HomeMy WebLinkAboutVAIL VILLAGE FILING 1 BLOCK 5A LOT E-H RED LION COMMON 1lnun
75 south lronlage road
vail, colorado 81657
(303) 476-7000
November 26, 1986
Dick Brown
178O BeL Alr StreetSuite 106
Denve:, CO 8O2Oz
Dear Dick:
The Red Lions flfth and final installment is due on December31, 1986. The amount due is $?,880.00. Please use this letter
as a reminder to remit a check to the Town offices at your con-
venience.
Sincerely,
zJ /="*4
Rich Parzor{l{d
Finance Contfoller
8F/njr
llflI
75 south frontag€ roed
Eil. colorado 81657
(303) 476-7000
Oicb Bnown
l7S0 BeL Ain Stze-etSuite 106
Oenvett, C0 80202
Oean Oicb:
Thz Red LLont a $ountlt
31 , 1985. Pleate ute thia
due ia i7 ,88o. oo
Ozeenbzn 19, 1985
inata.Llment ia due on
Letten aa a +enLndett.
0eeenben
Thz anount
SlnczneLg,
Rich ?anzonb.o
Finance Contnollen-
RP lm jn
75 soulh tronlage rosd
Yall, colorEdo E1657
(303) 476-7000
The Red Lionts third installrnent of the Torvn of Vail
parkin[-f ei-o'as due Decernber 3]., 1984. Pa-]'ment has not been
r"l"i"Ea as of tl'ris date for the amount d'e,- $7 ' 880 ' 00 '
i,i""t" iernit a check to the Town of Vail to bring, your account
current. Your upmost attention is requested in this matter.
Thank You.
SincerelY '
Zl "4-"-/t. - 4-.'Rich Parzonko
Finance Controller
Selby and Associates
L08 S Frontage Road
Vai1, Colorado 81657
Dear Mr, SelbY:
RP/nj rcertified mail
Januar,v L7, 1985
(o"o6poo funcsT i
)rcE deoutt
lrest ,/2Xo tszzlta lr
lutt6,/o6
/tcr>,tue< (o
goto&
75 3oulh irontage rord
Yrll, color!do 81657
(303) {76-7000
Selby and Associates
108 S ETontage Road West
Vail, CO 8f657
Dear !lr. Selby:
This letter is a reminder
Vail Parking Fee installments
1984 for the Red Lion exPansion.
from the offLce of rich parzonko
December 7r 1984
that the third of five Towrt of
will come due on December 31,
lfhe amount due is $7'B8O.OO.
Sincerely,
Rich Parzonko
Finance Controller
RP/nJr
79,1-otrlh Jrontege .o.d
lEll,,€l.9r'do.Oi657
(393),..7F?0oo
:rom the office of rich trrarzon)<o
April 17, 1984
Sineerely.
--.ich Parzonko
Finanee Controller
:*!i : r,. --:-,:SeID!.. and Assocj.ateslAB S Frontage Road Westvail, co 81657
Dear Sir:
:i:-'-*vy reccrds indicate that the Town of vaiL has not receivedyour second installment of your parking fee in the amount of$*;:88t2 due on oc-tober 15, r-sgs. please remit a check in th.is
:5,:11_-t"_ll.1tS trour amount current.. ptea€e carr-;J ft y";nave any questiona ccncerning this matter.
RP/mjr
ofllcc of communlty dcyclopmanl
November 21, 1983
Jeff Selby
Richard Brown
Charles Rosenquist
f,Mark Garrison
Selby and Associates
108 South Frontage Road - lr|estVail, Colorado, 81657
Dear Sirs,
This is a remJnder that the second insta'llment of the Red Llon parking
fee ,is due on December 31, 1983. The fee for tggg is Si,S8O.OO.
Thanks,
Si ncere'ly,
Jim Sayre
JS/rme
il,,*
('i;
w
,/ j ,)"" 0oi . e., r\7/ \.* .!r*
$
\
il'"
o
$39,400
In installrpnts hfter date., for value received, I
of the Torar of Vail'at the Office of the Finance
at Vail Colorado
Vait, Cotort November 17 l9 82
promise to pay to the order
Director, MuniciPal Building
Thirty-nine thousand, four hundred
with interest of a& p.r..n$., unnuln
The f irst instal'lment
the second installmnt
the third instal'lment
the fourth insta'l]ment
with the entire unPaid
Dol lars,
on the unpaid balance,payable in yearly
December 31 ,82
December 31
of $ 7,ggq __ due and PaYable on
of $ljggq- due and PaYable on
of $ 7,880 due and payable on December 31
of $ljg99-- due and payable on December 31
.balance due and payab'l e sn December 31
,83 ,
,84
,85
.86
IT IS AGREED that if this note js not paid whe4 du.e or declared due,hereunder,
tlie principal and accrued interest thereon shall draw interest at the rate ot
ib-pincent'per annum, and that failure to make any payrent of principal or interest
w[ei-Ou" o"'any aetauti under any 'incurbrance or agreemen! gecurlng_tlit-1:l:^.
stritl caus" thE whole note to beconre due at bnce, or the 'interest to be counteo
is-principal, at the option of the holder of the note. The rnkers and endorsers
[irEbi i"["rifii "iive'prisentnent for payment, protest, notice on nonpayment
inA-of proielt,-ana agrle io any extensioir of tire of payment and partial payments
ueiore,'at oi irter milu"iiv' iia-ir thii note or inteiest thereon is not paid
itren aue,ror suit is broughl, agree to pay all reasonable costs of collection'
lncltrding reasonable attorney's fees.
{rhr--- ffiy-qA,LB,tML
tu ($\g bYn b 1.ttg <aUApie,r.t A'
llrdoLd,avWat S
instal:lments as follows :
^\L'{fulzrs -' d,h&&a',W
:7
75 iouih trontag. rd.
Y!ll. colorado 81652
(303) 476-7000
department of community development
Novemben 19, 1982
Jeffrey B. Selby
Richard N. Brown
Charles H. Rosenquist
c/o Mark Garrison
Se1 by and Associates
108 S. Frontage Rd. West
Vail, Colorado 81657
Dear Sirs:
Enc'losed find the revised parking fee promissory note for the Red
Lion commercial expansion. The due dates have been changed to reflect
the phone conversation I had with Mr. Gamison last month.
Thank you for your cooperation. .
Si ncerely,
'/t4i/t
Jim Sayre t' '/
Town Planner
JS:df
Encl .
',39,400
.rl ltlstallms6f5 ,if i:ilp d i r',
" f tfte TOwn r{ Vail'at tl;e
"t Vall Colorado
fl;t .rit Iuq rr,r.li viri t
0f f icr: of the iina:ir.:'i
ilovember 17 tY 41
I promis.e to PaY to the order
Director, MuniciPal Building
y,1,.h,)
Thf'r.ty,-n1ns thousand, icur hundred D01 l.1rs,
',e flr3t installment of $-!880. -
're second r instdl l nent o;' ".1 7 , il80
, ith Interegt of ten percetrt per ann'lm
:rstallments as follons 2 '
'i: th{rd in tallment of $ "?rQQg-
':.: fourth inPtallnent of $--7-gqq -
.,;h the entire unpaid.bl'! ;.-.:ce due and
on the unpaid ba'lance, payable 'in yearly
due anrl payable on -!9!!ILe-f *3J-----*,ez
due and payabl s sn-- Decenrqer 31-*---,83 '
due and payable on..*-DJ!ryL?l RA
:1li
pa.yabl e on
-Eglq-e-L
tL *'.,.-- -.-----' :16
due and paYable on.*gecembelj-1
rl'IS AGREI0 that if ihis nute is not paid whr:rt due or declared due,hcirlu'iJr'r',
,.iio-o"tl,ciiral ahd accrur:d interest thereon shall draw interest at tne rd1'D ui
t;-#;;;t'i""-in,'r*, *na lnii tiitrii.e to make anv pa.vrr.ent of principal or itri':' '' '
rl*i-are'ir'urv-Jur..,iii u, J, ,^ uny incurbran;e or agre."menL cecur{ng this ,1'r;3
,
'iiif,-iauil thb uhol; ;-;;-l; letottre au*".ti: i:nce, 6r the inlerest to i:'u co''t:'ir;ed-,ffiii:;r; iffifi;i;;-;;-l; teto,,e au*:":i,-*n"e, 6r the,inrerest to i:.u co',r:ifed
i"iriiiiiif ,'ii ifru-opiin,r oi the hp'lder ri' the not.e. The 'n'tkers dr'j rr:ic'::':;irf's
,,^^c -^.,^-,l l,' i.' t',1-^'...,'"+^;;t {f," nai, , llt- Dr,r:..r4; . litri. i':g on lloi: '../llicrrt;r'Ai';;i#ir ro' wiiue' pt'i:ir:ntment
,;lcl cf.protest. lnd alree tc any ,e)l
ir;i'80f SeVefE.llly !\'aive pI'ilirrntment' Ilflr Pairi' 'i:lrt' pFiii'::*i'--' !trr
,,;;;-;i i"i["ii.-."d aryee tc ar*.ex{pnsioi: ''i' iiine e1: '".'v1'3i1t and partitl palit'ierr'l's
.,iiui,i,""il a,. i;,i*r :,1,'li:iti,-Jna-irifirrii ',::i: i"-i:::1.:r..l.il-ll H,i:::,?3:1iri-t"ii"lr"il ,''it"'i,;, 'i,gii't, if.."i[o piv,',' jts{'n'rb;;'ru':r"5 of ccl :":tion'
i;;i*;i;i I*ut',,inli * 'r '.
i*inav ' s"?
Jeff Sr rby
I)ATE. . J, -. -_
er 1lr Ing nol-fl. I Ir\: ''r'ri\';' r t"1rr."r ''
paiti, 'l:llt' pf.l::,r:(,;.. lit:iir:g On noi.: J':
Ri chard Br"cv;n
BIST COPY
AVAII.ABLE
[,; il .- ltoir-:nq-[Tst -
>
\, luun
Jeff Selby
Red Lion Inn
294 Bridge Street
Vail, Colorado 81657
Dear Mr. Selby:
Below is an outline of the appropriate section of the Municipal code
concerning the parking fee, and a suunary of our agreetnent of how to
apply the law to the Red Lion rernodel .
t, Section 18.52.100 Parking Requirenents Schedule
box lfl)
Yail, colorado 81657
(3031 476-s613
' Use
Eating E-n-d Drinking
Establ ishrnents
department of community development
November 25, 1981
Park ing Requirenrent
@o seats, based
on seating capacity or building
code occupancy whichever is greater.
2, In the case of the Red Lion I have applied the occupancy standard
for the bar addition.
3. Bar space is assessed at $31000 per parking stall. The occupancy
standard for the bar addition is forty. Using the above I'Require-
nents Schedule' the parking fee for the new space is $12,000,
or4spacesx$3,000.
4. One parking stall was elininated by the Red Lion renrodel . I
understand that this stall was used for a residential unit.
Parki.g for residential space is assessed at $5,000 per parking
stal1, so the Red Lion is being assessed $5,000 for the loss
of this sDace.
-l'lo neaCf z - rt/2s/8r
is due, payable
space is not
fee
bar
5.Fee Schedule. At this point a $17,000 parking
over a five year period=:assuning that the new
nodified in the coming yearfs.
6.
Date Due Amount
First Fifth Novernber 24, L98I $5,400 (paid)
Second Fifth Novenber 24" L982 3,400
Third Fifth Noveniber 24, 1983 3,400
Fourth Fifth Novenber 24" 1984 3,400
Fifth Fifth Novernber 24, 1985 3,400
However, in the event that the new bar space is modified a Portionof the fees already paid will be given as a credit towards a
new parking fee, and the fee schedule will be modified to reflect
the future renodel . The $5,000 assessnent for the loss of the
residential space will not be allowed as a credit towards any
future parking fee.
For example, if in the next year the Red Lion remodels the new
bar space,'a credit of $2,400 (the anount already paid minus
one fifth of the residential parking fee) will be given towards
a revised tot.al parking fee,
Six bar seats l.rere removed in the current renodel . One thousand
eight hundred dollars (.6 x 3,000) will be given as a credit
towards the total parking fee due in any future renodel of
the Red Lion. In the event that no renodeling is done in the
next year, the total parking fee due will be reduied by $1,800
and the fee schedule adjusted accordingly,
1
oo oo
VI
box 100
vail, colorado 81657
(3031 476-5613
department of community development
The Red Lion Inn
I'tr. Jeff SelbY
Irtr. Charl es Rosenquist
I{r. Richard Tofel
294 Bridge Street
Dear Sirs:
on July 15,,1981 this department sent the Red Lion a bill for $10,960--the
parking fee due u, " t"rirlt of your expansion' 'Ihis amount is still due'
payabre to the Town of Vail . Ttris letter outlines the nunicip"l gogg concernj-ng
inl parking fee and Presents the application of the law to t-he Red Lion
expansi on.
The purpose of the parking fee is outlined under the chapter of the nunicipal
code entitled ,,off -street Parking and Loading". It reads "In order to alleviate
progressively or to Prevent traffic congestion and shortage of on-street
ir""iirrg ^""rr, off-street pal.king and loading facili-ties sha1l be provided
incidental to new structur^esn eniarg"t"ttts of existing dwelling units, ac-
conmodation units, neeting rooms or conventj.on facilities to a new use'.."
(Vail Municipal Code 18.52.010).
The Town Cormcil exempted two areas frorn on site parking requirenents - -Vai 1
village and Vail Lionshead. within these exempt aTeas, ProPerty ouners are
requiied by law to contribute to the Town parking fund' The appropriate
p"rr"g" reads: "At such time as any Pxoperty 9T9r or other aPpl icant- proPoses
io deiefop or redevelop a parcel of-piopirty within an exempt area...the.
owneT or ipplicant sfraii pay to the lown the parking fee.." (Vail Municipal
Code 18.52.r60.8.).
The Red Lioniparking fee is calculated using the following inforcnation:
one space is equal to 500 square feet of floor space within the expansion.
Each space is assessed at $3,000. This $5,000 figure_was established
for coirnercial space only by the Town Council on May 7, 1980'
The Red Lion commercial expansion is 2,980 square feet'
9.933 parki.ng spaces are required as a result of your expansion' (2,980
divided by 300)
A
.,t'
ti
j"?lo oo
Red Lion -2=
The parking fee due for comnercial addition i5 $29,800 (9.933 x $3,000).
Your expansion plans wi-ll elininate a oDe*cal' garaSe. This places an
additional burdLn on the public parking structule. The loss of one
residential parking space is assessed at $5,000. The Town council has
;ffito-o:fided the fee per space for residentiar spaces.
Ttre couunercial parking fee due is $29r800.
Date lue Amount
First Fifth April 14, 1981 $ 5,960
Second Fifth APriI 14, L982 5,960
Third Fifth dPril 14, 1983 5,960
Fourth Fifth APril 14, 1984 5'960
' Fifth Fifth APril 14, 1985 5,960
The parking fee due at this tine is the first fifth plus the $5,000,
or $|O,SOO. The Town of Vail expects the Red Lion Inn to conply with
the law, Kindly send a check for the amount due within one r+eek of
- receipt of this letter.
?
ot
lntln s
box 100
vail, colorado 81657
(3031 476-5613
Red Lion Inn
l,lr. John Mella
294 Bridge Street
Vail, Colorado 81657
Re: Red Lions Expansion
Dear Mr. Mella:
Ttre Town of Vail is now collecting the parking fee. The parking fee is
assessed on the basis of new or additional developnent in the connercialcores. This letter outlines the law concerning the parking fee and presents
a schedule for the payment of the fee. (See Vailrs zoning code: 18.52.100,
18 . 52 . 1608. )
The Town Council has set several different parking fee forrnulas for different
llPes of developrnent. b M")' 19c{r th" T^,.h r-^"ncil lowered the gryg}g! parking
fee rate for two years to encourage developers to begin work on tfi6ir expansionor alteration plans. The commercial rate was lowered from $5,000 to $3,000for each 300 square feet of expansion. Eating and drinking establishrnents
are assessed differently. They are assessed at the rate of $5,000 for
every l0 seats of new seating capacity,
The Town Council did not lower the residential parking fee, and it renainsat $5,000 for every parking sta11 requi.red for new developrnent. (See ordinancefor details.)
The connercial parking fee may be paid over a five year period, but the
residential fee must be paid in one lunp sum. Payrnent of the first fifthof the comrnercial fee is due at the tirnE the construction permi.t is issued.
The second fifth is due one year after the pernit is issued, the thirdfifth is due two years after the pernit is issued, and so on until thefifth fifth is paid.
A schedule of your parking fee paynents appears on the attached page.
)o
department of community development
July 15, 1981
-- Rcd Lion Inn Parkinc
L-.o
Total Commercial Parking Fee Due: $29,g00
Datc Due Amount
First Fifth April 14, 1981 g 5,960
' Second Fifth April 14, 1982 5,960
Third Fifth April 14, 1983 51960
Fourth Fifth April 14, 1984 51960
Fifth Fifth April 14, 1985 5,960
We also understand that your expansion plans will eliminate a one-cargarage. You are being assessed a $5,000 fee for the loss of this spaee.
The parking fee due at this time is the first fifth plus the 951000, or
$10,960.
Once your Plans for the residential units on the second floor are confirned,
your parking fee will be reassessed.
Receipts from the parking fee are channelled into a special fund designedto help solve vailrs parking problems. we appreciate youa contributionto this fund.
' Sincerely,
i,3 oo ol
department of community developmentbox 100
vail. colorado 81657
(3031 476-5613
July 15, 1981
Jeff Selby
Current s Jewelry
Box 1528
Vail, Colorado 81658
Re: Currents Jewelry Parking
Dear Mr, Selby:
the Town of Vail. is now collecting the parking fee, The parking fee is
assessed on the basis of ne!{ or additional developnent in the comnercial
cores. This letter outlines the law concerning the parking fee and Presents
a schedule for the paynent of the fee. (See Vailts zoning code: 18.52.100.
18 . 52 . 1608, )
The Town Council has set several different parking fee forrnulas for different
types of development. In l{ay 1980 the Town Council lowered the corunercial parking
fee rate for two years to encourage developers to begin work on their expansion
or alteration plans. The corunercial rate was lowered fron $5,000 to $3,000for each 300 square feet of expansiorl. Eating and drinking establisfunents
are assessed differently. They are assessed at the rate of $31000 for
every l0 seats of new seating capacity.
The Town Gouncil did not lower the residential parking fee, and it remains
at $5,000 for every parking stall required for new development. (See the
ordinance for details.)
Ttre couunercial parking fee may be paid over a five year period, but the
residential fee nust be paid in one lump sum. Payment of the first fifth
of the comnercial fee is due at the tine the construction perrnit is issued.
Ihe second fifth is due one year after the pennit is issued, the thirdfifth is due two years after the permit is issued, and so on until the
fifth fifth is paid,
A schedule of your parking fee paynents appears on the attached page'
rt
Currents Jewelry Parking Fee
Second Fifth December 3, 1980 2Ba
' nrira fiftn Decer&er 3, 1981 288
Fourth Fifth December 3, I9g2 298
Fifth Fifth Decebner 3, 1989 288
Ihe first two fifths are due at this tine, or g576.00.
Receipts from the parking fee are channelled into a special fund designed. to help solve Vailts parking problens. We appreciate your contributionto this fund.
Sincerely,
IO
Total Comnercial Parking Fee Due: $1,440
Date Due AmountFirst Fifth oeEEffiA; s, rsTs S-.2&d
75 soulh lronlage rd.
. vait, colorado 81657
(303) 476-7000
September 30, 1982
Jeff Selby
Red Lion Inn
294 Bridge Street
Vai1, Colorado 8.l657
Dear Mr. Selby:
o
department of community development
RE: Parking fee for Red Lion Remodel
I have fjnished ca1 cu'l ating the parking fees for the.Red Lion Inn remode'l '
ite-rut"s for calcutiting it,is tb" hav6 changed sf ightly since we discussed
thjs before. The n'aior ihange is that for restaurant expansions the fee
ii ialiutated on the-basis oi square feet instead of restaurant seats' This
is i specia'l rate established by the Town Council for a few restaurant expansions
ippiouia U.tween lgZg and 1981.- This formula gives restaurant owners a reduction
iii'ttt" parking fee. It has, for example, reduced the parking_fee for the
enclosure of itre Red Lion d6ck. Thus'ali the calculations below will use
the following basic formu'la: 300 square feet of retail expansion requires
one park'ing stal'l ; each stall is assessed at $3,000.
The method in calcu'lating fees and credjts is to evaluate whether the space
creates a parking derand-according to the "Parking Requ'irements Schedu'l e"
in Section 18.52:100 of the Vajl l.lunicipal Code. Storage areas' kitchens'
vestibules, boiler rooms, toilets and the like are not assessed a fee or
a credit. Bars, office space and retail spaces are assessed.
Last year we made an agreement about a refund for the garage.space and.the
renrovil of six bar seais. Due to the change of rules I am giv'ing creciit .^^for the space occupied by the seats. The parking fee paicl last year' )J'4UU'
is being given as a credit.
of 460 square feet to den
-2- el30l82Red Lion Feeo
,^|
999 sguare
removal of
feet
345 square feet of office
Flrst Floor
t) Renpval of gagage stall, g5,0OO
(See letter of Noverber 25, lggl)
?') New retail space 3,107 iquare feet*
3) . tilew enclosed patio 992 square feet*
Sunmary First Floor
409e (3107+se2)
1433 (credit)
e666
_ Second Floor
llo charge
.-
- *Fjgures Ruoff-tJentworth --
Total basement ll14
Total first floor 2666
3780 Tota'l
iilr Parkins Fee -3- e/30/82
3,780 square feet 'ls a 12.6 stall parking requirement
iz.o * $3,000 = $3/,800 ($g,ooo is the fee per stal'l)
$37'8oo
5;000 Fee for removal of stal] for garage
$42'800 Subtotal
-3,400 Credit from last Year's fee
,$39/00 Total Fee Due
. , - -at--Thls fee can be paid, without interest ;''oY€Y a five year pe.riod. -(1ne council
is now cnargins igZ inte"est per-innum--however, you-nade'your application
before this rule was changed. )
Schedule of Payments:
- Date Due - Amount -. r'r{':'i!.! .:':''-.:: i::i- Paymnt I -___-;;-
I 0ctober'15, 1982 $ 7,880
' 2 0ctober 15, .|983
- 7'880
3 0ctober '15, '1984 7,880
4 October 15, '1985 7'880
5 Octlber '15, .|986 7'880
If you choose to pay over a five-year period, please sign attached promissory
note.
If you have any questions, do not hesitate to cal'!.
5irc.erely,
.% P{-? -JIM SAYRE
Pl anner
JS:br
Encl.
In
ol
at
',r 39'400
inst.rl I n,.:n l: a ftcr d.tL:'.r,
Lliu forln ol' V": il a I Liie
Vail Colorado
The first installment
the second insta'llment
the th i rd i nstal I rnent
the fourth installment
with the entire unpaid
l;,, ri , Cri i,,li,; October ,1-r*l-99-2 t
for v,rl ttrr
0i'ftctr ci'i
r'{.:(:(..i ved , I pr'oin i';r-
tlir: i: iriancc lJii'cctt;i
to 1t;:.y t'o t'1',a strir:i'
Ir,,,,.i-i^r1 Or,-'I.l.:"..,t lrJ'l l'- tlrul trul l\.r'i.j
-T-lriv:linc-IhousandJou r.-[udred---
wi th i ntere r, or@;-r,".9 per annur.rr
instal Iments as foll.ols :
Do1 |ars,
on tlre unpaid Lralancc, payable in ycar'1y
payabl e onof $l&9--- due and
of $:,,,agg_- due and
of $-Z-ABO- due and.
0ctober 15. 'l 982 '
payab 1 e onj11og"r*l,5,Jgg3-,
payab 1 e otl_11414[sp_!!,-]!g{-r
of $:'.,aqO__ due and payable on ndtoher 15, 1985-,
balance due and payable on October 15, 1986
i t,..l:f'ri -- '::
IT IS AGREED that if this note is not paid when due or declared due.hereunCer,
the principal and accrued interest.thereon shal 1 draw interest at the rate ol
1B pbrcent'per annumr and that failure to make any payment of principal or interest
wheir due or any default under any incurnbrance or agreement securing this note
sha'l 'l cause the vthole note to become due at once, or the interest to be counted
as principal , at the opt'ion of the holder of the ncte. The nakers an'l endorsers
herbof seVeril 1y waive presentment f or paylllent, protest, ttotice on nt:npayltlent
and of'protest, and agree to any extension of.time of paynient and partial pay-menEs
befOre, at or after maturity, and if this note or interest tllereon ls noi p3 lil
when due,.,or suit is brought, agree to pay all reasonable costs of collect'ion'
including reasonabl e attorney's fees.
DATE.
*6c
t\,9-
department of community development
75 south lrontage rd.
vail, colorado 81657
(303) {7&7000
Since
PETER JAMAR
Town
PJ:br
Encl .
