existing rear setback
is 8'-6", as the existing Sarah's deck projects 1 1'-6" into the 2O-foot rear setback (see
attached site plan). An existing legal, non-conforming east side setback ol zero leet
results from the Christiania's connection to the Chateau condominiums. By adding a
new lourth floor, 44 square feet of additional GRFA will be added into the side setback.
At the tightesl p6int; theiwes! Setback Wil! be redud€d {rom the eiistin$ 17,:teet;,down
to,10l-0", ,With the eddition of the hvorcat garage. ,Ihe,sebond,:and:!h!rd ttools,{GHFA)
would ehCroaCh 4l-6" lnto the setback and the fourth lfoor (GRFA):Would,encaoaCh 2li
gii,lnto the setback.: Because the zoning code and the Vail Village Master Plan both
encourage the construction of covered parking, and the fact that this portion ol the site
is very heavily screened trom adjacent properties, stafl is able to support the
applicant's request to further encroach into the required 2o-foot setback.
G. A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians
addressing on and off-site traffic circulation.
The proposed Christiania redevelopment will have a minimal impact on the existing
vehicular and pedestrian circulation systems adiacent to the Christiania Lodge
property. The proposed parking scheme, on the adjacent Lot P-3, does require that
the eniry to the parking area be relocated approximately 25 feet to the east. This
relocated entry does provide for safer ingress and egress out of Lot P-3, and also
ln
allows for the safer passage of vehicles utilizing the Mill Creek Court "chute".
However, this relocated entry would remove one of the existing loading and delivery
spaces along Hanson Ranch Road.
H. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize
and preserve natural features, recreation, views and functions.
As indicated on the attached site plan, there are some existing large, mature
evergreens located very close to the existing Lodge. The redevelopment proposal
calls for the removal, and relocation, of hine; of these large evergreen trees. The
applicant has proposed to add h,ine::new]Aspens:{S.liCalipei} adjacent to the Mill Creek
stream tract (to screen the on-site parking) and near the recreation path. Six new
aspens (3" caliper) will be added adjacent to the front, or north, entry to the Lodge. To
further open up the Mill Creek stream tract, the applicant has agreed to remove the
existing split rail fence which ls located upon the Vail Associates' owned stream tract.
The wood screen fence around the swimming pool will be relocated upon the Lodge's
property, as it is currently located upon the stream tract (Tract E).
l. Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional
and efticient relationship throughout the development of the special
development dislrict.
The applicant has proposed that the SDD redevelopment plan for the Christiania Lodge
be completed at one time. No phasing plan is proposed.
VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
We believe that the Christiania redevelooment meets the criteria for the establishment ol a
SDD, as discussed above. The staff recommendation for the proposed establishment of a
Special Development District for the Christiania Lodge is for approval. The applicant has
incorporated the lollowing elements into the proposed development plan:
11
t-The proposed dwelling unit, to be located on the third floor of the Lodge, will be
restricted according to Seclion 17.26.075 - Condominium Conversion, of the
Town of Vail Zoning Code.
One employee dwelling unit, which shall be provided with a lull kitchen
(refrigerator, stove, sink, oven or microwave), will be permanently restricted as
an employee dwelling unit, per Section 1e.13.080(BX1Oxb-d) of the Town of
Vail Zoning Code, prior to the Town's issuance of any building permits for this
redevelopment.
The applicant will obtain a revocable right-otway permit from the Town in order
to add the proposed landscaping at the entrance to the Lot P-3 parking area.
Prior to the Town's issuance of any building permits for this redevelopment, the
Town Engineer must grant final approval for the P-3 parking design. The Town
Engineer is concerned with the design of the proposed retaining wall adjacent
to the Mill Creek Court "Chute". A curb and gutter section may be necessary to
accommodate drainage in this area.
The applicant has agreed that should any of the relocated evergreens not
survive two growing seasons, such tree shall be replaced with an 8-10'
evergreen on a one-to-one ratio.
2.
a
4.
12
2.
4.
First Level
6 AUs
Office (197 sq. ft./250)
Second Level
7 AUs
Sarah's Bar (1,020/1 5/8)
Third Level
I AUsl nt I
Fourth Level
2 DUS
Christian Chateau Townhor:.':s
Total GRFA: 12,376 sq. ft.
Exhibit A
GRFA and Parking
GRFA
1,932 sq. ft.
2,431 sq. ft.
2,972 sq. ft.
551 sq. ft.
4,490 sq. ft.
6.146
2.0
5.000
9.000
40.939
- 32.70 (Grandfathered
spaces)
8.239 = 9 Required spaces
Required
Parkinq
4.332
0.788
5.173
8.5
Total GRFA: 12,376 sq. ft.
Excess Common Area: {,241_qq.L
Grand Total: 14,1 17 sq. ft.
Total Density: 21 AUs and 3 DUs
AU GRFA = 7,335 sq. ft., or 59% of the total GRFA
DU GRFA = 5,041 sq. ft.. or 41'k ol the total GBFA
13
First Level
Second Level
Third Level
Fourth Level
Exhibit B
Common Area
3,104 sq. ft.
1,785 sq. ft.
727 sq. tr.
760 sq. ft
6,376 sq. ft.Total:
Allowable GRFA 13,242 sq. ft.
x .35 (35%)
4,635 sq. ft.
6,376 sq. ft.
- 4.635 sq. ft.
t,Z+t sq. ft. - excess common (added to GRFA)
14
tir;: lit 'ii' llil: I @Yue-1o1'rv4; ' -- --;":: i'i 'i,' ','t' | -tlvn rv vtNvtJstuHf,
tl
iJl
, rllil!$iii,
:it t'l
I i.ri\
i
t
ri:ir ]IvN J"V VINVIISIUHC
tzt</J
tF|\Jz
}(#6r-! I<CF'\\.
zo
|rJ
LIJ
6Irl3
I
l
lL*\4t. /
il-l',* /
Jf \- |
H.AL"- lbo4- ,r' .r Iu'A is ;itr Il^\
\'*T \-.{. \
\*'-'--'"-'
I
Ir[
rtB'l!
I
I
P
ri
u-1
'rElfjjlt
?-liI
t&
It
+}t€
I
l
I
Ill
l!
I
I.il
\
'''l\,
/l
/i
It
,il/
i t\'s
Io
FI 1 .fl. -,r
t\-----!** i i
.-_:.r[.-T-i-:..]lrr
i--- |l1
__:il[-- ili,|'............--.|lr
Gr-
Io
r!'{ilit r,i:rir1;
I
| -r! I
JJIiI ;{;i I !
,-l
':
I
I
l)ri!
/:!;iil
I !.t .tr,..: !!. !l jJ:'i:; r1:;
.o(wolof, 'tNAI
.IIVA IV YINVIISIUIJC,
I
i
t.,f:ial-.-l 'L
€F_.-
n:r#
j,
-- -_---:
l:l
iil
::::::::: l::
lll lllt I I I i / I I I I i I I i I r I I l
i'l,i,ii'i,;r:ii1ri
. o€vuo]of, -uYA
'IIVA JV VII{VIISIUHJ
li;
i r-,-!iilil!'r'rla:;
i*
! : litili{
t
t
Ia
3.23,12 sbb
\,a; [a--fr -,F, v;Z*fz l/."*,.--; Aoa-<. - r-a,'.-"-i
nJ n^*t ^ - n;W c.""/ H,*"-*; A.n <_
"7fA, fu E a.Zl"J Z*"-"-*--1,.-e^4.
L ^o^^t ^t-&t Ata.-rz ".-- ?-3
I
,., ./C-df'a,..,r'- v'.'/u(
o*b -d4
1/< d)4,,,r--4 ,a
- Ce--r+
T A-'kU-- P 3 f^lT ci1+,-tz ,..r.o.L\) ,
N^-&z- w- H_ n&-,/
f-/-f az.-C--; / c4.k-.
- A;zq A--/ CX*Xp
6.* k ze{Va^
"/.c4-
:_.41/.-44- _
.-: v - Ze /z4e^ )a- aa-
i
-tLt
:.1
., t
---llate:
4-o _
i*
t:
I:1'
I I FIL E COPY
PLANNING AND ETWIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
March 23,1992
Present Staff
Greg Amsden Kristan Priu
Diana Donovan Mike Mollica
Kathy Langenwalter Jill Kammerer
Dalton Williams Andv Knudtsen
Amber Blecker
Absent
Chuck Crist
Ludwig Kurz
Gena Whitten
After an executive session, the meeting was called to order by Chairperson Diana Donovan at
approximately 2:10PM.
l. A request for the establishment of a Special Develooment District at the Christiania at
Vail, 356 Hanson Ranch Road/I-ot D. Block 2. Vail Villaee First Filine. and l,ot P-3,
Block 5-A. Vail Villaee Fifrh Filins.
Applicant Paul Johnston
Planner: Mike Mollica
Mike Mollica explained the changes in the request since it was previously reviewed on March
9, 1992.
The Commissioners and members of the public examined the plans.
Paul Johnston, the owner and applicant, reiterated that the purpose of the request was to
upgrade his propeny, while maintaining the maximum number of hotel rooms. He said he
had done his best to cooperate with the requests made by the Town with regard to
landscaping and other issues.
Jim Lamont, representing the East Village Homeowners Association, stated that the
Association viewed the 1991 PEC approval for the Christiania as being supportable.
However, the Association was very concemed with this Foject becoming a Special
Development Disrict. They did not view this project in a similar light as the Garden of the
Gods, as it was not a complete demolition and rebuild, and did not believe it was appropriate
in this instance as it would change ttre zoning.
Jim continued that the Association may support a serics of variances, rather than an entire
SDD, and that changing the request to variances should not alter the time frame for final
approval, both being targeted for rnid-April. In addition, Mr. Lamont believed the trash
enclosure should be addressed with an interior solution, and that the streetscape around the
property was not complete. He believed certain aspects of the approved Town of Vail
Planning and Environmenal Commission . March 23,1992. Page 1
t
Streetscape Plan were not being addressed, specifically pavement treatment and street lighting
aspects. He also did not believe having the required landscaping for the project installed on
Town of Vail land was appropriate.
Mr. Lamont also addressed the Mill Creek Court Chute. He stated improved safety for this
area should be dealt with, specifically recommending a 5-8 foot sidewalk, at a minimum.
Jim asked that he be given more time to speak with his Board, and that the streetscaping and
trash enclosure be addressed more fully.
Mark Matthews, representing the Mill Creek Homeowners Association, agreed with Mr.
Lamont, in that he believed variances were more appropriate. The consensus of his Board
was that they could not support a Special Development District proposal.
Paul Johnston indicated that his proposal had taken into consideration, and complied with, a
non-adopted view corridor in the area, and had worked in good faith with the staff.
Kristan Pritz commented that a final solution to the issue of ownership and rights of Lots P-3
and J would be necessary before an appropriate solution to the Mill Creek Court Chute could
be addressed. Diana Donovan stated she did not feel it was appropriate to hold up approval
of the Christiania when the disputes and questions were not caused by him, nor would they be
increased by this project.
Greg Amsden commented that it appeared the Christiania had parking rights to l,ot P-3, and
that the addition of valet parking spaces, both on P-3 and on the applicant's prcperty, met the
additional parking generated by the request. He was not sure the garage was necessary,
especially since it extended into the setback. He suggested eliminating the garage and using
that space as the location for a dumpster encloswe.
Regarding the issue of a sidewalk along ttre Mill Creek Court Chute, Greg thought it could be
placed on the west side of the chute.
On the question of whether an SDD was appropriate versus applying for multiple variances,
Greg believed there would be a problem with requesting a variance for increased density, as
he could see no hardship which would justify such a variance request.
Dalton Williams read from a prepared statement as follows:
"After reviewing this request, I am convinced that this project would be a positive addition to
the Town of Vail. Certainly Paul Johnston continues to provide Vail with a fine family run
lodge that geatly contributes to the ambiance of Vail. I also telieve that the proposed
upgrade to the Christiania at Vail is positive for the community. In particular, I find the
'alpine architecture' to be attractive and in keeping with the image of Vail. The proposed
sffeamwalk, landscaping and the upgrade to the prcperfy are positive steps that are necessary
to keep Vail the premier resort we all want it to be.
Planning and Environmental Commission ' March 23, 1992' Page 2
"While the request for an SDD is designed to allow flexibility and creativity in the
development of land in order to promote its most appropriate use and public benefit, the PEC
must find that by doing so, the positive aspects of a project are so clearly in the public good
that they outweigh any negative impacts to the community.
"Special Development Disnict Standand C - Compliance with parking and loading
requirements as outlined in Chapter 18.52.
"The nonconforming section of the Town of Vail Zoning Code (Section 18.#.050(D)) states:
'Structures or site implovements which do not conform to the off-street parking and loading
requirements of this title may be enlarged, provided that the pa*ing and loading requirements
for such addition shall be fully satisfied and that the discrepancy between the existing off-
street parking and loading facilities and the standards prescribed by this section shall not be
increased.'
"The proposed site improvements under this SDD require an additional 6 spaces which,
according to Section 18.64.050@), must be provided before this project can be approved.
"The staff discussion of 'grandfathered' parking is interesting but not compelling. If we are
to accept any 'grandfathercd' parking, then we must look at the number of spaces
'grandfathered. '
"From the staffs review of the applicant's rights to parking space, it is evident that even
though the Christiania has few parking spaces on their property, they recognized the need and
acquired legal rights for parking under the terms of their Waranty Deed from Vail Associates
on July 8, 1963, and acknowledged by the Town of Vail by the March 15, 1987 agreement
between Vail Associates, Christiania-at-Vail, Inc., and the Town of Vail.
"Although the Christiania has used the parking spaces on Lot J, what they have been legally
entitled to use were those on Parcel P-3. Therefore, vehicles that were able ro be parked on
Parcel P-3 along with those which could be parked on the Christiania property ar€ those
which are considered existing spaces.
"These then, clearly, may not bc counted in satisfying any additional parking created by the
proposed SDD site improvements."
"I find that there is adequate precedent that the proposed SDD, with the addition of 6 valet
parking space on Parcel P-3, does conform with Section 18.64.050(D) of the Town of Vail
zoning code."
Dalton also found the streamwalk a positive addition, and believed the overall proposal was
an appropriate project to be reviewed under the Special Development District criteria.
Regarding circulation for the project, Dalton felt the construction of a retaining wall along the
western edge of Parcel P-3 would "visually narrow" the Mill Creek Court Chute, thus creating
a hazard. In addition, since the Streetscape PIan called for a sidewalk in this general location,
he believed a sidewalk should be provided.
Planning and Environmental Commission . March 23, 1992. Page 3
I
Finally, addressing the question of whether variances or the SDD procedure was more
applicable, Dalton said that if variances were used, accommodation units could be lost, and
that was against the best interest of the Town of Vail. Therefore, Dalton supported the use of
an SDD in this instance. However, he advocated the installation of a sidewalk, as he found
Mill Creek Cout Chute to be impacted by this development.
Paul Johnston said he would agree not to rcmonstrate against any Town solution to safety
(i.e., a sidewalk) for the Mill CYesk Court Chute. Dalton asked if that meant he wou]d
support and financially contribute to the construction of such sidewalk. Paul said he would
suppon and contribute, but would not take total financial responsibility for such a project.
Diana Donovan stated the Special Development District process is a tool to be used for
unique ctcumstances, and was appropriate for the Christiania. She said it enabled the Town
to retain the maximum number of lodge units in this circumstance. Regarding.the sidewalk,
she did not like having a retaining wall for Parcel P-3, and asked how the safety and access
of this area could be addressed in the future. She said with so many unknowns, it would help
to know how to move forward. Larry Eskwith said it was up to staff to determine the fair
contribution, and he saw difficulties in requiring this development to pay for the entire
sidewalk. He believed a certain percentage would be fair and reasonable, but was not sure
what that percent would be.
Diana felt that the siae*alt was not tied to the project, but to the need for a retaining wall on
Parcel P-3. If parking ended up on l.ot J, then the wall and sidewalk would not be necessary.
Greg Amsden said he did not think it was reasonable to expect to see the parking issue
resolved in the near future, and that Paul's financial percentage for the sidewalk should be
determined, since the current parking rights were on Parcel P-3.
Paul Johnston offered to pay a l/3 portion of the sidewalk cost. Kristan believed the Town
could also pay Il3. Jim Lamont was not sure how the East Village Homeowners Association
would stand on the remainng U3 portion.
Jim also stated the Christiania should be requked to provide brick pavers on-site and off-site,
a stone planter at the corner, and complete other items as required by the Streetscape Master
Plan. He urged the Commissioners not to approve the SDD, as it allows too much
development. In the alternative, he asked that language be added in the ordinance that no
further additions could be constructed on this site. Otherwise, he was afraid the Christiania
would ask for more every couple of years.
Mike clarified that the Sneetscape Plan did not call for a brick apron, but instead called for
an edger, approximately 6-8 inches wide, which could be constructed with pavers. Mike
recommended the Commission act on the plan in front of them today, and then amend the
SDD if and when the lrts P-3 and J parking issue is resolved.
Planning and Environmental Commission . March 23, 1992. Page 4
Diana asked if Lot P-3 could support a wider planter along the retaining wall. Mike informed
her the parking stalls were at the bare minimum now and could not be narrowed. Diana also
believed the dumpster should be covered. Paul informed her the plans called out for a
covered dumpster.
Kathy Langenwalter supported a Special Development District for the reasons already stated.
She said she was in turmoil over the dumpster, as she wanted to keep as much parking as
possible, but also enclose the dumpster. Paul said that he was not at all comfortable
wrapping the guest rooms around a dumpster, and did not believe that had been done in other
projects in Vail. Kathy said she could support the project as proposed, with the stipulation
Mr. Johnston pay lR of the costs of a sidewalk.
Dalton asked if the Town could require the Mill Creek Coun Building ro contribute 1/3 of rhe
sidewalk costs. Larry agreed to work with the Council to resolve the issues.
Kathy asked for the Design Review Board to have input on the steetscape issues, enclosure
of the dumpster, the concrete edgrng of the pavement, lighting in the area and the planter.
Larry said all that could be addressed as part of the design review process.
Dalton Williams moved to recommend approval of the request for the establishment of a
Special Development District at the Christiania at Vail, 356 Hanson Ranch Road,/Lot D,
Block 2, vail village First Filing, and l,ot P-3, Block 5-A, vail village Fifth Filing, per
staff's memorandum, with the inclusion of applicant's offer to contribute 1/3 the cost toward
construction of a sidewalk on the Mill Creek coun Chute. The sidewalk rcquest was
wifianted and mitigated under criteria C and G of staff's memo. Greg Amsden seconded the
motion.
Kathy Langenwalter asked that the motion be amended to add that the Design Review Board
further develop the landscape plan in the area of the dumpster, coordinate the elements from
the Streetscape Plan (specifrcally the street edging, lighting, and planter treatment and size).
Diana Donovan asked to further amend the motion to add that placing aspens in the planter
along the retaining wall on Parcel P-3 be investigated. Dalton so amended his motion, and
Greg seconded the arnendments. The recommendation was unanimously passed, 4-0.
In the interests of time and audience participation, item 3 was next reviewed.
3. A request for setback and site coverage variances for the Grubbs Residence. 1031
Easle's Nest Chcle/Lot l. Block l. Vail Villaee 8th Filing.
Applicant: G & S PartnershipPlanner: Jill Kammerer
Jill Kammerer explained the request, which included the construction of a new third floor on
the east end of the existing sEucture, the removal of an existing bay window, and.
construction of a new bay window on the north facade, construction of a garage, the removal
of existing trasVstorage enclosures on the west, and the removal of a portion of a
cantilevered second floor bedroom on the south.
Planning and Environmenral Commission . March 23,1992. page 5
Kathy Langenwalter asked for more specifics on the wall changes in conjunction with the bay
window. Jill answered, and Steve Riden, the applicant's rcpresentative, further explained
additional questions by the Commissioners and audience members.
Tom Steinberg, a neighbor, indicated he believed the proposed bay window on rhe north
elevation helped break up the back wall of tle house. Flo Steinberg disagrced, stating that
blank north wall of the residence was supposed to be blank, and that a flat picture-type
window would serve the same lighting purpose in terms of letting light in as would a bay
window.
After a review of the plans, with an informal discussion between Commissioners, staff and
the audience, Jill clarified that a 425 sq. ft. GRFA credit was permitted on this lot, even
though it was zoned Primary/Secondary, because the lot size was less than 15,000 sq. ft. If
the applicant desired to consEuct a restricted secondary unir on the site, he would be eligible
to obtain another 425 sq. ft. of GRFA.
Diana Donovan commented that she believed this addition was an upgrade for the
neighborhood
Kathy asked for clarification of how architectural projections were viewed under a setback
variance request, and if the extent of the encroachment approved under a setback variance
was measured to.the foundation wall or to the projection closest to the property line (i.e., a
roof overhang). In other words, she wondered if an architectural projection could be added to
a wall which encroached into a setback. Kristan Pritz stated that the variance was approved,
based on the submitted drawings with the variance application. Kathy could not support the
variance requested for the north elevation, as she believed the bay window made the elevation
worse . Steve Riden rebutted the rationale behind the staff recommendation to deny the rear
setback variance requests for the bay window. Kathy responded that a golfer walking by
would be 1% stories below the grade of the building, and consequently would be looking at 2
stories of stucco. She believed the north elevafion needed to be softened, and agreed with
the staff recommendation to deny the request for the bay window.
Steve indicated the stucco would not be a smooth and monolithic finish. but would be a roueh
"Fred Flintstone" finish.
Greg questioned, with the golf course to the north of the structure, who was impacted by the
north facade.
Kristan clarified that when a variance was approved, a specific set of plans was approved as
part of that variance, and those plans included the applicable roof overhangs, Jill said it was
the general policy of staff to measure the extent to which a building encroached into a
setback from the building facadefoundation. However, with this strucrure, because of the
extent to which the building encroached into the setbacks, there were instances where the roof
encroached farther into thd setback than the allowed 4 feet, as set forth in the Supplemental
Regulations of the Code. The extent of the roof overhang was shown on the associated plans.
Planning and Environmental Commission . March 23, t992. Page 6
t
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
MEMORANDUM
Planning and Environmental Commission
Community Development Department
March 9, 1992
A request for the establishment of a Special Development District at the
Christiania at Vail, 356 Hanson Ranch Fload/Lot D, Btock 2, Vait Viilage First
Filing, and Lot P-3, Block 5-A, Vait Viilage Filth Fiting.Applicant: PaulJohnstonPlanner: Mike Mollica
I. INTRODUCTION
Paul Johnston, owner and operator of the Christiania at Vail, has filed a request for the
establishment of a Special Development District, for his property located at 356 Hanson
Ranch Road. The purpose lor this SDD establishment is to allow for the expansion and
redevelopment of the existing Christiania Lodge.