January 4, 1983
Brad Quay'le
c/o Red Lion Lounge
294 Bridge Street
Vail, Colorado 8.|657
Dear Brad,
This letter is to .inform you of the procedure that wjll be fo'l'lowed by the
DepartmentofConrrnunityDeve.|opmentregardingi.|1ega1']gls.Starting.im-;[i;i;it; we witt sir"iciiy-uah"". to.ine pr6cedures outlined within the
Vail Municipa1 Code wi,iin "ttit. that it'is"unii*iut to display any sign within
the town without .ut"iuing-iown ot Vail .approval ' vi9l1!igns are subiect
ii-p""l]tv'i"a76" ii""l'lia'*li"*iit-nesin'issuins summons for illesal sisns'
In the past we have relied on a cooperative spirit in having t-i9lt'ih3! Igl"
illeqa'l removed withoui'iin" o" p"nitty. The'proljferatjon of chalk boards
#H;i;;iv-iilpilv-;o;il; ind'the '!pu.i.J iiipruv or these sisns bv.several
businesses r,.s ,"ruit";:;-;t;";"iition'io stricti.v -enforce the sign code
requ.lations. These types of s.igns are_noi allowed-. Each restaurant and,/or
;;";;";ii;n.a'u-iiu"'!;;";; io6i-aispruv oox in which to post menus' current
entertainnent, specia'l s, etc. (see attached 'infornnt'ion ) '
If you have any questions regarding. exactly the type and nunber of signs
you are alowed, or-ii-vou fi;i; rit" to-ii,pry to the Design Review Board
for a display box, pleaie contact me' Thairk you for your cooperation'
I hope you have a happy and a prosperous New Year'
Pl an ner
,a
i
lnun
75 routh tronlrge rd.
Y!ll, colorudo 81657
(3O3) {76-7nOO
department of community development
November 19, 1982
Jeffrey B. Selby
Richard N. Brown
Charles H. Rosenquist
c/o Mark Garrison
Selby and Associates
108 S. Frontage Rd. West
Vail, Colorado. 81657
Dear Sirs:
Enclosed find the revised parking fee promissory note for the Red
Lion commercial expansion. The due dates have been changed to reflect
the phone conversation I had with Mr. Gamison last month.
Thank you for your cooperation. .
5i ncerely,
/4i/t C-*Jim Sayre tl
Town Planner
JS:df
Encl .
Vai'l , Colol November 17 l9 82$ 39,400
In installments'after date, for value received, I
at the Office of the Financeof the Tor,rn of Vail'
at Vall Colorado
Thirty-nine thousand, four hundred
to pay to the order
Municipal Building
Do1 l ars ,
promi se
Director,
with interest of ten percent per annum on thd unpaid ba'lance, payable in yearly
installments as follows:
The f irst insta'l'lment
the second instal'lrEnt
tJre third instal'lment
due and.payable e1 December 31
due and paYable sn December 31
due and PaYable on--ggcemlgt 1l
due and payab le on December 31
payabl e on December 31
of $1,99q__
of $ jrggg-
of $ 7,880
,82
,ffi'
,84
,85
.86
the fourth insta'llment of $-7,qqg--
with the entire unpaid.balance due and
--.Jeff Sel bv
IT IS AGREED that if this note is not paid when due or dec'lared ar",n"""rna"q,
ttie princ'ipal and accrued interest thereon sha1 I draw jnterest at tne rate of
iA pbrcent'p." "nnut,'ina tfrat fai'l ure to nnke any payment of principal or interest
w["i-au. o"'uny detault under any incurnbrance or agreement securing tltit-19!:-,
ihall cause thi who'l e note to beconre due at bnce, or the interest to be counteo
as principa'l , at the option of the holder of the note. The nnkers and endorsers
;;"E;i';;Gririv wiivi'presentn'ent for payment, protest, notice on nonpavrnent
ina-oi ptoi"it,-und agree to any.fxtensio-n of tine of payrnent and partial payments
Uefoie,'at oi 6fte" riluiiii, ii'if'-it this note or intei'est thereon is,not paid
wnen due,ror suit is broughi, agree to pay all reasonable costs of collectjon'
including reasonab'le attorney's fees.
OATE.
Richard Brown
'Charles H. Rosenquist
o
departm€nt of community developmentt5 soulh fronlage rd.
r.ll, colorado 81657
{303} 47&7000
November 16, 1982
Edwin G. Whitehead
15 Valley Drive
Greenwich; Connecticut 06830
Dear Mr. lJhitehead:
After reviewing your letter of November 10, 1982 concerning the
address for the res'idential unit above the Red Lion Commercial spaceI have decided that 297 Hanson Ranch Road is indeed appropriate for
the space. .
The motiviation behind the change in address was to faciljtate the
response of emergency vehicles. Many of the currently assigned addresses
in Vail are an administrative nightmare, with as many as five addresses
assigned to different condominiums within the same building. However,
your present address seems to be justified given the conffguration of
the building.
Sincerely,
/;ery
.Ilm Sayre
Tovrn. Planner
JS:df
1 Project Application
Date
O
projectName: Al:d *Nt; 'd4i 4^3t'' r itq *l 6di:J
Proiecl Description:
Contact Person and Phone
Owner. Address and Phone:
Architect, Address and phone: {,t/ f L.f L/41 t">t-=l
Legal Description: Lot Block Filing Zone
Comments:
Design Review Board
Date
Motion by:
Seconded by:
APPROVAL DISAPPROVAL
Summary:
,\""uApproval
.!t tirbTy/v.il
a LGA,tatw tw-
t.grffil nr,ocrl9;L t,iLrrocUlrtuVrL!.W @ _
DESCRIPTION OF PROJLCI'
r- I :i1'
1 N^ML o'; ptrof Lcr
L[6A], DLSCRIPTION;
The following infornation is
Board before a final approval
A. BUILDING MATERIALS
Roof
Siding
Other Wal1 Materi.als
Fascia
Soffits
l{indows
Itindow Trin
Doors
Door Trim
Hand or Deck Rails
Flues
Flashings
Chinneys
Tlash Er)cl osures
Greenhous es
Other
PLA}.IT !'IATERIALS
(Vegetative, Landsc:rping
Botanical Name
rcquired for submittal by the
can be giv r:n:
Type of iiJaterial
applicant to the Design Rcview
CoI or
l'iat erial s irrc)uding T::ees,
Comnon Narne
and Grc'und Cover)
Si ze
Sirrubs,
Qlantity
/S
rvrsHl
^ (=ae'
/6-ro'.-6a{
lr'O'fz4'5
B.
ffiFws- ts+teD
/6DWlzat
ror6,Vtt\ o"ouhA 'rt)Nc \)Nlv \lJJArP trg4f -
't loca-han
I I r't t;.t'tAl.s/1 C.
l j',:::. 0i' 1';:J.;- cT \,t
LE(i/rl. Dl:5Clll l''l l Oli ;
DI_SCnIPTION Or PJIOJICT 5/o
Thc following infornation is
Board bcfore a final approval
A. tsUILDING I.iATERIALS
Roof
Siding
Other lfal I Material s
Fascia
Soffits
h'indows
liindow Trirn
Doors
Door Trirn
Hald or Deck Rails
Flues
F1a shings
Chinnel's
Tras'h Errcl osures
Greenhouses
Other
PLA}IT UCTERIALS
(\regetat ive, Landscaping
Botanical Name
rcquircd for subni t ta I
can be givcn:
by the applicant. to the Design Rcvier.r
Col orType of Material
a\G ar 'ba".
B.
l'hterials irc ludin g
Corunon Name
Trees,and Ground Cover)
Size
Shrubs,
Qgaltity
/?F6---7-\--a /t (9ril\
-----.I---1;----7
ktL
tbg
\z__:_
uLI(8t
4-t <./\ ,/
;Q.'4dstd--l
UQA)
n+?U
J}
=
i^[qra/ r]!],u.1[a
I i,Nil
September 30, .|982
Jeff Sel by
Red Lion Inn
294 Bridge Street
Vail n Colorado 8.l657
Dear Mr. Selby:
I have fjnished calculat'ing the
The ru1 es for calculating this
this before. The nnjor change
ol
department of community development
RE: Parking fee for Red Lion Remodel
fees for the Red Lion Inn renodel .
oo
lnwn u utl
75 south tronlage rd.
' vail, colorado 81657
(303) 476-7000
park ing
fee have
is that
changed sl ightly since we discussed
for resta+'tri expans ions the fee
is ca] culated on the basis of i lrstead of restaurant seats. This
is a special rate es e Town Councjl for a few restaurant expansionsI and l98l .It has, for
Lion deck.
the following basic formula: 300 square feet of retai'l expans'ion requires
one parking stal'l ; each stall is assessed at $3,000.
The method in calculating fees and credits is to evaluate whether the space
creates a parking denand according to the "Parking Requirernents Schedule"
in Section'18.52.100 of the Vail l'lunicipal Code. .Storage areas, kitchens''vestibules, boiler rooms, toilets and the like are not assessed a fee or
a credit. 8ars, office space and retail spaces are asiessed.
Last year we made an agreement about a refund for the garage space and the
rerpval of six bar seats. Due to the change of rules I am giving creditfor the space occup'ied by the seats. The parking fee paid last year, $3,400,is being given as a credit.
This formu'la gives restaurant owners a reduction
example, reduced the parking fee for the
Thus all the calcu'l ations below will use
oo
llgor bY Floor Analysls
Basement
",i. i,
i ii,. ! ),,r,,, $l:gd,ll..fpf , ex i sti ng lgq,
Surmary First Floor.
4099 (3107+992)
1433 (credit)
2666
Second Floor
llo charge
| ) Addition of 460 square feet to den
Z) !let{ bar area, 999 square feet
3) Credlt due to removal of 34S
Surmary Basement
---345 (credit ). . lll4 Total Basement
Flr€Floor
l) Remova'l of gagage stall,
(See letter of Noverber
2', l{erv retail space 3,107
3) l{err enclosed patio 992
Red Lion Fee -2-
,, oo
'.:
square feet of office
Surmary - Buildingr
Total basement
Total first floor
3780 Total
3,780 square feet is a '12.6 sta'll parking requirenent
12.5 x $3,000 = $37,800 ($g,OOO is the fee per stall )
$37,800
51000 Fee for remova'l of sta'|1 for garage
Red L ion
o
Park i ng
o
Fee -3- 9/39/82
't't't4
2666
$42,800 Subtotal
3,400 Credit from last year's fee
$39,400 Total Fee Due
Payrent Date Due
October 15,
October 15,
October 15,'
October 15,
Octlber 15,
Annunt
1982 $ Z,ggO
1983 7,.890
1984 7,880
1985 7,880
1986 7,880
Thls fee can be paid, witiout interest;t,oyEr a five year period. (The councills now charging'10% interest per annum--however, you made your application
before this rule was changed. )
ScheSule of Paygglrts:
I
2
3
4
5
If you choose to pay over
note.
If you have any questions,
Slncarely,
rllll SAYRE
Planner
JS:br
Encl .
a five-year period,
do not hes.itate to
please slgn attached promissory
call.
oo
v,, r l col ",rQ Q.rober---"L-l-98-2 i(39,400
tn installn:tnls aftcr clirtc, for vtilur-.r'cr.t"i vcd, I proriti:;c L{, 1t,:1r,o t1,u gtrlr-'i'
sl' blre Town ol_ Va il at iirc 0if jcc of thc Fir,artce Dircctoi, l''luiricipal Buildin3
at Vail Colorado
lhi[tJ:dlC-IhQ[sand, Four flundrcrl
-
Dol J ars ,
n
with jnterest of €88 perccnt per annum on tlte uhpaid balance, payable in yearly
instal l rnerits as f ol I ows : '
the first installment of $Z$99--
the second installment ot $Z;aAO__
t}le third jnst'allment of $-:*AAO--
the fourth jnstal'lment of $:.940--
with.the entire unpaid balance due and
due and payable on _0-cleber_J5-,_L982_,
due and payabl e on_lg4jgp[gJc_l$:_Jgg3_,
due a nd. payab'l e on__-.lQstLober-L5,-Jgg4- r
due and payabl e on-jotober-l5,-lg85-'.
payab'le on october '15' 1986
IT IS AGREED that if this note is not paid when due or declared due.hereundeq,
the princ'ipa'l and accrued interest theieon shall draw interest at the rate ot
18 pbrcent'per annum, and that failure to make any payment of principal or interest
wlreir due or any defau'l t'under any incumbrance or agreement securing this note
shall cause th! whoie note to belome due at once, or the interest to be counted
is principal, at the option of the holder of the note. The nrakers and endorsers
herLof severitty wajve'presentment for payment, protest, notice on nonpaynlent
and of protest, and agree to any extension of .time of payment and partial payments
U"toie,'ui or itier mituiity, a-nA it this note or interest thereon is not paid
when duerror suit is broughl, agree to pay al1 reasonable costs of collection'
incl uding reasonable attorney's fees.
DATE.
o
:^It -Project Application
Prolect Description:
Contact Person and Phone
Owner, Address and Phone:
Architect, Address and Phone:
Legal Description: Lot Block Filing , Zone -...,r:-_-_
Comments:
Design Review Board
Date
Motion by:
Seconded by:
.' ' ;-i "', APPROVAL DISAPPROVAL
Date:
AVAI
I)
75 louth fronlage rd.
rall, colorado 81857
(303) 476-7000
department of community development
February 15, 1982
Jeff Selby
108 South Frontage Road
VaiL, Colorado 81657
Re: Red Lion deck enclosure
Dear I'h. Selby:
I was requested to review your proposal to enclose the patio at the
Red Lion Inn fron the view of the Colorado Health Code. I looked at
the situation rmder the assumption that theoretj.cally, the 114 inside
seats and the 50 patio seats could be used sirnul taneously.
There are sufficient rest roons when the ground fLoor and downstairsfacilities are conbined. The problem arises when addressing the
cold storage situation. There is insufficient cold storage space.at, the present tirne for the current operation. Therefore, we :cannot
approve of an expansion of service without a sinilar expansion of
cold storage space.
We would be happy to approve of the enclosure of the patio after
receiving the guarantee of new refrigeration and freezer units. Sub-nitting a proposal of both quantity and quality would be required.
Thank you for your cooperation in this natter. If you have any questions,
please feel free to call me.
Sincerely,
f2+r t nr\rr,r \ e tOe}-
A
RUT}I COGAN \)
Environnental Health 0fficer
RC:br
cc: Dick Ryan
Town Coturcil
-/
U t I
Project Appllcation
Date
r Project Description:
;.''R Contact Person and Phone
Owner. Address and Phone:
Architect, Address and Phone:
Legal Description: Lot Block Filing Zone
-
Comments:
Design Review Board
Date
Molion by:
Seconded by:
DISAPPROVAL
.."1 |,
Summary:
qlanTown ner
f.lii:llt 1)l; t,i{{i,,t:C't -* *_{_"*
lll,( )(:K l. lr, |l,](;l,l;(;Al, l)l::.1.!ill"fl()N: t,()l'
l)l:S(;li Il''l l(;li Ol; l,ltU.Jt:C'l'
'l'hc fol I or'r i ng inforrnat j on i-r
lloard bcl'orc a final approval
A. BUI LIJJti(; MAl'TiRIALS
Roof
Siding
Other l,la1l Materi.als
Fascia
Soffits
Windows
l{indow Trim
Doors
Door Trim
Hand or Deck Raits
Flues
Flashings
Chinureys
Trash Encl osures
Greenhous es
Other
rcqrr i19{ for sulrrnitt;rl by thc appl .i (rilltt to thc Desilirr I{r.:yi.1r,
clrrr [rc llivcn:
Corrnon Name Si ze
B. LANDSCAPING
Name of Designer:
Phone :
PLANT MATERIALS
TREES
Botanical Name
SHRUBS
Type of l'lrtcrtal
^,"t&
lAl.l;
tot'W^t wocx
liirl.li; ()i; I'liO,ll:C'I'
LL(iAL DI:SCltIPl'l0N:
DI]SCIIIPTION OF PROJLC]'
The following information is
Board before a final approval
A. BUILDING I'IATERIALS
Roof
Siding
Other Wal 1 l''lat eri a 1s
Fascia
Soffits
l{in dows
Itindow Trin
Doors
Door Trim
Hand or Deck Rail-s
Flues
Fl ashings
Chirnneys
Trash Errcl osures
Greenhouses
other
PLAl,lT I.ATERIALS
(\tegetative, Lanc'lscapirig
Botani,cal Name
Type of l.laterial
lht erials i:rc i uding
Conmon Na.:re
and Ground Cor, er)
Si ze
required for submittal by thc applicant to the Design llcview
can be givcn:
Col or
'l'r'r.pc Clrr^r rf, c
n,,--+: +,,Yua.rrr.rLj/
D.
bvtrrto PAgK Wtow ls thww
z5
uI
fr
oo
E
e
t.
TJ
nt-t
u.
Jvember
18, le8l
Addendum to Red Lion Expansion -
Compliance with the Urban Design Guide Plan
With the omission of three additional dwelling units and the subsequent
lowering of the roof line on the south end of the building, the following
items are revised from the November 1980 submission:
A. Pedestrianization - Unchanged
B. Vehicle Penetration - Unchanged; now there will be only two
d-weffi nt filTE- raTE-er than five.
C. Street Enclosure - The new streei enclosure is 18/38 or
;Fpmm;AiFn to I which is the most desirable proportion
that is expressed in the Urban Design Guide PIan.
D. Streetscape Framework - Unchanged
E. $fge!_Edgg- Building facade is articulated as in original submission.
South elevation is primarily stucco with wood accents.
F. Building Height - Highest new ridge is now l9 feet above street
level , 6 feet lower than original submission.
G. Views - tmpact on the Hill Street View Corridor is significantly
less than in the original submission.
H. Service E Delivery - Unchanged except that there are now 2 dwelling
[nltE]aifiEF tEEn s.
l. Sun Shade Considerations - Unchanged
t.
APPLICATION FORM FOR EXTERIOR ALTERATIONS
oR MOD|F|CATIONS tN COMMERCTALCORE I (CCl)
This pocedure is required for olterotion of on exisiing building which odds or
removes ony enclosed floor oreo or outdoor potio or replocement of on existing
building sholl be subiect to review by the Plonning ond Environmentol Cornmission.
The opplicotion will not be occepted until oll informotion is submifted.
A. NAME OF APPLICANT Mr. Jeff Selbv
ADDRESS P.O. Box 1528 Voil. Colorodo 81657 PH ONE 476-0522
B. NAME OF APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE Ruoifflentworth Archilects, A .l .A .
ADDRESS 500 Lionsheod Moll Voil Co 81657 PH ONE 476-3051
C. AUTHORIZATIO PERTY OWNER
SIGNATU
ADDRESS P.O.1525 Voil,lorodo 81657 PHONE 476-0522
D. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL
ADDRESS Red Lion lnn 304 E. Bridge Street Voil, Colorodo
LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lors E, F, G, & H, Block 5 A, Voil Villoge lst Filing
1J
tt';)
\
E. FEE $ 100.00 plus l5q for
F. IMPROVEMENT SURVEY OF
LOCATION OF BUILDING
G. A LIST OF THE NAME OF
SUBJECT PROPERTY.
ll. Sife Plon - See otioched drowings.
eoch property owner to be notified.
PROPERTY SHOWING PROPERTY LINES AND
AND ANY IMPROVEMENTS ON THE LAND.
OWNERS OF ALL PROPERTY ADJACENT TO THE
Red Lion Expansion Pg. I
Whitects'
AIA' Pc
ZONING CHECK
Zone: Commercial Core I
Lots E, F, G, e H, Block 5A,
18.24.020 Use - Basement
18.24. 030 Use - First Floor
18.24.040 Use - Second Floor
18.24.050 Use - Above Second Floor
18. 24. 065 Conditional Uses
18.2q. 080 Accessory Uses
18.24. 100 Setbacks
I B. 24. 110 Distance Between Buildings
18. 2q. t 20 Height
18.24. 130 Density Control
18. 24. 140 Resonstruction of Existing
18.24. 150 Coverage
170 Landscaping 6 Site
18.24.180 Parking 6 Loading
Vail Village lst Filing
Existing: Restaurant E Storage
Proposed: Restaurant, Storage 6
Bar - Lounge
Existing: Restaurant 6 Bar - Lounge
Proposed: Restaurant E Retail
Commercial
Existing: 2 Dwelling Units
Proposed: Unchanged
N/A
N/A
Existing: Outdoor Dining Area, 2830 sq ft
Proposed: Outdoor Dining Area, 1831 sq f
None Required
None Required
Existing: Main Ridge - 27'
Proposed: Highest new ridge - 19'
809" of 13,9&9 sq ft = ll-{191 GRFA allowed
Existing: 4,971 sq ft GRFA
Proposed: GRFA unchanged
Uses N /A
Development 20E of 13,989 sq ft = 2,798 sq
Existing: Approx. 3,050 sq ft
Proposed: Additional 355 sq ft
shop entrance plus 220 sq ft on
ft minimun
pavers at
Rucksack
land.
Existing 2 - car garage eliminated
loading and service area unchanged.
808 of 13,989 sq ft = 11,19l_l-!9_l sq ft allowed
Existing:
-8,
301 bldg. plui '2,830 patio =
11,'l31 sq ft
Proposed: 9,437 bldg. plus 1,669 patio =
Pg- 2
TABULATION OF CROSS BLDG. AREAS
Basement:
lst: Floor:
2nd. Floor :
Total:
Existing
5,710
8,301
4,971
18, 982
Proposed Add.
234
1,136
- 0-
1,370
Total
s,944
9,437
4,971
20,352
)
ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS TO
Mill Creek Court Condorninium Associolion
c/o Arlhvr G. Bishop & Compony
302 Honson Ronch Rooo
Voil, Colorodo 81657
Porks Building
c/o Elton Bud Porks
303 Gore Creek Drive
Voif, Colorodo 81657
Golden Peok House Condorninium Associotion
278 Honson Ronch Rood
Voif, Colorodo 81657
The Plozo Building
c/o Mrs. Joonne V. Hill
301 Bridge Street
Voil, Colorodo 81657
The Rucksock €ondominium Associotion
c/o Rendezvous West
P.O. Box 397
Voil, Colorodo 81657
Hill Buildins
Mrs. Cortlondi Hill
3l I Bridge Street
Voil, Colorodo 81657
THE RED LION INN
MEI"IORANDUM
Plaaning and Environrnental Connission
FR0M: Connun ity Developnent Departtnent
DATE: February 2' 1982
SIJBJECT: Public Hearing and Consideration for an Exterior Alteration and
lrlodification in Commercial Core I to Enclose 992 square feet of
the Red Lion Patio.
I. PROPOSAL:
II. COITPLIA]iCE WITTI PURPOSE SECTION I8.24.010
III.
The cormercial core I district is intended to provide sites and to maintain
the unique character of the Vail Village colnmelcial area, with its mixture
of lodges and comnercial establishnents in a predominately pedestrian
enviro;nent. The conmercial core I district is intended to ensule adequate
Iight, air, open space, and other amenities appropriate to the Pernitted-
types-of buildings-and uses. The district regulations in accordance with
t-frl Valf Village urban desigrr guide plan and desigrr considerations prescribe
developnent stindards that are intended to ensure the maintenance and preserva-
tion ol the tightly clustered arangements of buildings fronting on pedestrian-
ways and public greenways, and to ensure. continuation of the building scale
and architectural qualities that distj.nguish the village.
Itre proposal is in cornpliance with the purpose section of the Conmercial
Core I zone district.
COI\TPLIA\CE WITH URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAI.I
TO:
Itre proposal is to enclose 992 square feet of the exi.sting patio on the west
side-of-the Red Lion with glass to enable the use of the area for dining throughout
the year.
The Urban Design Guide Plan states that dining decks contribute to the liveliness
of a busy struit, rnak ing a richer pedestrian experience. The use of the
existing patio area for dining throughout the year will enhance the street
life along Bridge Street and witl be in confornance with the plan'
il. URBA}I DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
A. Pedestrian i zation : The enclosure of the patio should not have any
negaTfrET@acts upon pedestrian circulation along Bridge Street and should
irnprove the pedestiian experience along Bridge Street in the winter rnonths'
B. Vehicle Penetration: No change
C. StreetscaPe Franework.:
the winter will inProve the
more street life and visual
The addition of people dining on the patio during
quality of the walking experience and will provide
interest along Bridge Street. The enclosure
C
ned tlo;-z- 2/2/82
of the deck in the summer, however, wottld elininatc atl open space which has
an exciting relationship to the street and provides a qtrong sense of activity
for the pedestrian. The applicants ar€ not proPosin8 to enclose the deck
during the summer months c-omptetely. They piopose to lenove the glass P"n-"l:,
along Bridge Street during the surnmer lrnd re-install tliem in winter. The brrcx
planter rsith the aspen and flowers will remain unchangod.
D. Street Enclosure: The street enclosure does not change since the glass
would bE-G?;;-th;-;xisting awnin g.
E. Street Edge_:. The Urban Design Guide Plan states that plazas, patios,
green areas are inportant focal points for: gathering, resting, orientin!
and should be distributed throughout the Vitlage u,ith consideration to spacing,
sun access, opportunities for views, and pedestrian activity-
The Red Lion patio as it currently exists has characteristics which nake
it a popular space within the Village during the surnmer months, By enclosing
the patio during the winter months, the space can be a nuch nore lively attraction
than it currently is when it is filled with snow and void of people and activity.
It will become a focal point along Bridge Street throughout the year, rather
than just for a portion of it,
F, Building_Height: No change.
G. Views: No change.
H. Servicj and Delivery: No change.
I. Sun/Shade: The project will not increase shadows on adjacent Property
or public property,
V. ZONING CODE CONSIDEMTIONS
A. Parking:
The applicant will be required to
per each 10 seats provided. The
issuance of a building perrnit.
pay a parking fee based upon one space
fee would need to be paid prior to the
STAFF RECOI.{!"IENDATI ON
The Department of Conmtmity Developnent
proPosal to enclose 992 square feet of
condition:
staff reconrnends
the Red Lion patio
approval of the
with the following
,,
nfion -3- 2/2/82
Due to the enhancernent of Bridge Street which would result from the
enclosure during the winter months, we feel that the proposal is a
positive one. However, we feel that the enclosure would not be appro-priate during the sumner rnonths and would detract from the exciting
relationship of the open patio and the street. Therefore, we reconnendthat the enclosure be approved frorn Septernber 15 to June lS and'thatduring the renainder of the year, the glass along Bridge Shssg nust
be rernoved and the patio be open to the street. Nothing
within the approval , however, should prevent the applicant fron rernoving
the glass panels prior to Jme 15 or re-installing them later than
Septeurber 15. Failurc upon the applicantts part to conply with this
condition would be grounds for not allowing food or beverages to be
served upon the patio until such tine as the condition is complied
with.
l.
I I
Inttn u
?5 $ulh lronlage rd.
uall. cotorado 81657
(303) {76-7000
department of community development
January 6, 1982
Sid Schultz
Ruof f/Wentworth Archi tects
500 Lionshead Mall
Vail, Colorado 81657 RE: DRB Submitta'l of 12-16-81
Dear Sid:
0n December 16, 1981 the Design Review Board approved the remodeling
plans for the Red Lion; Congratulations!! In the early part of
January I wou'ld like to meet with you to discuss the parking fee.
Si ncerely ,
='1 ,/,,/**' -4,K rur"" L*7'*-----.
Town Planner
JS:df
t
L
t
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commis sion
FROM: Community Developnent Departrnent/Peter Patten
DATE: Novenber 30, 1981
SUBJECT: Revision to Red Lion Inn Exterior Alteration
Applicant: Jeff Selby
on February 9, 1981 the Planning and Envi.ronnental commission approved by avote of 6-1 the Red Llon Inn request for an exterior alteration to the south
end of the building. A major revision to the originally approved plan has
now been subnitted for approval . Basical ly, the second stoiy addiiion containingthe three condominiuns has been elininated. The new retail porti.on of thepl,an renains, for the most part, the sarne,
The effect of the revision is to lower the highest roof line by 9 feet--
fron 24 feet to 16 feet. This irnproves the preservation of the existing
rninor view corridor from Hill Street to the Gore Range-
The following portions of the Urban Design Guide Plan and zoning statistics
have changed fron the previous approval:
1. Vehi.cle Penetration: Reduced by proposing no new condoniniuns.
2. Street Enclosurel The new street enclosure ratio is about 1/2 to 1--
3.
4,
the rnost desirabl e
Building Height:
6Teettlbwe;=fran
Vlgyg: The impact
before.
proportion according to the Urban Design Guide Plan.
Highest new ridge is 19 feet above street level ,
the original subnission.
of the view corridor is signj.ficantly less than
The C ommrln ity Devel oprnent Department considcrs that ther-e is no significant
change from the approved plan. Therefore, the planning and Environnental
commission needs to revieis the reviscd plan and agrcc or not agrce withthat dcterrnination.
at
February 9, 1981
T0: Planning and Environmental Cornmission
FR0M: Department of Conrnunity Development
RE: EXTERIOR ALTIRATION REQUEST FttR THI RE.D LION, App.Iicant-Jeff SeIb-v
BACKGROUND
Phase I of the Red Lion was approved by the P1 anning and
Environmental Commission on June 9, 1980. Approved were twodwelling units and some storage and nevi entry for the Red Lionrestaurant. The Planning Comnrission decjsion was appealed and
upheld by Town Council.
A. DESCRTPTTON 0F REQUEST
Requested is the expansion of the Red Lion to the south property
ii!9, Requested is first floor retail shope"alaporox'imateiy
2,980 square feet and three second floor clwell irrg-tnTf,rof---=---
approxiinateiy 3,580 square feet. in aidjtion, tiie bar and lounge'located on t;he first floor wori'l d be rclocated to the basernent ancithe Lions' Den restaurant in the basement lvould be remodeled.
B. EXISTING AND PROPOSED USEl. t-1iis ement
ExisTfig: Restaurant anC stcrage
Proposed: Restaurant and relocaijon of bar/lounge
from the f.irst floor
2. Fi rst !:l oor
E lsTfig: Restaurant and bar,/1or.rnge
Proposed; Restaurant and shops
3. Second F'l oor
Exf:sITnti: -Two condominjunr unjts (apcroved in pliase I)
Proposed: Three additional condomjnium un'i ts proposed
4. Loft
ExT-sting: No current use
Proposed: In phase I approvai r,r.rs granted for a 312
square foot jofl addition
STATl ST ICS
ll_TanCiTrea * 13,989 square feet,
2. Site Coverage: Al'l or'red - 11,191 square feet
Proposed - II ,172
Density Control:
GRFA AlIowed - 11,i91
6llFA in Phase I oreviously apprcved 3,780 square feet (2 units)
GRFA requested 3,SB[J square feet (3 unjts)
3.
-\.
7 .I
Page 2
4. Height:
AI'l owed: 60/" of s jte cor,lerage under 30 feet
40% between 30-40 feet
Proposed: I00% under 30 feet
5. Landscap'ing:
A] I owed : 2,798 square feet mi nimumProposed: 3,050 square feet
6. Parking and Loading:Existing: Two car garage
Proposed: Removal of the two car garage with toading
zone to the east of the buildinq
7. Gross Residential Floor Area:A. Phase I - two units aporoved----Square,Eeet 3,780B. Requested - three uniti---------Square Feet 3,580
TOTAL 7,360
D.COIqPLIANCE l,lITH PURPOSE SECTION
'18.24.0.l0 Purpose
The Commercjal Core I District is jntendecl to provide sjtes and to maintain theunique character of ihe Vail Village Commercial Area, with its mixture of lodgesand commercial establishments in a predominately peCestrian environment. The-commercial core I District is intended to ensur-e hdequate 1.i ght, air, open spaceand other amenities aporopriate to the permitted types of uuitaings ind'uses.The.Djstrict regulations in accordance w'ith the vaij vtllage urbai DesignGuide Plan and Design Considerations prescribe site develo[rirc'nt stanrjar,]s thatare intended to ensure the maintenance and preserl,ation of the tightiyclustered arrangements of bui'i dings frontiirg on pedestrian vrays ana pirrrtic
greenways and to ensure continuatjcn of buiiciing scaie and architecturalqualities thai distinguish the Vi11age.
The cornrnunity Developnent Department cons'i ders thrrt the proposed changes tothe Red Lion buiiding are pos'itive to vail village and do cbnform rvith the
conrnercial core i District, the vai't villaqe urban Design Guide p1an, Design
Considerations and minor view corridor desiqnation
F qqLPLIANCE 'ilITH V..iIL VILLAGE URBAN DESICi{ cUID[ PLAN AND DISIGN CONS i DERATICNS
1.1 Sub Area Concepts of Urban Design Guide l,lan
Area number 11 of the Gore Creek Drive/llridge Street area plan states:
Limited bui iding expansion,/improvenents;. Increase facacle transparency
on south side to strengthen pedcstrian nctivity, with entry to street.Pctentjal expansion of building to south property 1ine. Additionalvertical expansion may be consjdered on south end of building to improvestreet enclosure proportions but must l.esDect clesignated Hill street -
Gore Range view corridors. Potential second 1eve1 open balcony deck(sun pocket) to restore activity to street lost frcm'ground fl-oor terrace.
)el a,
Page 3
The proposed Red Licn addition does have increased facade transparency
with the proposed commercial shops and wil i strengthen pedestrian
activity in Seibert Circ'le. The building is proposal to be extendedto the south prooerty line and develop a more interesting streetedge.
The second floor residential expansion does, in the Community Development
Department's opinion, respect the minor view corri dor des'i gnation of
the Gore Range.
2. Urban Dejign Design Consjderations
Pedestrianization: At Improve Vail meetings discuss'i on of the
present and future function of Seibert Circle l.ras a major issue.
Relocation of the Seibert Circle fbcal point to the north was
sltown on the Vai1 Village Urban.Design Gujde Plan to allovl more
sun into this area. In addition, adciitional retail frontage rlas
considered desirable to add more l'i fe to Seibert Circle and draw
people around to the Mill Creek building. 'ihe proposed conlnercialactivity on the first floor of the Red L'i on will bring nore people'into Sejbert C'i rcle and assist in having them ccrrtinue to thel4j'll Creek Building.
Vehicle Penetration: By the removal of iire tt.lo garage spaces
there shoulrj be fewer automobjles entering the Vi11age. Service
and delivery area can be accomplished to ihe east by Mi11 Creek
on the Red Lion property.
Street Scope Framelork: The jnfill comnelciaj storefront expansicnof the Red Lion wjl I create net^r comrnercia'l activ'i ty in Seibert Circle
and give street life and visual jnterest to the area.
Street l-.ilclosure: The app'l icarit's arciii i.rct has denc;islra i;i:il that
the proposed expans"ion on the south end ci'the Red Lion building
does mcei ihe street enclosure recommended in the Vail Viila.;r: Desicn
Ccnsicierations.
Street Edge: The proposed addition does have strong but irragular
edges to the street as recommended in the Vai.l Vi1'l age Desigir Consideraticns.
Buildjng Height: The proposal meets the height requirernents of
the Design Considerations.
Views: The l-ij"l I Street minor vjerv corriCrr !{as apprryed as partof the Vajl Village Urban Design Guide Pl.rn. A mino'r viev; ccrridor
can have soine niodificaticn and lhe Comnuni'Lt,Deve-lopnrent lJcp;,r^tnent
considers that the proposa.l has respected this minor v'i ew corridor.
Sun/shade -- no impact
3. !.9.ry!19 code Q!tr_3lj&I!-!_i!lt_!-
Parking: At the iime of building permit t.he applicant rvi'l 1 fre required
to pay the applicable parking space fee for commercial and residential
uses.
IT
Page 4
4. Architectural and Landscape Considerations
The proposal complies wi th the intent of the Design Considerations.
Detail design issues will be more specifical 1y discussed at a
Design Review Board meeting.
RECOI'IMENDAT ION :
The Community Deve'lopment Department recommends approval of this request
subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant agrees to partic'ipate in and not remcnstrate against
a special improvement district if and when formed for Vail VilIage.
2, The appficant agrees to upgrade the landscaping along l4ill Cneek and
present the plan to Community Development for approval.
3. The app'l 'icar:t rgrees to participate financially in street im;lreu**ontr,e;9. strcet pavers, street iights and the relocated focal poirit ai 3eibertCircle if an improveinent district is not fc,rned. The api:l icant's share
would be determjned by the street frontage of property in Scibert Cjrcle
and other property ol,+ners in area would also have to agree to participate.
j p'c -4-2-g-Br o
Peter: Basically, this is cleaning up the 1ot line because the County regulations
are different frbn the Townrs. It wil1 el ininate the non-conforming use, and lot
6 is still a legal size.
After rnore discussion, Gerry asked for a notion. Roger moved and Duane seconded that
the request, 16 revise the eiisting lot line between lots 5 and 6, Block 5, Bighorn
Subdivision, 5th Addition be approved. The vote to approve was 6-0, with Dan Corcoran
abstaining.
5. A request for an exterior alteration and Podificatign- il-q9lilneT'cial qorg J_1nqt the Sitznark building located at 183 Gore
Creek Drive. Applicant: Bob Fritch.
Peter went over his rneno. He explained that this was reviewed at the Decenber 12
work session briefly, mentioning t.hat it was a minor addition, and that the only reason
that it was before the PLanning Comnission was because it was an exterior alteration,
as ninimun as it is. The staff had reviewed it and it had no effect on any of the
Urban Design Criteria really, as the meno stated. The question was did it need a
height variance, the staff has determined that it is basically an architectural
projection and no height variance is required. The Sitznark is a legal existing
iron--confo:6ing structure with regard to height, and the shaft was not going to increase
that discrepancy, so that no height variance is needed, and staff is reconmending
approval of the Project.
Duane Piper of Wheeler-Piper explained that the height was 35t and showed drauings
uith norl explanation, The break down square footage, to- this is: mechanical equipnent
298 sq ft., public lobby space increased 178 sq ft, the hallway is extended_to Put
the efevatoion the interior space. Upper two floors have storage rootns' 132 sq ft,
so total. envelope sq ft is 608.
Dan Corcoran noved, and Gaynor seconded to grant the request as stated in the nemo
fron the staff srfbject to the following cqndj,tion:
The appl icant agrees
irnprovenent district if
to Participate in the Vail. Village
and when forrned for Vail Village.
6-0, with Duane Pipdr abstaining.The vote to approve was
or an exterior alteration and nodification in eorunercial Core I for
1 units an
East
Dick Ryan: Mr- Chairman, and nembers of the Flanning Conmission: This is a request
under ihe new procedure that was just adopted by the Planning Connission last sprirg
for a new addition to the Red Lion. The Planning Comnission has had extensive
nresentation bt the joint ureeting between the planning conmission and the Council
en the proposal. Proposed is approxinately 2,980 sg ft of new conmercial space.
which wouli be by Seilert CirclL and we feel woulcl be a better connection in Seibert
Circle for people to go up there and shop and browse and just nake the area a utuch
nore acti_ve ind pleasant space- Also requested is 3 second floor dwelling wtits
that woul-tl contain approxinately 3,580 sq ft. The proposal for residential space
is substantially undlr the allowed Gross Residential Floor Area for the building.
I think the appiicant has been very responsive to concerns of dealing with the site
coning up witi- a new addition to the sttucture that is very conpatible with what is
propoied'under the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan. A1so, the aPPlicant has
responded, in the staffrs view, to dealing with the minor view corridor of the Vail
Viliage Uiban Oesign Guide Plan. In the ninor view corridor, there can be sone modi-
A request
PEC-5-2-9-81
fication to this view corridor. I think wetve all seen the presentati.on on the nodi-
fication that would take place at the view corridor. I think werve also looked at
what sone of the inplications are if the building is nodified in other ways where
other private views would be blocked substanti.ally if the applicant continued to 80
with the Gross Residcntial Floor Area that is allowed. The staff has looked at the
Urban Design Considerations that the Planning Connission needs to review as far as
pedestrianization is concerned. I think it is an inprovenent to pedestrianization
into the Seibert Circle area. There is a better connection to the Mill Creek Building
noving the Seibert Circle area to the north, which is proposed under the Urban DesiSn
Guide Ptan. lhe Seibert Circle which actually have more sun during certain ti-nes of
the year and becone an even nore viable place with sone redesign of that particular
Area. The vehicle penetration: Potentially there could be fewer vehicles there because
there is presently a 2 cat garage where people come to park at the garage and they also
tend to park at the back of the garage, so at tines there could be 4 vehicles coning
into the core at all tirnes, realizing that they have alnost a Pernanent parking place
in the Village. Under the proposal., there would be a loading and unloading zone by
MiIl Creek, so that the people who would be using the condoniniums would be able to
use that area to load and unload their vehicles, and then they would be required, unless
they had sone space that we dontt know about, to go to the parkilg structure, or if
they had a rental car, they could return the rental car, because they may not need it
until the end of the week or until they go back to Denver, or wherever they nay be going.
On the east side would also be the loading area, so that the trucks that would be servici
this building would be able to u'se that. The streetscape franework I think we've already
talked aboutl in fact, we feel that adding corunercial shops to thdt end'of the street
will provide the opportunity for people to actually cone uP there and walk through
Seibeit Circle instead of just, what-nany do, look.doun the stTeet and decide that
it is not worth going down further to Mill Creek, and I think it will be an inproved
opportunity plus, frorn the design vieupoint, it will be a very beautiful entry-into
the shops.
Street edge and street enclosure: The applicant ias deuronstrated that the street enclo-
sure of I/2 to 1 that is expressed in the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan is
net by this, and that there is some street enclosure by the proposal, but I think if
you look at the nodel here today, there is still a very confortable feeling as you would
walk down the street.
Building height: The proposal does meet the Urban DesiSn Guide Plan for building height'
actuaLly the whole bui.lding, I believe is under 30 feet which is one of the main criteria
It doesnrt even have to have the other percentage--so to 40 feet where a certain Percen-
tage could be actual lY higher.
The view corridor: There is some intrusion into the view corridor taking place fron
Hill Street. The staff does feel that that is an acceptable change to the view corridor'
The sun/shade: There is no inpaci because the sun is coming fron the south and the
building is not shading the street or another building.
As far as the zoning code is concerned, the najor aspect there would be that the applican
would be required to pay the parking fee that has been established for Vail Vi.llage
for the new addition bf residential space and for the new addition of the conrnercial
space that will be in the building, and would be responsible for paying for the removal
of the parking spaces that are in the Present Sarage-
o
PEC-6-2/e/8L
Under the architectural and landscape controls that are in the Design Considerationsof the Urban Design Guide Plan, I think the applicant, as far as the architectural
design, has responded to the essence of what is being proposed in the Design Consj-dera-tions, and actually has the design of the building fit the character of Vail Village,
and also fits the building that is currently there. The design, we feel, blends in
and is very complitnentary to the existing Red Lion building. The recornrnendation ofthe staff is for approval of the request subject to 3 conditions:
I. the aPplicant agrees to Participate in and renonstrate against.a special irnprovenenldistrict if and when fo::med for Vail Village.
2. The applicant agrees to upgrade the landscaping along MilL Creek and and present
the plan to the Commmity Developnent department for approval .
5. And the applicant agrees to participate financially in street irnprovenents, for
exauple stTeet Pavers, street lights and the relocated focal point at Seibert Circleif an iuprovenent district is not formed, and the applicant will share a sinilar amowrtif we are able to get agreenent fron all the property owners in the surrounding areato agree upon sonethirg like a special assessnent to improve Seibert Circle. Itn surethe To*n would also be participating in what improvements would be there.
Gerry: Are there counents fron the applicant?
Peter: We received a letter; I think all of the pl anning cornrnission nenbers have a
copy of this, dated February 3, 1981, addressed to the Planning and Environnental
Conmission: Dear ltr. Chairnan and Corrunission members:
"With regret I an unab0e to attend your published neeting on February 9, 1981, as Inrst be in Chicago that day. I wish to present to the Comlission., by way of a 15 minute
walking site visit, opposition by l,trs. Cortlandt Hill and nyself, Jack Curtin, to the
request to nodify the exterior of the Red Lion building in Cornnercial Core I. I respect-fully request you allow a continuance of.your hearing until I nay present collect,ivlyor individually to you tny opposition material . Your schedule, I uderstand, is veryfull, but because of the importance of your decision, I hope you will feel conrpelledto hear the property owners who are definitely affected by any decision you n:ake. I
atn at your convenience Tuesday, February lOth on, for ny presentation. Thank you foryour consideration of uly request.tt
And signed by Jack J. Curtin with copies to Slifer, Caplan, Mrs. Joan Hill, and ne.
Bill Ruoff: I arn Bill Ruoff, architect for the project. Before I go into ny presentatiorI'd like to say that Dick just stole ny thunder. He said all the things I an preparedto'say. I could rePeat thern all and elaborate on any, but Ird like to ask for sone
direction from the planning connission. Do you want to hear ne say it all again and
point to the pictures at the sane tine, or tnove on to Particulars? Dick gave a rather
conrprehensive point by point explanation.
Dan: Has the presentation changed any at all, or.substantially frorn what you gave us
at our joint neeting?
Ruoff: Nothing substantive. At that tine, when you saw this model 4 weeks ago, there
vrerenrt any windows on this building, there werenrt any people in the streets, but the
Red Lion building itself has not been touched. I canrt remenber, did we have the picture
painted on the wal 1?
Dan: If there is sonething really different that we did not go over last time, that's
PEC-7-2l9l8r
rnaybe what we should discuss.
Ruoff: No, there is not. We have come today prepared to show you again the sane Pre-
sentation that you saw at the joint meeting at the Athletic club.
Roger: I think that everybody on our Conunission heard that, and unless there are
pe6pte in the audience who came here particularly for this issue and would like to
hear it again, I dontt think that is necessary.
Peter: Sid just brought up the point that naybe the Presentatj-on should be made in
light that, if an appeal is filed, they will have to rnake the sane Ptesentation to
the Council.
Ruoff: The graPhic rnaterials, the
nothing to what was there. If You
identify them for the record.
Peter: That night be a good idea'
pictures and the nodel are identical . We have added
would like, in the interest of saving tine, we could
Larry Eskwith: If he wants to protect the record, I think you should add to what you
thinl you need. Most of the fi;dings have been nade by the Cornrnission, and it has been
formd to comply with the relevant ordj-nances. I dontt know if you are going to have
to go through the entire Presentation-
Sibley: I just want-to nake sure that the exhibits night be used at the time that we are
in front of the Council, as this letter indicates night happen, I would just as soon
at Least make reference to those specific exhibits that you have up.
Gerry: I would just nake one conment, and that is that _the questions that were raised
and
-tliscussed at that joint neeting should be raised and discussed again right now.
For the record.
Ruoff: Running down the 1ist. frour the Guidelines, Dick has already done. I can repeat
that, I "*tt t.lk briefly about the drawings. We will look at the photo overlays that
we have that display the view corridors and how they are affected. I guess what lrn
saying, do you tiini< that it is necessary for me to repeat substantially what Dick just
went through.
Gerry: No, I dontt. I think it is inportant...
Roger: If you endorse r.'hat he said. - -
Ruoff: I do and have, because- -.
Gerry: I think it is inport.ant to rai-se the questions that were raised at that time.
Roger: I think it was view corridors primarily were the things I was concerned with
anl relat1onship of your drawings to the Urban Design Plan, and that has already been
covereo.
Jim: Didnrt you have sone photographs at one Point?
Ruoff: Let me run through the drawings quickly first, and then werll go through the
photographs. This is the base plan. This plan includes all of upper Bridge Street
, -a "iorr., Mill Creek and take; in Mill Cr-eek Court and the Christiana, all of the
l. ,"rr.unding buildings. The red Line superirnposed upon the blue plan- of the new building
is here for referenie to show the red line is the existing wall of the Red Lion as you
see it in this photograph. It does not cone out to the property line at present. The
PEC-8-2/9/8r
DroDosed addition does. These are the 5 elevation drawings which show in considerable
iut'"it the proposed changes. To answer specific points in the Guide Lines for archi-
tectural detail, articulation, pedestrian scaLe on the street.
The top drawing on this side and the one below it illustrate the difference between
the stieet enclosure ratio as it exists today with the roof of the Red Lion coning down
very 1ow to only about 7 feet, really above the street. The existirg patio there is
actually below street level , The drawing iuunediately below shows the sane relationship
as it will exist after the addition is nade. The average ratio of width to height is
almost exactly 1/4 to I at present. Under the Guide Lines, this is considered beyond
limits of goocl conforable stTeet enclosure. What werve been able to do is achieve
'1./2 to I, alnost exactly I/2 to I which is considered optimun.
The next drawing is really just an illustration of the height statistics on the building
The red Line shows the height that is allowed wrder the currently extisting zoning and
Guide Lines. It could be a 5 story building, as are alL of the surrounding buildings
except one 2 story and one 4 story. the average height of all surrounding buildirrgs
in the neighborhood is 3 stories. We're proposing, though, for a nugiber of reasons,
the Red Lion addition be kept donn to 2 stories. This also keeps GRFA and other things
way under the linit--about 4000 sq ft under the limit on GRFA and a whole story height
under on the height of the building.
The botton drawing illustrates the principal pedestrian Pathways up Bridge Street, in
and out of Bridge Street, and around Seibert Circle as they will exist after the project
is finished. They are not substantially different fron what they are today, but we
feel that the introduction of interesting transParent shop fronts fron the Red Lion
entrance on around the corner into Hanson Ranch Road toward Milt Creek Court building
will draw the pedestrians in a way that they presentty do not go. When they come uP,
they follow thispathon by Baxter's and The Slope toward the nountain or go over to
Cyrano's, but there is nothing to draw thern this way. We think we can close the circle
and contain this square, the plaza area. Really, we think werre going to complete it.
There are several other drawings that we have here which you saw at the other meeting.