This development
pran was rnis
approval qranted a setback variance in order lo allow for the exnansion of the Chrictianiaapproval g variance in order to allow for the expansion of the Christiania
Lodge's lobby and a 44 sq. ft. expansion of GFTFA (on the proposed lourth floor), into the
setback. This setback variance is valid untilAprils, 1992. Subsequent to this PEC approval
of the variance imou the final
tnls ent i the
ng lobby, the addition of mechanical space beneath the lobby,and the addition of a ri
ng
II. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
The applicant's redevelopment proposal generally includes the upgrade and renovation of the
existing Christiania Lodge, as follows:
The addition of a new fourth floor on the existing structure, which would consist
of two dwelling units.
A general reconfiguration of the existing first, second and third floors of the
Lodge, by adding additional accommodation units, dwelling units and common
area. A total of 21 accommodation units and 3 dwelling units, comprising
14,521 sq. ft. of GRFA, is proposed.
The expansion of the existing Sarah's Bar, from 756 sq. ft, to 1,171 sq. ft. in
size (an increase of 415 sq. ft.).
The construction of a small garage which would provide two on-site covered
ng spaces. The garage would be located at the southwest corner of the
ng.
7
ilt.
' The conslruction of '13 surface parking spaces, to be located upon the adjacent
Parcel P-3, to the north. This parking area would be surfaced with asphait, and
would be landscaped around its perimeter.
' The restriction of one of the three dwelling units, according t0 the Condominium
Conversion section of the zoning code.
' The provision of one off-site, permanenily restricted employee housing unit.
' The construclion of a walking path, along ttre east side of Mill Creek (this will
require approval from Vail Associates, owner of the tract). The existing split rail
fence, located adjacenl to Mill Creek, would be removed, as would the
approximately 550 sq. ft. of asphalt area, cunently used lor parking and the
trash dumpster. The relocation and enclosure of the trash dumpster.
. Additional landscaping would be added adjacent to Mill Creek and the
recreation path.
. The screen fence located around the swimming pool would be relocated onto
the Christiania Lodge's property, (it is currently on the stream tract).
. Of the seven proposed fireplaces, six are proposed to be gas. The existing
woodburning fireplace located in Sarah's Bar will remain woodburning.
BACKGFIOUND AND HISTORY
A. May 1 1, 1987 - the Planning and Environmental Commission voted to approve
density and setback variances in order to allow for the construction of additions
to the Christiania Lodge. Subsequent to the 1987 PEC approval of the
variance request, no construction has occurred.
B. March 6, 1991 - a redevelopment proposal which did not require any
variance/PEO approvals was reviewed and approved by the Design Review
Board (DRB). Under this redevelopment proposal, the applicant proposed to
add a new fourth tloor to the existing structure to accommodate 2 new dwelling
units, to remodel the structure's interior, to construct a walking path along Mill
Creek, to screen the existing dumpster, to pave and landscape the eastern half
of the northern parking lot (when ownership and rights to this lot are resolved),
and to remove a portion of an existing asphalted area adjacent to the proposed
Mill Creek walking path.
April 8, 1991 - the Planning and Environmental Commission unanimously
approved a setback variance for the Christiania Lodge in order to allow for the
expansion of the Lodge's lobby and a 44 sq. ft. expansion of GRFA (on the
proposed fourth floor), into the front setback area.
June 5, 1991 - lhe Design Review Board unanimously granted final design
approval for the redevelopment of the Christiania Lodge, as approved by the
PEC on AprilS, 1991.
\,
c.
D.
tv.
Zone Dlstrict:
Slte Area:
Public Accommodation
0.380 acres or 16,553 sq. ft.
The following zoning analysis highlights the SDD's departures, from the PA zone district, by
the use of bold type:
Underlylng Zonlng
(D Oenstty (25 DUs per 9 DUs
Yulldable acre: 1 DU = 2'AUs)
(PA) ExlstlnE Prolect
2 DUsand25 AUs@>
1991 Approval 1992 SDD
2 DUs and 14 AUs 3 DUs and 21 AUs = 13.5
= 9 DUs DUs
t531
-..-'..-
tz,sea s<ir. n.
-tl,52t
sg. ft.
fDCorron Area (35% of
Yfe auowable GRFA)
D. Accessory ( l 0ol" ol
constructed GRFA)
E. Otlice
GRFA (80o/c ot the
bulldable slle area)
Setbacks
NorthiFront
Easl Slde
West Slde
South/Rear
G. Sile Coverage (55% of
sile area)
13,242 sq. fl.
(80o/4
4,635 sq. ft.
(3s%)
1,324 sq. ft.
(t 0"/o)
N/A
20 fl. all sides
9,104 sq, ft.
(ss%)
4,966 sq. ft.
(30%)
48 fl. sloping roof/
45 fi. f lat roof
7,397 sq. ft.
(45o/o)
2,25s sq. tl.
(1W.)
756 sq. ft.
(10%)
72 sq. tt. (approved
by condilional use in
1989)
15'-0"
8'-6'(deck)
5,235 sq. tl.
(33/.)
7,490 sq. ft.
(4s%)
36 ft. sloping
(7g%'.,jloS
---l---"t----....-
3,271 sq. ft.
(25t")
756 sq. ft.
(6%)
72 sq. fl. (approved
by condilional use in
1989)
(8890)
6,376 sq. ft.
(4sh',
1,171 sq. ft.
(8%)
197 sq. tt.
t't 4l u,
t+.e, c$r,rcr'
8'-6,'
b'|5
5,738 sq. 11."t - - 6,413 sq. tr.
(3s%)(3e%)
@Landscaplng (SOo/. ot
site area)
l. Height
ff)a*rns
\''paces Fequlred
Spaces Provided
(360l.)
43 ft. llat
I@
34
ar
36
3'
N/A
N/A /<
15'-0'
I206
5,943 sq. 11.------ 4,737 sq. fi.
(29ohl
zl4 11. f lal
*The Town recognizes the Christiania as having 3 parking spaces. The Christiania currently
provides 3 parking spaces in a small lot northwest of the existing building. The parking which
occurs within the required setback at this location is a 'grandfathered" situation.
a
V. SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT CRITERIA
The criteria to be used to evaluate this proposal are the 9 Special Development District (SDD)
development standards set forth in the special development district chapter of the Zoning
Code. The criteria are as follows:
,l r{t|eil^'
f f I
C'**l*
lrAF*
A. Deslgn compatlblllty and sensltlvlty to the lmmedlate environment'
netghbornood and adlacent propertles relatlve to archltectural deslgn,
scale, bulk, bulldlng helght, buffer zones, ldentlty, character, vlsual
Integrlty and orlentatlon.
ll is the stafl's opinion that the proposed redevelopment of the Christiania Lodge will be
compatible with the existing land uses surrounding the project. We believe that the
proposed mass and bulk for this structure is acceptable, given the existing footprint of
itre'Christiania Lodge, and the adjacent Chateau Condominiums. Tle-proie{guld
have@,whichisjusts|ight|yunderthemaximuma||owab|e
@itiona||y,theproposedheightwou|da|sobewithin
the-acceptable limits as outlined in the Vail Village Master Plan, which recommends
that this property have a maximum height range of 3-4 stories in height (27-36 feet'
excluding roof).
This project has been analyzed according to the proposed Frivolous Sals View
Corridor. This view conidor was approved by the Town Council on first reading' on
May 7, 1g91, with the stipulation lhat anv previouslv aoproved projects could be buili'
even though they may encroach into the view corridor. At the time of first reading' it
was anticifateC inat the Christiania redevelopment would encroach into this view
corridor. Since the 1991 approval of the Christiania redevelopment, there have been
some slight design modifications which would atfect the proposed Frivolous Sals View
Conidor.- Changes to the roof configuration on the northwest corner of the Christiania
Lodge would create an additional encroachment into the corridor. However, the
nortiernmost portion of the building would be pulled out of the proposed view corridor.
Overall, the staff believes the applicant's proposal is very reasonable, given the fact
that the Frivolous Sals View Coriidor has not been formally adopted upon second
reading. Staff appreciates the applicant's attempts to work within the proposed view
corridor, and to keep any and all "encroachments" to a minimum.
Although the proposed SDD would exceed the maximum allowable GRFA by 1'279 sq'
ft., it siould be noted that 1,741 sq. ft. of GHFA is directly attributable to "excess"
common area. The common areas in the Lodge inClude the mechanical areas' the
halpays, stairs, storage areas, and the lobby and offices. lt should also be noted that
the reiidentiat part ot tne GRFA, which constitutes 12,780 sq' ft', is actually under the
maximum allowable GRFA, as designated in the PA zone district. Please refer to
Exhibit A tor a detailed breakdown of the proposed GRFA'
*get+ritI
foAtc..
Acr'
:e r+{ ni
(etlRt'f '
B. Uses, actlvlty and denslty whlch provlde a compatlble, efflclent and
workable relatlonshlp wlth surrounding uses and actlvlty.
Under the proposed redevelopmenl scenario, the applicant will be reducing the overall
density of the proposed project by one dwelling unit. This is in contrast with the
existing project, which has a total of 14.5 dwelling units. In summarv, a total 0f three
dwellino units and twentv-one accommodation units are prooosed with this SDD. As
indicated in Section lV(D) of this memorandum, the Vail Village Master Plan strongly
encourages the provision of short term, overnight hotel rooms (accommodation units).
The proposed Christiania SDD is in compliance with the definition of "Lodge", in which
"the gross residential floor area devoted to accommodation units exceeds the gross
residential floor area devoted to dwelling units." As further indicated in the attached
Exhibit A, the GRFA devoted to accommodation units exceeds 59% of the total GRFA
lor the project.
Because this SDD request exceeds the maximum allowable density for the PA zone
district, the applicant has agreed to restrict the third floor dwelling unit according to
Seclion 17.26.075 - Condominium Conversion, of the Town's zoning code. This
section of the code includes rental restrictions and generally provides that
condominium units shall be included in the short term rental market for certain periods
of time. Staff believes placing the rental restriclion on only one of the three dwelling
units is acceptable because the applicant is reducing the overall density of the project
by one dwelling unit (versus the existing project), and the fact that the GRFA
exceedance is due to the overage of common areas, which is created by the Town's
recent change to lhe definition of GRFA (which now includes mechanical areas and
stairs at each level as common areas). Additionally, the applicant has agreed to
orovide one off-site. oermanentlv restricted emolovee dwellino unit. This unit would be
the secondary unit in a prr-rmEry/secondary residence owned by the applicant. The
restricted employee unit willbe located at 1184 Cabin Circle/Lot 2, Block 2, VailValley
First Filing.
Although this SDD proposal would provide four less accommodation units then the
existing project (21 versus 25), staff believes that when the Christiania Special
Development District is reviewed in its entirety, the project as a whole is very positive.
There are public benefits, such as the employee restricted dwelling unit, the Mill Creek
walking path, additional landscaping, two enclosed parking spaces, a paved parking
area, etc., which must be considered. We believe the project provides a workable
relationship with surrounding uses and activity as described above.
C. Compliance with parklng and loadlng requlrements as outllned In Chapter
18.52.
This SDD proposal calls for the addition of a two-car garage, to be located in the
southwest corner of the building, and two surface parking spaces to be provided
immediately north of the garage. Additionally, the applicant is proposing 13 surface
parking spaces on the adjacent Lot P-3, north of Hanson Ranch Road (please see the
attached site plan). The proposed parking area on Lot P-3 would be surfaced with
'nf\oYe ..rt'4
Use
Accommodation Units:
asphalt, would include landscaping around its perimeter, and a retaining wall on the
west side of the lot.
Existino
# Spaces Reouired
(25 AUs) = 16.4
Dwelling Units: (2 DUs)= 4.0
Accessory (Sarah's Lounge): 6.0
Realty Office:0.3,', ChristianChateauTownhomes:9.0.f1.1r'-t,, Sut"Tobr Ei--
1992 SDD
# Spaces Required
(21 AUs) = 15.6
(3 DUs) = 7.0
8.5
0.8
9.0
40.9
-321_
8.2 = 9.0
-321-
3,0*
'The Town of Vail recognizes that the christiania Lodge has 3 parking spaces. These
three parking spaces are located on the christiania Lodge site and are considered
legal, nonconforming spaces due to their location within the required front setback.
tb
The
applicant is proposing a total lrking spaces for the project. However, the
the parking requirements of the PA zone districtproposed parking plan deviates'
as follows:
1. The parking is not provided on-site.2. 75T" ot the required parking is not located within the main building or
buildings and hidden from public view.
In addition, the Christiania is technicafiy 32.7 parllg rpqgg!._$g{, as required per the
zoning code. However, th i
required parking with the P-3 parking lot. Given the siting of the existing Chrisiiania
Lodge, and the fact that the applicant has a perpetual easement to park on the
adjacent Lot P-3, staff believes the applicant's proposed parking scheme is acceptable,
and will be an improvement over the existing parking configuration.
Also, according to section 18.52.060 of the Town's Zoning code, "the Town council
may permit off-site or jointly used parking facilities if located within three hundred feet
of the use served". This provision only applies to unenclosed parking spaces.
Loading: The existing Christiania Lodge has a requirement for one loading berth. No
loading berths are provided for the Lodge, and the loading requirement is considered
"grandfathered". The proposed redevelopment of the Lodge does not increase the
loading non-conformity, as the new proposal also has a requirement for one loading
berth.
The proposed parking scheme, on the adjacent Lot P-3, does require that the entry to
the parking area be relocated approximately 2s teet to the east. This relocated entry
does provide for safer ingress and egress out of Lot P-3, and also allows for lhe safer
passage of vehicles utilizing the Mill creek court "chute". However, this relocated
entry would remove one of the existing loading and delivery spaces along Hanson
Ranch Road. The loss of one public loading/delivery space in ttre Vittage Core is not apositive change and it is a major concern to the staff, however, we ackiowledge thatthe applicant does have a right to safely access Lot p-3. To mitigate the loss of theone loading/delivery space, the applicant will provide a loading/deiivery berth on-site(adjacent to the dumpster), for use by the Christiania.
D. Gonformlty wlth appilcabte etements of the vall Gomprehenstve ptan,
Town pollcles and Urban Deslgn plans.
It is staff's opinion that the proposed redevetopment meets the goals and objectives ofthe Vail Village Master plan. The rading of lodges,
the improvement of
space.
This proposal supports the Master ptan's objectives by thg_qddjlig!_Slf_lewa.9*tod"tion qnltt (u"ttr" the 1991
"pprou"l) "@ding theexisting lobby and bar a@ing'wiili the T-own's site
development standards. Additionally, the pioposed-Miil creek pedestrian path will
enhance open space for use by the public, The fottowing is a list of the vail Village
Master Plan Goals, objectives and policies which relate-to this project:
GOAL #1 - ENCOURAGE HIGH QUALITY REDEVELOPMENT WHILE
PRESERVING THE UNIQUE ARCHITECTURAL SCALE OF THE
VILLAGE IN OHDER TO SUSTAIN ITS SENSE OF
COMMUNITY AND IDENTITY.
1.2 Obiective:
Encourage the upgrading and redevelopment ol residential and commercial
lacilities.
1.3 Obiective:
Enhance new development and redevelopment through public improvements
done by private developers working in cooperation wiin ine town.
1.3.1 Obiective:
Public improvements shall be developed with the participation of the private
sector working with the Town.
GOAL #2 - TO FOSTER A STRONG TOURIST INDUSTRY AND PROMOTE
YEAR-AROUND ECONOMIC HEALTH AND VIABILITY FOR
THE VILLAGE AND FOR THE COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE.
2.3 Obiective:
Increase the number of residential units available for short term overnight
accommodations.
experience, as well as the en
2.3.1 Poilcy:
The development of short term accommodation units is strongly
encouraged. Residential units that are developed above exisling density
levels are required to be designed or managed in a manner that makes
them available for short term overnight rental.
2.4.2 Poilcy:
Activity that provides night life and evening entertainment for both the
guest and the community shall be encouraged.
2.5 Obiective:
Encourage the continued upgrading, renovation and maintenance of existing
lodging and commercial tacilities to better serve lhe needs of our guests.
2.6 Obiective:
Encourage the development of affordable housing units through the efforts of
the private sector.
2.6.1 Pollcy:
Employee housing units may be required as part of any new or
redevelopment project requesting density over that allowed by existing
zoning.
2.6.2 Policy:
Employee housing shall be developed with appropriate restrictions so as
to insure their availability and affordability to the local work force.
GOAL #3 - TO RECOGNIZE AS A TOP PRIORITY THE ENHANCEMENT
OF THE WALKING EXPEBIENCE THROUGHOUT THE
VILLAGE.
3.1 Obiective:
Physically improve the existing pedestrian ways by landscaping and other
improvements.
3.4 Obiectives:
Develop additional sidewalks, pedestrian-only walkways and accessible green
space areas, including pocket parks and stream access.
GOAL #4 - TO PRESERVE EXISTING OPEN SPACE AREAS AND
EXPAND GREENSPACE OPPORTUNITIES.
The Vail Village Master Plan sub-area concept which directly relates lo this
redevelopment proposal is Concept No.3-8, Mill Creek Streamwalk:
->
#3-8 Mill Creek Streamwalk
A walking only path along Mill Creek between Pirate Ship Park and
Gore Creek, further completing the pedestrian network and providing
public access to the creek. Specific design and location shall be
sensilive to adjacent uses and the creek environment.
The Vailvillage Urban Design Guide Plan addresses this proposal through sub-Area
Concept No. 8:
"Mill Creek walking path, west side Mill Creek. Path completes linkage
from pirate ship and mountain path to Gore Creek Drive.'
The Vail Village Master Plan and The Urban Design Guide Ptan hoth ealt for tbe
construction of a pedestrian path connection between the bike path and Hanson Ranch
Road. The addition of a foot path would be a positive improvement to the pedestrian
experience in the Village area. Even though the urban Design Guide Plan calls for
the path to be located on the west side of Mill Creek, staff believes that the east side
provides a more attractive walking experience. The west side of the creek has a trash
room for Cyrano's, as well as several utility boxes, which make it an unpleasant area
to walk through.
ln further support of the above sub-area concepts, the applicant has committed to
remove approximately 550 sq. ft. of asphalt area adjacent to Mill Creek. This paved
area, which is currently used by the Christiania for parking and dumpster storage, is
located on Vail Associates and Christiania owned property.
This proposal was reviewed according to the recenily adopted streetscape Masler
f,lag. However, there are no specific streetscape concepts which apply to this $te.
E. ldentificatlon and mitigation of natural andior geologlc hazards that affect
the property on whlch the speciat development dlstrict is proposed.
There are no natural andior geologic hazards which would affect this property and/or
redevelopment proposal. The project is also located out of the established 10O-year
floodplain.
F. Slte plan, building deslgn and location and open space provislons
designed to produce a funcilonal development responsive and sensitive
to natural features, vegetatlon and overall aesthetic quality of the
communlty.
An existing legal, non-conforming east side setback of zero feet results from the
christiania's connection to the chateau condominiums. By expanding the lobby and
by adding a new fourlh floor, additional square footage will be constructed within the
setback.
The existing front setback is 15 feet due to the encroachment of the northwest corner
of the Lodge. currently, the west side setback is 17 feet due lo an encroachment of
*--?
the southwest comer of the building into the 20-foot setback. The existing rear setback
is 8'-6", as the existing Sarah's deck projects 11'-6" inlo the 20-toot rear setback (see
attached site plan).
The west setback will be reduced lrom the existing 17 feet, down to 1 0l-0", with the
addition of the two-car garage. Because tne-loning coEe anO tne Vail Village Masler
Plan both en@urage the construction of covered parking, and the fact that this portion
of the site is very heavily screened from adjacent properties, staff is able to support the
applicant's request to further encroach into the required 20-foot setback.
G. A clrculatlon system deslgned for both vehlcles and pedestrlans
addresslng on and oft-slte trafflc clrculatlon.
The proposed Christiania redevelopment will have a minimal impact on the existing
vehicular and pedestrian circulation syslems adjacent to the Christiania Lodge
property. The proposed parking scheme, on the adjacent Lot P-3, does require that
the entry to the parking area be relocated approximately 25 feet to the east. This
relocated entry does provide for safer ingress and egress out of Lot P-3, and also
allows for the safer passage of vehicles utilizing the Mill Creek Court "chute".
However, this relocated entry would relnove_qne of the existing loadinganddeliyery
spaces along Hanson Hancn Ftoad-
H. Functional and aesthetlc landscaping and open space In order to optlmlze
and preserve natural features, recreation, vlews and functlons.
As indicated on the attached site plan, there are some existing large, mature
evergreens located very close to the existing Lodge. The redevelopment proposal
calls for the removal, and relocation, of seven of these large evergreen trees. The
applicant has proposed to add eleven new spruce (8-10' in height) adjacent to the Mill
Creek stream tract (to screen the on-site parking) and near the recreation path. Six_
@l|beaddedadjacenttothefront,ornorth,entrytothe
Lodge- To further open up the Mill Creek stream tract, the applicant has agreed to
remove the e rail fence which is located upon the Vail Associates' owned
around the swimming pool will upon the
Lodge's property, as it is currently located upon lhe stream tract (Tract
X Although the SDD proposaldoes not meet the PA zone district's required minimum
area of on-sile landscaping,
lhat the landscaping design is acceptable material which is
proposed to be added on-site, and the
added around the perimeter of Lot P-3
ich will be
ng l0 the
zoning code, the off-site landscaping can not be included in the required landscaping.
new
10
I' Phasing plan or subdlvlslon plan that will malntain a workabte, functionaland efflclent relatlonshlp throughout the development of the speclal
development dlstrlct.
The applicant has proposed that the SDD redevelopment plan for the Christiania Lodgebe compleled at one time. No phasing plan is proposed.
-
VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
we believe that the Christiania redevelopmenl meets the criteria lor the establishment of aSDD, as discussed above. The staff recommendation for the proposed establishment of aSpecial Development District for the Christiania Lodge is for approval. The appticant hasincorporated the foilowing erements into the proposdd deveropment pran:
1' The proposed dwelling unit, to be located on the third floor of the Lodge, will berestricted according to Section 17.26.075 - Condominium Conversion,-oitneTown of Vail Zoning Code.
2- one employee dwe[ing unit, which shail be provided with a fuil kitchen(refrigerator, stove, sink, oven or microwavej, will be permanently restricted asan emptoyee-dweiling unit, per section 18.13.080(BXiol1u-01 0f ihe Town ofVail Zoning Code, prior to the Town's issuance ot'airy oriitOiig permits for thisredevelopment. '
3' The applicant will obtain a revocable right-of-way permit from the Town in orderto add the proposed randscaping at the entrance io me Lot p-3 parking area.
4. The applicant will obtain approvalto encroach upon the existing 1o-foot utilityeasement, currenily located parallel to the western property lin;, from theappropriate utility companies, prior to the Town's isiuance of any buildingpermits for this redevelopment.