We pinned then up and down, and I think we should do so again today for a very brief'
review. They are background informat ion, and we use them to answer guestions, if
yourll renember, on heights, and what if we did sonething else instead of w\at we did.
We spent no time, we didnrt even refer to thern nuch more than to say that we had then
the other tine, because they are not of direct interest at this tine. They are the
floor plans of the three floors as they will exist after the addition is nade. The
basenent which will contain the nite club and contain the noise because there wonrt
be any windows that will open out below the neighbors, the shops and the new
condominiurns as they will exist on the floor above. Let us just run through then all..
This, I don't believe I did show the other tirne, because I dontt thj-nk we got into it.
We had this one up. The red lines show the outline of what the 3 story building.would
look 1ike. This is an actual rendered elevation of what it would I' ok like' We think
that it is a noot point at this stage, because we dontt really want-to go to that height.
These are overlays of the principal elevation of the building. There are several
series of dotted tines. They are all a little different from the one you see. But
within it, we are able to show the principal alternative rnethods of.Putting the roofs
on this building. The reason we chose the one that you see in the final drawings up
here, is because we feel it is the best compronise on the issue of view planes and
view corridors. We feel that the two low gables that werve shown there are better than
any of these. We bring these along, and occaisionally someone asks, trWell, what if
you did this instead of that?'r, we can show on these exactly what would have happened
if we had done this instead of that and why we chose the one that you see in the nodel .
PEC - 9- 2/9/8r o
These are sun angle anil shadow diagrans which we refered the last tirne, because, as
Dick Says, they really arentt, gennain to our problem because we rre fortunate enough
to be on ihe north side of the street. Wetre not casting shadows on anyone' These
basically 5}r6ry how the neighbor casts a little bit of shadow on us.
And this is a depiction of the actual vj.ew corridor as it exists through HilI street'
There is a very lfigtt difference between this one and the angles as they are- shovm
on the official form lnap in the Guide Lines. We discovered when we got out there with
o,r1. irr rttrr*ent s and ".olr", and measurenents and so forth, that the one on the Torsn
;i;rl;-;Fi-iy aborrt naybe one degree., rt is a very ninor thing. 1ge platted this
one fron infonnation r.trich we generat.ed through the project, and it is a little nore
accurate because we hacl a little nore tine to dig into it. This is an extrenely accurat
calculated projection of the view corridor'
The principal exhibits concerning the view cortidor, of coutse, al'e the pictorial ones'
Ihe large PhotograPhs.
Thatrs it for now. The overlay done in color to enphasize rather than dininish it,
ifr"-irp."t on the view corridoi as it will be viewed fron what we consider is probably
the most critical point in the entire length of HiIl Street which isnrt very much'
That criticar point,-we feel is back here. Itrs actually standing in Jack curtinrs
front door, which is ri.ght there. The xeason we feel this is inPortant is because all
of the people t"..r.trin; Wall Street heading toward the nountain oI' wherever' Pass this
*"y, itiy ian look over their shoulder..is what they'Il see as oppo-sed to the people
*"iii"g-ifr.ough ttre street. Only half of then c:rn see it, rmless'theyt.t" got eyes on
the back of their heads, so we ieel that this is the nost inPortant one' We do have
arso on a snaller ,""iu, a series of photographs showing how it disappears as you wark
forward up Hill Street. Ihey ""e srnailer,-*"-did not Pin them up at the-gtler.meeting'
we again, just rnention that ihey are here as part of the rnaterial fron which these were
enlarged, so that you can see from across the roon. The view of the snow caPPed Peaks
of the Gore remains, but what we will cut off is some of. the foregrormd and a big brown
tittria" above the ii"gtr"y. It actually corres down by the golf course' -
We feel to the visitor and to most peopie it is the snow capped peaks.out there that
are the most import.rrt p""t of the vie;. So that is the degree to which we inPinge
upon the ninor view corridor in Hill Street'
We went a little farther than is required strictly under- zoning and other regulations'
W" aii tft" sane kind of study on the two adjoining neighbors upon wfron there is inpact
views. And that is the two on either side or Hili street here on the 2nd f100r at the
end of the Plaza Lodge is the apartment of Mrs. JoAnn Hill' Across the stleet on the
entire 2nd and 3rd floors of this building is the r9sid91c9 of lilrs. Cortlandt HilI'
we will have an iurpact upon the view from JoAnn Hill's living toom, and we will have
-, irpr"a on 1he view frorn Jack Curtints aPartnent. . Windows over here and the rest
of her house al.e not affec*ed. O.K. This'photograph was-taken fron jusl inside' 20"
back of the big siiJ:.ng glass door which is the nain viewing point frour JoAnn Hillrs
living room, This is *tt"t ri" sees today. The inpact on her view is rather similar
to uhat it is in Hill StTeet. Her view now is cut off by the existing chimrey of the
Red Lion and the top riootr of the christiana. she sees the peaks across here-and
some of the valley and brorin hillside in the foregrormd. our new roof line will cone
across here and cut off thdt botton piece right in there about like this' It will
still leave the view of the peaks. Now let'I look at the sirnilar thing as seen from
Mrs, cortlandt HiIlrs house. Herets the view. The addition will come out this way'
The piece of view that is cut off here--none of the peaks are impacted at all' This
end of the roof "igi,t t"r" will cut off this piece oi, again, the sane sage brush hill-
side opposite the gth e 10th fairways on'ttre gotf couise beside the highway' In brief
form, that is the presentation--the points thit we reviewed at the joint meeting 5 or
A tr"ut t ago, the naterial that we showed at that tine'
PEC L0 - 2/9/8r
GerrT: Thank you, Bill. I would just like to nake one cotnnent quickly, the-sane conncnl
that I nade at the joint neeting. That is, that I think that you have a rather signifi-
cant irnpact on thc view corridor on Hill Street, and that, in terms of the streetlcaPe,
that by rnoving what would be the southwest corner of your roof
back alout 15 feet, it would be more inviting in terns of taking people around thc corner
which is, after all, what your design plan is hoping will be achieved, and would have
less of an inpact in terns of a confining street.scape which I think is what the i-upact
will be. It wilt be confining i.n terms of Bridge Street. It will extend Bridge Street
up a litt1e bit further than I think it should be. So thatrs ny comrent which is the
sine comnent I nade before. Does anybody else have connents?
Gaynor: I think I liked it the way it is being proposed in the sense that I think that
they have, on the south end, done enough design work, both on the roof and the indenta-
tions and entrance ways and windows to not create a sguare building on the end, and
I like the waY it is ProPosed
Scottr If you rnoved back 15 feet, you would have less t}l.an L/2 to 1 ratio, for sone
Teason, the nagic nunb er in the Guide Plan.
Gerry: I would just comtent that that is a recommended nuuiber. StreetscaPes and view
corridors are not necessarily determined by nunbers, alone-
Roger: Ihe view corridor is identified as a secondary vj.ew corridor, is it not?
Gerry: Yes.
Roger: In our deliberations, I think, in the developrnent of the Guide Plan, those were
nol considered as prinary factors to be concerned with. I like the design the way he
has it. It think a very nice job in addressing the problens in trying to nitigate all
of the potential objections, and I think that, based on the allowed GRFA, I think they
exhibit a 1ot of restraint.
Gerry: Dan, do you have any conments ?
Dan: I like the pTesentation. I think it is a nice tleatnent of the site.
Duane: I do agree that we have obstructed to a certain degree the ninor view corridor.
I feel in this particular case that the improvement to the nore intinate stTeetscape,
the sense of views, and the arrangenents of the buildings out weight the fact that we
do have a slight obstruction there. I do like the addition, and an in favor of it.
Jim: I think the inpact as being shown here is probably the best picture you can get
of it. As you go down the alley, the inpact of the building is considerably nore.
You rnove about l0 feet doun and you lose the peaks, don't you?
Ruoff: Jim, as you walk through now, you begin to lose the view about here. With the
addition, you begin to lose it about here. It diminishes until we reach this point
in this irla, .ttd itrs gone. As it is now, it dirninishes and you lose it about here.
Gerry: My concern isn't with seeing the peaks in total per se. lvly concern is with
the sense of space. That the whole concept of space, of course, is what rnakes Bridge
Street unique. I think that this goes just a little bit further than it should in
t.erms of enclosing the street. I think that both things carr be achieved. I like the
building, and I tike the fact. that the building is bigger in that Parti-cular sPot- I
like the fact that the road is closed, but not that rnuch.
PEC rr- 2/9/81
Ruoff: As with rnost of these things, Gerry, we enddifferent aspects, there is a comprornise in shape of
as possible the view. Itls true, on the ratios in here, we have followed the recorunendedguide lines rather closely. It wasntt difficult because it just happeneil to work outthat the 2 story schene here gave it to us. We consciously wantcd io create nore ofa sense of enclosure for the Seibert Circle area, and we feel now that with the roofsloping down, the space isnft contained very well. But this we have already discussedbefore. Tlere is no doubt it is a cornpromise amongst many elenents.
Gerry: Are there any corunents fron the audience?
lobert Oliver: lvty naure is Robert Oliver, and I work for the Plaza Lodge and alsofor the possibility of representing Mrs. Hill. She is concerned about the things thatyou are talking about as far as the view corridor down Hill Street, and fron the viewfron her aPartrnent. These people are trying their best, and she is still concernedabout the lack of view corridor that is going to come out of her casenent windows andalso that sliding glass door. Just one thing that I caught that you were saying, Dick.I canrt understand why you can say that there is a potential loss of traffic there.You'canrt take one condominiurn and turn it into 5 and add 5 shop spaces and not expecta tlaffic flow on Bridge Street. For soneone who has a shop there, or for soneone
who has given their condominir:m to Slifer to rent out every week, that traffic is goingto be much greater.
Dick: Well, I think there is a potential for being less tgaffic in the sense thatright now there are a lot of people who come and pa"k in those spaces on a continuingbasis of just pulling in and pulling out using the core area. With the condominiums,at least there is the potential that you would corne in, drop your bags off one day,
and you may not need to cone back until you actually leave the site--instead of coningin there and saying, t'Well, I want to go someplace to do some quick shopping.tt you
are probably going to get on the shuttle bus rather than walk back to the transportationcenter if you left the car there, or if you have turned the car in.
Robert Oliver: That night be true, but you canrt add all that space and sa.y that thetraffic is going to go down.
Dick: I guess my feeling is that itrs not going to increase dranatically, and thereis the potential that i.t could go down, just frorn what I see of the use of those spacesin front of the garage now, which are constantly being used by everybody in Town topull in and park, because they know there is a parking space there.
Robert Oliver: I think the odds are that it is going to go up.
Jin: Yes, you would have to expect more traffic with people having to bring stuff intoshops. l{hat you are saying is that there is space there that people are parking in,
and for sone reason, because you are going to eat up' sorne of that space means that you
are going to have less parking, But the actual demand of, Iike those 5 shops and 5
condos' I can see is going to have more denand that what you have there now, in terrnsof vehicular traffic.
Dick: I think the potential for shops will be 3 snall shops, probably, because thereare only 3,000 sq ft.
Ruoff: The potential here is for 3 shops.
Jin: Well, whatever, I nean therers got to be an increase in vehicular traffic. I
donrt see how you can go from the restaurant and one condo to....
Ruoff: Jin, we dontt feel that there is going to be any substantial increase in..uwrbers
in vehicles because these are not food operations, we donrt have food and neat trucks
o
up conprising between a lot ofbuilding to naintain as rnuch
PEC L2 2/9/81 o
that have to cotne every day to them. They are snall shops that tend to get shipnents
Dretty often, rnostly by frLiglt, UPS, or iornething is delivered to their hone because
ii"y;!."-;-:"g trr"i" Earage as an extra warehouse. But, aside from the owner bringing
in their station *"g6r, ol".rionally to haul something that he is stoting in his Earage'
we see the uPS nan parked here somlwhere today anyway, while he goes to 4 or 5 Places
tut", go", to 2 ski shops, and all the surrounding neighborhood. We're not going to brin
the UPS in rnore often. 'W" t"y cause hin to park there an extra 5 ninutes while he
rwrs into these 3 shops and rnakes deliveries. But we feel' that that is quite^different
itor U"ingi"g hin in r*y to"" tines. We donrt think he will do that' 14e think that
the existing pattern of ine trucks that park along here in front ofCyrano'sand Gold
peak will continue. ione of the points 'th"t *" hive discussed before, go a little beyond
tfrii p"oju"t. We did at the work session discuss a little bit sone of the things that
;iii;;pi;" when and if the Seibert Circle inprovements.and inplenented because they
conplernent what we are doing. That will help to chanelize the traffic so the trucks
then will always park on the same side of thL street, and you wonrt find Burnettrs truck
;i;;gi;g ttre oitrer side, so that if an ernergency vehicle does cone through, he canrt
get-ihriugn. These will be improvenents. Again, tle gal:' We all know the history
6f tt" bullding. For ur,any years Marg and Lairy Burdick. lived there fuII tine' It was
their nain hone. firey tept'2 cars ii tfre g^t^ge, and they are like all of us' If they
had lots of business r"o"ira town, and they;d rr-'ln and- out. The nurnber of vehicular
movenents is what wetve concernei with. iilow, I didn-rt have any reason, and I donrt
;hi;i ;y;e else did, but conmon sense, if you think about it a ninute, nay point a
direction. An active'couple living here fuli tine, and the tines they bring their cars
;;;-;;;;; every day on tire averag; is 2 or 5 tines a day for each car--is going to
exCeed the nunb er of car movements for a condo owner who 'comeS and stays- a ueek' who
cones in and out once. I really think the situation for the condos in the building
is going to be very sirnilar to what we have at the Plaza Lodge today, because your guestl
go ir, "ia o"t. llow itrey wonrt likely stay--who knows? Who knows who is going to buy
irroi", how long they;re going to use it. Irll tell you one thing, though, letrs not
;" ;e play thi p"plr r,rib"ri g"r", but let's be realistic about it. The prices for
ifri"ii-"i.it'= go in -ttre center oi the Village automatically tell us sonething' That they
.t"-g"i"g to-be bouiht Uy peopfe r ith thai rnuch noney. . People with that much rnoney
:r, t[" c;okie iar t6 rf.i ifo*,ir on iuncy apartments in-the center of the village,
and then spend about $200,000 to decorate it, are really not interested in having slifer
stuff it with every coner- and run it like a hotel , because that anowrt of incone '
theytre not interested in, and nost of those peoPle donrt-want tho:e people staying
i"-ifr"irpiace in Vail. ihey aren't rented vlry-often. They're gilven away to friends
*a f"rily. Realities of eclnonics and hurnan nature pretty well tell us that, no,
these are not going to have the frequency of use that the snaller condos in other parts
of the connrmitY do.
Gerry: Thank You, Bill.
Dick: Ird just like to add that there is also going to be a loading area along the
east side of the ,ui.lding, too, so that, there witl be the oPPoltuity for soneone coning
in there to unload it"i"'U.gt and luggage without actually being parked in the street'
Ruoff: And the neighboring poi.nts in the Improve Vail plan comPlenent this beautifully'
Gerry: Are there. other conments or questions?
Ed Drager: Itn here as an interested citizen. I sat on that sane planning conmission
up there for 4 years, and for 4 years I and a whole 1ot of other people worked to get
the Irnprov e vail job done to stoP development as a natter of right in the cornmercial
core of vail . It has been accomprished,'and I think the developers here have shom
a great deal of ="rrritiuity to tire work and the desires and the hopes that we had
and one of the "goniring tir:.ngs that we went through was whetherf or not HiII Street
was a even::a riinor view corridor at the tine. I think the nodifications here on the
PEC rs 2/9/81
Red Lion are going to hurt, naybe shorten up that view corridor, but r think the inprove,nent overall is a very good imProvement. If r were sitting on that side of the tabletoday, Ird be voting for it. Thank you.
Gerry: Thank you, Ed. Are there any other conments frorn the audience?
Gaynor: Are you going to be required to have parking spaces?
Ruoff: At the end of the Tounrs recornmendation, is stated the conditi_on
Dick: on page 3 at the botton of the page, they wirl be required to pay the appropriatefee for parking.
Gerry: rrto just going to quickly ask Jeff if he is familiar with and confortable withthe conditions of approval?
Selby: Would you read those to ne?
Gerry: sure' The applicant agrees to.partic-iplt9 1n not renonstrate against a specialinprovemert district if and when formed-for vail village. z. rrre apprlcani "g""u,to upgrade the landscaping along Mill creek and p""."nt the plan t.'b"rr*it| oev"loprenfor approval . 3. The applicant agrees- to participate financially in stxeet. inprovenentse'9. street pavers, street lights and the reLocated focal point ai Seibert Circle ifan irnprovenent district is not fonned. The applicantrs share would be deternined bythe-street frontage of property in seibert circre and other pxoperty o$mers in areawould also have to agree to participate.
selby: on the final one, it would not be of the situation where ld be the only propertyowner in the area. The appticantrs share would be deternined by street e"oni.g" propertyon seibert circle of all property owners contributing, is that torrect?
Gerry: Thatrs correct.
selby: r think we can live with arl those reconunendations.
Gerry: You are aware that these are conditions for approval , if approved, it wouldbe approved on those conditions.
selby: Yes, I understand. Those things nay not be kn own until such ti,ne as inprovenentsare cornpleted' but I would assutne that those conditions would go beyond the-perioa inwhich we irnprove the property. It seens to me that we nay get down the road here ina yeat or 2, and everyone will say, 'Letts upgrade Seiberi Circle in that area;, andwe would be requested to corne in at that time to contribute funds toward those inprovementI have no trouble roith that as long as it is an area wide understanding with otherProperty oMlers,
Dan: r would move to _aPProve the request for an exterior alteration and modificationin conurercial core r for the Red Lj.on building per the staff neno and as p."i"nt"a today.
Gerry: I1le have a notion for approval by Dan corcoran. rs there a second?
Roger: Yes. I second.
Gerry: second by Roger Tilkeneier. A11 those in favor? scott Edwards, Roger Tilkemeier,Gaynor lrliller, Dan Corcoran, Duane piper, Jirn Morgan.
And rtn against because I don't like that one section of that one building.Motion passed 6-1.
li,\l.lL 0l: l,lroJEcT
Lt(;AL DUSC|iI t]'tON:
LIS'l' OI l't\11:ltl ALS
Lioo
Lorlt4LBtocxfih
-nr-r*" l!r- \U,W f1g+T -
DESCRIPTION OF PITOJUCT
The following infornation is
Board before a finaL approval
A. BUILDING I"IATERIALS
Roof
Siding
Other Wal1 Materials
Fascia
Soffits
ltlindows
l,Jindow Trin
Doors
Door Tri.m
Hand or Deck Rails
F lues
Flashings
Chimneys
Trash Elcl osures
Greenhous e s
Other
PLN'IT trtATERlALS
(Vegetative, Landscaping
Botanical Name
rcquired for subnittal
can be given :
by thc applicant to the Design Rcview
Col or
B.
Ground Cover)
Si zeQ.uant it_)'
4_-_=
4(ft4)OL'A)
6----7--\
4',lJel)
,
Ilaterials including
Corunon Narne
wlt
tbu-
o'b'-
Trees, Shrrrbs, and
Type of Matgrial
c. olltEtr l.ANrlscAPE n:At.uRES
(Retaining Walls, Fences Swiruning Pools,
;l *,,:
L
I'rAt.lL
f rcH
OT T'ROJLCT
r|'tvJ[il{ |JOAt(U Cltljctl LlsT o
LEGAL DrscfrrplloN LorE.F.eA wocqpll r*
A. Building Considcrations
Prelin, FinalApproval Approval
Bldg location on site
Bldg Configuration
Appropriateness with
Neighborhood
Height
Mass
Roof Forns
Conrnrent s
Use of Materials
Choice of Color
Energy Efficiency
\B. Site Consideration
Disturbance of
Natural Features
Snow Reioval
Access onto Site
Vehicular and Pedes-trian circulation
Landscaping Plan
Grading & Drainage
Erosion Control
Irrigation Systen
Exterior Lighting
Retaining l{a1ls
Accessory Structures
c.Miscel I aneous Considerations
-
D.Other Corrunent s
FlNAL API'IIOVAL
IJatc Si8,n a t. ur(,
,,,,,,,,'
v
vi- ",
Project Name:
Project Description:
Contact Person and Phone
Project Application ^l4zo l\ Ota.,,rJ:"<^ Vb\
Orvner, Address and Phone:
Architect, Address and Phone:
Legal Description: Lot (jt,(zf. ,"'o"* ?A , ,u,^n -F.GY , r"""$a) Uill,
Comments:
APPROVAL
Design Review Board
,^," lz //6/tr
DISAPPROVAL
CP
ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS TO THE RED LION INN
Mill Creek Courl Condorninium Associotion
.c/o A,rthur G. Bishop & Cornpony
3Ol Honron Ronch Rood
Voll, Colorodo 81657
Porla BuildinS
c/o Elton Bud Porks
303 Gore Creek Drive
Voil, Colorodo 81657
Golden Peok House Condominium Associotion
278 Honson Ronch Rood
Voil, Colorodo 81657
Thc Plozo Building
c/oMrs. Joonne V. Hill
301 Bridge Street
Voil, Colorodo 81657
Thc Rucksock Condominium,Associotion
c/o Rendezvous Wesi
P.O. Box 397
Voil, Colorodo 81657
Hill Building
Mrr. Cortlondt Hill
. 3ll Bridge Street
Voil. Colorodo 81657
\,-'d:1.'
,,f,
J- we'?
BuY ts'L/
o
lnun
Jeff Selby
Red Lion Inn
294 Bri.dge Street
Vail, Colorado 81657
Dear lib. SelbY:
Below is an outline of the approPriate section of the l-tunicipal code
concerning the parking feen lnd a swrnaly of our agreenent of how to
apply the law to the Red Lion renodel .
l. Section 18.52.100 Parking Requirements Schedule
box lfi!
rail. colorado 81657
(303) 476-5613
' Use
Eating in-d orinking
Establishnents
department of community development
November 25, 198I
Parking Requirenent_ - _ :- _6e space per each t0 seats, based
on seating caPacitY or building
code occupancy whichever is greater.
2.
3.
In the case of the Red Lion I have applied the occupancy standard
for the bar addition.
Bar space is assessed at $3,000 per parking stall. The occupancy
stand-ard for the bar addition is forty. using the above rrRequire-
ments Schedule" the parking fee for the new space is $12,000,
or4spacesx$5,000.
One parking stall was eliminated by the Red Lion rernodel' I
wrdeistand that this stall was used for a residential rmit'
parking for residential space is assessed at $5,000 per parking
stall, so the Red Lion is-being assessed $5'000 for the loss
of this sDace.
4.
fee
bar
5.Fee Schedule. At this point a $17,000 parking
over a five year period=:assuming that the new
rnodified in the coning years.
nea rf -z- Lt/2s/81
is due, payable
space is not
6.
Date Due Anount
First Fifth Novernber 24, l98l $3,400 (paid)
Second Fifth Novenber 24, 7982 3,400
Third Fifth Noveniber 24, 1983 3,400
Fourth Fifth Novenber 24, 1984 3,400
Fifth Fifth Noveniber 24, 1985 3,400
However, in the event that the new bar space is nrodified a Portionof the fees already paid will be given as a credit towards a
new parking fee, and the fee schedule will be modified to reflect
the future rernodel . The $5,000 assessnent for the loss of the
residential space will not be allowed as a credit towards any
future parking fee.
For ex:rmple, if in the next year the Red Lion renodels the new
bar spacer''a credit of $2,400 (the anount already paid ninus
one fifth of the residential parking fee) wilt be given towards
a revised total parking fee,
Six ba" seats r,{ere removed in the current renodel . One thousand
bight hundred dollars (.6 x 31000) will be given as a credit
towards the total parking fee due. in any future renodel of
the Red Lion. In the event that no renodeling is done in the
next year, the total parking fee due witl be reduced.!l $f,AOO
and the fee schedule adjusted accordingly.
the Town Attorney is now drafting a pronissory note, which I will send
to you next week.
I hope that this is satisfactory. If you have any questions or problens,
call rne, Note that $5,400 has already been paid.
Yours.
t]/4--^. -<- -4---
JIM SAYRE
Planner
JS:br
o\
vail. colorado 81657
1303} 47G5613
Red Lion Inn
Mr. John Mella
294 Bridge Street
Vail, €olorado 81657
Re: Red Lions Expansion
Dear Mr. Mella:
The Town of Vail is now collecting the parking fee. The parking fee is
assessed on the basis of new or additional developrnent in the commercialcores. This letter outlines the law concerning the parking fee and presents
a schedule for the paynent of the fee. (See Vailrs zoning code: 18.52.100,
18. s2. 160B. )
The Town Council has set several different parking fee formulas for differenttlTAc o€ darrornnnanl , In l.{ay 1980 the Town Council lowered the qommercial parking
fee rate for two years to encourage developers to begin work on TEEir expansionor alteration pLans. The commercial rate was lowered from $5,000 to $5,000for each 300 square feet of expansion. Eating and drinki"ng establishnents
are assessed differently. They are assessed at the rate of 9J,000 for
evely l0 seats of new seating capacity,
The Town Council did not lower the residential parking fee, and it remainsat $5,000 for every parking stall required for new developnent. (See ordinancefor details, )
the conmercial parking fee may be paid over a five year period, but the
residential fee must be paj.d in one lump sun. Paynent of the first fifthof the corunercial fee is due at the time the construction pernit is issued.
The second fifth is due one year after the permit is issued, the thirdfifth is due two years after the perrnit is issued, and so on until thefifth fifth is paid.
A schedule of your parking fee payrnents appears on the attached page.
department of community development
July 15, 1981
box lOO
Red Lion Inn I'urking
.t-"- i'a
To.tal Commercial Parking Fee Due: $29,800
Date. Ilue Anount
First Fifth April 14, 1981 g 5,960
' Second Fifth April 14, 1982 5,960
Third Fifth April 14, 1983 51960
Fourth Fifth April 14, 1984 51960
Fifth Fifth April 14, 1985 5,960
We also understand that your expansion plans will elininate-a one-cargaaage. You are being assessed a $5,000 fee for the loss of this space.
the parking fee due at this time is the first fifrh plus the $5,000, or
$10 , 960 .
Once your plans for the residential units on the second floor are confirmed,
your parking fee will be reassessed.
Receipts fron the parking fee are channelled into a special fund designed
to help solve Vailts parking problens. We appreciate your contribution
: to this fimd.
$incerely,
o
DISTRICT COURT
EAGLE COUNTY
STATE OF COLORADO
civif Action No.
8ICVT19
Ll. J I.wl lvIqr((,AI\, .lIIq.
18. F; GAYNOR'MILLER, as members^ of the Planning. and,:Envirorimental'
t.'j
23'. GOLDEN PEAK HOUSE CONDOMTNTUM ASSOCratroN,'f gnn$r;n*r'T,-:
24. v. RUcKsAcK coNDoMrNrur{ astoctotio"; - '|f;
BgSTzs- MRs. coRTLANDT HrLL, l$24. v. RUCKsAcK coNDoMrNruM AssocrArroN, ifi BIST..ggPr1'. ff
Coinmission of the Town- of VaiI, . : ]r., . ., _.'+i ,rt .- . -t,,:19. RICHARD N. BROWN' 'i.. '1 ..1:' i ',n i. " 'i:
20. JEFFREYB. SELBY' .: , .;;.;1 ,,,--:jil;',-il r.i:1 :';',
2L.cHARI,EsH.RosENQUIST,..'-"-i''i'..:':.-:-',':-:.
22. MILCREEK CONDOII1INIUM ASSOCIATION, 'z7 r-..;*,;16;'-*^*"-";;*";;.,*-.
26. rHE PARKS BUILDING, l at trltflll trl{l FiI AVAILABLE27. ELToN BUD PARKS, -t tiro.,.*., .. -
28. THE CHRISTINIA LODGE, "' : ' nlrih{i::';!h{rir!'|"{ttri}
29. VArL ASSOCTATES, rNC. ,
30-THEEMPIREsAvINGS,BUItDINGANDLoANAsSocIATIoN,
. . ,l , a'
. Defendants- -
Plaintiff was reDresented by ,John L. Ferquson,
Lhe Tol.rn of Vail by Lawrence c. Rider and the defendants, selby
+"o
Brown and nosenguist.by Miles Cortez, Jr.
The Court heard arguments on the MotionPrevious Orders on June 3, I9gl.
The Court havinq consiclered the motioL^-,-t
---u L'\= rrrutJ-ons and arguments'.ofcounsel, does hereby order that the defendants motion to vacate.
'.::.:'::'ofApri12o,198I,andthat-oortionoftheorderof,April 14, 1991, reguirino the 1,own to stay furttthe buir-ding permit,.be and the-=r-.-"r-:]
r,"rther procee$ings on
qrrq En€ same is hereby vacated. It isfurther ordered that the rernaini-.! rs,rcrrnrng portions of the Order of
_aerif 14, 19g1, shall remain in full fc.rrce and effect.
rf the plaintiff desires to pursue further activitiesto stay the actions of the defendants who were the recipients ofthe buir'ding permitr herein, they shall be required to proceedpureudnr ro'Rule 65 0f the col0rado Rules of civil
"."":a;".
"
DONE and SIGNED in Chambers, this l6th day of June,tunc, June 5, tggl.
BY THE COURT: I
wm. L.
o-.
TRANSCRIPTION
RED LION 1NN NBMODNL
Design lleview Bolrd
Marclr l8 , 1981
PATTAN
PIERCE
PATTAI{
_lln B_llFlur_ir Lt,s i{oirD o}J
P/r-'l'TAN:
J)il1l-'[1$illi1Li .. S li 01\rI)O1'{'
...The Red Ljon Renrodel is a" project proposed
under tlre Urban Design Guideplan as...has
been under review, , , extensi,vc review since
November, &h. , ,and thc Planni-ng Commj.ssion
saw the project, ah, several rvecl.,s ago and
rec.oinmendecl approval , Ah, the decision of the
Planning Commission was appealed and approvedl.ast evening at Town Council, lih, rvhich allorvs
Lhe project to go in front of thr: Design
Review Board at tllis time. Ah, I'd just liketo rna.l<e,r a couple of c'omments o:i, ah...$'e are
dealing ivitir sornelvha-t of a ne ' Li';sign Revierv
Board here,a;rd I'd like to give them .just a
c.ouple brief conuents on the background of the
Urban Design Guideplan, and t'hc'' r-or,'iews what
uucl.er the Oui.dei:1an Ilcvi-ew Pi'i.rr'i'iir-r-res. IJm,if vou guys rvant to turn to, 1,.,, i,age Trvo
of t-]re Urban Desigin Coirsidet'at jorrs, theLeft hand side olrtlines the coi:r,;iderationsthat are tzrherr at F-l.annirtg Coi;rlri-ssion, ancl ,of coirrse , .at a Counci.l.. appeal . Ah, those
considerat iciis rvei"e the seven tha,'c 52s11 sssthere: pedes t r iar'izt:, r iou; r'ehi cie penetraiion;
str"eet -scirpc f ramewor'}< ; street enclosure :
stTeet. edgc-.; btrild j ng heiglrt anri vien's; and
also, of course, zoni-ng cc.rdc .iterrns. The , ah. . .tl:at has been considered ancl. dec.ided uporiby bolh P1:rnni-ng Cloiuniss;ion l"n11 Council. T<sr1ay ,thr: pI,ojccL wi. l1 rrtrcl<:.rp1o 1;hc l-1i,,;:i-! ir;n Ilevie\:r
Boai:cl , ah, l'c:'.'ic\r', rvhi ch pt'inrar': i v involves
the considelations on the rigirt hand side
and the arc'.hitectul:..r1 landsc'.ape considerations.
And those c.onsi deral-.i crns are: roof s; ah,
f acades , ba 1 conies ; cieclis; and pa.t ios; accent
elemcnts; and 1:rndscapc cleinents I and service.
Selvice?
Whatever tirlrL mav .bc: , An;rv'11u , t,tr,. Rouf f
rvJ 11, n"h, -.o 'Lltrougl"r thr: pres,;ent:r.tion in that
oidcrr aIt<,li' 1-her i.n L,r'oilr.rctarv limarks on
uscs ancl s() on , :lnd , n h , thc lrlilj 1s not
ex1.r'ctnclllr I ilnlted t,o r.'cviervinll onI,v thosc
i l<:nis ; houc:'. ct' , thc ::r.,.v lew sl:orrl.d be
concrc:ntt'at r:il ott those: i.tems .
in r'i:sponsr) i.o Lhn.t, if I nrrr.5', .i :.',s;t..,
UnclL,r: iltc iilirirt-' Dtisi r:.rr r',,h c l"r- i'l: s:,1:'$ " ',:
j,.t\';s",
thn {.' -.,; tlot Linrict thc u.r'chitr.:c i.'.:'':r,1 !'.u.i.d<:"li rlr:r;
Thlr {. ' s l.' i j:;lr l flrr: rr i i't"' tltlt: r,; i. ii.'i i:ls Lcon
cxhirus-ite.l ir i. I ili.$ ])o i t] 1. ,
BEST COPY
AVAII.ABLEi
i;:L r...r <r- .!.n:it,! i,,i /-;r-iLY:;;.r
Oli. . ')'blrt. r'.1 ir.r'i f i e-';A.l.r j flhl;, th*nk you
I o,
'a^
{.t Dcsign R<ivicw lloard
Red Lion Inn Rcmodel
Page 2
RQUFF:Thanl<'s Craig. Thank you, Peter. I guess if..this system is alittle new to a1l. of us.It's the fj-rst time I have presented one in
CCI or CC2 with these slightly different, ah, aorganizational. criteria. I am going to usethe book, and just go right down the lirreto each one and talk to how we have addressedthose considerations in this project
Good, those are the photographs of the buildingas it is today for reference.
Ilie have a set of d:rawings here of the existingbullding that we can use for reference at anytime because this is, ah, an addition. Brieflyit is an extension to the south for a slightdistance of tlie old Red Lion, addition of asecond flooir on the present one story part onthe south. 'l'he bui ldlng preseutly. . .therestaurints iu the buildingrihat I'n sure you aall familiar with,are not affected. Werretaking the ber-r/loirnge,that wc have a1)- spent
many hours j-rr there, that's at street level
. no$i, rr'c aa1-l gc;i.ng to move it dov,'n to thebasenrent. The vacated street level area willthen be turned into sma11 shop space, r'etail,/commercial classificzrtion. Ah, it breaksnaturally into three small shops. Just let
me finish the loft space and.that's its natural configur.atTonl---f6p-Tfoorwill contain about 3,00O new square feet, andthere wilf be an addition of three apartmentsto the ti.vo that piocurrentl.y ex:i-s'{. on 'bhe
second f1oor. That's briefly tlie program.
From ihnt I ttri-nli we c.ai1 mor.'c directly intothe <lesign considerations, The first oneof which is roofs, Let's go to elevationsand, ah, rve can look at them and at the
r,, mode1, and I think we can rather plainly see
wha1. rve are doing. Ah, the text in the bookaddrcsses the desirable pitehes and overh.angsand so forth. \te feel that since this is anaddit:i on and an addltion to one of the mostsuccessful a.nd cer-tainly one of the ntosthistolic and best known buj,ldings in Val1, theIlod Lion out' f irst restaurant and solrl morepostcards thil.n any otlter p1ace.in Tou'n a.ncl allthis that rve know, our approneh is pretty cutand dr'1r, Il"e are not tarnl:eri.ng with thcm inany vrly. We started on this design conrmissionconsi(lering the Rridge Sbreet Faca.de of the
Red Lion as almost sacred in Vail's mythology,if yotr rvi1l, Yon all. knorv rvhat I meun by th:rt.
\Ve 1.hi nl< it loolis goocl . \te thi nl< i.t shouldstay. Our aclci j.t ion j s an a1;i.r:rul)t to trl<e of fj.n thlt; i. cl i. t;nr, t.It e n :f j ncl sornc-l1;lii rr11- conrpa.ti'r.i> l.ewith i1; to go irround tht: cornc-.r: rvj,th. So, our
1] ll s\vcj.r' to :.rrlrlrcs;si ng; 1.lrc r-oof pt.ol:f r:]nr i s
slmpJ y 1.o cx f,r:ncl Lhc r:oo f vocel,rul:lry tlrlrt.exisls jn th<: licci l,ion l.octay to the rrelv prr:t';pitclr, or slopc iJ, y'orr rv'Ll1; rn&lcrj.al--, ilt's
[)res()111. 1y bu i .1. t. -rr1r 11rlrvc..L 1' oo'f , a.l. rva.\,s; ltn ss
bcen lr ncl so wi.,l..l 1.hr: r-r crv ouc ltr,'; ovc rlul.nir:s;
clcta.iI s o.l', irh, llt, c51.y111;ccl , lilr, l.)<:lnr:;; rtr-.}tho.f Jltrc i lr , \Ytl ' i'c .irtr,; l. <:1y1;y i n11 l.lic t's i r; l; i rr11
rlt-'i;ii. j lrr :Litti tl;,i rr1.g Lirr.tit lr'1..1. 1.lrr-' w:l\/ lrr'()nncl . -q(),
1v!i;r l1 1',',i1 51r1.' ,rt iit,i' r,lrrVlt i, ilitl; ill lrr;.,:, tvr'1 I t.l
ll()[)() l'i)il | .l I i,] ;;ri; \\'r' il:I\.(' rf:;lti..
1 a-
This is a proJect with only three elevations.It's not a triangular builcling; it's becausethere is only .bhree that are effective, andif you can see the west elevation, which isthe Bridge St::eet side, here is the front door.Loohs different from tvhat it does today.The present one, if you remember, is thatglass box, whlch I think is kind of nice butwe don't hor,v to extend it into what we've gotto do around the corner. So wetve gone backto the rest <if the idiom and put in adifferent entrance. It,s locitlon is thesame. The new parts, the addition, is fromhere over. From here back is totally unchangedThe four sides around in the baek and isnot part of the project, so it's not shownhere,
How...BiI1, if f may interr:upt? Ah, therewas a proposal to do the modifications tothe other side. IIow. . .how cl.oes that tiein with rvha.t 's happening here?
Alright.
In Phase I?
Yes, Phase I.
Do you want to address it or shoulrl I?
IVe11. . .
Pha-s:e I .
Ok. Phase I
Last year a certain amount...a great amountof interlor remodeling on the second floor.
some in the basement and some exteriorremodel-ing in the creation of a "mini-par.k,,over at this corner, sort of across fromDonova"n's, $rent through the process all theway down through approvals by all the Towneonmissions; Design Review Board. It rvasbloeked by Court action by a nqighbor whodidn't like it, based upon hi-s well foundedknolvledge. That was the man rvho finally carneto. Torvn sone1, j-me this year. He had ncver
seen it but he blought action against i.t.It rvas stopped, delayed long enough so that thework coul-d not be done last year rvithj-n tho
seasoniil. colistrai.nts. So, it di,dn't getdone. The rvork, ah , contained in tvhat wc ' l.ecal1i.ng Phase I that was approved last yearhasn't been started yot.
But it r.vill...
It lvi1l. be donc' :rnd llt 1;he same eonstnrctioncontrn.ct as rvhlLt vie nl'(.-' l4oing to conr,; i clc.r"todiry, Ilorvcrrer., f or: I),::s;ip n Rtlv j.crv J.Joar:d's
,consid<-'r"l'li orr j t's asl thotrgh tlrr:ro rvor.otr ht:lvv rlcL[.r_:rl linc r.ig*ht tlrrorrgh lr<.:r-c. ]JolhinJl
ha.1r1r<,rri:iI j n l:crr-.. WhlLt you .lookt:r-l :r,L .1.;rsl,
5/olir \,,'::r.; tlt)lr(: ltl, 1;hat, ctrd i I l,;llr_r',,,,ir i. rt Lbr.,l;i:
il Design llevicw Board
Red Lion Inn llemorlel
March 1.8 , 1981
Page Three
ROUFF:
DRB MEMBBR SNOWDON"
ROUFF:
SELBY:
DRB MEMBER SNO\'/DCN.
ROUFF:
SELBY:
BOUFF:
DRB MEMBER SNOWDON
ROUFF:
DNII IIEMREN SNOIVI)ON?
ftol.]lrF:
s
*
]-
drawings but in effect, ah, already is, atleast on paper, a1I the way through buildingpei'mit. This you haven't seen yet .The contractor will now do the trvo parts atone td,rne. That is the p1an.
Alright. llle were talking about roofs. Thisls existing roof. and around the buiLdineand on up to here. -G?*nerv roofs are all the
same pitch and all the same detaiL. So.since it is an extension of an importantexisting building, we know of no otherappropriate, dh, ah, road to take. And, ofcourse, that,..in this kind of a case it'swhat's recommended in the Guide11nes..
Can f ask one general question because itrelatcs. . .
Please.Yea, y-ea.
Ah, and it does relate some'"yi:at even thoughI don't want to exand on the subject in thequestion of views. Was there a study donein changing the dlrection of which the roofsah. . . -'.
Ah...
Ah, you know just because from a viewstandpoint we snr,v that we had very longroofs going to the south, and we just questioned.as a group what it looked at to have those gofrom ea.st to 'i','e s't. or visa versa?
Yes. We feel tha"t we have probably looked atevery technically fea.sible roof configurationpossib1e for this building and some that wewere able to prove weren't possible. Tokeep the profile of the building as 1olv aspossible, this project was voluntarily kept
. well belorv the alloq'ed li.nits in CCI. It isonly two stories in a three story district.I don't have to...this is highly unusualin, ah, Vail derrelopment histor5r. But in an
ef fort to lceep tire prof ile lorv,for a 1ot ofreasons inc.luding a lot of the other designconsideriitions to acltieve the street enclosureratios, ah, preselve views 5r"n all directions
and for n1l directiorrs. . . in all directions forall paltios and. so forth, a dccision n:ls nndeby the rler.t:i.opel oarly thal; it *'oulcl bc a trvost.ory lruiJ rli ng. r\lt, muclr of this L . . j. 1l we
s1.and aloirnd the niodri.l., it's easj cr Lo sc.o; itrstltree dimt'trsionir..l . Irlom the air, if 1'911 1y6'1'sa red tai.led harvk ' ()f il rob j.n or: sonrcih:i ng,
yttttr cl sctt' tiL:'r"t 1t-loks L r.lie :r. f ol dcd pl.a{.c t:oof ,and yr>tr'cl s.;ir,y "Ifcl. 1 , Llrirt isnt L a very
alrpropr.-i.tr lc thing in lltc mi ddl e of Vail . "
Becaus:e tt:chnicalll' .1.hal:rs-r ry[;11 i t is. On thcother hl.nd ure. fccl. tltilt s.i.nce hnu'ks ilnd i"ollinsclotr't g1cL :r vot e ;.ittd ()ur v j sltt>r's :rncl
c i L izt:nri rlr-l lrul. 1. l:t.:y lri.'c ctl.r'thbrtnncl an<l
.l j ve j 11 1:lr(.) :,; I.r'oc t.s; , lts 1 otrg nr; noirortv r:xce:lrt
Lbc b ilris cir n sili) t li:t t. t'oo ll corr I'i r1u r.'1t.1- i on ,
i. l riitclttt' i-. ll::r-r;,.: tt:r1, il i I f r.t'r l'iCo . So. o:lt' r'.f'.llc;t'1.
wlt;,i 1.{i, lrlr, i':jiv"ir:1 i'rii (r l<-rvli. l: i,j:.i;-i i, ltitt. ilrlli;r.q. i'
Design Revierv Board
Red Lion Inn Remodel
March 18, 1981
Page Four
ROUFF:
DBB IUEMBER SNOIVDON
ROUFF:
DRB I'ETIBER SNOIfDON"
NOUFF:
DBB IVIE},IBER SNOI{DON.
ROUFF:
i:Design Review Board
Bed Lion Inn llemodel
March.18, I9B1
Page'Five
ROUFF:
ffi
DRB hIEIUBAR SNOIVDON'
ROUFF:
people and try to keep them within theestablished vocabulary of the Guidelines,
and the theory that rnost people are not over24 feet ta1l to peek over and see what theroof lool<s like back i.n the middle. It'spunched down in the middle to keep, ah,profiles 1ow. The existlng Red Lion ridge,right here above the blg, beautiful,oldgraphic on that -- the medieval red lionprancing across the banner, which is thesacred center of Bridge Streetthe highest point on the buildinE-ls-
about three feet higher than our nev; ridges.
So that was a device to keep the bulk
down to what we thought was appropriate' for the. space and other concerns.
Ok. that's it a lot of things besidesroofs.
Oltr onIy. tiro-Liglt{- ou t}rat wErs that if theroofs were cha.nged that you would get somevariation and a possible alleviation of
vj-ews from a distance over the top versusthe one long line establishecl by having theridges go northlsouth.
Ok. We have...they \{reren't part of thissubmission, ah, rn&5rfg we should have broughtthen. I{e've got them on reeord. They. . .
because this subject, ah, basically effectsah, profiles and impact on views...this was
::evi.cwcd extenslvely by Con,.,mission irnd Council.I don 't have 'Lhose with me l,c,da.y to showyou,but really'we went throirgh an unusually
exhausti.ve exercise of trying every combina.tion
we could tbink of that wa"s cor patible withthe structur:al system and I. . .we did actuallygo into, go into the abstract to see if wecould find some that were better but thenwe found one or two but couldn't figureout-I6fr-to buil-d them.
An east/rvest roof ...DRB IUET{BER SNONIDOJ{?
ROUFF: The coirs.i_d...a1va5's within tireconstl'airlts tha.t tve put for ourselves. IYemust continue wi'bh the 3 on 12 roof pitclr
estairlishecl by the existing building. There'sno ot]Ter roof you could use on here, and the
det ai. l s, but that rvas al l .
l!'lli.rlilillglil (Tilkerrir-ricr?) If that rvere t,urnccl and u,ent 1:he othcl rvay,yon'd erld up wi1;ir a .trough betu'cen Lhepresent 1'ool, and the netv rocf is on oast/ivest
accer-rli and \',;or-11d never me.l.t :ind thcrr: rvoulcl
be.l lrorriblc snori' trap. 'Ilris one Jaccs tire
soutl) rnd that v:rrtl tcd rroo.f t:ott f igut'u t ion ,even tlroLrl';h i, t isn 't 1.he lrcs; L i.n tho mountlins,. has tho r-rppor.'l-unity to, . ,1;o 11<.lt sun lnd nre1t
the siunrv otrt of thcr:e, and I l.hink if yort
did :i [: t;ht: cl (;lt*r' ll'ly , yorl I d i.;c i nvi L i ng
problcrns l;ha1. "rou'd ttct,or l.ri': ;i.lll.e t,c.r so1ve.
Design Rcview Board
Red Lion Inn ltomoclel
March 18, 1981
Page Six
ROUFF:
#
Gables at 90o, the other maln choice. There
were two. I,Ye tried one which extended thi"s
slope up to zrbout here and Lhen down
Ab , that got us way too high. Also fi66-Tfr6
facade the nelv gabled end was larger and from
a proportional point of view, architecturally
speaking, it began to dominate the old
front. This we did not want to do. The west
facade,ah, as around the office v/e've gotten
in the habit of call-ing the "sacred" part ofthe Red Lion, imposed design or program thatis not to be touched. We haven't touched it
but rve don't want to inadvertently touchit by buildlng a refl-eetive element of the
same general configuration which because of it'sproximity to and access size begins to
dominate it so that the old front becomes
secondary. That put us back...rve backed off
of that one. The other alternative rvas, ah,
let's tTy a smaller gable frorn this corner
out and back there. Frankl5', that could have
been a ::ather suecessful one consirlcring
NEIli TAPE
with an estr,bf ished nrinor view corridor. So,
we kept looking for additional solutions that
did a tretter job on this. lite examined, ah,
ridge configurations at 9Oo, in other words
at north/south, which rve finally ended up liith.
The basic al.ternatives the:re were a single one
like that. Architecturally it worked very weLl.
From a ma.inteirance point of vi.ew, ah, a comtnon
sense point of view j-n snorv ccluntry, that was
the best roof for the building. It looked
good in the, ah, the south elevation, ah, less
prone to leaks and that klncl of thing. Iilowever,
it's ridge was higher than we thought.
appropriate. Again, appropriate under the
constraints placed by view consi-derations and
particularly the designated t'ierv corridor.
So we broke it in half and put tlo up. That
got us rvell down belorv the cxistilr!{
-_'
basically as lorv as we coul.cl get.
YouTnow you can carry the same appr'<-rlrch
r:idicul-ous . The bui lding isu ''t
ETg enougF-to take So,that iu short
is the route that w6-T6ff6E6d in exploring
roof shapes, Yea. Dozens of minor variat j'ons.
You l<norv to see if there was anythitrg t:lse
and so f or t h . lTut that ' r; ltotrv we got tt'itc-'ro tt'e
are, Ol<?
Next , overh:rngs. In thi s clse , I thinli I 'rre
altlei.L<ly saicl ir11. that needs becansc ovct'ltilttgs
are only thr-- eclges of the roofs af ter 1'ottget l)iist the rva,l1. The dc"ta j.ls of ortr' ()\'ol":
hanlls are extent in errt--r')'Llting; rve JttsI l i f tcd
off the detail,s of t-ho exisi.i.ng bujlcl intl . No
chatrsc. Ancl adeptecl tht:m ttl our pl.rrtt . ( Attcl-"Llo:y'
looh J i.l<c: whlrt you soc on thc builditig.
).1
Design Review Board
Red Lion Remodel
March 18, 1981
Page Seven
DRB MEMBER SNOIVDON?Thatts probably pretty consistent all the
way down tlrrough the facades.
the facades.
ROUFF: Yea. You know Iive already sta.ted the
basic premise, and with this kind of an
addition, it's mainly a matter of, you know,
continue the eqtablished vocabulary,and I
guess maybe it makes it easier to judge
whether we did or didn't or how well we
did.