5' Prior to the Town's issuance of any building permits for this redevelopment, theTown Engineer must grant final approval toi itre p-s parking design. 'The iownEngineer is concerned with the design of the proposed reraining i,all adjacentto the Miil creek court "chute". A curb and gutt;r section may oe necessary toaccommodate drainage in this area.
+ A'.d-P, f,-*^ Ta/,.^- W.^e&^
11
1.
2.
3.
4.
First Level
6 AUs
Office (197 sq. ft./250)
Second Level
TAUs =
Sarah's Bar (1,020/1 5/8)
Third Level
SAUs =
1DU
Fourth Level
2DUs =
E Christian Chateau Townhomes
Total GRFA: 12,780 sq. ft.
Exhiblt A
GRFA and Parking
GRFA
1,932 sq. ft. =
2,556 sq. ft.
Required
Parkino
4.332
0.788
5.173
8.5
6.146
2.0
5.000
9.000
40.9s9
- 32.70 (Grandfathered
spaces)
8.239 = 9 Required spaces
3,094 sq. ft.
551 sq. ft. =
4,647 sq. ft.
TOTAIGRFA:
Excess Common Area:
Grand Total:
12,780 sq. ft.
+ 1,741 sq. ft.
14,521 sq. ft.
Total Density: 21 AUs and 3 DUs
AU GRFA = 7,582 sq. ft., or 59% of the total GRFA
DU GHFA = 5,198 sq. ft., or 41"/" ol the total GRFA
12
First Level
Second Level
Third Level
Fourth Level
Exhiblt B
Common Area
3,104 sq. ft.
1,785 sq. ft.
727 sq. ft.
760 sq. ft
6,376 sq. ft.Total:
Allowable GRFA 13,242 sq. ft.
x .35 (35%)
4,635 sq. ft.
6,376 sq. ft.
- 4.635 sq. ft.
1,741 sq. ft. - excess common (added to GRFA)
13
rlvn Iv vtNv[sruHf,
z
J
(9z
lctrA:
z
g.l
ITJ
o
3
,{
l/!/
4',
'/
I
I
I
',/--' /
.-.-'- / /
J/
,/
Wl,
#, 1"1'-"\.*1 \--4, \
16,
Ir{r$
I
'
.E
,-lu-r
l&
ri
tl
tire
r
\
Ll-"- -.q r----
'ir i
z
l1
2l
J
rL'{
i ll I" rr Ii,,,iillli,l,i',ll,tiitirrilirlriijiilii
!! | l t||! tt l tl
'rIiItttrttrttiiti,rlrriii',i,rri,IIIi'rrrrriirIrrrrriIiIi,r,rii rirri',i irir,,i,l
,iri,l,,ril,!ri'iillllrtlrrl r|| lll;ifliiI rrliil
;i;;;i;i i;i;,i; ;ii;; ;,i;;;;;
trurr rrlrr tru llirtlll
I t l l t ltilt lr l r ll
trttttlt tltttt tt,tt I ttltll
.!., ,l
iiiiiiii iiiiiii riiii i iliiii
I
. oov801()f,'lwAltvn Jv vtNvtlstuH3l,|rl,iir iiir r1,1r
'Lt
l'
o
irr'3
z
3
ir!
ll.lr, i ! , .rl
irii r:iiiriri rr rii lirr
iiii.r...,,...,,,,r,:ii: li :liiiilliil,iillllliil'.''.......|''..'i....'..i..
t\| .ll .lllll:.-'rl|r rr r,Irrilliitliiiiil!t!fri.l ir rlrr.l t | . | , I I | | | | I I . I r !
:iii i: iiiiiiiiiiiiii!iiiiiir!
I rr I r lllltt lr t I tr t, tt tt tttll lt t
o--
o--a__
o.-
I
I
I
1''t,
rai
1 ,'-l '
l'l 'v
- r- +.l ,'.t t-','iI1r ;l \-
JiIl Kannerer, Senior planner
Town of Vail Conmunity Developnent75 South FronLage RoadVail, Col.orado 81657
Re: Your file - christiania Lodge, special Developnent District
Dear JiIl:
This letter is written in response to a request frorn JayPeterson, attorney for christiania- Lodge. specifically, vaiiAssociates, rnc. ("vA'l ) has been requeitea tL provide irittenconfirmation that christiania may cdntinue to irse property owned byvA for christianlg.narkins. Although vA is not preparea Lo couunitto provide any additional parking reguired by thi clrristianiaspecial Development DistriLt ptan, v.{ is agrieable to christianiarsparking-on.vArs property to the extent vA is legarry obligateilunder the terms of that certain warranty oeed dited-Juty 5, 1963,recorded in Book.177 at page L27 and thlt certain agreeirent by andamong Vail Associates, rnc., christiania-at-Vail, rnc. and Town ofvail dated lilarch L5, r979t recorded in Book 2L2;t page 877 (therrAgreement'). However, please be advised that it apptars to us,based 9n a! irnprovements ]ocation rnap prepared uy n-alre varleysurveying dated (revised) January rsl iggi, chri-stiaita i= rofcurrently parling in the locatl-on specified in the Agreenent, butlnsteacl rs using other v-A property and a portion of platted roadwaydedicated to the Town of vail. va herebyacknowledgis and isagreement with such current parking l_ocation until the foregoingissues, presently being studied, aie resolved arnong vA, christiiniaand Town of Vail.
Although vA has no objection to christianiars continuingthrough the Town of vail special Developrnent District reviewprocess, V.A specifically retains the right to review thechristiania special Development Districf p].an and express anyconcerns and/or objections we may have regarding the-project-.
Qvm"@
Vail Associates, Inc.
Creati.:rs and Operators of Vail anrJ Bealer Creel€ Resorts
March 5, L992
Post Office Box 7 r Vail, Colorado 81658 . USA - (301) 4?6-5601
Jill Karnmarer
March 5, 1992
Page 2
If you have any questions or concernsof VA reLating to the application for theSpecial Development District, please feel
Department at 479-3100.
regarding the position
Christiania Lodge'sfree to contact the Legal
Very truly yours,
socrATEs, INc.
Larry E
Executive
cc: PauL Johnson
Jay Peterson
Lichl
Vice
I
hE )-t4^ -t 4 fu _tu1/--
U
-S& L&:: -zea rL 3:?: f L .
.1-.- W*24 4---
--6P- =l-n&r
Iec--(acce+S
t.7 4c o. {,o-,2-41 -
/r.f"t *^6<
"-(err-4ta tA
--
tr
9*iB li- f.:ii] .
fl $[*9" r ii$' ,
Present
Greg Amsden
Chuck Clist
Diana Donovan
Ludwig Kurz
Kathy Langenwalter
Dalton Williams
Gena Whitten
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
March 9,1992
Staff
Kristan Pritz
Mike Mollica
Jill Kammerer
Andy Knudtsen
Shelly Mello
Amber Blecker
The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Diana Donovan at 1:05PM.
l. A request for a worksession for a minor subdivision and a zone district chanee from
Primarv/Secondarv Residential to Low Densitv Multiole Familv. for the Schmetzko
propenv. qenerally located at 2239 Chamonix Lane, more particularlv described as:
Parcel A: A tract of land containing one acre, more or less, located in the South 1/2
of the South East l/4 of Section 11, Township 5 South, Range 8l West of the Sixth
Principal Meridian, more particularly described as follows:
Beginning at the NE corner of the SW 114 of the SE l/4 of said Section 11; thence
westerly along the northerly line of said SW l/4 of the SE 1/4 bearing south 86 20' W
a distance of 167.80 ft. to a point:
Thence southerly along a line 167.80 ft. distant from and parallel to the east line of
said SW l/4 of the SE l/4, a distance of200.00 ft. to a point:
Thence easterly a distance of 167.80 ft. along a line 200.00 ft. distant from and
parallel to the nonh line of said SW l/4 of the SE l/4 to a point on its east line;
Thence easterly on a line parallel to the north line of the SW l/4 of the SE 1/4 of
Section 11, a distance of 50.95 ft. to a point:
Thence northerly and parallel with the west line of the east U2 of the SE 1/4 of said
Section 11, a distance of 200.00 ft. to the point of intersection with the extension of
the north line of the SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of said Section 11;
Thence westerly on a deflective angle left of 95 21'00" along the extension of the
north line of the SW 1/4 of the SE l/4 of said Section 11, a distance of 50.95 ft. to
the NE corner of the SW l/4 of the SE l/4 of Section ll, being the point of
beginning.
Planning and Environmental Commission . March 9, 1992 . Page 1
Parcel B: Tract A, Vail Heights Filing No. 1 according to tlre recorded plat thereof.
Applicant Erich Schmetzko
Planner: Andy Knudtsen
Andy Knudtsen explained the request and issues surrounding the proposal.
Chuck Crist asked why the Land Use Plan called out this area as Medium Density
Residential. Kristan Pritz said MDR was a general range of 3-14 units, and was used as a
guide. Greg Amsden asked if the Commission should then give the applicant a development
range.
Rick Rosen, representing the applicant, said they wanted to obtain approval for as many units
as possible. He said the hazard mitigation plans were still being worked upon, and that he
would like to see direction from the Commission on the maximum number of units which
would be approved.
Greg asked for a history of the parcel. Rick responded that when Mr. Schmetzko purchased
the property, it was not yet annexed into the Town of Vail. At that time, he believed it was
zoned for 5 units by the County. When the Town annexed the area, he believed the owner
was given no notice that the Town was going to down-zone the property. At this point, Mr.
Schmetzko wished to rezons the property and replat it into one parcel for continuous access.
Diana Donovan indicated that how the County had zoned the property was not the issue. She
indicated she could only support increasing the density of the property if sufficient mitigation
was performed. She believed it was unbuildable without mitigation. In addition, she felt it
was critical that the mitigation be performed on the property, not off-site, as there would be
too much scarring if the mitigation went back into the BLM lands. She challenged the owner
to address the aesthetic coryrerns of the mitigation.
Kathy Langenwalter was not comfortable rezoning the property. She thought a Special
Development District would be more appropriate. She was 1eery of giving the parcel a new
zoning, then having it sold. Since the mitigation was critical to the proposal, she wanted
more development controls placed on the property than just zoning. Diana agreed, but
suggested placing plat restrictions on the parcels. Kathy did not believe that would be enough
control, as the mitigation was part of the design process. Andy indicated that standards for
the mitigation construction could be placed on the plat.
Kathy believed the rezoning request would be easier to support if it was known who would
develop the property. Rick replied that if the property was restricted through use of the plat,
the developer would still be required to go through the planning process. If a site-specific
request were approved, it would be difficult for Mr. Schmetzko to sell the property, as it
would limit the use and value of the land. Kathy reiterated that the site is very sensitive, and
she did not believe a plat restriction would sufficiently protect the character of the area.
Planning and Environmental Commission . March 9, 1992 . Page 2
t. A request for a worksession for a minor subdivision and a zone district chanse from
Primarv/Secondarv Residential to Low Densitv Multiple Family. for the Schmetzko
Eopertv. senerallv located at 2239 Chamonix Lane.
Andy Knudtsen inuoduced Fritz Schmidt, t}te owner of a private sewer line running across
Mr. Schmetzko's properfy. Mr. Schmidt asked that an easement k placed on Mr.
Schmetzko's property for his sewer. Larry Eskwith, Town Attorney, explained it would be
diffrcult to require Mr. Schmetzko to place an easement for a private citizen, and encouraged
Mr. Schmidt to pursue a private agreement. Mr. Schmidt indicated he had built his sewer
according to a previous owner's request to use the Holy Cross easement. What he was asking
for was to be able to move his sewer to the boundary. Larry said if the Town placed that
requirement on the property, the Town would be involved in litigation.
After a further discussion of the legalities of the placernent and location, the Commission
recessed for 5 minutes.
4, A request for the establishment of a Special Development Disrrict at the Christiania at
Vail. 356 Hanson Ranch Road/Ilt D. Block 2. Vail Villaee First Filine, and Lot P-3.
Block 5-A. Vail Villaee Fifrh Filins.
Applicanr Paul JohnstonPlanner: Mike Mollica
Mike Mollica reviewed the request. Staff believed the request to be a positive project, and
that public benefits were to be gained.
Kristan Pritz explained the legal parking situation. The Commission and staff engaged in a
discussion of the parking issues and the Town's position on legal, non-conforming parking
spaces,
Mike indicated the staff recommended approval of the project as explained in staff's
memorandum. He distributed a letter from a resident of the Vail Row Houses, Barbara
Welles. In addition, he explained the chart in the staff memo which gave the gross squarc
footages for the existing building, the 1991 approval and the currenr SDD request.
Greg Amsden asked if there was sufficient turning radius in the garage area. Dalton Williams
said it looked like there was a parking space in the loading and delivery area, and questioned
the ability of the space to be used. Paul Johnston indicated the spaces in question were all
valet parking spaces. Mike said there was no code requirement for a minimum turning radius
to access a garage.
Jay Peterson, representing the applicant, discussed the right-of-way issues between Lots P-3
and J. He said, at a minimum, there were 13 parking spaces proposed for the Christiania, but
that there were no "air" rights above the lot--the christiania could park on Lot p-3. In
addition, Jay did not believe there was a right to construct below the existing surface area. If
Vail Associates decided to develop the site, they would have to provide parking to the
Christiania.
Planning and Environmental Commission . March 9, 1992 . Page 9
Chuck Crist asked if there were guest cars in excess of thc parking spaces provided, where
would they park. Paul said it was very rare, and more frequent in summer than winter, but
when it occurred, they parked in the Vail Village Parking Structure. Chuck said he could
support the project, but was still concerned about parking.
Diana Donovan was also concerned about the parking. She said Lot J had always been
recognized as the parking for the Christiania. Somehow, even if it was just on paper, the
required additional 9 parking spaces needed to be shown. Paul Johnston indicated he could
show them in the Mill Creek Court Chute, as it was unclear if the Town had an easement for
the current road. Mike asked if valet spaces in Lot P-3 would be sufficient. Diana said they
might.
Jay Peterson explained the rationale behind the applicant's Special Development District
request. He said when the owners had investigated the suite option with their guests the
previous summer, it became clear that the summer guests would not like what had been
approved in 1991. The Johnstons wanted to upgrade their property, but still maintain it as a
family-owned lodge. Jay reminded the Commission that over the past few years, 3 major
propenies in Vail had been foreclosed upon and several small lodging properties had been
lost as "lodges."
Jay said the current proposal does result in a decrease in accommodation units, but upgrades
the entire hotel and brings it into compliance with building and fire codes. Regarding
parking, he said the request being considered required 41 parking spaces, 6 more than what
the Town recognized as existing.
Paul agreed with Jay's assessment of the summer business, stating that if the Christiania had
become an all-suite hotel, he would have closed by now.
Kurt Segerberg, architect for the project, explained some design changes on the plans to the
Commission.
Geni Amold, representing Vail Associates, confirmed that VA has an obligation to provide
parking to the Christiania, but the details of that parking (the location) was still in question.
Bill Morton, an owner of a Mill Creek Coua condominium, said since he purchased his unit,
the Red Lion on the west had increased its size, impacting his view corridor to the west.
When he learned of the Christiania proposal, he worked out a compromise with Mr. Johnston.
Then, approximately 4 weeks previously, he leamed that Mr. Johnston was changing his
design, and he felt the magnitude of those changes on his unit were huge. Mr. Morton did
not believe the Christiania needed to push further into the setback to achieve the changes they
targeted. He did say the renovation would be an improvement to the property, but there
should be respect for existing views, and this project was not in the best interest of the Town.
Jim Lamont, representing the East Village Homeowners Association (EVHA), said the issue
was the redevelopment of Vail, but the question to be answered was at whose expense? Jim
indicated the purpose of the EVHA was to further the best interest of the East Village
community, and echoed Mr. Morton's comments regarding the status of the project approved
Planning and Environmental Commission . March 9,1992. Page 10
in 1991. The EVHA was not pleased with the curent proposal, and said the Christiania and
the Commission could not use economic rcasons to justify approval of the proposal.
On a technical side, Jim rhetorically asked if there was justification for a Special
Development District, answering therc was not. He said the only justification he could see
was to circumvent the underlying zone district, and that was insufficient justification for an
SDD. The value of the SDD prccess was for true redevelopment, not mere modifications.
Mr. Lamont did not believe staff had performed sufficient research and investigation of the
project to sustain their parking arguments. Under the Vail Village Master Plan, Section 5.1.1
requires on-site parking for lodges, and does not allow for pay-in-lieu.
Jim cautioned the Commission not to "skate on thin ice of zoning" for this project. He said
that, although the staff justified 4 stories for the building, the Master Plan gave a range as a
guide, but did not mandate the height. The Master Plan called far 3-4 stories, and encouraged
stab stepping of height.
Addressing employee housing, Jim wondered what off-site impacts the project would have by
restricting another employee unit. He believed ttre employee housing should be solved on-
site. Regarding site coverage, Mr. Lamont encouraged a change in design to spread out the
building, since the pmject was under the allowable site coverage. He said that would
decrease the height. Reiterating his main point, Mr. Lamont stated Special Development
Districts were not intended to be used solely to circumvent zone districts.
Jay Peterson responded to Mr. Lamont's commenrs regarding height, and said that the
increase in height in the southwest corner was to accommodate parking, and did not impact
Mr. Morton. The Christiania was trying to provide covered parking. Anywhere a building in
the area increased height would impact someone. The Christiania was rying for the best
possible long-term solution.
Diana Donovan said the guidelines for the area cncouraged an increase in accommodation
units. However, she would like to see a better, more realistic solution to the parking issue.
Greg Amsden asked if staff rcquested the two covered parking spaces. Kristan replied that
the applicant provided it without a rcquest. Paul Johnston clarified that it was put in the
plans to attempt to comply with the covered parking requirement and to improve the area.
Gena Whitten asked who would park there. Paul indicated it would be owned by the hotel,
and would not be owned by condominium ownen, and would be a limited common element.
Gena suggested looking at dividing the suites in the summer. Paul said his rooms were
already very small. He was combining 6 to make 3 "acceptably sized" rooms. Jay Petenon
also said that if the rooms were separated, it would cause a density problem, and the logistics
of door and furniture placement no longer made sense.
Kristan reiterated that staff had performed extensive research on the lots P-3 and J parking
issues, and it was a very difficult and confusing situation. Gerry Arnold from Vail Associates
said VA was anxious to unravel the legal questions surrounding those lots.
Plmning and Environmenal Commission . March 9, 1992 . Page I I
o
Jay Peterson asked that the proposal be tabled to March 23 in order to further address the
parking questions. Jim Lamont said the EVHA would also have to re-evaluate the proposal,
and would like to reserve the right to further address the project.
Dalton was concerned with the parking, stating that it was difficult to understand, and since
this was a congested area, it was critical. In addition, he both agreed and disagreed with staff
regarding the setback issue, pointing out that none of the area complied with setback
requirements. Kristan added that if a variance were requested for the setbacks, the applicants
would have to prove a physical hardship and that the variance was in the best interest of the
Town.
Gena Whitten was most concerned with the parking issues.
Chuck Ctist would like to see a bettcr resolution to the parking question. He was not
convinced the garage parking was a good solution. In addition, he was concemed about the
extension of the buildine into the setback.
Diana was concerned about potential parking in the Mill Creek Court Chute. She suggested
additional landscaping to hide the "back of the house." In addition, she suggested eliminating
or reducing the units above the garage area. She asked for more screening from the Cyrano's
side. She indicated ttrat if the trees to be moved should die, they should be replaced. She
asked if staff had concems about the office on the first floor of the project being enlarged.
Mike replied that since there was no increase in number of employees, it was not a concem.
Greg was concerned about the GRFA above the garage. He asked that the applicants look at
redesigning the addition to eliminate the garage addition. He was not sure the SDD proposal
was appropriate. He asked if the plans could be scaled back to the 1991 approval and still
work. He also requested written confirmation regarding the current parking rights and
continued use of Lot J for parking.
Kathy agreed with Greg, stating she was not convinced an SDD was appropriate. Since the
proposal was 1,100 sq. ft. over the allowable CRFA , she believed the project could be
decreased in size. In addition, she thought the landscaping should be able to be increased l7o
to bring it into compliance with the requirements.
Ludwig Kurz echoed the issues both Kathy and Greg raised, He found that more than just a
garage had been added, and was not sur€ which addition was "wagging" the other. He felt
misled by the comments of the applicants on that issue. The last time this project had come
before the PEC, he had snongly supported it. He believed the parking issue had been dealt
with in.good faith. However, he was concerned that the SDD could be decreasing the
parking requirement.
Kathy asked that ttre public leuers be submitted earlier so that they could be placed in the
Commissioners' packets. Jim Lamont said he would have liked to, but could not do so
because of the system of rcleasing the staff memorandum on Friday evening,
Planning and Environmental Commission . March 9,1992'Page 12
Jay asked if the Commissioners could support having the 6 suites changed into
accommodation units. Dalton liked that point of the proposal. Kathy agreed, stating that
accommodation units were acceptable, but additional GRFA was not.
Kathy Langenwalter moved to table this issue to March 23, 1992. Chuck Crist seconded the
motion. It was unanimously approved,7-0.
5. A request to amend Section 18.34. Parkinq Zone District of the Vail Municioal Code
to allow construction staging as a conditional use.
Annlicant: Vail Associates/Sonnenalo Properties
Planner: Andy Knudtsen
Andy Knudtsen explained the request. Staff recommended approval.
Ken O'Bryan, representing the applicants, indicated the reason the Sonnenalp needed the off-
site staging area was because of the extremely tight construction schedule.
Chuck Crist asked why other areas were included in this request. Andy said that every lot
included in the Parking mrle district would have to be affected.
Kathy Langenwalter moved to rccommend the Town Council approve the request to ampnd
Section 18.34, ParkingZnne District of the Vail Municipal Code to allow construction staging
as a conditional use per staffs memorandum. Chuck Ctist seconded the motion. The
Commission unanimously recommended approval with a vote of 7-0.
6. An appeal of a staff decision reearding srandfathered office space in the Mill Creek
Court Buildine. 302 Gore Creek Drive/a part of Block 5A" Vail Villaee First Filine.
Appellant Ned GwathmeyPlanner: Shellv Mello
Shelly Mello explained the two appeals. The fint requested that the space now occi,,
the Boot Lab, Unit 1084, be allowed to be an office, since it had been an office in the pasr,
but had been discontinued for a period of more than one year. The second appeal dealt with
the same space. It requested that, since the space is used as storage (which is not an allowed
use on this level in this zone district), that the space be determined to be an existing, non-
conforming use.
Diana Donovan indicated she supported staff in that the uso was discontinued for more than
one year.
Ned G*'athmey informed the Commission that the space had almost always been an c, .
He indicated that, even though it was located in Commercial Core I, it was located behind a
stair, and was not viable reuil space. He said the altemative would be to rezone the parcel
out of CCI, but the cost to do that was unreasonable for 300 sq. ft. He said another
alternative would be to amend the conditional uses for CCI to allow for offices on the first
floor. He then referenced Section 18.60.010 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code on
conditional uses.
Planning and Environmental Commission ' March 9, 1992 . Page 13
Kristan Pritz replied that the referenced section only applied when the use concerned was
already listed as a conditional use in the Code. If it was not listed, the Commission could not
grant a conditional use permit.
Ned felt it was ridiculous that, since the space had predominantly been used as an offrce, that
it was not allowed at this time. Diana said that retail use in the Village Core was to be
encouraged. Ned reiterated this was not viable retail space.
Greg Amsden believed it would be a dangerous precedent to change the uses in the Village to
allow office where retaiVservice uses are currently required and considered important to the
life of the Village.
Diana summarized the Commission's position to state they could not endorse the appeal,
Kathy Langenwalter moved to uphold the staff's decision rcgarding grandfathered office space
in the Mill Creek Court Building, 302 Gore Creek Drive/a part of Block 5A, Vail Village
First Filing. Greg Amsden seconded the motion. It was upheld, 7-0.
7. A request to amend Chapter 18.24 - Commercial Core I and Chapter 18.26 -
Commercial Corp II. of the Town of Vail zonine code relating to exterior alterations
or modifications. and the Vail Villaee Desisn Considerations 0) - Sun-Shade.
Applicanil Town of Vail
Planner: Jill Kanmerer
Jill Kammerer reviewed the major portions of the proposal, answering questions from the
Commissioners regarding changes from the previous review. She clarified submittal dates,
requirements for dining decks and exterior alterations.
Diana Donovan disagreed with having the second application for a minor (under 100 sq. ft.)
alteration being resricted to the "major" alteration submittal dates. Diana indicated she
would like to continue to limit the review of 100 sq. ft. or less to one proposal every two
years. Further, she did not think it was a good idea to make a minor alteration easier, as
making applicants wait could help produce better projects.
Dalton Williams asked that the intention for both submittal dates be given, i.e., that February
was for smaller projects and September was for the large, major requests in order to allow
time for approvals before the spring construction season.
Staff clarified that the change in submittal dates did not relate to the size of the project, but
rather the purpose of the change was to allow earlier review of projects by the Town in order
to allow construction to begin in the spring immediately following the end of the ski season,
and in the fall prior to the beginning of the ski season.
Jill asked the Commission's feelings on having the exterior alterations good for 2 years.
Kristan said 2 yean was nice for the more minor alterations, as it gave them more than I
building season for the alteration to be constructed in the event financing was not
immediately obtainable. Ka$y Langenwalter was in favor of being consistent with the recent
Planning and Environmental Commission . March 9,1992'Page 14
f
Pierce, Segerberg & Spaeh Architects P.C A.I. A.
1lAll
Date :
To:
F rom :
March 6,
Hi ke Ho'l
Town of
Kurt A.
Pierce,
1992
'| |kaVail - Pl
Sege rbe rg
Sege rbe rg
ann lng Department
& Spaeh, Architects
Mi ke:
Per your request, I am responding to your comments regarding
the Chri sti ani a remodel .
Condo ConversJ on Restri cti on:
OnIy on Suite 8.
Empl oyee Housi nq Uni t:
Off si te.
Landscape:
Enclosed is a revised 'landscape plan for the Christiania
remode'l . Per your nequest I wal ked the si te wi th survey i n
hand and marked-up a fi el d veri fi cati on of that survey. I
found a few discrepancies, but for the most part, the survey
was genenal l y fai rI y accu rate.
Mike, our basic appnoach to this proJect is to save as manytrees as possffi too near and ln the massffi the project yi'l 'l obviously be removed.
}'le will to save and transplant as t ne
ractlca o lne sou co rne r of the e'l dthe "senvice entrv".
I agree that the log fence anoundto be moved i nsi de the Chri sti ani a
Main Office: 1000 South Frontage Road West .
One Tabor Center . l2OO Seventeenth Street. Suite 515
Vail, Colorado 81657 . 303/476-4433
. Denver, Colorado 80202 . 3031623-3355
the pool
property
area wilI have
l'i ne, unless
Memorandum
Mi ke Mo'l Ii ka
March 6, L992.
Page 2.
al ternate arrangements can be made !,, i th Vai'l Associ ates.
Note that per youF recommendations I have included four (4)
additional tnees to shield the nelr pool fence.
I hope thi s i nformat ion hel ps to cl ari fy some of the
outstandi ng I andscape i ssues that you menti oned the other
day.
P-3 Panki nq:
As you recommended, f revised the P-3 Parking Plan toindicate asphalt paving. I would I i ke to pnopose loweringthe timber wal'l on the inside to 8" above the finishedpaving. Thi s would Iover the height by LA", thus reducingthe waIls impact. As indicated on our plan of the P-3 Iot,'l and scapi ng shou ld shield much of thi s wal L
Utility Easement:
Regarding our 1'- A" encroachment, we wil l file for arevocable use permit, otherwise we wil l move the buildingL'- g" out of the said easement. Penmits wi l'l be attainedprior to issuance of buildlng permit.
Staki nq Si te:
}Jill be done Monday morning, March 9, L992.
|.lal ki nq Path:
Vai 1 Associ ates has been noti fi ed - in proce s s.
Redueed Draw i nqs r
A t/Z x 11 by Friday, March 6, t99Z - noon.
-Si te pl an
-P-3 Panki ng
-EIevations
LAND T
IIT o
c
. trrn FEB 1 41gPof l{innesota
OUPANY
Representing
LE GUARANTEE
Title Insurance Company
THANK YOU FOR YOUR ORDER
February 13, L992
Our Order No.3 VL8Z7Z
BUYER/OnNER:
VAIL ASSOCIATES, INC., A Colorado Corporation
SELLER:
N)DRESS:
/
'JAY K. pETERsoN
108 S. FRONTAGE RD. #306VAIL, CO 81557
1 Attn: JAY PATERSON
PICKED T'P FOR DELIVERY
COVnIANTS ATTACTTED
VAIL VILIJ\GE, FIFTH FIIJING
A!{ PU
KAREW HORTH 3O3 476-225L
303 476-0092
yEs
FOR TITLE QUESTIONS CAI.,IT
FOR CIOSING QUESTIONS CALL
z8 qe u/oJ wtt
tuoleuqts pazuoqlnv
VIOSINNIW l0 ANVdy!03 lSNVUnSNl :nIlI
'Arolpubts pazuotltne laqlo to laclrJo buneptlen e Aq
pau0lslatunoJ uaqM ptleA aq 0l'V alnpaLlos ut uMotls atep aql uo sjaJr$0 pazuor.llne Alnp stl Ag paxtle olunalaq aq ol leas pue aueu
alerodr0c slr pasnec seq elosauurlA l0 /\ueduol acuernsul au- lolulHM sslNllM Nl
'luaulruJuto3 stql /iq psla^oc uoaJaql abebuou r0 lsorolut .10 alelsa 0ql anleA l0l pl0Jal lo
sarnbJE patnsut pasodotd aql alep aql 0l toud ]nq loataq alep a^rlca#a aql ol luanbasqns 6urLllel+e ro sproJaJ crlqnd aq1 ut 0uueadde
lsJu'palearJ r{ue !'srapeu raq}o r0 surelJ asra^pe 'salueiqun3ua 'suall 'slca+a0 g
'sprocat crlqnd aql Aq uiuoqs lou pue nnel Aq pasoduil
'paLlsrurnl rauesraq ro aJoJol€rsql leuolsur Jo roqel 'saorntas rol 'uatl e ol tt..l6rr ro 'uat1 Auy tr
'splocal ctlqnd aqi Aq uMorls lou ole qgtqM pue asolcstp plnonn sasrLuard aq+ +o uorlgadsut pue AaAlns lcollo3 e qJl[]M
slre; Aue pue 'sluauqceoroua 'eale ur abeuoqs 'saurq fuepunoq ur slcrlluoc 'satcuedalssl6 g
'sprooar rt;qnd aq] Aq uMoqs ]0u 'stuauasea ]o sultelc l0 'sluauasel Z
'sprooar ctlqnd aql /1q uMoqs lou u0lssassod ut satued lo sulelc lo slq6!U t
rr0r| suo,snrexr pue suor1e1ndr15 pue suorl,puor .* ,,'liffill]:ltliiilXli:,';l'riJlii';t'*"' srq]'or parralar anoqe aberano3
SNOI]d]TN CUVONVIS
']uaulruIU03 slq Jo suorsr,rord aq] o] lcalqns are pue
u0 paseq aq lsnul luau]tuMl srq],(q patanor uoataql a6e0!ou aql l0 snlels aq]jo lsajalur r0 alelsa aq] o] allrl aql l0 snlels aql ]0 ]n0 6utsue,{ueduo3
aq] ]sure0e 6uuq lieu ro a,req,,leu parnsu; pasodord aq11eql uorpe ]0 slqbu ro suorpe ro uogoe,iuy 7
ur0raq pal|pour AlsseJox€
se ldacxa luaulrnrurol slql lo led e apeu pue acuaralat,tq palerodoru Aqaraq ale qorq/vl pornsul pasodord aqt 1o toael ut t0] pallttxtuos sat3tlod r0 i\cllod
1o Luol aql lo a6eta^03 ulo.i] suotsnilxa aqt pue suo4e;nd49 pue suottlpuo3 aqi pue suorsrnord 0uunsur eql q ]salqns st lllltqetl qtns pue lol paututtltos
sarcrlod to,br;od aql iol V alnpaqrs ur patels lunoue aql paalxa Alrpqerl qrns lleqs lua^a 0u ul luaur]ruluo! srq] ,{q palaloc uoataqi a6e0loul to lsatalut t0
alelsa aql alesro r0 elnbce ot (c) ro 'g alnpaqcs ur umoqs suorldarxa ateururla 0l {q) io paraq sluauarrnbar aq} qrm llduor o} (e) q ei poo0 ut 6utleyapun
ut uoalaq asuetlal ul pallnout ssol lenlce loj
^luo
pue t0] paurulu]0r serorlod ro icrlod J0 ruol aql ur pajnsul Jo.uot]tullap aql iapun papnlcut satued
Wns pue painsul pasodord paueu aql ot Aluo aq lleqs luaur]rulllo3 srql rapun Aueduo3 aql l0llrltqell t
suorlelnd49 pue suorlrpuoS asaql lo g qdel6eled o1]uenslnd palncut
llsnotlald Arllqell urorl luedu4 aq1 a^arlar lou lleqs luauJpuaue qJns ]nq {q6urprorre luaulrurroJ srtll }o I alnpaqss puaue leul uol}d0 sll }e Iuedu0S
o|,1},laueuleq}o]0uJ|P|Jas]a^pe,ocUe']qUlnJUa,Ua||,}ca+apqrns,{ue1oa6pa1,tr0Ullen13esal|nbJeaslraq}0,{uedr.rro3aq1ltlo,{uedulo3wola0pa|AoUl
qtns asol3stp lleqs palnsul pasodotd eq11; a0palmou1 q3ns asolcsrp os 0] parnsul pasodold aql lo arnlrel Iq paupnlard sr i{ueduo3 aq} }ua}xa 0q} oi uoeloq
acuetlat 1o pe,{ue uo4 burllnsat abeuep to ssol iiue tol /(+LllQell ul04 pa^atlar aq 1|eqs,{ueduo3 aq} '6ut}[t"t ur i{ueduum aq1o1 aopaoul q3ns as0l]slp o}
ltel lleqs pue Joaraq B alnpallrs ur umoqs asoLl] ueql raqlo ]uau}ururo3 srq,{q paranor uoaraq} a6e0l:out ro lsata}ut to a1e1sa aq OutpaIe laueut taq}0lo
urelr asja^pe 'acuerqunoua 'uarl 'lcalap
^ue
lo aopalMou)i lenl3e saltnb3e l0 seq patnsul pasodold aql Jl Z.luaunilsur lunoas laqlo.t0'paap lsntt lsnlt l0 paap apnltur llells'uralaq pasn uaqM ',,abe6!oLu,, ulel aql t
sN0r1ilnd[s cNV sN0lll0N03
,(ueduoJ a$ lo llnel aq110u sr satstlod
ro,'|'1;od qrns anssr 0] arnlrej aql ]eq] paprnord'srncco lsrr;.ra eqgtq,^ 'anssr lleqs rol paullrju.lo3 salsllod l0
,brlod aqt uaqrvr ro loaraq atep a^rpal;a aql ra4e sqluour xrs aieurura] pue aseec lleqs Jopunalaq suone0 lqo
pue rillqerl qle pue ecuejnsur alu l0 sarcrlod ro fcrlod qcns lo ocuenssr aq] ot fueururrlard sr iuawlrrrluroo s[]l
'luar.ira$opua luanbosqns Aq r0 tuaulrrurxol srql i0 aouenssl eql l0
eurl aql le Jaq]t€ iueduoS aql /{q loelaq v elnp€qcs ut pauasul uaaq a^eq lol paululltloJ satrtlod lo lct1od
aql l0 }unouje aql pue parnsul pasodord €qI ]o lltluapr aq uaqm,{1uo o^t}ta}Ja aq lleqs luau}ltxulo] slql
'10alaq
suorlelndqg pue suorlrpuo3 eql0l pue B pue V salnpaqrg;o suorsr,rord aql ot lc€lqns 11e :ro;eraq] sa0teqc
pue sunruard aq] 1o luauAed uodn 'y alnpaqrg ur o] paxalar r0 paqulsap puel aql ur riqaraq paraloo lsaro]ul
ro e1elsa aql lo aabebuotr ro raur"ro se 'V alnpaps ul paueu pa.rnsul pasodord aqt 1o ro,ne] ur 'V alnpoLloS
ur per+rluapr se 'asuejnsur aFt l0 sarSrl0d ro
^3rlod
s]r onssr 0I sitluro3 Aqaraq 'u0rlelaptsu0s alqenle^
e rol lueduro3 aql pallec uraiaq 'uorterodroc etosauu y\ e 'VISS]NN;y\ lO ANVdy\63 3tNVHnSNl lllll
%w 6wzrr6
Vttt,t
VTOS]NNIW
oALTA COI.TI.TITI,TENT
SCHEDULE A
Our Order No. V18272
For Information Only
LOT P.3, BLOCK 5-A, VAIL VILLAGE, F
- Charges -AL'Aowne'-"lt,l3ilor- - tl33:33
****WITH YOT]R RE{ITTANCE PI.,EASE RETER TO OI'R ORDER NO. V18272.****
1. Effective Date: February 06, L99Z at 8:OO A,M.
2. Policy to be issued, and proposed Insured:
rrALTAn Ownerrs Policy
1987 Revision (Anended 1990)
Proposed Insured:
VAIL ASSOCIATES, INC. , A Colorado Corporation
3. The estate or interest in the land described or referred to inthis Connitnent and covered herein is:
A Fee Sinple
4. Title to the estate or interest covered herein is at theeffective date hereof vested in:
VAIL ASSOCIATES, INC. , A Colorado Corporation
5. The land referred to in this Conmitnent is described asfollows:
LOT P.3, BI.,,OCK 5-A, VAIL VILLAGE, FIFUI FILING, ACCORDTNG TO
THE RECORDED PLAT THEREOF, COI'NTY OF EAGLE, STATE OF COLORADO.
PAGE 1
SCHEDI'LE B-1
(Reguirenents) Our Order No. V18272
The following are the requirements to be conplied with:
1. Palanent to or for the account of the grantors or mortgagors ofthe full consideration for the estate or interest to be
insured.
2. Proper instrument(s) creating the estate or interest to be
insured must be executed and duly filed for record, to-wit:
THIS COMMITMENT IS FOR INFORT,TAETON ONLY, AND NO POLICY WILL BE ISSUED
PURSUANB HERETO.
THE COT'NTY CLERK AND RECORDERS OFFICE REQUIRES RETT'RN
ADDRESSES ON DOCI'II{ENTS SETflT FOR RECORDING! !
oALTA COI'fl'fITl,fENT
PAGE 2
SCHEDULE B-2
(Exceptions) Our Order No. V18272
fhe policy or policies to be issued sill contain exceptions to the
following unless the same are disposed of to the satisfaction ofthe Company:
1. Standard Exeeptions 1 through 5 printed on the cover sheet.
6. Taxes and assessments not yet due or payable and special
assessments not yet certified to the Treasurer's office.
7. Any unpaid taxes or assessnents against said land.
8. Liene for unpaid vater and sewer charges, if any.
9. RIGHT OF PROPRIETOR OF A VEIN OR I,ODE fO EXTRACT AND REX.{OVE HIS ORE
THEREFROI,! SHOULD THE SAI'IE BE FOITND TO PENETRATE OR INTERSECT THE PR$,IISES
AS RESERVED IN IJNITSD STATES PATENT RECORDED May 20, 1905, IN BooK 48 AT
PAGE 511.
10. RIGHT OF WAY TOR DITCHES OR CANALS CONSTRUCTED BY ?HE AIITHORITY OF THE
T,NITED STAEES AS RESERVED IN UNITED STATES PATENT RECORDED }Tay 20, 1905, TN
BOOK 48 AT PAGE 511.
11. RESTRICTTVE COVENANTS, WErCA DO NOT CONTAIN A FORFETTTJRE OR REVERTER
CLAUSE, BI,II OIIITTING RESTRICTIONS, IF ANY, BASED ON RACE, COLOR, RELIGION,
OR NATIONAL ORIGIN, AS CONIAINED IN INSTRT'I'IENT RECORDED NovembeT 05, L965,
IN BOOK 187 AT PAGE 353 AND AS AMENDED IN INSTRIJI{ENI RECORDED August 27,
L984, rN BOOK 393 AT PAGE 492.
12. EASE!,IENT AS GRANTED TO CIIRTSTTANTA-AT-VAIrJ, rNC. FOR A PERPETUAL EASEIIENT
AND RIGHT TO USE SI]BJECT PROPERTY AS AND FOR A PIIBLIC PARKING LOT, WHICH
EASE!.IENT SHALL RttN WITH I,oT D, BLOCK 2, VAIL VIIJ,AGE FIRST FILING AS
DESCRTBED IN INSTRITUENT RECORDED ;IULY 10, 1963 IN BOOK L77 AI PAGE 127 AND
AS IIIODIFIED BY AGREEI.fENT RECORDED JT'NE 5, 1968 IN BOOK 212 AT PAGE 877 AND
ANY I.TATTERS AFFECTING SAID EASE!4NNTS.
13. RIGHT OF WAY FORTY FEET IN I{IDTH ACROSS THE WESTERLY PORTION OF LOT P-3 AS
DEDICATED TO THE TOWN OF VAIL IN AGREn4ENT RECORDED JITNE 5, 1968 rN BOOK
2L2 AT PAGE 877.
oALTA COIi!Ii!IBI,IENT
PAGE 3
aoLAND TITLE GUARANTEE COUPANY
DISCINSURE STATE}TENT
Reguired by Senate Bill 91-14
A) The subject real property may be located in a special taxingdistrict.
B) A Certificate of Taxes Due Listinq each taxing jurisdiction
may be obtained fron the County Treasurer or the County
Treasurerts authorized agent.
c) The information regarding special districts and the boundariesof such districts nay be obtained from the Board of County
Conmissioners, the County Clerk and Recorder, or the County
Assessor.
' o J"'g b'/6/9es
. ' LAND TITLE GUARANTEE CO14PANY
Representing Title Insurance conpany of Minnesota
THANK YOU FOR YOI'R ORDER
February 26, L992
Our Order No.; V18367
BUYER/OWNER:
SELLER:
ADDRESS:
JAY K. PETERSON
#307
1O8 S. FRONTAGE RD. W.