{-Tt DRB r\rEi{BER Jilkcneicr'ildur
.PCter'Patten:
DRB I\lEltBER ]ilkeneier
iLl"!-11!IBII--L9:fSwq_9".) lVe11, I tlrink, yotr kr.ror'.' like !-ou saicl, the
f irst l)41'1. was pretty cousistettt with ti'irlt
happens ri11 the ivay thr:ottgl-r but I think it
you cottl ci cxplain , llt , 1'ou knott', basi cal15'
go through thc: f ac.adcs. t'hat prrts go rvith
conlnlcr"c i 41. witlt ' . '
IIOUFIJ:Sure. Surc.
Compositi.ons. You know the ratlos,agai,n, my
explanation of the roof shapes rea11y appli.es
to this heading of "composition" a1so, and it's
why the one you see is here. It was the
best expression on the facades that we
could come up with of the roof shapes whieh
rea11y kind of determined mueh of the
exterior confi.guration. A special effort to
this south f acade, whi.ch f ace-.s on the
Hanson Ranch Road and wil1, ah, contain that1itt1e stretch and bring it back to the same
space ratio as the. rest of Bridge Street, we
vrere after.scale of elements in here, and
ah, the highly articulated thing to keep the
elemerrts smal1, pedestrian scale. Our nerv
commercial front starts from after the
entrance here, vrhere we're going back to
what was the original Red Lion outdoor
cafe configuration, before lt rvas extended
around the corner, the part that rea11y has
never worked vcr';v rve1I, anri ltever been used.
Ws're going t'o tzrke 1t off and go back to
the part that the original one that, ah, was
always very successful and still is.
The next eonsideration,stepped roofs. \Te
have a nrrmber of ttrem here. Again, they'rejust piclied up from the area, the
. existing, where they werdTT?eacly used. Itm
sounding like a broketr r:ecord. \{e. ,.
Pet er ?
Yes?
llle can't hear whatrs goiug on up here rvith
your convet:satiou back there.
{".} DRII ll[Ill]Ell (Snorvdon ) nn, bal conics rcr] ates to rvhat lrnd things like
, ttrrt. I t.hiult tlut:'s wlrct'e our general
concern i r; n.t tlr i s Point .
ROUTF. YCN.
bIiB l,llllflllLll (suowclon ,) 4nr1 bo,r,. . .
ao
Design Review Board
Red Lion Inn Remoclel
March 18, 1981
Page Eight
ROUFF:
DRB'MEMBER PIERCE:
ROUFF:
DRB MEMBER
ROUFF:
DRB MEMBER
PIERCE:
PIERCE:
DRB MEMBER SNOI{DON
ROUFF:
DRB I{EMBER SNO$'DON
ROUFF:
oo
Hey Craig, because this is...this procedureis a 1itt1e new to all of us, what I had inmind was to run dorvn the formalj.ty ofaddressing all of tbese as we cou1d, and thengo back and f have a point or two that arenot contained, ah, a couple of points thatare not contained here that I rvant to talk
!o ygu about, and get out into the general __I thluk we can keep from getting bo[ged clown,and we must not skip any of these, ii, tolcl .
Is that ri-ght that we sanrt...I think that itis evident,basieall.y, that these items areall
Yea. You know the answer to a.Imost all ofthem is "Hey we continued the existingvocabuldry." It's all we could do.
I don't know...
.ftrs goi.ng tci g;c-r right through materials.colors and everyl"hing e1se.
I don't...I personalJy don't see the needto go through eaeh and every one j-n tremendousdetail .
No...No I think naybe, ma!'be the biggest, bigges
going to read the headingsthe other appties because..
...our genelal questions of how everythingrelates back to the street and the connectionback to the street. , .
Again, extendj-ng the established vocabularyis the only rational and the only possible
one under the headj_ngs of materials. Ah, ilr.rdbaslcally not quitL. irue construetion, wecan come back to as much of it as evident; howsnorv and rvater is handled. and I have to
f o1low here because I don't know thetn by lreartyet e it he.r .;
Materials. The sanie answer, continuingthe existing vocabulary, The same rvith col.or..Transparency, ah, hcrc the guideLjncs gct intoah, mattcrs of propogbion, ah, oh, ]'orr lin crrv
witrdorvs at street ler,el. The;' rva.nt nti)re.
Shop rvlnr!o'u's and so f orth , a.i: cl we l'(.-. u 1l t, tli i nk
we Itavc ac-hirlvei:l that. Lo:itci, you krrou, n,e
were desig,;ning l,his ilnd say ,'TIey thi s iseasy. \fe ju,'^t f o.Llorv the gliclel. j.ncs. 'flrc:v f it ,jus]: l ike thcrr rr,'e:fo rlr-a1,n for: our bu ilcling
he re, " On t.lre shop 1cve1 . our ratio o1'
question...
Alright. I'm
and say that
Lra.nsparcn t lr reas of &t strect levcllis, I don' L lirrotv lvlrLrt, about 'double that nc
have otr t.hc ;-,rc:cond .ll<lor, ilncl tlrat's so1.l. o Iwhat thr:v:ri'<: ta.Ihirul abont in here. l\lc 1. lrinl<i.t provel; rt'ltir '1}1,,0,,,., :.!.i.e pl'. t, i.tr vaIi.4. iqr-:thiult i L rvorlisi .f -i lri,. Noiv, tir , wi-nr{ow:l. Si i 1. 1
ho.i pr;lrt :i.lj<Lrrc r-;1 1'<,rc': L lr.trt-l ,.qri f o;. l,lr. 'l'lrcly' r'cr
a"l L v'illtitr l.iir: .i -;.1.r , i.r; str11;t;r.:r:t'rli i.rr l.lrc_r
oI oo
guidelines, ah, that, ah, hover around
L.8". As grade line goes up and dorvn, you'vegot to geL off it a litt1e now and then but witlone or trvg exceptlons that we wanted tointroduce, ah, to avoid too mueh monotony,that's it. They average that. They worl<,
Head heights. They all run around eittrer6?8" or once in a while a ? footer, if it'sappropriate so that to avoid continuous 1ines.
Ah, minor rhythurns are established wlthinelements. Here's a little that rrokesout. ft's very symetrical .--lGT6's a iitrlepiece. I wish I was pointing to a model .This articulation shows the entrance to thedownstairs night club will be riglrt off thestreet her:e. Right off of Hanson Ranch Roadand dorvn the.stairs. This area is our sort ofmiddle shop area-. This one goes around thecorner to show up again on the B::idge Streetside,
I{hatrs on the
Oh, the creek side?
Yea, the creek side.
Thank yorr. I should have started there.I .sta"rted in the mi-ddle.
If we go back.the other way.bhis elementgoes arou.nd...lve have introduced just
immediately around the corner...that's alarge bay rvindorv. This is one of the things,ah, that rve felt was needed. The presenteast elevation is lather blah. ft's b1ank,and yet it's ver5z prominent as you approachfrom the east up, ah, Hanson Ranctr Road. Justa bi-g, long stucco iva11 rvith a door in it andilot much. It looks 11ke a back end of a buildinwhich it r.r'as wl.retr Vail startecl ancl that wasthe creel< and out beyond that were the deer andantelope and those people. There wasn't
anybody ont there then. So, we"ve introcluceda big bay that ol)ens ir:to Lhert shop that 'svery close to n,here the people walk by theco.rner to givr: the feeling of , ah, a eonrmercial/retail type place tlrere for people walking up,to introduce thcnr into the nature of thisbefore they get to it , and 'Uo rel j_cve that .
Now, tho :iecond f 1oor. Our nerv pa::t is , ab ,basical 1v f rom helc out . Alrigh t , i.t ' s .j ust
&11 eXpl'cr3si.on oI the aparl.rnc'nts irbove. 'l'hctralconl' on one. il'indol t.rc.atment , agai.n ,repet i 1 j otr of tire cxi.si. i1g1 . I{er<-' is a "V--sIapcclindcl'rl:irt ion on 1.ltc rvtlL tlrat is tile presrrnL
entranc() f o thc trirsta'i rs altlrrtments. Il, rvi11
remaj.n .lrnd r,,,e'.1. I lr:us:c it: . The existintj staj rswil,1 u,.ttt' i. li l'lc ttp, 1l1l i ttst.clt"d of i.n Lo Mllr'fle :tuclI-,irrry IJrtlcl ii:l<rs trltarl,mcnt., jrrto a r:orri.clor
lvhi.r:h rvi ll l;Gl'v{} 1.lrcil l'o1"rrror apirr'1.ntcn L n.rtrlt.he thlci: n()w ola):;, rvi Lh [.lrc f i l'o osctt.l)i.r
s,; i irj. r' r.rn 1. hc ot.lror siiclc.
,. I Design Review Board
Red Lion fnn Rcmodel
March 18, 19Bl
Page Nine
ROUFF:
DRB MEMBER SNOITDON:
ROUFF:
DBB MEMBER SNO\{'DON:
ROUFF:
ao
Design Rcvj.ew lSoard
Red Llon Inn Rcmodel
March 18, 1981
Page Tcn
BOUFF:
l
ffi
oo
When we get to landscaping, we'11 see mostof what the rest of...we'd put a -- extendeda fence here, open to the top. It needs more..
some more trash enclosure area.. It isn'tlarge enough now. We are enlarging that.Agaln, within the batten on board fence-typeenclosure. Then, you'11 see, as indicated onthe rendering here, as heavy...a very heavyplanting. Hey, and for once, werre not
trrushing for the biggest and tallest sprucesyou can get us to buy because we don't needthem here. IVe want 1ow ones. We don't wantto put in ones to block our rvindows on thesecond floor, So, the...as you'll see thelandscaping attempt was to get 1ow, dense&h, &h, foliage that wi1 1 scr:eer some of theservice activities that go on.
Alright. The suggested use and, ah, theinterplay of different form of bay windorvsand, ah, windows of different types, I thinkis prett5' self-evident here" Sometirites wekid ourselves about having prc-sented you wltha catalogue of all the differerrt types thatwere suggested_ in here at one place or anotherin this . C)ur ef f ort was to trreak it upand keep a highly articulated facade at, ah, ah,pedestrian sca1e.
Doors. Werve rrsed a variety of door-types.Our doorrvay, , .ou-r new cloorlvay tcr the i:estauranta.h, we envision a, ah, a heavy, solidrestaurantie-l-ooliing door. The shops, werregoing to, ah,'srrggest transpar-ent doors.I donrt rvant to talh airout the sirop debail;I'm going to address that subject aeparatelyin a minute.
Trim. Here ri'e go agaiir.the same as the existing You know, trim is
Ah, decks and patios. Ah, rather importantpart of the, &h, guidelines and, ah, there isone and our new part, as I touched on ezrrlier,is really nothing more 1.han putting backthe o1d to its or:iginal conf iguration. \ire'vegot the exist i np;, highly succdssf ul cl:i n j.ng
deck across the front. That's all there's
room for on the bui1dl.ng, and all tve've doneis, ah, finish it off again in the samematerials and so forth so that it will once
agai.n term-Lnatc jus-;t past the entranr:e. Ah,again, as l.() it's o::ientiltion and alI thlttit is in existence. It's one of the trvomost snccessf u1 itr Ton,n, I dorr't thi.nl< tny-tlting more bt? saicl aboul; j.'b.
Balconics. \Tr:'r.c got a lot of balconi.c:; onhere. lVe ltavo, u.lt , . . l,ltcr:e nrc existingbalconics on tlre l:uild j rrgl along thc fr'ont here
We wero f aced u''i.l.h a ciroice of cloj ng wlrtt wedid on al. I of t.ltcs,re o1,lr<:r'eleniont.s:rncl ".i:ry"i!el 1, u, (-. ' .l I {.:ilir 1.116' e.\isi; i ns :idi orn rn<l
croul.'itttrt: .i 1:. " II{,)I'c w(' t.hr-lulTLt1, t;}ur1, rvlu,; uo{,
al)pt'ol)r'i.ilt.o , lr.ttci wt) r:onr;i:i ort:;.1 y v:rri <:rl l t'ortt
j- i: (lit il.r'n (l ir:i.::rrr:o. 'l'lri r; Lrlr I {..oit\r, thirr orrr-.
iitlil. l,]r ir; Lrrrr,r irrirl lr.l l. orr l.lrt: iil iti:rc {i t.r'cr'1,
'l
oo
Design Revj,ew Boarcl
Red Lion Inn Remoclel
March 18, 1981
Page Eleven
ROUFF:
or
slde exj.st now. They're rather large ones,and they are, again, a batten-on-board type.They look good withln their context and titeold sacled fron'1 . We havenrt touched thatbut when we got around to the new par.L andwe went through the exercise to see what itwould look 11ke if we continued those around,well with the number we've got and different
P|""g and shapes and this, ah, ah, arhythmieal ,highly articulated facade, they look kind offunny. They rvere heavy and some of the wordagein the book reall"y te11s why they gormonotonlous. So, we thought ok. Iyerre into .
a different function around here. Commercial-and resj.dentia.l as opposed to primarilyfood service function here, other things arechanging in scale as we get farther aroundthe corner, so rve went to some of the, ah,other balcony et>irsiderations. I don't knowwhat you call this thing that's sarved out of averticle two-b1's or three-bys and put on.It's drawn rath,.rr accurately i-Lere, ancl j.t isone of the suggel;1,ions. We tljcd and plat,etiwith all of theni, and, in our opinion, r,.,e likedthis one bost oit the building. lfe haven'tdone that with all of them. Here's a 1itt1etiny one. T dori,t knorv, maybe it's a fakebalcony. You crLir hardly step on it. We hadto get a windorv j.n here in a narrow space thatmet building codc requirements for aceess andso forth, so we took it down to the floor.
We didn't want a balcony there so we t)ut alitt1e, ah, wrought. iron railing bit thatprojects out about it. It sort of looksbalconyish but, ah, you cpen tllose door.s, you
can. . . rvel1 , f. gu *.:.'-s s yort can staild there. It ' sonly about 18'' deep. It's not intended asas a balcony func:tion. Itrs primarily adecorative element, So we and that
became our sou'bh and east balcony theme. There'rso many around tire building that we'vereally thought this one needed some variety inthe baleonrz treatment. It's variation on
Number' 1 in the l-Jook.
Accent elements. $e rellIv haven't gone
into very many accent e1ements .except n 1ittlepl.ayful Lleatmcnl. arouud the door to thcnightclub , to crrrphasize i.t 's nightcluLr i shnessor non-retail/eoirrrnerci&1. character, to helppeople find j.t artd not tt'*nder lnLo a 1'&r'nshop or somethir:!1 next door bjr mistalie. :\girin,
becausc rvc f c:e1 i,ha I under. thr.' headi nlT u(..cc t
c.l.ements, there ai'c .$o nrauy f i.ne oncs lrnrl
dominatei ones , ).:1.1;e the , ah , Lh , the nrrrlu I
ou the ft'ont, thr. r't-,.d stt.ippec! arvning antlthese thinlls on I,his fac.ade wl'rlc.h rve n'irnLto renain -ltl.wa-l::l , 1;ltc rlontinate Jli:Lcade ns i-1;
has aln'ays bcetn, rie avoi<led them except for.those l c\r, )'ol,t'vt: :';cten s() f at: ir.s being o11Ihjs br"ri.l.cling lcrl t]r]:r..o1rr:iate.
Landscll)il clentel t.s , Ah, pav j.ng ancl so .f c.i'th.Llrrrlcr Llrc hc,:lrcl i.uq. , , ()r" 1,hc 1;i:r-rirLrrrr:nt ofItnrd sur f uc'.(.rs unt1r.:r' .l.lrucls;capitri';, u.gai.n, is
trtrctiy ti,ilil djcri.:r t.ctd lrOi.r:. 'I'i:.tj:,lr_l sh()lrr.l <:ornc:
':::)r ' '' -
oo
right to the street front and the pavementgoes up to them. It's kind of like, ah, wedj.d over aL the first VVI thing. Co rightdown to the street as it is esiablisneO"afongBridge Street, especially on every partelcept along the pJ*aza Lodge where there is atie rail. The pavement comes up to thebuilding. The plan is to take an area inclose to the building and do it in a paver.That paver has not been selected. It rvi11 bethe one that the Town is shortly going to....have you made a selection of a bown slandard?When that was our ag;reement from thebeginning and Jeff \{inston and you guys tveregoing to pick a. couple you vyere going- to useand this was golng to be one of the iirstones to put them in, and we're getting aivfulinterested because we want to builcl a ,,mini_
Parkt'. _a f erv weeks. we ive- gotto get some TT-TEey are setecteA.
Yea. We'1I get it to you
You know I have to answer to you when yousay r'lflrat are we using?', and I sily "f bon'tknowt'. because that's one rvhere tire a.greementwas the Tor.vn will te11 irs werre going'-to usethe first of th e Town standards. The extentof it is shorvn on the plan to a ljne (tj-;;will use unless there ls a chaEpe that couldbe- brought about should the Torvn, before thisJo!_i!_finlshed, ah, decide to impliment theguideline suggestions for improrrements fronlthe Sibert Circle alea. dorvn across lr,lill Creek,rvhich is a whole nother matter, not ot'r" "o,r".a"n,not part of this project other than the Tovrnasked us and rve.a1I agreed that "Hey, if thesecould be done together, swe1I . r' It;'s slipped intime due to the Town budget cuts occaslone<t bylorv snow and everything, so the originalschedule thnt the Torvn had hoped to do i L onis not i.n 1imbo. The other pirt of lanclscaping,if , you wil1, is the €ireen g::owy part. ife'vegnly So! one place wjth diit to plant anything.It is along lfilt Creek on the east si.te anct..l
J9u,'rre alrearly coverecl that harren't vou, Bill?With respect to the 1ow shrubs and ...
fes, ,I gave the ob.jectives and horv tve rvct.c: cloingit and what*but .to neet 1.he requit'enlcnts unclertl:e zoni-ng orclinance f or submission . thi s i s;the landscape plan bv our latrdscape nr.clt j.tcctsin more deta il than shorvn on oul" pfcs(:ntnt iondrar,vi.ngs anci mode1.. Ah, here i.s yor_rr. pl.:utt:material and coun'l- l.nrl ah, 1;ha.t, s str-a.i ght ()ut.
Is that rvall<u;ay bacl< there the existing ruaLllvay?
It's configrrration is, Cra.:i.g, Lrrrt ib sholvs... j.t
has a paver, t:n. i.t nol. Ah, our. inl.crlt ir; t<,rre1'rJ.ace tht-. cxi,st in,l lllrVcl ancl oxl,encl tlrc '
brti 1<li n11,
IlttI i-t's l. lr<, r-riini.r clr,rv:ll.cd pii-ri. i nl o.f 1. htr
lv;LLlttray t. lr:r I r:.,i1.srl,r.; '?
l' t I.j
lo
Design Rcview Board
Red Lion Inn Remodel
March 18, 1981
Page Twelve
ROUFF:
Peter Patten
ROUFF:
DR-B MEI{BER (Tilkerneier, )
ROUFF:
DnR MEItBlilt SNOI{DON:
ItOUIF:
DNI} TINT{BIIII SNOIYDON;
lir_){lrF:
I oa
ah, rather tight back here. The property
line is the edge of the existjng pavement.
We're reusing this entry so you knorv werretight. 1,[e can't do anythlng there excepttake this area which really just has grass
on it and hardly anything else and do a reallandscaplng Job all the rvay down to here,
where we could, where we had some wal-l space
above rvithout windows or things, YeVwe'veintroduced things that can grow high but mostof it is designed to femain under approxlmatelyan eight or nine foot height so lt doesn't get
above window si11s at all. someday.
Roger:, did the Planning Commission, ah,dissuss and resolve concerns about delivery or
access to the new retail soace?
Yes.
Yes, rather throughly.
And they acceptcd what's proposed?
Yes.
Yea, under this new organj:zat:ron I hadn'trealized j.t had co4e"_el!.ilg--who ever_ laid the
book out af-d-iT-nfiTTt. One column is theirs
and the other is yorrrs for things in CCI and
CC2.
I believe that's the end of the formal list,is it not? No, I'm sorry. Thj.s is sti1l
under landscape heading. Paving rve have
touehed on. Retaining wa11s,we have none. No
need f,or any, Ah, lighting and sj.gnage. l{e
have lndicated, ah, a couple of decoratj-veah, outdoor street lamps in tire elevations here,
along tlre Hanson Raneh Road side. \{e thinkthe height is sort of scaled to what we feel is
.appropriate in the space contained. It's an
adaptation of the ol.d l{ellls back gas 1amp.
The Tov,'n has
establish a
That is right
Il|rould this be
tlrat?
been revieling, trying togeneral lighting pattern, Peter?
something that would tie into
Yes. We; have shol,n tlris as the location that
we woulcl suggest- zr.ncl woul.d 1:ui. here if the
'l'nwnrq rlr rrorrr ovor;rlI Iir"lrtinp SChc.,nle is.r alrrr ! t'l\
not settlcd by 1.1:e time rve havc to pnt therm
in , Wh:rt u,e rvrrnt to rlo ancl i n1,cnd to drr
is to rrsr:. ah, the light,ing fixtures atrcl st>
forth ,thll; ar:c eivcutuit1ly -* you knr:w \!o rl'ejrrst a 1 it l. l.e altcacl ltt:r'c. as rve are on l-lie
developncut of tirel pavi rr11 treatrnent agrt;i rI , attd
again, rrn f ot'trrnirt.ol.y, thc ]')ro{dress on t;h i'r;
is de.l ayccl l.ry 1.hc buciJ1ol. cirbsjs;9, I'd Ijlic to say
bhal, 1. lr is i s rvlur {t wo irl'c pr:o1;r.r:;j ug i I I.lttr
'l'o\'; 11 c.:lnt {: ciLtt'.lr ttir ivi 1-ll urj. I clon't l.it j.ttk t.htrt.
t"J Design Review Board
Red Lion Inn Remodel
March 18, 1981
Page Thirteen
ROUFF:
DRB TIEIIBER TILKEMEIER:
ROUFF:
DRF MEIIBER (Snoivdon )
DRB IIEIIBER TILKE},{EIER :
ROUFF:
IiOUI'F:
l)lilt vnllBlil1 ( Snorrclon )
!l{}t,}.b.:
li
#
flh
%."f
ao
Design Review Board
Red Lion fnn llcmodel
March 18, 1981
Page fourteen
ROUFF;
DRB MEMBER (Snowdon?)
SELBY:
BOUFF:
to
rvill happen, and what we want to do, and theTown's designers would like it , i-s go backand treat the lighting scheme all the wayaround Rridge Street and down Hanson Ranch
Road so that that may very well change.
Ok. The last item is signage? Would that besomething that eaeh shop owner would comein with individual applications and...
I think it's best if that be addressed at alater time.
Yea, again I woulcl J-ike to reserve signagefor this thing I rvant to talk...I want to .ba1k
about the treatment of shop fronts. Signageand everything is a separate, ah, matter.
So to run out the prescribed uraterial hereah, servioe. We have touched on it alreadyand, ah, while the details are not alikethe only possibil:i.ty we have is'
.because service rrrrist remailt a.Ic,n[-TE6-6Estside whe:re it is now. That j.s the presentrestaurant service and trash collection areafor the entire building. We are, as I saidearlier and it shows in the plans and model,extending the area -* the present one is notlarge enough to keep everything inside. Wecan come out here far enough to make it, rvhatcertainly ought to be, big enough. After that,if it -* it will hold it. If it ends up outsicleit's a manager of people problem we can'thandle but it is the high stout fence-typefollowed by an indoor cover flrooil that can be
used as receivjng ancl also s;tacking of boxes anihowever they want but whatever they do in there,it.wi1l be indoors.
Access is to remain as it iras always been alongthis paved walk from the street. So, ittsreally a no change situation except a largerenclosure around the area from unsightly parts
and the screening by landscaping. That is the
end of the Iist.
Now, this matter of everything about the shopfronts. -Our intent is to treat' these in the
same way as Vaj-1 Associates used lvhen they
did the One Vail Place Buildi.ng, if you
remember. All their shop spzree ou the f j.r'st
floor was reserved for the teuants to design
their own wlthin controls that rve'11 t-all< about.