VAIL, CO 8t_658
l- Attn: JAI
PTCKED UP FOR DELIVERY AI,T PM
COVENANTS ATTACHED YES NO
FOR TITLE QUESTIONS CALL KAREN HORTH 3O3 476-225L
FOR CLOSING QUESTIONS CALL
e6$"i e Eljfl^w
vArL ASSOCTATES, rNC. A COLORADO CORPORATTON
LOT J, BLOCK 5A VAIL VILLAGE sTH FILING
I
^""'^ rS7,gfi1-"il Atateu,ts pezuoqtnv
n"wy- bwt'try{
anua v pumes ut
luedwq ryo1g V
vtoslNN[ il l0 ANVdhloS ]SNWnSN| ilrr
'fuoleu0rs pezuoqlne raqto.lo raorJJo bu4eprlen e Aq
paubtstalunoc uaqM plle^ aq ol 'V alnpaqcs ur umoqs alep aql uo sraoUlo pazuoqlne Alnp s1r Aq paxUJe otunaraq aq ol leas pue aueu
alelodloc sl! pasnpo seq elosauutl l1o Auedujo3 aluelnsul a|-l l0lUlHM SSlNllM Nl'luau]turuol srqt Aq paranoc uoaraql a0e0uou.r ro lsaralur ro alelso eql anlen rol plocar lo
sOlrnbcP parnsut pasodotd aLli alep aqt olroud lnq looraq olep anrlcalra aql oltuenbesqns burqcp11e to splocal crlqnd aql ur Duueadde
lslrl'paleals r{ue Jr 'staDeu lsq}o to su|elc oslaApe ,soJuetqulnsua ,suatl ,s}ca}a0 .g
'spr0lar rlq nd aql Aq uMoqs lou pue Mel Aq pasodurl
'paqsrulnl raUearaq r0 arololalaql ieualeLu t0 roqel 'sal^las l0] ,uatl e ot lqbu _ro ,uar1 Auy .tr
'spl0cal sllqnd aq] Aq uMoqs lou arE qcrqM pue asolosrp plnonn sasruard aql lo uorloadsur pue AaArns lca.roJ e qcrqM
sloel Aue pue'stuau.tqJeoloua'pate ur abeyoqs'sautl Alepunoq ut slotUuor 'sarcuedaLcsr6 g
'sproJar lqn0 Aql Aq uMoqs lou 'sluauasea l0 srxtBlJ j0 'sluau..tasel Z'spr0cer ,rlqnd aqg Aq unnoqs 1ou uorssassod ur saryed J0 sullell to stqbrg 1
:6urMollol aql ol lca[qns osls sr ]uaurlrxr oO sLll'oi paralar anoqe a6erano3
uror+ suorsnlcxl pue su0tlelndtls pue suot]tpu03 aql ut pautelu0c sJaueu aq] 0l u0tuppe ul
SNOIId]]X] OBVCNVlS
luaur]rlnro3 srqi l0 suorslnord aqt o] ]ralqns ate pue
u0 paseq aq lsnul luatlll uuroJ stql
^q
para^oJ uoaraql at)ebpour aq] j0 snlels aql r0lsalalut l0 alelsa aql 0t alttt ag Jo sntels aql p 1no oursue,iueduo3
aql lsurebe 6uuq l\eu .t0 aneq lprx parnsul pasodotd ag leql u0 pe l0 stq6u to suorire to uorlre Auy g
uta.taq pat.ltpout Alsssldxa
se ldaJxa luauJllLrulo3 stq11o yed e apeu pue aJuaralar lq pate.rodjoJur ,iqejaq are qJrqM parnsul pasodotd aq] 1o tolel ut lol paututll0J sarrrlod to fur;od
1o ullol aql io abela^0S ul04 su0tsnltxa aql pue suorlelndrls pue suorlrpuoJ aq] pue suorsrnotd 0uunsur aq1 ol lralqns sr itlr;rqer; qJns pue lol pautulu.loc
salsrl0d l0 ,{rtlod aqt l0] V alnpaqts u palels tunoue aqt paerxa,!rlrqe I qrns lleqs tua^a 0u ul luau]tujut03 srql ,{q patamc uoataql a6e6lout to lsalalut lo
alelsa aql alBals lo a.lrnbJe 0113) ro 'B alnpaqcs ur uMoqs su0rtdarxa ateururla 0l (q) l0 loataq sluaLuatrnbat aq1 14 m,{ldLloc o} {e) qlieJ pooo ut 0urlelapun
ul uoalaq a3uellal u pelln3ut ssol lenpe tol,iluo pue roJ pauru]uor sarc lod roA31;od1o u.IoJ aql ur parnsul lo uorltuUap ar{} lapun papnpur sarled
q3ns pue ps.lnsul pasod0ld paueu aql ot Aluo aq lleqs iuauJltururos srq rapun,{uedr.uo3 aq11o,{1r1rqer1 5
suoqelndqg pue su0r]tpuo3 asaql p t qdatbered ol luenvnd peLtncur
Alsnot^ald lltlqetl ul04lueduo3 aql a^arlai lou lleqs luaulpuaue qrns 1nq ,ilburptorre luau]lrxulol stq] l0 B alnpaqos puaue leu uotldo stt ]e r{ueduoJ
aql laleu lalllo l0 ulels osla^pP 'asuelqulnJua 'uarl ']ralap qrns,{ue 1o abpalrnoq len}ce sa.|nb3p asrMJaq}o luedLLlol aql }i lo
^ueduol
aq} ol abpalrvroul
Wns asolcslp lleqs p€lnsul pasodord aqt 11 abpalnoul qJns asolcsrp 0s o] painsul pasodold aql1o atnlre1,{q pacrpnfard sr ,{uedr-rLo3 aqt tua}xa a$ 0} uoalaq
acuetlat;o 1re Aue uo4 6u41nsat abeuep l0 ssol
^ue
ro] Arlrqerl uro4 pa^arlar aq ;leqs Aueduo3 aql'burlt'r ur ,4ueduo3 aq ot abpaqmoul qJns asolJstp 0l
llel lleqs pue ]oalaq B alnpaqrs ut uMoqs as0q1 ueql raqio luourlururo3 srql r(q paranor uoaraql abebuoLu ro ]sa.ralur r0 alelsa aql 0urlrage tageu taqlo to
urelJ asra^pe 'acuelqulncua 'uar 1ra1ap itue 1o aopalmoul lenpe salnbre to seq palnsul pasodold aql ll z'tuaurrulsut ftunras raqlo ro 'paap lsnr]']sru] ]0 paap apnloui lleqs 'utataq pasn uaqm ',,a6e6pout,, urla] aql L
sN0tl\tndrrs 0NV sN0|I|0N03
lueduoj aqt J0 tlnel aqi tou sr sarcrlod
r0 Aorlod llons anssr 0l atnltel aq] ]eqt papt^otd 'sln:to Islt] la^aqllqM'anss lleqs Jol paptulmot sarrr;od to
A0rl00 aql uaqM r0 ]oaraq atep a^rpa#a aql lage sqtuoul xts aleutuua] pue aseac lleqs lapunalaq suorle0rlqo
pue llltqet; 1|e pue acuelnsut olltt l0 sarJrlod ro
^Jrlod
qcns l0 acupnssr aql ol
^leurultlajd
st luaultululo0 str.l1
luaurauopua luanbasqns Aq J0 luauttulrxoS stql l0 asuensst aqt l0
aur] aq] lP raqlra AueduoS aql ,^q +oalaq v alnpaqts u pauasut uaaq a^eq .lol paDtriluJos satsrlod lo /tcrlod
au 10 lunouls eq] pue palnsul pas0dotd aq] l0 ,{lttuapr aqt uaqn,(1uo e^rlcajla aq Jleqs luourlruuro3 srql
']0araq
suorlelndrls pup suorlrpuo] oqt 0i pue B pue v salnpaqJs Jo suorsr^ord aql ol palqns 1;e :rolaraq1 sa6reqr
pue sunrua.d aql Jo ]uauled uodn 'y alnpaqcg ut ol pato+et l0 paquJsap puel aq ur ,{qataq para^OJ }salalul
ro alelsa aq] J0 aa6e61oru Lo taumo se 'V alnpoqcs ut pauJeu palnsul pasodotd aq] 1o to,re] ut ,V alnpaqcs
ui pagrluapr se 'aJue.lnsut apr11o sarcrlod to r(rrlod s1r anssr o1 qruuoc,(qaaq ,uotlelaprsuoo alqenlel
e roj
^ueduo3
aq] paller uraraq 'uo ]erodor elOsauurt\ e ,VlOSlNNly\ l0 ANVdy\o3 llNVUnSNl l.llll
Vr1'r,,.
zSge [!roJ hltl
VTOS]NNIW
o
ALTA COI-fMITMENI
SCHEDULE A
our Order No. V18367
For Information OnlY
LOT J, BLOCK 5A VAIL VILLAGE 5TH FI
- Charges -AT''Aovne"-n3ti3{o,,- - tl33:33
****WITH YOIR REI.{ITTANCE PLEASE REFER TO OUR ORDER NO. V18367.****
1. Effective Date; February 14, 1992 at 8:OO A.M.
2. Policy to be issued, and proposed fnsured:
nALTAn Ownerts Policy
1987 Revision (Arnended 1990)
Proposed Insured:
3. The estate or i-nterest in the land described or referred to inthis Conrnitnent and covered herein is:
A Fee Sirnple
4. Title to the estate or interest covered herein is at theeffective date hereof vested in:
VAIL ASSOCIATES, INC. A COLORADO CORPORATION
5. The land referred to in this Comrnitnent is described asfollows:
I,oT J BLOCK 5-A, VAIL VILLAGE, 3'IFTH FILING ACCORDING TO THE
RECORDED PLAT THEREOF, COUNTY OF EAGLE, STATE OF COLORADO,
EXCEPTTNG FROM LOT j THAT pROpERTy CONVEYjL-IOIHEIIII&AS
CONDOII{INIW ASSOCJATION IN DEED RECORDED(MARCH ].5. 1976\IN BOOK
245 Nf PAGE 2s2, AND CORRECTTON DEED RECOIDED-IFR-iT-I5t1991 rN
BOOK 551 AT PAGE 742.
PAGE 1
{D
ALTIt COMI.{ITt{ENT
SCHEDULE B-1
(Requirenents) our Order No. V18367
The foLlowing are the requirements to be cornplied with:
1. Paynent to or for the account of the grantors or mortgagors of
the fuII consideration for the estate or interest to be
insured.
2. Proper instruruent(s) <:reating the estate or interest to be
insured must be execu'l:ed and duly filed for record, to-wit:
THrS COUUTT!,IENT rS FOR TNTORMATTON ONLy, AND NO POLTCY WrLL BE TSSUED
PURSUANT HERETO.
THE COI]NTY CLERK AI{D RECORDERS OFFICE REQUIRES RETURN
ADDRESSES ON DOCIIM]INTS SENT FOR RECORDING! !
PAGE 2
l)
ALTA COMI,TIT!,TENT
SCHEDULE B-2
(Exceptions) our order No. v18367
The policy or policies to be issued wiII contain exceptions to the
following unless the same are disposed of to the satisfaction of
the Conpany:
1. Standard Exceptiona l- through 5 printed on the cover sheet.
6. Taxes and assessnents not yet due or payabJ.e and special
assessments not yet certified to the lreasurerts office.
7. Any unpaid taxes or assessments against said land.
8. Lj-ens for unpaid water and sewer charges, if any.
9. RIGHT OF PROPRIETOR OF A VEIN OR LODE TO EXTRAST AND REI'IOVE HIS ORE
THEREFROM SHOULD THE SAI.{E BE FoItND TO PENETRATE OR INTERSECT THE PREI,IISES
AS RESERVED IN UNITED STATES PATENT RECORDED MaY 20, T9O5I IN BOOK 48 AT
PAGE 511.
1.0. RIGHT OF WAY FOR DITCHES OR CANALS CONSTRUCTED BY THE AUTHORITY OF THE
I]NITED STAIES AS RESERVED IN I,NITED STATES PATENT RECORDED }TaY 20, 1905, IN
BOOK 48 AT PAGE 511.
11. RESTRTCTTVE COVENANTS, WHICH DO NOT CONTATN A FORFETTURE OR REVERTER
CLAUSE, BUT OMITTING RESTRICTIONS, IF ANY, BASED ON RACE, COLOR, RELIGION,
OR NATTONAL ORIGIN, AS CONTAINED IN INSTRI,!,IENT RECORDED NoVeMbET 05, 1965,
IN BOOK 187 AT PAGE 353 AND AS A!,TENDED IN INSTRI,I.IENT RECORDED AUgUSt 27,
1984, IN BOOK 393 AT PAGE 492.
12. RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS WHICH DO NOT CONTAIN A FORFEITT'RE OR RAVERTER CI,AUSE,
BUT OMTTTTNG RESTRTCTTONS, rF ANy, BASED ON RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, OR
NATIONAL ORIGIN, AS CONTAINED IN INSTRI'MENT RECORDED MaTch 03, 1977, IN
BOOK 253 AT PAGE 48.
PAGE 3
oo
LAND TTTLE GUARANTEE CO},IPANY
DISCLOSI,RE STATE!,IENT
Required by Senate Bill 91-14
A) The subject real property nay be located in a special taxingdistrict.
B) A Certificate of Taxes Due listinq each taxing jurisdiction
may be obtained from the county Treasurer or the County
Treasurer,s authorized agent.
c) The information regarding special districts and the boundariesof such districts nay be obtained fron the Board of County
Conmissioners, the County Clerk and Recorder, or the County
Assessor.
.? -.t4'Atttr F :,5t t"f 4. rira l" i 'rl lJr.t:' l (i I nf: .
J(lr,l|Nf l ll trr!lL tFs IrrriLl ('rr..Nf r lllHx. coLtrfl,rnll
Qt I t'( 1...$tt D].t:1,.Dol of Cor?.ct lit! To Cor?r.ct omtre rr le on tlult ClH ?.co"H in lool ltl.rt hgr. lll o! ir"cb ft. tttC.' Tllls lDt.[.11. \l*l rh'. :Hth r$,{ Fcbruery . ijgi ,
hnrfcn VAll. ASSfi:tlt]:St t(:. t . tjolorido corp,rr.rron
t{t. c
l gi. 06
DOC
o. oo
'{ th. '(]'ilr*r or f,iRlG('r*ir|'. tr4r,'trr. .|n.| V ll.L VALIIALLA
Colorndo corp(rri.t iorl
.|rl Slr. rtl
ASSoCIAIlOilr lln. | .
l"
I
L
,
!f
te
3t,
gIa
ort
oE
EI
ItI:I
E
rtr.f, kt.t.lt r.r h Jt{r f,. lllrrorl Nlnuh Rond. Vrll. CO tl6tt
tt dr(('r{ntt ,{ Erg I o |r, sr$. nl (i*rrl'. t'a|x'drl
$ll\l:S\liTll Ih.l lh. |rt.|nrtrt.l. L'( rnl In (r.r|\||l'r.|h{r ol lh. ru|n,{ Irrorod vrlurblr conrldcr€t ioo--
Dotlrra.trd oth"r Sood
th. n{.{, n l rgthrrr! r{ rhrri rr hcrtln rlrrrlntprl, hr I c'n|..d. Fh...d, r'el, $nrqd |rtd QUIT CLA|MEII..td }t
rlEr. th*.|'r\.h e I rt|ni{. Nki$.. {ll. $nrr.r rlqLltTCLAlll un||l rh( lnn|Gcirt. ltf lrin. *|!{(trrn |||d idtlrr.
Ir<r<r. rll th nFhr. trtk. mkt(ar. rbin ;rl ,lcnr.|rl rhNh tlr Sr{i'rlil he I in rd tr tha t!.1 FtF y. loF}cr tidt
'|nFrdr*'rx\. rt x|!. \fi||lr, ll |nf .nd ]r|n[ $ lhc
ti*r.||l, d.rhh.rl a t k{\
(irt|*tol Erglo aad s|* of
Scc EllllBlT A stt.lched hercto .nd nldc. p.rt her.of.
:
.
] | rho lrrrn 11 vrto :n.l filn*t'a ar
i Ttr l|wU lXtr n] l(tl.lt rh. $nr. r,rfcth$ rnh dl J| 'rnfr|l{ rh. {nort||r||(6 nd pirihjc. rl*r$fio h.h.tht d li
dilrr* riruirr +lirl.![r.U. nrl.ll rl((rl&. ar8hl trtk . InNrr.it .nJ ( l.rn rhJ|sFrtr. dl lhc ,r.||krlr\ aithat in |r o? a{t|!t I|
thc qrlt FFf r.c. hcrrht rnl ttr.hr,r .{ rh. frrrtonrr. itr r*,".ruHliSf'lfd!
; lN WITN|-SS T lll Rl l*, lhr jr,rntnrth.r .r.r|llJ thN.b.d.r| rh..l{! r.t f,i$ rh'r,t
__vAtL lssocr^?Ps. r{c
-,W--vic.a-Fre!ldcnt
trIo
Sf^ll: (ll ( r tl t l{Allt }.
{iunry ot f,rtGLf,
lhrhrt r{l$ t{tr *n| .Jr.rlnlr| h.rlfnl li.ft'{| n.lhri 28th J.tr r{ Fehrrrrry .19,I
Itr nola S. D)ral ar vlce-Prarl&nt Eryl corry Arnld na nrFl;tult s(tra.tdr? of
!'ull r*Gl,rLrrrr ltr-,r .r O.rl,r.dr !t,rl^r,rl ir)tr.
My.mt{r (. cr$Er Jamgry 7,. lt 95 llih$r ||r\ hrth! rirl r,llt.r.ri .drl
1..
I
'll In l,cnt.r rtr\ n 't (r rrhl '
g*,,e-.
:!.r.;'l,l,*
t, tJ.l, Fi .llt t 'rr tf | | \rrt t! | t.
ffir'X gft1401
lfnllr! I to r Oui! Clrlr H Cr!.d !.bt|l|tt -if-r llllr
brtr.ea YAfL fas(,ctftla I llC. I r Colorrdo coGDotrglo
(Cr.ntor t rnd YILIA YI&IILIA tSSoCtlltd, Irc' (Olr[t..,
A Dortlon ot LoL l, Bloek 5-t' vAtf, VltttGE FIFrF ltLltlc, '.ubdtetilon racorded u;ilcr RGcGptlon NunbGr l025tt of th. !rgl.,
Counth Colorrdor Cl.rk I Facordcr! r.corda. rrld parc.l of lena
bclng- lnotc pertlculerly alc.ertb.d .! tollolal
Beglnnlng rt th. Southealt corn.r ot lrld Lot tt th.nc. -southvcitcrly rlong thG Northcrn llght-of-lley tlna of ll.nlon,Rlnch
no.d for thc- folloilng tr.o coure.tt lll . dlltrnc. of 35.00 tea).
lionc r qrno.nt r,.c'Et6n to ! polnt ol curvcl (21 an lrc dlalaoca
of-Z5.ef icit elonq r l2o.l? ioot rrdlur cure. to th. rlghtr rllh
i ccniral cnEtc of-12'18'18' and e chord lcnglh ol 25.?7 lcctr to
r Dolnt on cirvc. rald Potnt b€lng the TRUB POII{'T r)F SlGlllNItlGt
thinc. eontlnulnt elong-th. Norrharn Rlght-of-!ry llnc^ot-f,rnron
Rlnch lord for rn ere 6lrtanec of 16.!l f6.t rlong r 120.17 tool
radlur curvc !o thc rlghEr Ylth I ccnttel engb o? l2'a7rl6' rnd r
chord l.ngth ol 26.?5 icctr to enochcr Polnt on curva, lhanca on
an anglr [,o th. llght (of!'of tangrncyl ol 77'01'l]' lor r
atrtaicc of l3t.2l'fect to I polnt of-curvt on thc south.rn Rlqht-
of-tay llnc of core crcck Drlirel thcncc on an rngl! Bo- thG-r-I-ght
of 10i'06'la' l!o tang.ncy) tnd rlong thG South.rn Blglt-ot-xryllnc ot core cre.k Drivc lor rn erc alrtrnce ot 12.?l f..E rlong .
180.?? loot rrillu. eurva to th. latt' ulth a ecntlll rngl. ot
a'olr!?' rnd r ehDrat lcncth of 12.?0 leot to r PolnC on-cure.t
th.ncc on rn .ngrG to tha rlght (otl of teng.neyl of te'33rtl' lol
a dlrlancr ot la.t? fcctl th-ncc on an englc to th^ ?lght ot
20.00100. for r dlatancc of 58.91 !cct, th.nc. on .r'r rngla to tha
rlqht of 90'00r00' for r dlrtener of ll.6? f.att tlr'nc. on tn
anilc to thc lGft of 90'00100' for r dlrtrncc of 6I.{9 t..t to tna
TRUE POf l'OF BECINNING, contatnlng l0l0 lqulre tcGtr nola o?
lcrt .
?
I
f.ttto
rr4768O E-!St p-74.a 04ltS/9t lBr.t5 | .r'i .t Dl- .,
Tats Daro,u'd. thl. llch d.tor l,larch .re76 ,
'*'*n vArL AssrlIATE:i, 1its., a colorado cr,rporaticn
ot th. Cotrhtl ot Eagle
Col...dir- of th€ ft L st Frrl, rrd
'lltE vlll-As cmlrnMT Nrlr't AssocrArlol
P.O. Box 832. Vail, Colorado 81657
.r the (:ounry of taele tnd .ta!" of
Colorado, of ih. nrond P!rt.
Ir [T\Ei:-l] I lt. Th't t]r. .-:tid Dlrt v .f th4 t'^i r,x't, tor md in (onsnl Ern,n ol ttr $ur, ol
TEN mLIARS and Odrer tbd ariJ valuable Cor',sideretlcn--------------------{x'rr'hrrs--
toth.$i(lpartV .f th. f iFt Psrl i. i$d P dl'tth..iidr:|ny ^f ll' 'r"nd F'r' thr n{rrlrt \h'rtirf
' .yt,\ . .'' f, ..,:i : ^d ..1' nn$ k rFdi lrr s n'"i.."d.i.l:.J .r':.1 .:'r.:'rd::':t I' rr' 'r tl\llri ind l]
rhf-. f',. -.. dnes rrhis.. Irl,as..scll..n.t.t.hdQttl('1.\lit rrnttr tlrr srid prd rt "lth'{tr;rllrii
ils t{r/ su...'$ors md i.tis1lr. tnrvFr. tril thc riLIl titl!' inler"1. (ls'|n rnd J'ma'( $hi'd tn' srid
ftr.v!,fjrri,r.trrt1fr.Sr,r.ndt,,1h.f,'llrrirrrd.r.'ir'.dlo!.rl'incl'ilnr'dsrrr'r''llirrrf'l
*,-= ,. ,' , Co:,nr, "f Fagle xid s!.r..1c,nfido.lo \Yit
sa! DfiiBlT A attadled hereto
a.rd rsde a parc hereoi.
TO IlArE.r\-i) TO IIr)t-lJ ti. sam.,l6Arth,! \'ith.ll rxd srna'illr the cplurt{nrnr': inJ;: !" rlk'"Jq"'
trlon8inc or in alra i.t th.r.urtto luFn inins, ud all tl,e.:rrte. I:sht. rjth int'r aEl 'lrm \hct**!'r' ol !h'
!s!.! rrrv nf thr t,rrt r!rt, el(her iD la$ or eridtL ro tha onlt proP r uts 'Fn'irt sh'i '-h@; ui 'i ' _' :
Fn y of the s,cond e"". its nfffi8ft.!.,.D. for*1'
L\ ltl:.\.'[l]S \rIIEP.EOF.:l^.*r'id P!:'- j' ^! lid ai-!:iri- i"s h"Frrnld*r lts lsrd
the dsr rnd rerr lirsl.t{ve e'rilten.
.iZ{d.td.. ad t}.lN.rd D !h' PF*n.. ol
Vf-E ASSmlAitS, ll€. tsFrl ,
Ei 1 7"-.:c .ttr:;'#otfn?*. 2f 6r't1
tst:\ r.l
lsll\l.l@
- lgr^Tn oF coloRrlo, I! l1' rk. r-ouDw ot Ebqle )
Th.forcsoinsinrtrunFnl$srr.ti,rql{d$rlirfoF,h"tl,|' itrh dstor''ttult
1s 76 ,br' Andrew D. ilorris, Vice President anrl frr rlcr"icL S. o'r l)
v
q
1414m
{
L-
PrERcE, SEGERBERG lpeex
ARCHITECTS . P.C. .A.l.A.
1000 South Frontage Road West
VAIL, COLORADO 81657 11^.^ ii._,. ! I
LETTT:or trmnNsnnnrrAL
TO
> wE ARE SENDING "ov F*"hed ! Under separate cover via
tr Shop drawings
tr Copy of letter
tr Prints
n Change order
tr Samples
the following items:
! Specilications!
tr
(303) 4764433
coPlEs DATF NO.DESCRIPTION
((ilo'l fo-&3 {A 4
THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below:
E For approval
I For your use
! As requested
! Approved as submifted
! Approved as noted
E Returned for corrections
tr Resubmit-copies for approval
tr Submit-copies for distribution
tr Return
-corrected
prints
E For review and comment !
tr FOR BIDS DUE-tr PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US
REMARKS
COPY TO
SIGNED:
rroo.rcTaro3 /Gi h.., cnb$ rlr 0l4ir ,t ancrosufas are not ea not€d, kindty notily ua at onca.
I
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
I
tiEuoRANpUt{ irrl
Planning and EnvironmentaL Cornmission
Community Development Department
April 8, 1991
A request for a setback.t"ii.tt"e in order to allow the
cons€ruction of a lobby addition, mechanical space' and
an addition to a third-floor dwelling unit'
Cfrristiania Lodge, 356 Hansen Ranch Road, Lot D, Block
2, Vail Village 1st Fil-ing''
appJ-icant: Paul R. Johnston
I.
A.
\'
East Side getback Variance
at ground level or within five feet of ground level may
project not rnore than 10 feet into the reguired
setback.
The Public Acconnodation (PA) zone district requires 20
foot setbacks on alli sides of the property' Under PA
zoning, architectural projections (eaves, roof..
overnings, awnings etc.1 may project not more than 4'-
0tt into a'requir6A setbick.- Unroofed balconies decks
and terraces etc. projecting from a height of rnore than
five ft. above the-ground niy project not more than 5'-
0rr into the setback. Porches, steps, declcs or terraces
An existing lega1 , non-conforuring east side setback of
zero feet iesults'from the Christiania's connection to
the Chateau condominiuns. In expanding the lobby and
:ia ffoor dwelling unit, additional sguare footage will
be constructed wifhin the setback. On the first floor
the lobby expansion will add 271 sq. ft. of conmon area
and 1? sg. tt. of airlock, while on the ground
(basernenf) floor 535 sq. ft. of rnechanical area will be
iAaea. Tire 3rd floor expansion will add 44 sq' ft' of
GRFA to the eastern unit (Unit A). The roof overhang
over the proposed lobby and third floor additions will
also create a O' side setback.
In this particular instancd, because the addition will
further Lncroach into the required sj"de setback, a side
setback variance must be obtained. The Proposed
addition will encroach a naxinum of 20 feet into the
reguired 20 foot Eiile setbaek. Therefore' a 2o foot
side setbask varianee is recruirecl
The existing front setback is 15 feet due to theencroachrnent of the northwest corner of the 1odge. Azero setback exists on the east side of the property asthe Christiania Lodge connects directly with- theCtrateau Condominiuurs t6 the east. Currently, the westside setback is 17 feet due to the 3,-0rr encroachmentof the southwest corner of the building into the 20foot setback. The existing rear setback is Bt-6rr asthe existi-ng Sarahrs deck projects 11r-6r' into the 20foot rear setback (see attached site plan).
rI. BACKGROUND
On May l-l-, L987 | the planning and Environrnental Commissionvoted to approve density and setback variances in order toallow the construction of additions to the ChristianiaLodge. At that tirne it was the opinion of ConmunityDevelopment Department staff that approval of an increase indensity would be a grant of, special privilege and
recommended the request be denied. During this same time,public hearings had been held to review the Vail villageI{aster Plan, however, the plan was still in draft form andhad not been formal}y adopted by Council_. The GoaLs andObjectives of the vail village Master plan supported theL987 remodeling proposal and therefore the pEC voted toapprove the density and setback variances. Subseguent tothe l-987 PEC approval of the variance request, noconstruction has occurred.
fn 1990, the Christiania Lodge redevel-opment proposal wentthrough several revisions. These redeveloprnent proposaLs
were reviewed by the Planning and Environmenta] Cornrnissionas worksession itens on October 8, 1990, November 12, 1990,and November 26, 1990. At various tines during this periodthe PEC discussed setback, density, parking and common areavariances retated to the Christiania Lodge. On March 6,
L99L a redevelopment proposal which did not reguire anyvariance/PEC approvals wa3 reviewed and approved by theDesign Review Board.
,
Under the redeveloprnent proposal approved by the Design
Review Board (DRB), Paul and Sally Johnston, owners of theChristiania Lodge, propose to add a new third floor to theexisting structure to accommodate 2 new dwelling units, to
rernodel the structurets interior, to construct a walkingpath along Mill creek, to screen the exlsting durnpster, topave and landscape the eastern half of the northern parkingIot when ownership and rights to this lot are resolved, andto rernove a portion of an existing asphalted area adjacentto the proposed Mill Creek walking path.
I, I;i r
III. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS
A. Zone District: Public Accommodation
B. Site Area: 0.380 acres or 161553 sg. ft.
c. Density: (25 d.u.s qilowed per acre, 1d.u = 2 a.u.)
Allowed: 9 d.u.sExlsting: 2 d.u.s and,25 .a.u.s = 14.5 d.u.s
DRB approved Plan: 2 {.u.s & 14 a.u.s = 9 d.u.s
Anount over allowed after remodel: o d.u's
D. GRFA: (80 sq. ft. od GRFA allowable per 1oo sq. ft. of
buildable site area.,)
Allowed: L3,242 sg. ft.Existing: 7 t397 sq. ft.
DRB Approved Plan: L2,6'7L sq. ft.
Proposed: L2,984 sq. ft.
GRFA Renaining.after redevelopment: 258 sg. ft.
E. Common Area: (2oB ot' altowable GRFA)
Allowed: 2,648 sq. ft.
DRB Approved Ptran: 3,000 sq. ft.
Proposed: 3,271 sg. ft. or 25* of allowable GRFA
(Includes 27L sg. ft. of new lobby area)
Anount over allowgd of JiZLSS. ft. has been added
to GRFA.::
F. Accessory/restauran! (rO* of Constructed GRFA):
Allowed: 740 sq. ft.Existing: 756 sq. ft.
Proposed: No Change
c. Office:
As Approved by Conditional Use Pernit: 72 aq. ft'
H. Mechanical-' i
:
Proposed (no naixinun): 1,336 sg. ft.
I. Airlock: 25 sq. ft. per allowable d.u.
Allowed: 225 sq. I ft. ' : :
DRB Approved PlFn: L64 sq. ft.
Proposed: 181 sq. ft.
Renaining: 44 sq. ft.
a
.?
..t-::=*-_Nd( Parkinq:\\----
Use
Accommodation Units:
Dwelling Units:
Sarah's Lounge:
Realty office:Christian Chateau Townhomes:
Total
Existing
# Spaces Bequired
Enist.irs
ls ft.o ft.i, 1? ft.gr-6rl
48 ft. sJ-oping roof/ 5
36 ft. sloping
43 ft. flat
Proposed
No Change0 ft.
No Change
No change
l-4 units =2 units :
ft. flat roof
DRB Approved
# Spaces Reguired
L3.4
5
6
0.3
9
33.7 or 34*
J.
I
Setbacks: 20 ft. reguired afl sides
K.
M.Heiqht:
I'ront* East Side
West Side
Rear
Allowed:Existing:
Proposed:
* Variance reguested
gite Coveraqe: (,55 of site area)
A11owed: g,LO4 sq. ft.
DRB Approved PLan: 5,456 sg. ft.
Proposed: 5r738 sq. ft.
Renaining:3r366 sq. ft.
Landscaping: (30? of site area)
Required: 41966 sg. ft.Existing: '7,49o sq. ft.
Proposed:5,943 sg. ft.
L.
25 units =2 units :
r36
*The Town currently recognizes the Christiania as having 3 parking
spaces. Under the DRB approved plan there.was a 2 space reduction in
tlre reguired parking spaces. .There is no increase in parking. -reguirdrnents under tnis propodal. Christiania currently.provides
pairing spaces in a small lot west of the existing building. The
larkinq wlicn occurs wittrin the reguired setback at this location j-s a
;,grandiatheredt situation. The applicant proposes to continue to
provide 3 parking spaces at this location.
I:t i
26,'l
r]
rV. DESCRTPTION OF THE PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT
The applicant has since rnodified the March 6, 1.991 DRB approval and is
now seekj-ng approval of an east side setback variance to aLlow the
expansion of tfre existing lobby, mechanical roon, and the addition of
44 sg. ft. of GRFA to the eastern third fLoor unit. This lobby also-
serves as the lobby for the Chateau Christian Townhomes. The following
is a summary of the DRB approved development proposal and the
rnodifications proposed under this setbac]< variance request:
A. Ground Fleor (Garden lJevel)
.3 accommodation units € 21-40 sq. ft.
.Common area 0 1237 sg. ft.1.Chateau mechanical area 0 2az sq. ft..Christiania Lodge mechanical area 0 1054 sq. ft..Christiania Realty office (conditional use perrnit has been
obtained) € 7z sq. ft.
'Airlock 33 sg. ft.
B. FirEt Floor
.5 accomnodation units 0 2376 sq. ft.
.Comrnon area € 1490 sq. ft..Airlocks € 148 sq. ft..Restaurant e 756 sq. ft;.Fireplaces: 2
c. secondl Floor
.5 accommodation units
.Common area 0 4l-2 sq..Fireplaces:2
G 3441- sq. ft.ft.
D. Third Floor (Condoniniun Level)
t-.
F
.2 dwelling units
East unit (A) @ 2361- sg. ft.
West Unit (Bl 0 2043 sq. ft.Total , 4404 sg. ft.
.Common area 0 132 sq. ft..Fireplaces:3
Of the 7 fireplaces, 6 will be gas. fhe existing wood burning
fireplace in Sarah's Bar will remain wood burning.
Site fnprovements
.Construction of walking path along Mill Creek
.Removal of 596 sq. ft. of asphalt from the northwestsite adjacent to the stream walk
.Removal of the Christiania split rail fence frorn the
Associates (V.A. ) owned propertY
5
corner of
Vail
G.
H.
.Enclosure of dumpster.Landscaping and paving of eastern half of northern parking lot
Propose6 orelling Unit s Accoumodation unit Sunnary
2 D.U,s at 4,404 sq. ft. GRFA = 2.0 D.U.s
14 A.U.s at 4,360 sa. ft.'GRFA = 7 D.U.sTotal 81764 sg. ft. GRFA = 9 D.U.s
Parklng
The Town of Vail recognizes that the Christiania Lodge has 3
parking spaces. AII of these spaces are located on theChristiania Lodge site and are considered }egal, nonconforrning
spaces due to their location within required setbacks. Section
!,8.64.050 of the Municipal Code-allorts structures and sites whiclt
are nonconforming because of parking, to be expanded provided the
enlargernent does not increase the existing nonconformity. Under
this redeveloprnent proposal no additional parking spaces will be
Upon review of Criteria and Findingsr! Section 18.52.060 of the Vail
Municipal Code, the Departrnent: of Community Development recommends
approval of the side setback rlhriance request based upon the following
factors:
A. Consideration of Factors:
1.The relationship of the recruested variance to other existinq
or potential uses and structures i-n the vicinitv.
In general , the staff believes tbe setback varLance reguest
does not negatively impact the property or adjacent uses any
more than does the existing structure. Under this
redeveJ-oprnent proposal 3 evergreen trees wilL have to be
removed. To compensate for the rernoval of these trees, the
applicant proposes to plant 3 aspen trees elsewhere on the
site. The property most i4rpacted by the setback requests'
the Christian Chateau Townhorise Association bullding' has
agreed to the redevelopment as proposed. For this reasont
the setback variance! are considered to have no signiflcant
negative iurpacts on ,adjacerit properties.
v.
required.
CRITERTA
2.
3.
The staff beLieves it would not be a grant of special
privilege to approve the setback variince as the remodel does-not inciease the setback encroachment beyond those that
iii"iay-"xist for the east setback on the property' rt is
r"asonible to allow relLef from the eastern 20 ft' setback as
ilG-i; ghe logicat.location for an expansion of ttre lobby'
and it appears that any expansion of the lobby, -either on the
north or-ioutfr side of-the.buifding, would reguire a setback
variance.
safetv.
The setbaclc variance request will have no negative lmpacts on
any of the above criterfa. The construction of the walking
putft .ai.cent to Mil1 Creek will- enhance the Village
i"a""iii.n experience. The addition will have no inpact_on-
;;;;;p;;autfo'., or traffic facilities. As designed, the lobbv
and gid floor additions will not inpact the proposed Hanson
Ranch view corridor any more than does the DRB approved
redevelopment proposal.
vI.
It is staffrs opinion the proposed redevelopment meets the goals and-ljectives of tire Vail Vifiagi ltaster PIan. The Master Plan emphasizes
itr6 r-,pgr.ding of lodges, the improvement of the pedestrian experience,
as well as the enhancement of open space.
This proposal supports the Master Plan's objectives by inProving the
**i*titg'lobby wfiife complying with site development standards. As a
conditi6n of ipproval thL -One-has reguired the applicant to landscape
and pave ttre pilting lot located north of the Christiania L,odge and
preslntly use-d by tfre lodge, once ownership of the lot is resolved.
ini" pu.ring and -Iandscapiig'wiU inprove the appearance of this
exirting pirking area i-n a-highly visible portion of the Village. The
pedestria-n path-will also enhince-open space for-pedestrians. The
ioir"wing i's a list of the vair village Master Plan Goals and
objectives which relate to this project:
coAL #1 - ENCOURAGE HIGH QUALTTY REDEVEIOPMENT WHILE PRESERVING THE
UNIQUE ARCIIITECTURAL SCALE OF THE VILT.,AGE IN ORDER TO SUSTATN
ITS SENSE OF COMMUNITY AND IDENTITY.
Oblective:Enc"rlrar the upgradlng and redeveJ-opment of residential and
commercial facilities.
L.2
GOAL #2 -
GOAL #3 -
3.1
L.2.7 Policv:Additional development may be allowed as identified by
the Action Plan and as is consistent with the Vail
Village Master Plan and Urban Design Guide Plan.
TO FOSTER A STRONG TOURIST TNDUSTRY AND PROMOTE YEAR-AROUND
ECONOMIC HEALTH AND VIABILITY FOR THE VILI,AGE AND FOR THE
COI.{MUNITY AS A WHOLE.
2.5 Objective:
Encourage the continuedof existing lodging andthe needs of our guests.
GOAL #4 -
4.1
TO RECOGNIZE AS A EOP PRIORITY THE ENHANCEIiIENT OF THE WAL,KING
EXPERIENCE THROUGHOUT THE VILI,AGE,
obj ective:Physically inprove the existing pedestrian ways by
J-andscaping and other irnprovernents.
Policy: l
Private development projects shall incorporate
streetscape improvements (such as paver treatments,
landscaping, lighting,and seating areas) ' along adjacent
pedestrian lvays. i r
TO PRESERVE EXISTING OPEN SPACE AREAS AND EXPAND GREENSPACE
oPPORTUNTTTES. ,l ,
obi ective:
Inrprove existing open space areas and create new plazas with
greenspace and pocket parks. Recognize the difference roles
of each type of open'space in forming the overall fabric of
the Village.
:
upgrading, renovation and maintenance
conmercial facili.ties to better serve
3.1.L
GOAL #5 . INCREASE AND IMPROVE THE CAPACITY, EFFTCIENCY, AND AESTHETICS
OF THE TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCUI,ATION SYSTEM THROUGHOUT THE
VILI,AGE.
vlr. col4PLrANcE I{rTH THE URBAN DESIGN GUrDE Pr,AN FOR VArL VILLAGE
sub-Area concept No.' 8: I I '
'tMil1 Creek walking path, west qide Mill creek. Path conpletes
linkage fron pirate lfrfp-and mountain path to Gore Creek Drive.rr
The Urban Design Guide plan calLs for the construction of a path_
connection betieen the Like path and Hanson Ranch Road. The addition
of a foot path would be a po;itive improvernent to the pedestrian
experience in the Village area.
In further support of this goal , the applicant has comnitted, as a part
of the DRB approval , to remove 596 sq. ft. of paved area adjacent to
Mill creek. This paved area, which is currently used by the
Christiania for paiXing and dumpster storage, is located on Vail
Associates and Christiania owned property.
Even though the path was originally proposed for the west side of MiI1
Creek, stiff believes that the east side provides a more attractive
wal-king experience. The west side of the creek has a trash roorn for
Cyrano,s, as well as several utility boxes, which rnake it an unpleasant
area to walk.
VITI. FINDINGS
The Planning anil Environnental, Conniseion shall nake the following
findings bef,ore granting a variance:
A. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of
special privilege inconsistent with the linitations on other
properties classified in the same dlstrict,
B. That the granting of the,variance will not be detrinental to the
public health, safety orrwelfare' or rnaterially injurious to
properties or improvements in the vicinity.
C. That the variance is warranted for one or rnore of the following
reasons:
1. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the
specified regulation would result in practical- difficulty or
unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the
objectives of this title.
2. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or
conditions applicabfe to the same site of the variance that
do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone.
3. The strict interpretati-on or enforcement of the specified
regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed
by the orrlners of other properties in the sane district.
l
IX. STAFF RECOI4MENDATION : :
Staff recommends approval of the side setback variance. The setback
variance can be supported by Findings A, B, C (1) ' and C (1) ' (21 , (3),
as the encroachments are not generally increased above those that
presently exist on the site and the additions do not negatively irnpact
adjacent properties. Further,' it is reasonable to allow the expansions
given the existing configuration of developnent on the site. It would
be difficult to locate the expansions on another area of the site
without reguiring a setback variance and still have the additions
Iogically, functionally and programnatically make sense.
I
I
s
I
I
!: €urtE
''tot'l
$
\
s
$
rltl
'R
s
il
t
N
Or.
\*\
7.o
tr,\\t$<L
D
_{
I
i, Io
h$
\
Ii-
n;,,i '0: I
Il{l '
I
I
I
J
'Yl:'W'V?aet<
LMtN4
'utr.|c..-aF
F,xtq(q
1-L'.(h,|
\
3g t/ooe P/art
-*ppatprjM ra VRFtat'lz.r-'3'1?-'11
w^'l
o
Parcel B: Tract A, Vail Heights Filing No. 1 according to the recorded plat thereof.
Applicant: Erich SchmeEkoPlanner: Andy Knudtsen
A request for a major amendment to Cascade Village, SDD #4, Area A, Millrace lll,
1335 westhaven Drive, cascade Village, more specifically described as follows:
A part of the SW V4, NE y4, Section I 2, Township 5 South, Range g 1 West of the 6th
P.M., described as follows:
Beginning at a point of the North-South centerline of said Section 12 whence an iron
pin with a plastic cap marking the center of said section 12 bears s00"gg's6"w 455.06
feet; thence along said centerline N00"98'56"E 122.g1 feet to the southerly Row line
gf-l;70; thence departing said Row tine N66"53'25"E 99.15 feei; thence departing said
Row line s81"23'19'E 't65.42 teet to a point of curve;thence 1zz.Bg feet atong the
arc ot a 143.20 foot radius curve to the left, having a central angle of 49.0g'51' and a
chord that bears s15'57'45'E 119.10 feet;hence s40"92'10"E 8.00 feet;thence 66.30
feet along the arc ot a77.21 foot radius curve to the right, having a central angle of
49'12'10'.and a chord that bears 515"S6'0S"E 64.29 feet;thence S9"40'00'W 90.27
feet;thence N38.42'24"W ZZ4.SS feet;thence 579.10'32.W 101.44 feet to the point of
Beginning.
Applicant: Michael LauterbachPlanner: Jill Kammerer
A request for a conditional use permit to allow for the expansion of the Upper Eagle
Valley Consolidated Sanitation District administrative otfices, at 846 Forest Road/l-ot
3'1, VailVillage 2nd Filing.
Applicant: Upper Eagle Valley Consolidated Sanitation DistrictPlanner: Shelly Mello
A request to amend Section 18.34, Parking Zone District of the Vail MunicipalCode to
allow construction staging as a conditional use.Applicant: Town of VailPlanner: Andy Knudtsen
An appeal of a staff decision regarding grandfathered office space in the Mill creek
court BuiHing, 302 Gore creek Drive/a part of Btock 5A, Vait Vifiage First Fiting.Appellant: Ned GwathmeyPlanner: Shelly Mello
A request for the establishment of a Special Development District at the Christiania at
Vail, 356 Hanson Ranch Road/Lot D, Block 2, vail viilage First Filing, and Lot p-3,
Block 5-A, Vail Village Fifth. Filing.
Applicant: Paul JohnstonPlanner: Mike Mollica
Any items tabled from the February 24, 1g9Z pEC meeting agenda.
5.
6.
7.
VB.
q
T wru-o ;u'1On,dr/l Wyta.t 41atu, )rnyu',r1(l tA U il ' u" pugrrc NorcE
NOTICE lS HEREBY GIVEN that he Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of
Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with Section 18.66.060 of the Municipal Code of
the Town of Vail on March g, 1992 at 2:00 p.m. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building.
Consideration of:
t. A request for an exterior alteration in the Commercial Core ll zone district for the Cano- Residence, Lot 5, Block 1, Vail Uonshead First Filing/S20 East Uonshead Circle.
Applicant: Victor CanoPlanner: Andy Knudtsen
2. A request to extend a conditional use permit to expand the Vail Mountain School,
located at 3160 lGtsos Ranch Road/ Lot 12, Block 2, Vail Village 12th Filing.
Applicant: Vail Mountain SchoolPlanner: Andy Knudtsen
3. A request for a worksession for a minor subdivision anci request for a change in zone
district boundaries from Primary Secondary to Low Density Multiple Family lor lhe
Schmetzko property, generally located at 2239 Chamonix lane, more parlicularly
described as:
Parcel A: A tract of land containing one acre, more or less, located in the South 1/2 of
the South East 1/4 of Section 11, Township 5 South, Range 81 Wesl of the Sixth
Principal Meridian, more particularly described as follows:
Beginning at the NE corner of the SW 1i4 ot the SE 1/4 of said Section 11; thence
westerly along the northerly line ol said SW 1/4 of the SE 114 bearing south 86 20' W
a distance of 167.80 ft. to a point
Thence southerty along a line 167.80 ft. distant from and parallel to the east line of
said SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4, a distance of 200.00 ft. to a point:
Thence easterly a distance of 167.80 ft. along a line 200.00 ft. distant from and parallel
to the north line of said SW 1/4 ot the SE 114 to a point on its east line;
Thence easterly on a line parallel to the north line of the sw 1/4 of the sE 1/4 of
Section 1 1, a distance of 50.95 ft. to a point:
Thence northerly and parallel with the west line of the east 112 of the SE 1/4 of said
Section 1 1, a distance ol 200.00 tt. to the point of intersection with the extension of the
north line of the sw 1/4 0f the sE 1/4 0f said section 11;
Thence westerly on a deflective angle left of 95 21'00" along the extension of the north
tine of the SW 1/4 ot the SE 1/4 of said Section 11, a distance of 50.95 ft to lhe NE
comer of the SW 1/4 of the'SE 1/4 of Section 11, being the point of beginning.
' The applications and information about the proposals are
available for public review in the Community Development. Department office.
Town of Vail
Gommunity Development Department
Published in the VailTrail on February 21, 1992
Chateau Chrislian Townhouse East Village Homeowners Association George Washington Knox, lV
E.C. Whitehead
366 Hanson Ranch Road
Vail. CO 81657
Assoc.. Inc.
Richard Siegal, Pres.
502 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10022
Viela Valhalla Condo Assoc.
Bichard Sucher, Pres.
Jerry Lewis
1900 East Girard
Englewood, CO 80110
Mill Creek Court Bldg.
Condo Assoc.
Rod Sliler, Pres.