They bui.lt it. Thcy put up blank rvirl. 1s, .just$ dryrvall on 24" studs, tc.mpoLarv rval1 anclpaitrted ouf like 1.ire' r:est. As the5, were leirsed
and the tenan'bs gloL lcucly t;o go in, theywent in :rnd r:ut tl:crrr orrt and built tltcntsc.rlvestheir clwn shops. 1i separ:olc firogram rvasi
estabLjslred and thr,: feascs that rvcrc si[Incdwil:h thcsr: people 1,ied it up so that tht--r'o s'as
no quL-strir-rn irbout horv it wns clone. Tirc-:]' lrndthe brolrrl choice ol rrsi.ng 'l'orn lla.s:rd<1 ilsthcir tlrr:; i ;1ur-'1. rrrrrl I'ol lou.,i.n1'; l.-sl;liiiTa-tj() jj('t: oI
l jttlo rlrr itlelini:s t-hr. l- hc r{c:r; j.11n<-.cl us
trppr0llt'.i :r t.rl f o'r t.]r():;c,l . 'l'ltr')n, [.lt<-'5r lr:rtl ll.l I thc
frc:crlrinr 1.o wr.-.r'h'i,iiir hinr rvilhin i1., \{c l,hi.nl<
d"\TJ
oo
that by and large the results are fairly
good, and rvhat we are intending to do is
repeat that process, whether or not we
use Tom Hasada
oeslgner or nor
as the designatedI,personally as arehitect
on that one, if we're going to do it, would
rather have Jeff Selby select another
designer for those. Um, I'm not sure I'm
capable -- I get in ruts like I think all of
us do sometimes and I'm in an idiom and do it --we'd like to say rrOk, these designated shop
fronts are areas where we want as much
variety as possible." I like the idea of
someone else coming in and doing it. \tlte will
have to prebcribe the, ah, limits. We have
had to show suggested shop fronts, and rve've
thought up different kinds liere. Otherwise, it'
hard for us to explain the building and give
the impression of what it's going to look like
to you and to eve::ybody else rvho has to look at
it including Jeff and the neighbors but rve v'oul<
like. . .we lvould 1il<e to suggest, if you can
handle i-t, that in your approval you exclude
the actual drop fronts in the areas as
designated here wher:e shoir -- I dontt want
you to disapprovc, I want you to somehow...
I don't think we can do that...
I 'd l ike to me.ke a suggestion, Bi.l1 .
we eould...
Ivlaybe what
i f thprr r".hmri in and rvant
what you present. . .
Want to handle each one as a
I thinl<. . .
to change it from
change?
lley...hey
I think...
I think J'ou, you've got to telI us how itrs
best to haudle.
I thi.nk. . .
If you're comfortable rvith that approach
which i.s tbat you lihe i.1. the wa]t it's presentet
here but j.f rve want to devjate from that througl
a program which l,ve woul.cl coordinli;e overa11,
using 1:erhaps tlre methorl whi.ch Bj.1.1 has said,
and I can Le1l yort now we wonrt get doln to
rvhere it rvj.11. . . j.t rvj 11 be atrvthing ottrel'
tha.n a coc;rdittatcci efforI because Irm sute
we'l. I choose thc tenants r.rirr'1y on and thtlyr I1
rvorl< 1:hrough this const::uetion process but i.t
rvl1.l lte. . .
Anrl undol l-hat 1:r'occ s s
1.n lo 1,,e11 wi tlt ]t.Lri owrr
Iti $h1: .
r: irclt shop olvner comets
f or a.pprovirl, .
IO
Design Revlew Board
Red Lion Inn Rcmodcl
March 18, 1981
Page Fifteen
ROUFF:
DRB I'{BIUBER SN0hIDON
SELBY:
DRB iIE[fl]ER SNOI\'IION
ROUFF I
SBLBY:
ROUFF:
DI1B IIET1BER SNOIVDON
ROUFF:
DIIB }IETIBER SNOI{DON
SELBY:
tlOUFF:
SIILBY:
*
oo
Basically, I think we have to reviewthe building as it's propos.a t"re a.,.t'lYes, thatts wi.thin o.r'" g"ounas-of ,natfind acceptable and j.f t[e ;h;; Jrnu"*to keep it that way, fine. ff lney wantcome in with a modi.fication of what
sir y
wattf
Ltl
looking, then they ...
That'Il work
Then they come in ag a change.
I dontt think anybody objects to
reasonable
I think thatt s f ine. I think Bill, s jusl. .!i,trying to make, sure,rthat every""e urOutls l.rr,,r,that people -- when people conre n""il-i"'-,,i,,r t.,request a modificaiion to the front und ot ,,t'
f.acade for thelr,store and signae;-"p;i";,, f ,the reason behind that is th;; -;; thinkthat, that...yoU know,. entering into tha1, relement of theit own characterfsiic &Dd i:lr/., ,o*l _sh-oq design has a signifi-oant benef i I rand I thi.nk that that's wiat *";r"
I think that,s the
that pror','-"
method.No,
ok.
general don'{- know if we wan.t to get intoreaction or if Bill has more
I noticed there are comments from the floo/.
One. f mean therers a gentlemen here.
Ah, ok. I wantecl to ta.lh aboutto tel1 you --- rve haven't Aonesomething we hope to accomplisli.We're going to lrave to work. weowners, with you so...
this sepall I
it yet, l l
We havetr ' r
and the slrr,;/
,b
.IIOUFF:
SELBY:
ROUFF:
sl.tt,tlY:
tltit] ill;IIllEn
SL'LI]Y:
rtotr!.F:
TJIiLBY:
I dontt thj.nk anybocly has a problenr with l,f,r
Alr:ight , gJoocl . Srvel1 , then your.1l approv(.what you see and everythi"g'.-j,r"t handlr:tla change?
Right
That leaves us rvith al1 the frecclom we ne_'r:rl
Thatts rvhal. \\'e ...
lVith the unclerstarrrii rrg th:Lt changcs rvj, 11 lrr.presented.
Any changos to the exterior...
Oh yes. \!'r:l1, they rnust. bc
Yos, and l.hr-.5r rvi,11 be. 1,lrtt rvilI bo trtrtr.t.,
ao
Design Review Board
Red Lion Inn Remoclel
March 18, 1981
Page Sixteen
DRB I,IEMBER SNOWDON
ROUTF:
DRB IIEMBER SNOWDON
SELBY:
DRB MEIIBEE SNOWDON
DRB I\{E}IBER PIERCE:
DRB iTEMBER SNOi{DON
DRB I{EI\{BER SNOIVDON
SELBY:
ROUFF:
DRR IIEIIBER SNOIVDON:
(Tilkemeier.. )
/-\
oo
But I nean just so this---so that there isin the record thc fact that thi.s is a ... aprototype, if you rvi1I, and that we shouLdexpect ir:dividual shop owners.
That's eorrect. That's horv we'd like youto look at it and approve it or consider ittoday
That's the end of my formal presentation.
Ok. I think...I'm sure there are probablycomrnents:fromthe Board but I think we couldalso field any comment from the public, if therrare any comments to be made, before wereact to everybodyts input, I guess. I[emight as rvel1 get the public out of the wavbefore we react
Is this a prelj.minery app.roval?
No. I4Ie have. . . everything is here. YJe meetthe requi.rements for final , although theseare not worl<ing drawings.
I just rvanted . . .
Working drawings are going to take theshadows off of her:e. That's all.
Right
Mr, Chairman, I'!t lr,fax Gar'::e.Lt, rep::esentingJoanne llill of the Plaza Loelge, is it nowthat you'd like to hear from, ah, her?
Yes, if there is any comment from peopleon the floor, which there are a few people like .by all nieans go ahead and ah...f donlt itrint<theyrll corunent so...
I'or a moment I thought there lvas someonebehlnd me.
Not quite like last night
In the begi.nning, let me ask if I might bepermitted to ask tlris Board if it is.in it'sopinion, st j.11 bound the pur:pose ancl objectivesas set for:bh in tho Orclinance 18540]0?
I thinl< rve ' d have to I cion ' t l<now i. f rl,r:wor.rld r:cn1Iy ]qn9i,,: y.:irx 5 thirl_ Oldinance j.s. , .
. . .Torvn Attor:ney a:rrl
Wel1. . .
I thinl< t:hc situat.i on we htl'e in regard to thcatr, l,o tlrc l)esi g;n lidvicw llolrlcl , ah, j, r,- ltlareit wlrcle lhtt Va.i,1 \r j 1.1.:r!te llr:bitn D<:..^.i gn
Considcllr.t.iorrs a.r: r-- rnautllt.ctl l.ly orcli.rrlrllcr). . ,
Ci;tn yorr I.ti.l.li r:rrt:lt{.. nli l(r},
b], 11,r,,,,t,'.
Lri.;"r'y? ,lur,;1. s i t. ttp
:i 11:
'
;.ll.i rr.'i-l' ,
',i
_1 .\i;i\ I'l'lt
to
Design Review Roard
Bed Lion Inn Remodel
March 18, 1981
Page Seventeen
DRB MEMI]DR TILIffMEIER:
SELBY:
ROUFF:
SNOITIDON I
DRB ilIEIIBER BOYD:
ROTIFF:
DRB MBIIBER BOYD:
ROUFF:
DNB hIEMBER BOYD:
llAX GARRETT:
DRB }IBIIIBIR SNOI{DON
}IAX GARRETT:
.SELBY:
}I,lX GARRETT:
. .:r Ui ttiil:ii TI l,tiIilLtIIlt:
i l_lt.ti- lt.\ il.]-N
#
lo
Design Ileview Board
Red Lion Inn Remodel
March 18, 1981
Page Eighteen
DRB MEMBER (Tilkemeier?)
MAX GARRETT:
DBB MEMBER
II{AX GARRETT:
LABBY ESKWITH
MAX GARRETT:
LARRY ESKII'ITH:
Ii{AX GARRETT:
LARRY ESIilVITH:
IIIAX GARRETT:
LARRY ESI{IIIITH:
Ordinance 18 being the general guidelinesfor the Design Review Boaril process.
Ah, the ...
Yes.
Ah, the Ordinance 18 is entit ledDesign Revievr and 1854010 is, ah, entitled
"purpose", and I'11 say 1854 is DesignReview and purpose is 010, and it just
slmply statcs that the objectives of theDesign Review Board shal1 be as follows, andit uses the word "shall" which is a mandatoryword as referred to ln the Code, and B pr:ovi.desto ensure that the location a.nd conflgurationof structures are visually harmoniouswith their sites and with surroundlng sitesand structures and do not unnecessarily blockscenic views from existing buildlngs ortend to dominate tlre tolvnsc?.pe or the naturallandscape. Now my inquiry, sir', is, ah, inthe light of the, of the original remarks thatwe are here today to consider. only thoseelements I isted in the Vail Village DesignConsiderations entitled Arehitectural LanclscapeConsideratj-ons, on Page Trvo f
If I may...
On Page Two i, I want to be...
Exeuse me...
Let me finislr and then I'11...
Sorry.
On Page Trvo i, I want to not offend theBoard by trying to discuss rvith you somethingI may have already been forbidden to discuss,'which is this oldinance whi.cir I just read apart of. I'm through, sir.
T[ank you. It's my fee1ing.th4t, ah, asfar as tlte design guidelines are concerneci
we are dealing rvith the specific designguidelincs which are set forth in this
Urban Design, ah, ah, Consideration Pircliaplc herebut I also think that the Board can consi der'
and possibl.y shor.rlcl consid<;r thc prr::pos;cl
clause of the Ordinance ancl L'ralance it a1;gi.trstthe design considerations ns rvell. You't'r)not l<lok j,ng aL any one sireci-f j.c thl ng irr
doing your .job as a l)csign Revierv llorrd. l\'hat
you al'c deri ng is a t.tcnrpl-i nJ; 1;o baLance thr.r
varj.ous, uln, um, purposc, urir, clauses and 1-lte
vari ous clcsign gr.r'i clel. incs 1.hat are set Iof tihin the orclinnlce itucl in 1;hj,s Vail V^i 1lagtr
Urban Der;ign l:)lltt, tud I , and f sec no ;rr"oltlernwith fliv j n!:.. sonr(:r ct:trsiclorut j-on to a.l 1 thr',sirthiugs, ltnri t. ltr-'tt on Llallrucc rr:rl.,i.ng your <ic.r:i siott
as to u,lrc1. lrcl th i sr plrrl: i crr I :,i.'r pro.i <:c.t rlor:s i.n
to
Design Review Board
Red Lion lnn Remodel
March 18, 1981
Page Nineteen
LABBY ESKWITH:
MAX GARRETT:
DRB MEIr{BER SNOWDON:
LARRY ESKWITH:
DBB },JDMBER SNOI'fDON:
LARBY ESKIfITH:
MAX GARRETT:
DRB IIEI,IBER
MAX GARRETT:
DRB T{EMBER
IIAX GARRETT:
Ol
fact meet overall with the deslgn guide.lines
and the purposes which have been set forth.
I take it, I{r. Chairman, that I then can
discuss Mrs. Hi11rs or rather PLaza Lodge's
vierv out of the owner's apartment., where Mrs.
Joanne Hill resides, as it's being affectedby the proposed structure?
If the property does apply, f'm sure it's been
dlscussed under the various differentlevels and...
It has been... it has been discussed...
and can be discussed at this Roard leve1
Sure, I thinh you can consider it, Craig.
Fine, Fine, th:lnk you. I ju.s1; didnrt want
to of f end anyone. Ah, D4V I a"sl< Mr'. Bill
Rouff at thir; time to bring forward the
photograph that's made from the ...the
living room o-f , ah, the owner's quarters in
the Plaza Lodg'e? Thank you.say it
very much.
Gentlemen, this is the photograph thatrs been
taken from a window in the living rood area of
the Plaza Lod-ge of the ownerrs apartment, audj-t demonstrates the vierv of the Gore Range
that that apartment affords, that the viewer
vihen they Locii out. . .
Is that the culy view they have?
No,they ha.ve this view from, ah.. two other
windows, Ife l1, a s1iding Coor window and
then also from another windol in this same
apartment. Nor,v the third floor has views
of the Gore Range but this is the owngr's
apartment and al.so all of the other second
floor viervs alre gone already except for this
one.
apar'l-ment also Part of the
there is a third floor...
there js a thild floor that j-s a guest quarters
but it hits no palt of her .., it is not anypart tlf h<+r, z1ir, living quarters. Now, rvith
that j.n mind and yor-rl pllrtr)ose in mind that rva:;
cnaci.cld when tht) ToNn, ah, olganizecl yottr
eonrnriLtee , I rvottld then ask , ah , hlr. Ilottf t
to coutc fonvai'd, if he rvould a.t this t; inttl , and
let 's denrons;tr.at'e-:, i.f you tvill sir, hotil the. . .
I{elp nre rvith l.}ris. . . which way does tlt js
nciw , now rvait , 1t)ave i 1. tha l" ivay . That is il
v j r:rv tirkcn .f rorn thc-' cotrtt:r lv -i ndorv. l)() you
wirn t. rrit: l;o bt: tcctrni.cit I ? 'Ihc:rc j s ;r sl j.cl j ng
glass; dc>or', n ir,itrdow ltttcl a r?.i.ttclow. L L is 1:ltc
een [,trt' J'r:ncst rr-t, i on otr [,hc ci.t.l; {, f acrclr: o I ltcr'
f s thcl owner's
third floor?
ROTIPF:
oo
@
Dnr'tlgn Review Roard
Rod Lion Inn Remodel
[lttr<;h 18, 1981
Itttgrl flysily
ITOUFF:
}I{X GARRETT:
IIOUf'F:
SID
ROUFF:
SID:
IIAX GARRBTT
t:tour.r:
\!.\X GARNETT
ttCItrr,F:
1!i'\X 6;\ttiititT
itor!!-F:
:.i,:\x cARnt.t,l,,1'
apartment. The area containing her
combination living room/dining room. This is
takbn from a window that is at approxima"tc
center of that areiL, looking across the street
toward the east, showing the existing Red Lion,
over the roofs. the Gore Ilange. Now, as I
explained earlier in my presentatjon,the
rational behind, ah, roof configuration and
why it is, I[e'1Jflipan overlay on this which
will show you how the roof configuration, a
double plate that you see, infringes upon !hi-s
vierv. The overl.ay is purposely laid in heavily
wj-th color and temper and so forth because
a,h, we just dicln't want to put ourselves in
the position of having anybody come along and
say "Oh , rve fudged and mj-nimized it . I' So, we
went overboard. It's much stliongel' actually
then it is in reality. We've gone the other
rvay but the outline is accurate.
So, I thinl< that, 2h, it is clear to the
Board -- you can see that the -- what is tlrat,
a sort of an avacado color on toP?
What did it saY on that tube, Sid?
I was indlcating that -- indicating that
color there with this color to match sort of
the green color of the siding thatrs there now,
and that' s just indicated. . .
'Ihose are marker pen approximations of the
colors that a::e ther:e. It is a warm, greyish
color gravcl r:oof that tve inteud to maintain.
Tirat color is fairfy c1ose. The green is a
1ittl.e lighter and less weathered than the
real one and it is rvhite stucco.
But it's matching exlsting?
Yes, right.
We1l, I just simp15' rvanted the Board to have
no questions of rvirat the roof l.itre rvould be'.
Cutting off the view would be this line that
I'm indicating that runs into.'. .
Yea.
...runs into the chimney
eitlrel side.
chimney on
On thc-' morle l that is the f il:st rldge here.
dirc'ctly under mv Iinger in the Plaza
IixiE6-ilcr-c atrcl the vierv -- you know if yotl were
lrcre
Now, Mr. R<>uff , bave w€l not, over a periocl-of
time, ntacl<; a genuine'ef fort -- you have and
a1so, ah, tr'h's. IIil1 and myself -- in an
attcnrpt to i:r5r to al .l-eviirte the extent oI tlrat
allsorptit:n nttd impael,i.on of her view?
Ycs s ir , rvc havcr .
Anrl , rrlt, ltllvtr tre u()lil(] 1ll) rui t; it rl<;ttto ol"ltcr
ir'l l cr.nlrl.cli l.{) r iiit, t lrirt-r t.lt:t.1. ivltii 1 y()u $ce h()rct
lo
",\ Design Rcview Boardir-/ Red Lion Inn Ilemodcl
March 18, 1981
Page Twenty-One
MAX GARBETT:
ROUTF:
LARRY ESKWITH:
DRB MEMBER (Snowdon. )
LARRY ESKIVITH:
DnB MBMBER (Snowdon )
MAX GARRETT:
LARRY ESKIf ITH:
DRB MEIIBER (Snowdon
MAX GARRETT:
LANRY ESIflVITII:
We...
Just to...I don't know if we should getinto other alternate p1ans, Mr. Garrett, becausthat is not what has
o o
which is what you areof here by the Design
seehing approval
Review Board, today?
is being
at once
ivhat they arethi.s plan and tl:at's the onereact to.
We are looking at one plan whichpresented, . .
I don't want plans I
lVe11 , Mr. Chairman, I assure you that I don'twant to do an!,thing that I shouldn't do infront of you bui I rvould 1j.1<e to ask, wouldit not be the purpose of the Roard to. j.n
the light of its 1B54OI0B, encourage ttrepreparation of plans tha.t wou1d impact a viewsuch as the one as seen here in this picturebetonging to Pl aza Lodge dLn the ownerrsapartment, the least?
Um. ..
I think that was discussed as part. . . as partof the presentation that they did investigateother roofs -- other roof fci:nrs-; and theycame up with.this a"s being the least, ah,having the least impact.
That's exactly why I wanted to bring itout, Mr. Chairman, because that's not correct,and I thought possibly that you folks mayhave that attitude or not attiLude but opinionbecause tbere are several othel proposals thathave been rnade to us by the applicant thatrvould impact the...the vierv considerably lessthan what you see here today, and it's myjudgement as an officer of plaza Lodge and alsoa practicing attorney that this language of
:l 8540108 places the burden on the a.pplieantto bring in the least impacting plan,and thatit is your obligation and responsibility tosee that that rvould be rvhat rvould be presentedto you and that you would consider, Consequentlthat's tt'hI, I rvoqld submit to v6u at tiris timethat tve should go into those other plans thatlrave becn presenterl to pJ-,aza l.,ocige.
If I nriry r:espond to ttraL legally becllr.rse fthinl< to a ccrtaj_n extent 1t is a lefial.question. I thj_nk tvlrat you are here fortoday j.s to tal<e l-he pla.ns which hav<l Lrcenpresctrt.ed lo !'ou An d , rrur , rrt i,1. j.ze thc Ur.banDesign Guidclincs thaL you hlve befor.c vtrir,
inaudible...not otherproposing isthat we will
o o
-,'*"\\-t l)r;si gn Itevj.ew Board
Itcd Lion fnr.r Remodel
Mrrch 18, 1981
l)rge Trventy-Two
LAIIRY ESKIVIT}I:
DRB TII}IBBR TILKEMEIER:
DRB IIEIIBER SNOI{DON:
MAX GARRJITT:
DRB IIEI\IBER SNolyDoN:
}tAX GARRITT:
SELBY:
,, lunoldon) :
I tm concerned,
because
utilize the purpose scction as wel1, um,make sure that this p1.an either does or doesnot in the _upon balancing a1I thevarious guideTiln66 and purpos. 61nrru"s, whetherit does or does not meeb those clauses. Idon't think we shoulcl be in a position todaywhere we are revlewing other plans or otherideas that might be available. T think, ah,the appJ icant has laid a design before you. '
I think your job is to act upon the design
in the same manner, Larry
NE1V TAPB
g:.:*n
taP
t,
approval pljor to our revieiv, an sitthe.Plannirrg Commission also so I'm veryfamj"liar viith a11 of the gyrations that wentinto this and, ah, with the alternatives thatwere preseilted to the p1annlng Cornmission andtlris is tirc- plan the Planning Con-rmissionaccepted as the most practical ancl the leastimpactive i-n order to accomplish the goa.ls ofthe Urban De:r:ign F1an.
Ok, so your, youl. objection is basicall5zyour client is olrjecting that roof plain atthat view? Is that your one and onlyobj ect ion?
That plus the fact that I would ask thisreview.,.Design Review Board to assume theresponsibi.l .i ::)/ that has been east upon itby the Ton'ir':-; oldinance'to see that she isimpacted the 1east.
You knowI don't think it says the Ieast. /I don,tthink the l east has anythi.ng to do with it.r...
'ltte11 , that is that slre is not unnecessarilyimpacted, then 1et's put it in terms of the...
It11 Just rn;rlie a quick commen't,that is tlrat flreCommission should understand tha"t we hal'eworked in the past il'ith lr{r. Gairett and hisclient and will continue to work rviththeffi.6e-?uTure ancl if there's anything thatevolves out oI any of those di-scussions
-- --*-*--Mr. Rouf fobviously corue baCl< witli any changes, an-r'i;IiTnethat rvas other than what \\'as presented toci:rybut all we carl presient is rvhart I s bcfor-L- ]-outod:r5' a"t thi.s t ine . It{r. Gtrrett 's rcferc.nc6sto possible other desigus are scirc'nlcticor conceptun.l cha.nges thlrt 1\'c are looking atthat rve a.re uot at this time prepaled topresent thosc-r to you for' 5,our apploval because
we have not
Ilut rvr.'r re i n iro positJ on t.o revierv Lhem,
e:ithcr'.
Ok, I thjnl',...
ITc.l. 1 , ilm I. . . oxc:uso rne, p;o lllretcl
I
rS
,]i
!.
rL
to
Design lleview Board
Red Lion Inn Remodcl
March 18, 1981
Page TwentY-Three
DNB MEMBEN (SNOWDON )
I{AX GARRETT:
DRB MEII|BER ( Snowdon
trtAX GARRETT I
DRB MEI\iBEB (Snoldon
PATTAN (?)
SELBY:
DRB IIEIIBBR
SELBY:
NTiB trtEI,IBRR
nnti .1.1[),1]lnR prIRCE
:$L,l"tlY :
Lil:!l-I:-s-li\rU]l!)
SIiLDY:
Dlill tlI:,lll]lili PIT,lllCl,l :
)
oo
We1-1, I was just going to say is that, ah,
if that's the comment from the public, we
were going to then go into ollr reaction to
the project.
Wel1. mav I ask am I then prevented from
showlng- to the Board any of the alternatives
that the applicant has presented to, 4h,
the objecting PartY?
That's not applicable.at this point' no.
In other words, I'm not able to do that?
Right because, again, all we can...a11 we
have ttre ability to react on is what has
been approved by the Boards before us, not
necessarily what the process they went through
or what ... especially if they were not
presented in a Previous meeting.
I'11 add to that and say that the applicant
ha.s submitted these plans for Design Revierv
Board under those submittal deadlines and
submittal requirements and has not changed
the application, ah, and jndeed they have
presented thj.s plan for rcview, and any
major change, ah, in the application would
haire to be republishecl and rcviewed again
on a clifferent basis under all the Design
Review Boald Guide.'.excuse me, all the
Urban Design Guideplan' and so I woul'd just
reiteriate that. Um, Design Review Board real1
can only review this proposal that's in front
of us
Is it, is it the Commission or is the Board's
desire to wait until sornething like that is
finalized instead of going through all the
possibilities that ekist and prefer to consider
ivhat's here? Is that loutLe real preference?
Is tllat your...
Itm sorry. . .
preference to cousider just wlrat
for approval . . .and not all the. . .
..a11 we can look at is what Yorr're
are
I
.:
.i
!
?t
i
:.:
'i:{
:.
i
t
ti
,;
.;
:j
Is it your
rietve askcd
A11 rve can ,
...what you
What you srrbmitted is wtrat we retriew. Thatrs'
ItIhat has beren subrni.tted
If any an5'lhi.ng chan;4cs 'back for aucrl;her recluest
That's right.
in the past? If rve
then we lvonld come
Is ttrat ltow you woulcl prefer to handle it?