230 Bridge Street
Vail, CO 81657
Cyrano's
Bud Parks
303 Bridge Street
Vail, CO 81657
Tivoli Lodge
Bob Lazier
386 Hanson Ranch Boad
Vail, CO 81657
P.O. Box 238
Vail, CO 81658
Vail Associates
P.O. Box 7
William B. Whiteford. et. al.
2530 S. Garfield Street
Denver, CO 80210
Barbara C. Welles
1133 Race Street. 11-S
Denver, CO 80206-2872
Marion Musser Lloyd
25060 St. Mary's Road
Libertyville, lL 60048
Walter Patrick Gramm
695 Prospect Street
Winetka. lL 60093
P.O. Box 584
Vail. CO 81658
B.A. and Barbara Bridgewaler
35 Overhills
St. Louis. MO 63124
Roberl W. and Mary B. Galvin
1303 Easl Algonquin Road
Schaumberg, lL 60196-1065
Enslie O. Oglesby, Jr.
1925 San Jacinto Slreet
Dallas, TX 75201
N.J. Nicholas, Jr.
50 Cenlral Park West
New York, NY 10023
4595 Hillon Parkway, #110 Vail, CO 81658
Colorado Spgs, CO 80907
Berry Craddock p. Anlhony and Constance M. Ridder Mr. Ross Davis
P.o. Box 7221 1801 w. 27th street 108 s. Frontage Road
Colorado Spgs, CO 80907 Sunset tstand Vait, CO 8i657
Miami Beach, FL 33140 I
I
I
\
I
I
I
N'f"* rc-t 2 '21'F2
.L la '1,..^ 4: t--. a,, ^.^fT vhu lil,rQnl,.fl %*4*'^ pWrV
'"
PUBLTC NOTICE
NOTICE lS HEREBY GIVEN that he Ptanning and Environmental Commission ol the Town of
Vailrvill hold a public hearing in accordance with Section 18.66.060 of the Municipal Code of
the Town of vail on March g, 1992 at 2:00 p.m. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building.
Consideration of:
1- A request for an exterior alteration in the Commercial Core llzone district for the Cano
Flesidence, Lol5, Elock 1, Vail Uonshead First Filing/S20 East Uonshead Circle.Applicant: Victor CanoPlanner: Andy Knudtsen
2. A request to extend a conditional use permit to expand the Vail Mountain School,
located at 3160 Katsos Ranch Road/ Lot 12, Btock 2, Vait Viilage t2th Filing.Applicant: Vail Mountain SchoolPlanner: Andy Knudtsen
3. A request for a worksession for a minor subdivision and request for a change in zone
district boundaries from Primary Secondary to Low Density Multiple Family ior $e
Schmetzko property, generally located at 2239 Chamonix Lane, more pariicularly
described as:
Parcel A: A tract of land containing one acre, more or less, located in the South 1/2 of
the south East 1/4 0f section 11, Township 5 south, Range 91 west of the sixth
Pdncipal Meridian, more particularly described as follows:
Beginning at the NE corner of the sw 1/4 ot the sE 1/4 of said section 1'l; thence
westerly along the northerly line of said SW 1/4 of the SE 114 bearing south 86 20' W
a distance of 167.80 ft. to a point:
Thence southerly along a line 167.80 ft. distant from and parallelto the east line of
said SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4, a distance of 200.00 ft. to a point:
Thence easterly a distance of 167.80 ft, along a line 200.00 ft. distant from and parallel
to the north line of said SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 to a point on its east line;
Thence easterly on a line parallel to the north line of the SW 1i4 of the SE 1/4 of
Section 1 1, a distiance of 50.95 ft. to a point:
Thence northerly and parallel with the west line ot the east 1/2 of the SE 1/4 of said
Section 1 1, a distance of 200.00 ft. io the point of intersection with the extension of the
north line of the SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 ol said Section 11;
Thence westerly on a deflective angle left of 95 21'00" along the extension of the north
line of the SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of said Section 11, a distance of 50.95 ft. to the NE
comer of the sw 1/4 0f the'sE 1i4 0f section 11, being the point of beginning.
/.;o 4e,4,,^t A/'
t
4.
Parcel B: Tract A, Vail Heights Filing No. 1 according to the recorded plat thereof.
Applicant: Erich SchmetskoPlanner: Andy Knudtsen
A requesl for a major amendment to Cascade Village, SDD #4, Area A, Millrace lll,
1335 Westhaven Drive, Cascade Village, more specifically described as follows:
A part of the SW %,NE%, Section 12, Township 5 South, Range 81 West ol the 6th
P.M., described as follows:
Beginning at a point ot the North-South centerline of said Section 12 whence an iron
pin with a plastic cap marking the center of said Section 12 bears S00"38'56'W 455.06
feet;thence along said centerline N00"38'56"E 122.8'l teet to the southerly ROW line
of l-70; thence departing said ROW line N66o53'25"E 39.15 feet;thence departing said
ROW line S81"23'19.E 165.42 feet to a point of curve; thence 122.83 feet along the
arc of a 143.2A foot radius curve lo the left, having a central angle of 49o08'51' and a
chord that bears 515'57'45"E 119.10 feet thence S40"32'10'E 3.00 feet;thence 66.30
feet along the arc ol a77.21 loot radius curve to the right, having a central angle of
49'12'10'and a chord that bears 515o56'05"E 64.28 feet;thence S8"40'00"W 90.27
feet;thence N38"42'24'W 224.55 feet;thence 378"10'32"W I01.44 feet to the Point of
Beginning.
Applicant: Michael Lauterbach
Planner: Jill Kammerer
A request for a conditional use permit to allow for the expansion of the Upper Eagle
Valley Consolidated Sanitation District administrative offices, at 846 Forest Road/Lot
31, Vail Village 2nd Filing.
Applicant: Upper Eagle Valley Consolidated Sanitation District
Planner: Shelly Mello
A request to amend Section 18.34, Parking Zone District of the Vail MunicipalCode to
allow constructi0n staging as a conditional use.
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: Andy Knudtsen
An appeal of a staff decision regarding grandfathered office space in the Mill Creek
Court Building, 302 Gore Creek Drive/a part of Block 5A, Vail Village First Filing.
Appellant: Ned GwathmeyPlanner: Shelly Mello
A request for the establishment of a Special Development District at the Christiania at
Vail, 356 Hanson Ranch Road/Lot D, Block 2, Vail Village First Filing, and Lot P-3,
Block 5-A, Vail Village Fifth. Filing.
Applicant: PaulJohnstonPlanner: Mike Mollica
Any ilems tabled from the February 24, 1992 PEC meeting agenda'
c.
6,
7.
\r 8.
9.
The applications and information about the proposals are
available for public review in the Community Development
Department office.
Town of Vail
Community Development Department
Published in the Vail Trail on February 2't,1ggz
E.C. Whitehead
366 Hanson Ranch Road
Vail, CO 81657
Jerry Lewis
1900 East Girard
Englewood, CO 80110
Condo Assoc.
Rod Sliler, Pres.
230 Bridge Slreet
Vail, CO 81657
Cyrano's
Bud Parks
303 Bridge Street
Vail, CO 81657
Berry Craddock
P.O. Box 7221
Colorado Spgs, CO 80907
Tivoli Lodge
Bob Lazier
386 Hanson Ranch Road
Vail, CO 81657
Chateau Christian Townhouse Mill Creek Court Bldg.
Assoc., Inc.
Richard Siegal, Pres.
502 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10022
Viela Valhalla Condo Assoc.
Richard Sucher, Pres.
4595 Hitton Parkway, #1 10
Colorado Spgs, CO 80907
| | --. / A . , /- .4? F*X vilAl H"".e-o*_; Aaza^v d4 n /tu4a/4'Ll4
% T z;
7r
r^-*-'*44
F H'2'
frrt Vitt"ge Homeowners Association fuarion Musser Lloyd
P.O. Box 238 - 25060 St. Mary's Road
Vail, co 81658 Libertyviile, tL 600la
William B. Whitetord, et. al.
2530 S. Garfield Street
Denver, CO 80210
Barbara C. Welles
1133 Race Street, 11-S
Denver. CO 80206-2872
A-et -1td,
Walter Patrick Gramm
695 Prospect Street
Winetka, lL 60093
George Washington Knox, lV
P.O. Box 584
Vail, CO 81658
B.A. and Barbara Bridgewater
35 Overhills
St. Louis, MO 63124
Enslie O. Oglesby, Jr.
1925 San Jacinlo Street
Dallas, TX 75201
N.J. Nicholas, Jr.
50 Central Park Wes{
New York, NY 10023
Vail Associates P. Anthony and Constance M. Ridder Robert W. and Mary B. Galvin
P.O. Box 7 1801 W. 27th Street 1303 East Algonquin Road
Vail, CO 81658 Sunset lsland Schaumberg, lL 60196-1065
Miami Beach, FL 33140
7(ct j tt n 'nXL,v-''
AD'ACENT PROPERTY OWNERS
williarn B. whiteford Unit 6A, vail Townhouses Condominium
G. Mitchel-l Whiteford
Christopher L. Park
Michael D. Parks
c/o William B. Whiteford
2530 S. Garfield St.
Denver, CO 802L0
Barbara C. Welles unit 68, vail Townhouses Condominiun
Ll-33 Race Street, 11-S
Denver, CO A0206-2872
Marion Musser Lloyd Lot 7, Resubdivision of Block 5r Vail
25060 St. Mary's Road village First Filing, 303 Gore creek Dr.
Libertyville, IL 60048
P. Anthony Ridder Lot 8, Resubdivision of Block 5, Vail
Constance M. Ridder Village First Filing, 303 Gore creek Dr.
180L W. 27th Street
Sunset Island
Miani Beach, FL 331-40
Walter Patrick Gramm Lot 9, Resubdivision of Block 5, vail
695 Prospect Street Village First Filing, 303 Gore Creek Dr.
Winetka, fI-,6OO93
ceorge Washington Knox Iv Lot L0A, Row house 10 at Vai1,
P.o. Box 584 303 Gore creek Drive, Unit 10A
vail, co 8l-658
Lot l-OBf Row house l-0 at Vail,
303 Gore Creek drive, Unit 108
B.A. Bridgewater, Jr. Unit A, The Townhouse on Lot Eleven
Barbara P. Bridgewater
35 Overhills Unit B, The Townhouse on Lot Eleven
St. Louis, MO 631-24
Robert W. Galvin Lot 12, Resubdivision of Block 5
Mary B. Galvin
1303 East Algonquin Rd.
Schaumberg, II 60196-l-065
Enslie O. Oglesby, Jr. Unit 1, Oglesby/Storey Condominium
L925 San Jacinto St. Lot l-3Dallas, TX 7520L
N.J. Nicholas, Jr. Unit 2, OgLesby/Storey Condominium
50 Central Park West Lot 1,3
New York, NY 10023
TO
PIERCE, SEGERBERG 6fAEH
ARCHITECTS . P.G. .il.A.
1000 South Frontage Road West
vAtL, coLoRADO 81657
LETTil @F T=RANSNfrITTAL
oArE rAZa/ 4u lJoB
No
ArrEN.oN' 'flft// lt&fi(4. ""'' Hffioo^r^ tut Ve'{
E Plans I Samples
the following items:
! Specifications
tr
(3O3) 4764433
> WE ARE SENDING YoU E(nttactreO E Under separate cover via
D Shop drawings
! Copy of letter
n Prints
I Change order
coPt-Es 9ATE NO.OESCRIPTION
(/4frrr k/(*tilAvtu \b*er
r, L,,)4 rtraf
/
THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below:
! For approval
! For your use
! Approved as submitted
tr Approved as noted
tr Resubmit-copies for approval
! Submit-copies for distribution
I Retu rn
-corrected
prints[As requested ! Returned for corrections
/ | Fot review and comment I _
! FOR BIDS DUE 19- N PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US
REMARKS
pr0qtcr?{+i l@ rie., cEb* lrs. 0l4rL.
TO
PIERCE, SEGERBERG &IPAEH
ARCHITECTS . P.C. .li.A.
10OO South Frontage Road West
vAtL, coLoRADO 81657
LETITil @F TRANSNNITTAL
I Plans ! Samples
the following items:
L Specifications
tr
> WE ARE SENDING YOU tr Attached n Under separate cover via
! Shop drawings
I Copy of letter
n Prints
n Change order
(303) 4764433
THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below:
E For approval
ny' your use
H As requested
D Approved as submited
! Approved as noted
n Returned for corrections
D Resubmit-copies for approval
D Submit
-copies
for distribution
n Return
-corrected
prints
I For review and comment !
tr FOR BIDS DUE 19- fl PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US
Pn@UCT2|O3 /
-sasl
I'r., Gohr I8s 0lt7t.ff encrosurcs t.c aot as noted, kindtlt notlly ua at
^ /4ta r//u//rc**tt t''fl *.'tt: , {yi-
u,,{ .: :to ,",-"ri, -, -*,MEMORANpUM 7 Ec,
,..,.i::,.: /TO:
FFIOM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Town Council
Public Works and Community Development Departments
February 11,1992
Christiania Parking and Flelated lssues
A.
1.
2.
3.
4.
Staff has been working to resolve the ownership of the parking area north of the Christiania
Lodge. This property is legally described as part of Lot J and all of Lot P-3, Block 5A, Vail
Village Fifth Filing (see attached Map B). ln addition to resolving ownership issues related to
this property, issues and interests regarding the Christiania Lodge's parking rights, Town of
Vail right-of-way and encroachments by Mill Creek Court Condominium Association (see
attached Map C), also need to be clarified and resolved. The purpose of this memo is to
outline staff recommendations on the issues related to this site for Council review.
Research FindinEs
Vail Associates owns Lot P-3 and the portion of Lot J discussed above.
Vail Associates has this property on the market.
At the iime Vail Associates sold Lot D, Block 2, Vail Village First Filing to the
Christiania-at-Vail, lnc., they also granted the Christiania Lodge the perpetual right to
use Lot P-3 for Christiania parking.
The Christiania Lodge has been using part of Lot J and part of the Town's right-of-way
for lodge parking for a number of years,
As shown on the November'15, 1965 recorded plat of VailVillage Fifth Filing, Vail
Associates dedicated a public right-of-way between Lots J and P-3 to the Town of Vail.
A road was built connecting Hanson Ranch Road to Gore Creek Drive across Lot P-3.
It appears the Town of Vail has a prescriptive right to a portion of Lot P-3 as the Town
has continuously used and maintained this roadway for over 18 years.
lmprovements which Mill Creek Court Condominium Association have made encroach
onto Lot P-3 and adiacent Town of Vail rights-otway.
The Town of Vail Master Transportation Plan has identified this general area as a
possible site for a central loading area facility for the Village core.
7.
8.
10. The East Village Homeowners Assoc. advocates the development of a surface park
with subterranean, private, for-purchase parking on Lots J & P-3.
B. lssues
1. Mill Creek Condominium Encroachments
Various walltways, retaining walls and portions of the Mill Creek Court building
encroach onto the Hanson Ranch Road right-of-way. The Mill Creek Court
Condominium Association (MCCCA) would like to resolve the issue of who is
responsible for the maintenance of these areas of encroachment. Presently, the
Association maintains these areas, but who is liable in the event of personal injury?
Staff Recommendation
With regard to the walkways, retaining walls and building encroachments, staff believes
the Town of Vail should issue a revocable easement or revocable right-otway permit
to the Mill Creek Court Condominium Association for all of the Association's
encroachments . Under this revocable easement, the Association would be
responsible for the maintenance of the encroachments. Further, the Association would
assume all liability associated with this area of encroachment. As an alternative, the
Town of Vail could assume maintenance responsibilities and liability for a fixed annual
cost (renewed annually).
2. Right-of-Way
An Agreement was entered into on March 15, '1968, between Vail Associates, the
Town of Vail and Christiania-at-Vail, lnc., to resolve the right-of-way and parking issues
associated with Lots J and P-3. This agreement was executed (signed by all parties),
but the terms of the agreement were never performed (see copy of "Agreement"
aftached). Briefly, the platted Town of Vail right-of-way bisects the Lot J/P-3 parcel.
The Agreement proposed the abandonment of the existing platted right-of-way and the
establishment of a new right-of-way. This new right-of-way would be in generally the
same location as the existing road through Lot P-3. The use of the newly-configured
Lot P-3 would remain unchanged from the use of the original Lot P-3.
The roadway was constructed in it's present location over 24 years ago. lt appears the
Town has a prescriptive right to this land.
Staff Recommendation
Some of the alternatives which the Town could pursue include:
1. The Town of Vail could work with all parties to follow through with the
original agreement.
2. The Town could pursue obtaining clear title, through the court system, to
the portion of Lot P-3 to which we believe we have prescriptive rights.
oJIJtr<
CFx-
gE_\
!fi3
x
3aat
o Jr'Fioxg<*
F
z
a -P
d ts{
:(,
F
l--ttttl
lJutffitltl
P
a
tazz]dF
4;Fca,-&3
E3z
oz
m
Jg
LJ-o
z
=P
IT.a[z.
E.
Ld
E.
tr.JFI
=
\
a.
N
o
ts
'j
3
5
o lellrj I!61<gr!
r<c
tr
efl rf
3. The Town could retain ownership of the platted right-of-way plus the
"prescriptive right" roadway and use both as leverage to influence the
eventual outcome. We do not want to end up purchasing something we
once owned.
4. The Town could modify the Agreement in order to tie various leases
and/or the acquisition of V.A. owned land, to the performance of the
Agreement.
5. The Town could purchase the lots in order to implement the Master
Transportation Study's recommendation to use the lots for Village core
loading and delivery facilities.
6. The Town could ourchase the lots in order to construct a
park/underground parking area.
3. Christlania Parklng Needs
At this time, the dedicated right-of-way, a portion of Lot P-3 and Lot J are being used
for parking by Vail Associates and the Christiania Lodge. The owner of Lot d, Block 2,
Vail Village First Filing (the Christiania Lodge property) has a perpetual easement and
right to use area P-3 as and for a public parking lot for passenger automobiles' as
said easement is described in instrument recorded July 10, 1963. However, the
Christiania has been parking on Lot J for a number of years. The "official" number of
parking spaces provided by lhe Christiania on either Lot P-3 or Lot J has never been
established. Rather, the Town has taken the position that the only parking spaces
associated with the Christiania's operation are located to the west of and immediately
adjacent to the Lodge building. ln order,to proceed with any redevelopment proposals
to the Christiania which propose the provision of additional parking on Lots P-3 or J'
the Christiania must resolve with V.A. the question of what parking rights the
Christiania now has on Lots P-3 and J.
Staff Recommendation
Tou^ c{"L(
TheiHf sh€uld either enter into a lease with the Christiania Lodge to allow lpdge
parking on the road right-of-way or require the lodge to discontinue the use.
In conjunction with resolving the right-of-way issue with Vail Associates, the Town
should encourage Vail Associates and the Christiania to work together to define the
Christiania's parking.
Sl
\
\
ih[ .ii
o
It
q{
3.l'
-....-/ / ----1 ,----''-/ / \4/'-'/L-'(2\-\-\)
I
I
I
I
I
Ir/
I
4
d
s/
f/
\
\r i\I .t \I .'! tt\
\
\
a
.ii
I
I
I
I
I
I
\
t
\\
\
\
Irllt1l\lI
I
I
t
\
I
1
t\
EIu
!t
I
\
I
\
I
\
\rl:ttla\
e
ffi$
;,': k _. ' T
t.f ?.49'
16'rHTl|IrSg
?Tt
i'\
to:e ,oo,,
\
-- -.-.'*ar"
---rl --e
F
()
&,
F
f'-l;p
:
<t :M,
/#,
$""ffi
6t"9
,/-\
r!.i.$!:t.
AG r{;:lI}1Elr'r'
TiIIS ACRiiEMEliT, d.rtcti .'rs of Lhu'/{c <tay of m.J ,
'::168, br-.tlor-'cn VAIL ASSOCIATES, INC. , a Colorado corpor'1tic"1
r}cicin.r!'ter referrcd to as VAIL AssoclATES), cilRIsTtANr.e-
.l.^.-vi,:L, INC., a Coiorado ccrporc'rtion (hereinaf *.er refcrrc"-
:o as cllRlsfIAsIA), .rnci the Towi( or VAIL, a colorado "rnic-
i.paL corporation (hcrein.:riter referr'-'C to 'rs TOWN):
I., TTNESSETH:
WIIEREAS, by h,arranty Ceed dated July 8' 1963, VliL
ASSociATEs conveyed eertain Property, including Lot d' Block
l, vaii vi.llagc, iirst Filing, according to the recordcd'
piat chereof, to CIIRISTIANIA, and on Lhe sane day the aboT e
pariiL.s exccutcd an Agrcerncnt, qated JuIy 8,. 1963, more .''
cor,r,on Iy ca lled a laniouner's agrecment; and , , .
h*rlER-EIrS, subscquerrt to such sale to CH|{ISTIANIA' Por- -
iions of land crtrned by VAIL ASSOCIAIES adjoining the lot
soli io c;-:RIstfANIA were re.olatted and are now designated
as VrliL VILLAGE, FIFTH PIniNG; anci
I',IIEREAS, upon the formation of .the TOtfN, VAIL ASSOCIAIES
ocdicatecl the roads tocated on thc'Otoa" lrithin tho bound-
arics of the TowN to public use, and conveycd its right,.-
:.:.
3liilrilt*lr:t!il:*lt"ll
.a
o
ct2E<r
XEqL
El lilc,-'1L. rtq5
FI
z.>=trl fl>=
HFE' 'iEEF66i()()
HHJ
EE.g'<-
=U
\
%
.o
-o
I
G()
a!
(9
o,1
I
-
-*{-
-)
r
::, i :. . . .. ..' '.;. trtl-' ond Intorcrt in siuch roiiwuys to thc, TOffN,
. r.tccepCing such .,.onvL.yance; an,l
.i-.
:.-:. h'IiERElS, grrbscquent to euch dcC ic.rEion and acceptance j _!i
,o;theroadw.1ystothcTOl$r,theToml,wibhtheknowledqe:.
= . ..::an'o consent of I'AIL AssocIATEs and C::nISTIANIA, construeted l. i - ri
'
.- :r_j:i-:!,::_:_::: .-
, a roadw'ly acrosg Lot p-3 conneeting Gore creek Dri,ve .1nd .' -':
' ilanson Ranch Road to the tdest of and in lieu of the conncc!-
ing roadway as shoun on the plar. of v.lrl VTLLAGE, FrtrH .
r 'r!rfru, and the rot{N intenas that such constructed roadwair
wili be made a public roa,Jway and that thc connecting roaci-
way shown on urc pl.rt of VirL VTLLACE, FrF?H Frl,nic wirl be
vacated and title trans.ferrcd back to vArL AssocrATEs; and --_._ :-.
wHEitEAS, lt is in .,-he inter,..sts of all the partics
that these matters be clarif ii.ci,
. NOW, fHEREFOIIE, in considera[ion of the nutu.rl prornisas
';
m.:Ce' by each herein, f he p.1rt ies aqree as follows;
l. VAIL AsAocTATES will dedicate to the public and
convey to the TCI.IN a curved, forty foot (40,) righr-of-way
rcross thc uesterly portion of Lot p_3, VAIL VrLLicE, FIFTII
FiLillc (and CHRISIIAI.IIA consents to such conveyance), pro_-
vided the TowN h,ill provide vArL .nJ.rsocrATES an indemnifica-
tion and hold harmlesa agtreehent for any li.rbility or
-2-
:i
the protcctlve cr venanEs for VAIL VILLACE, fIFTlt :
flled for rer +or record onon November 15, 1965 ln Book 187 at
t. '.
Page 353 rf the reai property recordE, Eagle County, ::-:''..
Colorado.
-,:-.:,a., a .4. CHRISTfANIA shall recelve ldenttcal eaaement
rights in and on that, portion of the vacated roadway
described, in paragraph 3 above, adjoinlng Lot P-3, upon
euch roadvray bei,ng vacated and fee aimple title vesting
in VAIL ASSoCTATES. At such time, VAIL ASSOCIATES will
execute_ and dellver to CHIUSTIANfA the necessary casement
grant in recordable form.
5. The non-exclusive ;lerpetual easement and right
to use Lot P-3 as and for a public parking lot for passenger
automoblles granted lnitlalty by VAIL ASSOCIATES to
CHRfSTfANIA ghall continue. but only for the nester),y
portlon of Lot d, Elock 2, VaIl Village, First Filing ' -:r-
coweyed by CHRISTIANIA to a thl.rd party. CHRfSIIANfA,
aE tho tlne of euch conveyance., wlll record the approprj.ate
docunent, ln recordable form, ahowlng such easement to run
'.?
o,rll' wr.i,lr llr.rt, porLioll. of Lot cl , I!lock 2, Vail Villoge,
Flrsc, Filing, and not l.ri:h thirt porEion of Lot d, Blocj(
l,,V.riI vlllage, First Frling not convcyc.l .
6. fn thr evcnt th.rt CltiUSTI.h\IA convcys fce aimple
t'-tlc to the wef;torty por.i.ion of Lot d, l3iock 2, V,ril
Vi1h9e, .rirsi F Lling within the ncxt /8o d;ys, an<l
both th,-' grtrrchaacr and C:Rislirll;fA e-Yccute .rnd deliver to
Vrtfl, ASSOc'ir'\TES l.:;rdown.-r's ngreements in the forrn attoched
irereco, and rhc pu:'chaser has agrecd in wri,: in<-r to the terris
of thls Agrcei:rent as they reiate to tha ro',dw.rys, Lol P-3,
vrt-Ll-. yr!r.rrrr'-, ifF?H I''iLINC, and the non-exclusive ensement
- t'or p<1rking, VAIL A.:SOCii'TEs wiII uaive all rights it has
, of may have in thc agre(rnrrrrc d.iteci July 8, I9fil becween
VAIL ASSoCfAfES and CiIRISTIANIA, a::d the t,arns of the new
i.rndovrner's agreement aLtached hereto shu ll take thc' place
of such prio.r ogrecxrenti and spoclf ic.rl!y, CHRISTIANIA and
the purch.)ser agree Lo conform with the rules .rnd regulat'ions
of the Planning and Archiccctu!,)l Control Committec, zoning
i.rvs, protective coverrant.s, rulL's and regulations covering
VaiI Villagc-, Flr:;t FtLing "rnd Vai! Vi11age, Fifth l'iIing.
7. this agrccmcrri shall inure Lo the bencfit of and
tre binding upon tho heirs, succcasors and assiqns cf the
-5-
'#! '' ,' . .:'.'' t;
l!ft:i::,-horc-to' i::l.ics hcrdlo. il rf,c iousculinc- of ;rrr'/
.t- -,.:- ,.,| . .r'. ..':.,:
,rc'leoiis-trucd to include;tha f eminine
"-Ll
thcreof. .rncl thc :ingular the plural'
word used
and ncutc r
whenevcr
herein shai
.::>
gender
neeess. ry
-!
for propcr constr tctlon'
..
.
:N WITNESS THEREOF'
i.,:rccinent ef fecti re as of
r,r:'ittcn. '
1s*'r I )
( sca l)
N?TEST:
APPBOYED ltqy 31, 1968'
the P.rrties h.rvc executed thiB
the daY and Year firsc abot/e
RATIIIED AIID
I.c.T. , rl{c.74n
-6-
.213.
nla t..J-
I
At e lnZ
t/A,L *= so<- ' /--..-- $ef--,.re,<,-){lcaP'za"ta\> t
p-tJ
73 €flhelr?rtt
-tl
Planner: t-/tZZ -2/38
,.'A \c,tv
Fj n.\b \-t
PROJECT!
DATE SUBMITTED: /'.
COMI,TENTS NEEDED BY:
rNTER-DEPARTMENTAL REVIEW
DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL!
2 s-')'' L
Date:
Date:
Date:
FIRE DEPARTMENT
.. .rt! (-..'.-a<
+, KrL{
2-b'?2Q^ue cof1
..f --.2 y' "/ '
EOLICE DEPARTMENT
Revlewed by:
connents:
RECREATION DEPARTI'IENT
Revlewed by:
Comments:
i,* A"x,,lataot .rDD. at/- afirtar"tlzy/araa*fu I ffM*
PU!LIEW9BKERevlewed by:
coEments !
Reviewed by:
Comments:
/
revlsed 3/IL/9L
Date:
iii
75 south lronlage road
vail, colorado 81657
(303) 476-7000
..li!., ,t ,.-. ., r,--.,
GENERAL PLAN CORRECTTON L|ST z-J-:f ZEased on 1905 Edttton o, the Unlrorm gu{dlng Code
olf lce of communily deyelopment
Plan Check No. Valuation
UseCily 2"" '' (.
State .Type of
ConstructionTolal Allowable lloor area
Easis for Increase
S";i?,ily"" R-/
Stories
Floor Area:
Floor (Max.)
Sq. Ft.
Sq. Ft.
Floor (Totat)
COMMENTS OR ASSUMPTIONS:4211, o-t.- *,n. ./rc,.r,.r, ,.ri. j7 r.-,
Occupant Load
9'"?,'r,,,',..,ud Za-a , - c-;/,*r-zpJruttA l.:lt.:(, , ,2 .n AR tz.4-L 7,.r.2 g ;>ttl.'!ij1,,'r/-- Ara.?,.i>z+ -
ifi'ff[",ff"i:ffii:"^t"0"".l!iiji;""l:*:de on prans berore 0.,-n ," ,
ssctionofthe8uildingcodaorohe'cityordinanceo'sta|o|aw.
r
Addltlonsl Cor.ec ons:
,a-r Z /]4. d,2-a ,Z'ra rt f ///t;t/{.8 _,.
Tnese snee.. a'e a pan of the plans and shall temain aftached thereto. corfeclions as above indicated wi, be compried with.
(Sign Here)
Rechecked and
Checked by
///c '," :"; .--.
Fl!-t c0PI
lnwn
75 soulh fronlag€ foad
vail, colorado 81657
(303) 47S2138
(303) 479'2139
oflice ol community development
February 7,1992
HAND DELIVEHED
Mr. Jay Peterson
108 S. Frontage Road
Suite 307
Vail, CO 81657
Fle: Christiania Lodge Special Development District Submittal
Dear Jay:
I am writing this letter to follow-up the conversation we had today regarding the Christiania
SDD application signatures which must be obtained in order for the Town to proceed with
processing the Christiania SDD application.
As we discussed in our meeting on Friday, December 13, 1991 with Paul Johnston and Kurt
Segerberg, any parking associated with the proposed increase in density must be on property
which is owned by the Christiania Lodge or on property which the Christiania controls through
some legal instrument. With regard to property which the Christiania controls through some
legal instrument, a title report for this property must also be submitted and the property owner
must be a co-applicant to the SDD application (i.e. the property owner must also sign the
application). The parking associated with the submitted Christiania SDD redevelopment
proposal is located on property which the Christiania Lodge does not own. Therefore, the
submitted Christiania SDD application is incomplete and cannot be processed until the
necessary application signatures have been obtained.
Three possible alternatives which could be pursued are:
1. lf the proposed SDD submission remains unchanged, Vail Associates, owner of
Lot J, must sign the application form and agree in writing that any parking
located on Lot J associated with the Christiania Lodge will be permanently
available to the Christiania. lf any parking is proposed on the Town of Vail
I
\'
Mr. Jay Peterson
February 7, 1592
Page 2
right-of-way, permission from the Town would also be necessary. Additionally,
a title report verifying ownership and indicating any easements must be
submitted.
2. The SDD submission could be modified to show parking only on the area of Lot
P-3 shaded on the attached map (i.e. no parking would be proposed on the
platted Town right-of-way or on the road which has been constructed east of
and adjacent to the Mill Creek Court Condominium Building. As long as the
parking is in conformance with the July 10, 1963 easement agreement, it
appears that Vail Associates' signature would not be necessary. However, this
needs to be verified by the Town Attorney.
3. The SDD submission could be modified to show parking only on that paved
portion of Lot D, Block 2, Vail Village First Filing (the Christiania Lodge
property), which is located immediately west of and adjacent to the Christiania
Lodge building. Under this scenario, no parking would be proposed on either
Lot P-3 or Lot J, therefore, V.A.'s signature would not be required on the
application.
As you are aware, the Town of Vail will not process an application which is not complete. The
only way your client's application can proceed to the February 24th PEC meeting is if you
decide to pursue resolution of the parking issue as set forth in "option 3" above. lf your client
decides to resolve the Lodge's parking pursuant to either "option 1 or 2", the Town must
receive any additional information/signatures no later than the Monday prior to the Tuesday
publishing submission deadline for the associated PEC meeting date. Amber Blecker can
explain these deadlines to you if necessary (479-2138).
lf you have any questions or comments regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to
contact me at 479-2138.
Sincerely,
f;tt fi****
Jill E. Kammerer
Senior Planner
lab
cc:Paul Johnston
Kurt Segerberg
Larry Eskwith
,d
sfq
\
c
il
o
.:
l!
q
vl
^' -./'I L-.r1 --ll -- t ----/ / \/a /-.-/L'-(2
\-\-\)
lrt\t\t\ti
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Irl
I
,
\
T
t
\
\
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
.1
rlrl
!l
E\
.t
\
\
\Irft.l\
o'l I
I
\
\
\
\
1
I
\
I
\
I
\
\rl
a\
t\
I
,\
\\
'l
I
I
\
\
\
\
i \.,o o
$
' ii -,+lrl-,
CHRISTIAIfIA AT VAIL
S.D,D. PROPOSAL
Enclosed herewith are drawings for the Christiana at Vail.
This S,D.D. Proposal is requesting revisions to the
currently approved status of the prop€rty.
Tte are requesting your review and support of this proposal.
The issueg at hand for review are best described as followsr
Density, Parking, G.R.f.A. and Setbacks.
Densitvr
vfe are reguesting an increase to density from 12 rooms Lo 22
roous. The Christiania Lodge has operated as a 27 roon
Iodge for over twenty years. The density was recently
reduced fron 27 roons to 12 rooms in an effort to
acconmodate the expansion plan for tvro nerf condoninium units
to be built on top of the bull.dlng. This exercise nas
necessary to eonforn to the exlsting zoning and parking
reguirements Eet forth by the Town of ValI relative to the
Christianla property.
PeE@.'
The Chrlstlanla Lodge has offered some 33 Bpaces to its
guests over its many years of operation in the J l.ot
adjacent to the Christiania Lodge. fssues related to the
use of this property has renained unresolved to date.
Although the lncrease to density fron 12 to 22 rooms w111
technically increase the parking requlrenents for the
Christiania property, the continued use of the J lot
indicate that adequate parklng exit,s. In addttton' a tlro
ear eovered garage is planned with the renodel, these tr,to
spaces would be use to acconmodate covered parking
requirements for the remodel. ALso, an additlonal two
spaces of uncovered parking will be provided on the
Christiania property.
9=-G.-L-'
'.'-\..'.
The owner is request,ing to e*p.rd-Sarah's aar..by 34O Eq.ft.
\-..
This expansion nould extend to the south sone 10 along
tts 34 ttldth. The existing seating capacity is 44
seats with plans of increasing to 5A aeats. An increase of
only 5 seats. The o!,rner wishes to #e-up current seating
arrangements with this expanslon providing better services
and circuLation withln the bar area. Also, a small
extentlon to the Sk1 Roon Storage below would be done in
conjunction lrith Sarah'E Bar.
Setbacks:
The additlon of the cover€d garage has nade 1t necessary to
extend the buiLding footprlnt. Approxinately 11'- O- ihto
the existing 20'- @o rear setback. This portion of the
expansion would only be on the south-west portlon of the
bulLding. Roof overhange and balconleE would extend
approxiuately 15'- O" lnto the 2@'- O" rear Fetback.
a
CHRISTIAXIA AT VATL
S.D.D. PROPOSAL
Re: Open Space and Recreatlonal PIan
This proposal lnt,ends to upgrade the existing open space and
recreational planning of the surroundlng Eite.
A large area of paving on
property shall be renoved
area will be brought back
wiLl be planted to shield
area. The introduction of
lrest end of the building,
impacts on and around tbe
the southnest corner of the
as shown on the site plan. This
to sod and natlve grasses. Trees
the asphalt drive and dumpster
a tlro car parklng garage at the
will eignificantly reduce parking
property.
The construction of a nen recreational foot path along the
western property llne, will be offered by the olrner after
deternlning its speclfic alignnent wlth the Town of Vail and
Vail AssociateB. An existing wooden split-rail fence witl
be removed in thls same area, bringlng the area back to a
nore open space settlng.
A nunber of
frontage of
new
the
plantlngs shall be added to the northern
property as shown on the landscape plan.
)k
PUBLIC NOTICE
NOTICE lS HEREBY GIVEN that the Plannlng and Environmental Commission of the Town of
Vail will hold a public hearing In accordanoe with Section 18.66.060 of the Municipal Code of
the Town of Vail on February 24, 1992 at 2O0 p.m. In the Town of Vail Municipal Building.
Consideration of:
t. A request lor a conditional use permit for a bed and breakfast at 5197 Black Gore
Drlve/Heather of Vail Condos. according to the dat Bcorded In Book 238 at Page 678.
Applicant Unda DulaStaff: Betsy Rosolactt/lrlike Mollica
2. A request for an extedor alteration at Blu's Restiaurant, Gore Creek Plaza Building, 193
Gore Creek DriveiPart ol Block 58, VailVillage Flrst Fillng.
Applicant: Charles RosenquistPlanner: Shelly Mello
3. A request to amend Chapter 18.24 - CommerclalCore I and Chapter 18.26 -
Commercial Core ll, of the Town of Vail zonlng ctde relating to exterior altErations or
modifications, and the Vail Village Design Consideralions (l) - Sun-Shade.
Applicant: Town ol VailPlanner: Jill Kammerer
4. A request to amend the conditions of approval for lhe previously approved parking,
common area and height variances for the Sonnenalp Hotel, as well as a request for
variances to Sections 18.58 and 18.52 relating to wallheight and off-street parking
standards,20 Vail Road/Lots land K, VailVillage First Filing.
Applicant: Johannes FaesslerPlanner: Andy Knudtsen
5. A request for a minor exterior alieration and to renew and amend a conditional use
permit for Uonshead Miniature Golf, Tract D, Vail Lionshead Fkst Filing.
Applicants: Vail Associates/Charlie Alexander
Planner: Shelly Mello
6. A request tor the establishment ol a Special Development District at the Christiania at
Vail, 356 Hanson Ranch Road/Lot D, Block 2, Vail Village First Filing.
Applicant: PaulJohnston
Planner: JillKammerer
7. A request for wall height and road grade variances for the Spraddle Creek Subdivision,
an approximately 40 acre parcel localed north and east ol the Main VaiUl-70
Interchange and east of the Spraddle Creek Livery.
Commencing at the NE comer of the SE 7r of he SW !/r of Section 5, Township 5 S,
Range 80 W ol the 6th P.M., being an Eagle Oounty Brass Cap properly marked and
set, with all bearings contained herein being relative to a bering of S00ol l'00' E
between the NE comer of said SE 7r ol the SW /r, and the SE comer ol said SE 7r of
the SW % being an Eagle County Brass cap properly marked and set; said NE comer
of he SE % ol the SW % being the Point of Beginning; thence S00'11'00'E along the
easl line of said SE /r of the SW % of Section 5 a distance of 1320.14 leet to the SE
comer the said SE % of the SW % of Section 5; thence 589'47'48" W along the south
line of said SE % of the SW % ot Section 5 a distance of 901.00ieet; thence
N73"48'32'W along l-70 ROW line a distance ol214.12 feet; thence N66o52'12'W
along said ROW line a distance of 241.10 teet to a point on the west line of said SE %
of the SW /r ol Sec{ion 5; thence N00'20'31'W along the west line of said SE % of
the SW 7r ol Section 5 a distance ol 1161.66 leet to the NW corner ol the SE % of the
SW 7r of Section 5 being an Eagle County brass cap properly marked and set; hence
N89o41'12' E along the north line ol said SE % of the SW % of Sectlon 5 a distance of
1331.07 feet to the Point of Beginning. Said real property containing 39.55 acres,
more or less.
Applicant: George N. Gillett, Jr.Planner: Mike Moffica
8. Any itams'.abled from ihe February 1C, '!992 PEC rneeting agenda.
The applications and information about the proposals are
available for public review in the Community Development
Department oflice.
Town of Vail
Community Development Department
Pubf ished in the Vail Trail on February 7, 1992
PUBLIC NOTICE
NOTTCE lS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town ot
Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with Section 18.66.060 of the Municipal Code of
the Town of Vail on February 24,'1992 at 2:00 p.m. ln the Town ol Vail Municipal Building.
Consideration of:
1. A request for a conditional use permit for a bed and breaktast at 5197 Black Gore
DriveiHeather of Vail Condos, according to frre ptat recorded In Book 238 at Page 678.
Applieant: Linda DulaStaff: Betsy HosolacUMike Mollica
2. A request tor an exterior alteration at Blu's Restaurant, Gore Creek Plaza Building, 193
Gore Creek Drive/Part of Block 58, VailVillage First Fillng.
Applicant: Charles Flosenquist
Planner: Shelly Mello
3. A request to amend Chapter 18.24 - Commercial Core I and Chapter 18.26 -
Commercial Core ll, of the Town of Vail zoning code relating to exterior alterations or
modifications, and the Vail Village Design Considerations (l) - Sun'Shade.
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: Jill Kammerer
4. A request to amend the conditions ol approval for the previously approved parking,
common area and height variances for the Sonnenalp Hotel, as well as a request for
variances to Sections 18.58 and 18.52 relating to wall height and off-street parking
standards, 20 Vail Road/Lots I and K, Vail Village First Filing.
Applicant: Johannes Faessler
Planner: Andy Knudtsen
5. A request lor a minor exlerior alleralion and to renew and amend a conditional use
permit for Lionshead Miniature Golf, Tract D, Vail Lionshead First Filing.
Applicants: Vail Associates/Charlie Alexander
Planner: Shelly Mello
\iL 6. A request for the establishment of a special Development District at the chrisliania at4\ Vail, 356 Hanson Ranch Road/Lot D, Block 2, Vail Village First Filing.
Applicant: Paul Johnslon
Planner: Jill Kammerer
7. A request for wall height and road grade variances tor the Spraddle Creek Subdivision,
an approximately 40 acre parcel located north and easl of the Main Vail/l-70
interchange and east of the Spraddle Creek Livery.
Commencing at the NE corner of the SE /r of ttre SW 7r of Section 5, Township 5 S,
Range 80 W of the 6th P.M., being an Eagle County Brass Cap properly marked and
set, with all bearings contained herein being relative to a bering of S00o11'00" E
between the NE corner of said SE % of the SW %, and the SE comer of said SE % ol
the SW % being an Eagle County Brass cap property marked and set; said NE comer
ol the SE % of the SW % being the Point of Beginning; thence SOO"'!1'00' E along the
east line of said SE % of the SW % of Section 5 a distance of 1320.14 feet to the SE
corner the said SE % of the SW % of Section 5; thence 589'47'48" W along the south
line ol said SE % of the SW /+ of Section 5 a distance of 901.00 feet; thence
N73'48'32'W along l-70 ROW line a distance ol214.12 feet; thence N66'52'12'W
along said ROW line a distance of 241.10 teet to a point on the west line of said SE %
of the SW % of Section 5; thence N00'20'31" W along the west line of said SE % of
the SW % of Section 5 a distance of 1161.66 feet to the NW corner of the SE 1/a ot the
SW /r of Section 5 being an Eagle County brass cap properly marked and set; thence
N89"41'12" E along the north line of said SE % of the SW % of Section 5 a distance of
1331.07leet to the Point of Beginning. Said realproperty containing 39.55 acres,
more or less.
Applicant: George N. Gitlett, Jr.Planner: Mike Mollica
8. Any items tabled from the February 10, 1992 PEC meeting agenda.
The applications and intormation about the proposals are
available for public review in the Community Development
Department office.
Town of Vail
Community Development Department
Published in the Vail Trail on February 7, 1992
Adjacent Propertv 0wners - Chrl sti ana Lodqe:
1. E. C. Whi tehead
366 Hanson Ranch RoadVail, CO 81657
2. Chateau Christian Townhouse Assoc., Inc. 7-:Richard Siega1, Pnes'i dent /a//J/l/ (,F /4,/L
5OZ Park Avenue
New York, NY tgS22
3. V'f f l a Val ha l I a condo Associ ati on ll1 :1 rtits't ,fitxt '':")
Ri chard Suche r, Pnesi dent
4595 Hllton Pankway - #110
Co'l orado Spri ngs, CO 8ggg7
4. Jerry Lewi s e&6f e//d.*/$i{/€ /*}il)g${';;4}('Hi
Lggg Eas t G i ra rd /4 Ssa"
Eng'l ewood, C0 86LLg
5. Mi I I Creek Court Bu'l Idi nglCondo Associ ati on
Rod Sli fer, Presi dent
?3Q Bri dge StreetVai|, CO 81657
6. Cyrano's
Bud Panks
303 Gore Creek Drive
Vai'l , CO 81657
7. Berry Craddock /?L( tl4/{.|',,it ,'}f /t)
P, O. Box 722! v. :t't t:5 Ap,&t.tsj
Colorado Springs, CO AA,AT /V/rW'co ,ft(*xl,;!;,
9. Ti vo l i Lodge
Bob Lazi er
386 Hanson Ranch Road
ValI, CO 81657
lr.lo. Vn;l Assor,c{e5