Yes.
oo
Yes. We review this as this application'
lii'*"airication to itrwe r:eview as another
application.
So vour preference is ' ' ' is the final ' the
;;r;;-a';;;;;;-ttrat have been submitted to
iiiil-u'i,;;-;; ii'" on"" that vou want to
consider?
Today
Thatrs right.
Those are the cnly ones we san consider
todaY.
ok.
Alright, now may I move to one other point and
I'm tlrrougn, " i *ty be.permitted? Under
decks and patios, I woul-d submit to the' ah'
;;;.5;sign Revierv Board that the' ah'
iiii"ir""-pi""ii"'t-irt"t the south end of the
building' and t'iiio"eht r hacl it in mv hand" '
Which one are You looking for?
, The guideline Plan' 11' Number 11'
Do You have the guideplan?
Yes, excuse me-' That' ah'.here it is right
here. Under tnt: Uifto Design-Guideland" ''iiiJ.pru", ah, Number 11 ' applicable to
subarea concept Gore Creek Drive/Bridge'
Street providee flrat ttre soubh end of the
["lioitb, a potentlal second, leve1 open
balcony, deck cl""*""ptt1:"t.:h?*}d be placed
there to restol:e activity to the street
lost from ground floor terrace ' li1 :11:' tt
;;;;c'"""-tfi" Hill street/Gore 'Range
vrew
corridor must nl-respectbcl'T9.r ask that yotl
as a Design Review BbardT consider that portion
of the Urban o""i*^-C"iclepfan in cousidering
these submittetl-pi"n" wnittr cio not respect
that vierv .ottitri" and do not.possess the
natio or d-ec,k o*-t*t<;ttecl ];o. in the Urban
il3lii""Luiil-prl"'^ -ata with that sir' unless
anyone tr*" unv*q;*";;!'"9 "l -T3: those are all
the poj-nts tnat'i wish to submit except that
*v""iitl"t-is- orriectllg "":iferouslv atrout
the porc:rt"r'*t i^poc'ting and takjng of the
vast'nrajoritY of her v-iew'
Thank )'ou '
And I cll1 it hor view; she nwns all of the
stocli of Pl.aza l'octge' Tn" '.' so - ah ' it 's
opcrltecl o" u'tiioStitr"t but^it is a 1oo%
owncd "ottr.rtatit", anO lr'lrs' Joanne Hill owns
t:J
it.
Thaul< You
l.orv i tr tI me
Thunli Yott
verv mttch
to p rcscnt
'for Your courtsev and a1-
nrvself .
I
oo
Ue'sign Review Board
neA [,ion Inn Rcmoelcl
March 18, 1981
Page TwentY-Four
DRB MBIIIBER (Snowdon?)
SELBY:
DRB MBMBER (Snowdon?)
SELBY:
DRB MEMBER (Snowdon?)
SELBY:
MAX GARRETT:
LARRY ESKWITI{:
hTAX GARRETT:
}IAX GARRETT:
Dlitl trlE\lllER ( Suorvdott
IIAX GARRI|TI':
DRR lt{El$llliii (Snosclotr )
r.,,]r^r.:.;i:;:-n--.: i.i .
or
Design Review Roa.rcl
Red Lion Inn Remoclel
Narch 18, l98I
Page TwentY*l'ive
DRB MEMBER (Snowdon')
DRB MBMBER PIERCE:
DRB I'IEI,IBER (Snorvdon )
oo
Ok, is there any further discussion fromthe floor prior to proceeding with ourdiscussion? Comments from the Board?
I have one comrnent and I think that, um,I think that it's the Board's role at thispoint to determine whether or not this
design unneeessarily impaets the view from
Mrs.: IIi1l's apartment. Now T think the
second thing is, of course, is to reviewthe design as presented, and I'd like to
address both of those points of my, um, oWnpoint of view. I find that any buildingthat's built in the city, downtown atea, 1sgoing to effect some vi.ews. The Plaza Lodgeinterfers with my view of the mountain inthis direction and that direction depending
on what size it is. I{thich size the buildingis and how far away from it I am and whereI am when I'm looking at the view. I findthat this proposal does not unnecessarily
impose restrictj-ons on the rrj-ew from UIrs.Hill's apartment,and I also find that thedesign is eompatible with, um, the VailVillage Design Considera"tions and have noobjectj.ons with j.t at this time
I think I would tend to agree with you atleast on the vierv question slmply becauseit does not obliterate the vietv; there i-ssti-1l" view remal-ning, and she has not totallylost it. I think if. ah. if she was tototally lose the view to the east, then I thinkit rvould be, ah, the ha.rdship tha-t, um, shouldtake more consideration but the faet thatbasi.cally with the least looking atthe photograph presentation, ah, basical.lywhat slle's 1o..;5ng is aview of chimney stacks
belorv and the very base of the Gore Range.
Shers not losing. the view of the actual
Gore Range itself, and, ah, so based on thatI thinl< rve do have to consider private vlewsitherers no qucstion about that, but, ah, Ithink if rve sai.d nobody was going to blockanybody's vie\'/, theye wouldn't be change inthis Town, and I don't think t-he Torvn couldsurvive without having some ki'nd of changeoccur. Um,so I think we do, you know, to
resp(-'ct aird resl:ect to the individual owners totalce their, urn, their vielvs into consirlerationbut I think we also have to look at the overall
impact of what' is potent j.al1y-rvhat's in Lherights of tlra.t property olvner, that they can
do rvith their l)roilerty; what they are doingI thjnl< is a very minor impact on, ah, onthat prop()rty corirpared to rvhzrt they coul.d do
and lvhat. is within the jr: lega1. rights on thatpropo)'t,Jr. At lcast that's my unde'rstandingis that tltcy l:rve the potential to go up
35 ' to the pl'ollerty 1ine, um, increase their
squ[r]'e f ootage srrrbsl.aut ia.l.1y more but t.hcy
have cho:ien rlot 1.o, So, I think rvitlt thtt
1 €'st. l';.t i n{. in nri lrcl , um, irncl th<; Jliret Llta t they
clid noi. o1r1.i t,ora.l.e tho view, I think thc viclv
ques t. i<rrr I'r'om rn5' rilri nioti , iri , ah , bt-' j trp;
&nsrvr:r'ctl trv {.hr: (l1rs ign <.r'f tlrl btr i. 1rti rt11 . i tlt j n
*.-F
to
Design Revic.w Board
Red Lion Inn Remodel
March 18, 1981
Page 'Iwenty-Six
DRB MDI\{BER (Snowdon?)
ROUFF:
DRB IIEIIBER (Snoivdon .)
ROUFF:
OO
looking at the building as a whole,I thinkthat if ttre Planning Commj.ssion has respondedto the questions of delivery and access to theshops, that would be my only questionis make sure that thatrs being maintained andwe aren't addi.ng congestion to that end ofthe strect. I think architecturally, um, itsresponded very well to the, ah, guidelinesestablished, um, and I have no objections.I thlnk I would, ah, well we're bisically onmaterials. Itrs a matching situation, sothat we don't need to have nraterialsin front of us to review. I think i-t's aquestion of, of the consistency in materials.Um, I would like -- f have one thing rve didnrtgo over was, \ryas basically, at least f clon'tthink we went over in any great depth, wasjust the site work and how, how it mightbe related directly to the street as you goaround the bu11ding. , f know you were changing,you're tea"ri.ng dorvn the stone fence that'sthere and replacing,; .some wa11s, ah, on theba.sically, tire west side and as it goes aroundto the east Maybe I just didn't catcheverything but I donrt know if that was goneover in any depth. How i;b was going to goaround, Lie in and go around Sej_bert Circleor is that l<ind of left open until the Townrealizes what they want to do?
Letrs go back to the site p1an. Now on thesite p1a"n, eontrary to public sta,uemenr
made last night, this does not show SeibertCircle moved , it shorvs Seibert Circle wirereit is and thj s is taken in alnost a photo_graphic blowup fron the page in the, ah,Vail plan for this part, that indicates thatthe Town is thinking about a move here. iyetried to respond to the probability that theTown rvi11 eventually redo Seibert Circle.Ah, therefore, we have through the deviceof, ah, solid line for one and a dotted linefor the oLher both clearly ldentified on thedravringJ as snch, indjcated Lhe existingand thc' proposed area of a possible revision.lVhat we tried to respond to rvas *-- heck, wedonrt know rvhich we're going to live with.There's a probability we're going to live forshort t j.rne with the existing one then it rvi1lget morzed over here. So, we iried to evolvea p1an...
But that is something rve'dsee as a separate item.
Sor rve trj.etl to evolve a pl€tn that would workwith i1. as is but our pri.rnary effort was towork it rv j th the probtble ltew one becauseat that tirne it was a strong -- f bhink itrssti.l 1 a sl rong probabi1ity. At thnt time wedidnrt knolv bherc \\'il. s a slol suow yeirr: andthat i.t's: p.rotrlrbly 11oing to be deferred fora yeat'. 'flrrr.t's all. 'l,he schcme .i.s |o c<_rn1;ain1.he plvclr; bchi.nd t.he nt:rv t.lrj.ng, tvhatcver i.t mtty'LuIn otr1. tto llc lvttcn l_lrc T,owp geLs a.rguncl to ior i s nb 1o to conrpl r't<: 1. lrc ctei;i11n of i.L's
a . ''l lo
Seibert Circle on itts property, so that wewould be compatlble with it either way. Ah,
!V waV of j-nformation, ah, the thought behind
1l.i" necessary, I thi.nk, to understand whythis configuration, and not any one of clozensof others, ah, one of the things that theguidelines addresses in movj.rrg it over ischannelization of pedestrian traffic acrosshere so that vehicular has more turning spaee.As it is now there are times when some-Oiitybird violates the law and park by.a no parkingsign, and rve have cars and trucks parked hereand lrere. both sides blocked,and i-trs dangerous.and emergency vehicles can not get tfrrough, ifone had ever needed to at that time. trvhen it'stltis rvide and when this is moved over, two
_things happen: elimination of thab possible,but should it happen, very serious condj_tionregarding vehj"cles; and a channelization ofpedestrians on this side, closer to the shoofronts, as it is farther down Bridge Street.
But as, as far as rvhat's existing. This isexisting bricl< and this is the existinEstai.rcase ?
Yes. Tlre nerv starts he::e where we would thenbuild another clreap rvalL to nratch that oneand this is tlre higher: 1rart.
. . .and then tl"re brick wou1d. . .
. . .th j.s is the bigher part, a_ncl this isthe tc-rui nat ion of the deek, a1:itr:oximatelywhere i t u'as bcfore the 1g?4 addition of wherethe salon rvent onto th<: buitding.
And thrtn the cxisting rvl11 that is runningwould bo tlrlien out and this would be tiedinto the road .. -
Yea, it 's ,shorr.rr, It's an overlay here. It rsa light I inr:. 1'he prt_.scnt profiie. IVe,llTeuse t hr' <:xi.st i ng bnsenrent in that shape sothat tlrc njfitrtclrrb clt.op clorvnstairs will besti11 i11 u l.ounrl cor.ncrr,,cl room. The pari ofthe n('u' ltt.ti ldin;y tlt:rt, e.\tencls out beyoncl thatrvil l bir :; l:ti-r grr flraclc].
Ok, I .itt:rt. \\'it::,^ll rt sul.c rihat lrappened asi.nt.r.r irr: lrr.'l rvc<.n l ho chrrr1Ic ln tiri rvall.s andtlr-tt ilril t'id ol t hr: r-rxi:,;t i ng g.aIls.
'l'hc- iix:r.'t -- t lt.,r.e ,s ti ct rl .inrcrnsioll or locationof t,his I irrc lrr.,'iluse .tlritl: iS, ah...
Ticct i n rvi t_h wlt:r t t'r,er thc Town . , .
Rj ilht. 'l'be 'l'orrrr, l.he lloln's plan has to(lclrtts:; t htrt.
Ol<, t.ltit t. tvas: y;1r,' rlnl.f 6flrgr question .
a..\
,.!Design Revicw Board
Red Lion Inn Remodeil
March 18, 1981
Page Twenty-Seven
ROUF}:
DBB MEMBER (Snowdon )
ROUFF:
DRB I{EMBER
ROUFF:
(Snowdon )
DRB MEMBER (Snowdon', )
ROUFF:
DIIII }li.}lllliR ( Snorvdon? )
lloL l'1.:
DRB !ftjllItUn (Snorvclon.?)
ROI,'FF:
DnB IIUIJBER (Snorvdou .)
Design Review Board
Red Lion Inn Remodel
March 18, 1981
Page TwentY-Eight
ROUFF:
DRB MEMBER (Snowdon')
DRB MEMBER TILKEMEIER:
DBB MEMBER (Snowdon )
DRB MEMBER TILKEMEIER:
ROUFF:
DRB MEMBNR TILKEMEIER:
oo
So it. . . for now floats to meet the Town's
design when it evolves.
Roger, Vou have anY comments?
Ah...
You've seen this several times.
Yes, tbis is the fourth time I've heard the
presentation and seen the drawings, and my
reaction today is, ah, is exactly the same
as it was the first time. I think the owners
of this property and the architect, ah, had
a monumental task in front of them, ah,
because of the location of the building and
1ts prominence rvith respect to, ah, those of
us who have been in Vail a long time and I've
been here siuce 1962. Ah, there were certain
things tlrat rvere developed in the Urban Design
Plan that j,dentified the fact that Bridge
Street was good and rvhen you turned the
corner tlrirrgs didn't happen the same .tay
they did on Bridge Street, and that the
interest level died at that corner and at
Seibert Circle, and there was no reason for
people to, to be attracted along Hanson
Ranch Road...
That's exactly ri.glrt. , Roger '
Um, except for those that had to go that way
to get to theii accommodations. So the
ehalge thlt ri'as made to the architect, and
practically as a request or at least as a
result of the development of these design
considelations and there were a 1ot of us
that rvot'l<ccl on those design consideratlons
and spcnt ri'eeks, ah, trying to come up with a
guide 1i tre t hat rvould help ascomplish the
goals tlrlrt. rve rvanted to accornplish' This p1an,
in the tintl analysis, has taken that property
ancl come rts close ns I thj-nk anybody could
humanll' come to addressiug all of the issues
in the Ulbirn Design P1an, rvhich,included
nalro\r'i nll 1-he street and nraking it into more
of a lirril:in scale, and in that process we
dicl inf linl:'c s;li.ght1y ulrott the vierv. Now this
\ri <-.rr <:<.)r'!'i.rior u'as identilicd as a minor view
cr:rrirlor rrot as a ma.jor vi.erv corridor, rvhich
&llorv('d t hose of us thrlt. 11:rve the priviledge
of si 11i n{ rrn t}rc Plantiirttl Commission and
Dts t11rt licv ierv Borrrcl Lo 1tt:t'lraps pay less
:rt.t tllt i()il, lo tltc v itlrvs tlrlrn if it hltl bt:<'tt :l
nr;.r.i i.r r' \'ir'\\' c()t'l-i clot' bt.tL I think evcr'!' l)cr$on
rrrd cr.cr';i lro*rd thiit f .ist.cued to this Pj&ve
drrc r:onri i rlr:t'at i on to tlic rri.ews that werc- belng
!6 [1i111.trrl rtlrrltt, rlnil in tlre f j.nal aualysis
I ttrirrli I lrtrt th i s p1att, that still prov j.dcrt e
sl.,cct.acu'l rrt' \'ic\i' o{ tttc I}i gtrorn f rom Mrs.
lli 11 ' s ir;lrrl Ltnent , tnsrvt,,rs 111. th6-ducst i on's
in thc bcst. i:ossil:lt-'wnt,. I donrt thj.ul< tha't
there r s l1 lre Ltc.t' >-o l.ttL i on to the problt:nt.
o
@
do you hnrre ttry r.:omnrcnts?
It iIVc rr: l i lrouclccl .
DnB l'llll\,lRllll ( finorvcl<r n'/ )
li i "lt?St,,rr,. ,
Oo
Design Review lloerrd
Red Lion Inn Renoclel
March 18, 1981
Page Twenty-Nine
DRB MEMBER (Snowdon?)
DRB MEMBER PIERCE:
LARRY ESK1VITH:
DRB MEMBER TILKEIIEIER :
LARRY ESK}YITH:
DRB MEMBEP TILKEI{EIER :
DRB MEMBtrR PIERCE:
PETER PAT'I'EN
DRB MEMBER PIERCE:
PETIR PATTEN
PETER JAMAR
DRB MEMBER PIERCE:
slsorf t)oN
lr:1!,i \lt:!!tli::li I)1 F:lit,Ii :
-'ir '{ .- r :
I)lilj ]llr.lillIln ( Snorrtlon )
'6 .tt,,to
We11, if therers no further discussion.
I move that
Exeuse me, before a motion is made I'd liketo state something. I think that if you'regoing to move in favor of the design, it isnecessary to make findings: No. 1 that youfind that it complies with the purpose sectionof the Ordinance, which is Section IB.b4.01O:and that it complies wlth the Urban DesignGuidelines. If you are going to disapprovethe project, I think that it's importantthat you move to find that it does not eomplywith the purpose section and does not comply'with the Urban Design P1an.
Ok, what, what is the, again, the sectionof the Zoning Ordinance?
Section of the Ordinance 18.54-.01O.
.010, ok.
Ok, I move that the, ilh, final approvalbe granted for the Red Lion fnn Addition inthe fact that it does comply with, um,Section 18. . .Ordinance No. 18.b4.010,Section 8...
Section 18.
Section 18.54:010, um, the purpose portlonof the Ordin:rnce and it also meets with the, um,Vail Village Design Considerations, datedJune 1.1, 1{)BO.
We have onc addition,,,
...one other. condition, um, BilI Andrews, theassistant enginerer has not approved the sitepLan and still bas sonte problems..,
. . , that the engineer-i ltg, ah, department ofthe Tori'n of Vui I grant approval- for, um, portionof this subrnit-t{.1 that
Basica111, i t (lonls rvith roof ?drainage
Prlor to bu i I d i ttg pcrmit .
Roof cllni n*p1t'',
cons i (l('l':11 I()nribt' ttl.r \. i iiu:. I lt.r l
UeCeri:;it t'i l1' 1;rt1
Our trrt't:lrltrictrl
ll:c clt tt ' L r;rtlrur i t
() r' \rllatcver. \Yhatever
t lrrrl. thoy l'ut vo , I thi nl< slroul cl1.hl1.'t't: ir rdcl j t. jon an(l notto rlo n'i t.h us but. . ,
<lrru'i llfTs areu't f inished yet.
t ll()m ,
scc-ol't(l?
t '," .*
1 . . {v,: ,.4\,.u" ,
Ol( . 1s t lrc r.c ;r
t& .i'.7 }
:
q Design Review Board
J Red Lion Inn Remodel
March 18, 1981
Page Thirty
pRB MF4BEB TILKEMEIER: I,Il second the motion.
DnB MEMBER (Snowdon?) Ok, there has been a motion as noted, ahfor'the final approval of Red Lion fnn
Remodel. The motion was made by BillPierce; second by Roger Tilkemeler. Anyfurther discussion? Ufi, all those in favor?(ayes from the board). Opposed? None.
lr lo
Thank you very much.
I'd Like to make one pertinent eomment would
20?
IYell, has 1.8.4090 b'een amended? or,..
' Excuse me, f'11 leave it to Larry at this
, f ttn not aware...
amended about 6 months ago.-
Can I get the.
SELBY:
PATTAN
SETBY:
MAX GAREETT:
PATTEN
:
IEABRY ESKWITH:
IIIAX GARRETT:
LARBY ESKWITH:
be that the decision of the Design Review
Board can be appealed to the Town Council
. if it's in writing to the ...
I,ARBY ESKIIITH:
PATTAN (?) ...to the Town Manager.
.A DRB MEMBER PIERCE: 20 days, I think it is...ry 6to18
I believe you'd bettercheck that
DRB MEIIBER (Snorvdon ) Ok. the next item on the agenda... .
'-'f!!ry"!4!t*.+i-----
lit'.\$L,flPl'
PEC 2/s181 - 'l
VAIu PLA,{"11,'ld & E,'lVIrl0,,lilt,lTAL CJt{'4lSSI0,'l 2-9-Bl
o
CHAIRI4AN:The next item on the agenda is a request for an exterior a'lteration
and modifjcation in Cormercial Core I for the Red Lion Building, to
construct three additional dwelling units and shops at 304 East Bridge
Street. Applicant: Jeff Se1by. Staff Corments.
Mr. Chairman and members of the Planning Conrnission: This is a request
under the new procedure that was just adopted by the Planning Cormission
last spring for a new addition to the Red Lion. I think the Planning
Comission has had extensive presentation at the joint meeting between the
Planning Comnission and the Council on the proposal. Proposed is approximately
2,980 square feet of new cosrnercia'l space which wou'ld be around by Seibert
Circle and would actually, we feel would be a better connection in
Seibert Circ1e for people to go up there and shop and just browse and
just make the area much more guieter space, pleasant space. A1 so requested
is three second f'loor dwelling un'its that vlou'ld contain approximately
3,580 square feet. The proposa'l for residential space is substantia'l]y
under the a'l'lowed Gross Residential. Floor Area for the building. I
think the applicant has been very responsive to concerns of dea'l ing with
the site, of coming up with a structure, a new addition to the structure
that is very compatible wjth what is proposed under the VaiI Vil'lage
Urban Design Guide Plan. Also that the applicant, in the Staff's view
has responded to the dea'ling with the minor view corridor which is
ln the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan. In a minor view corridor
there can be some modification to this view corridor. I think we've all
seen the presentation on the modification that wou'l d take place at the
view corridor. I think we've a]so'looked at what some of the
implications are if the bui'lding is modified in other ways, where other
private views to be blocked substantially if the applicant continued to
go with the Gross Residential Floor Area that is requested. The Staff
has looked at the Urban Design considerations that the P'lanning Comnission
needs to review as far as Pedestrianization. I think it's an imprcvement
to Pedestrianization in the Mi'll Creek Area, coming into the Seibert Circle
Area. It's a better connection to the Mi1l Creek building. I think with
the moval, moving of Seibert Circle to the, to the North which is proposed
under the Urban Design Guide Plan, Seibert Circ1e will actually have more
sun during certain times of the year and become even a more viable place
with some redesign of that taking place. The vehic'le penetration, potential1y
there could be less vehicles there because the, there is presently a two
car garage.where people cff|e and park at the garage and they also do tend
to park in back of the gara!€r so that, at times there cou'ld be four vehicles
RYAH:
PEC 219181 - 2
coming into the core at all tjmes. Realizing that they have a' almost an
appointed parking place in the Village. Under the proposal, the, there
would be a loading and unloading zone by M'i1l Creek' so that the peop'le
who wou'ld be us'ing the condomjnium unjts would be ab'le to use that area
to load and unload thejr vehicles. And then they would be required'
un1 ess they had some space that we don't know about, each time to go
to the parking structure or if they had a renta'l car, they may return the
rental car because they may not need it ti1 'l the end of the week or
untj'l they go back to Denver or wherever they're going. The' on the
east side would a'lso be the abi'l ity to have a loading area so that the
trucks who wou'l d be servjcing this building, would be able to use that
as a loading area for'loading and un'loading goods for this building.
The streetscape framework, I thjnk I've already talked about thc fact
that we feel that the adding of the corunercial shops to that end of the
street would provide the opportunity for people to actually come up there
and walk through Seibert Circle, instead of iust, I think' what many do
is get up and look down at, look down the street and dec'iderwel 1 nothing
worth go'ing down further to Mjl1 Creek, and I thjnk it will be an improved
cpportunity, p1 us from the design I thjnk a very beautiful entry into the
shops. The street edge and street enclosure: The applicant has denonstrated
that the street enclosure of at'least 1-1 /2 to 1 as expressed in the Vail
Village Urban Design Gujde Plan is met by this, and that there is some
street enclosure by the proposal, but I think you should look at the model
here today, there's still a very comfortab'le fee'l 'i ng as you would wa1 k
down the street.
The building height, the proposal does meet the Urban Design Guide Plan
for building height that's expressed as a formula. Actually the whole
building, I be1 ieve is under the thirty feet, which is one of the main
criterias,so that it doesn't even have to have the percentage of thirty
to forty feet where a certain percentage could be actually h'igher.
The view corridor, I think I've a'l ready talked about. There is some
intrusion into the view coridor taking p1 ace from Hill Street. The
Staff does feel that's an acceptable change to the view corridor.
The sun/shade aspect: There is no impact actually' because the sun is
coming from south and it is actually not blocking the, of shading part
of the street or another bui'lding.
As far as the zoning code is concerned, the major aspect here would be that the
app'licant would be required to pay the parking fee that's been estab'l ished
jn Vail Vil'lage for the new addition of the residential space and for the
PEC 2/el8't - 3
GERRY:
RUOFF:
GERRY:
PETER:
and would be respons'ible for paying for the remova'l of parking spaces that
are in the present garage.
The' under the Architectura'l and Landscape controls that are in the Design
considerations of the Urban Design Guide plan, I think the applicant, as
far as the architectural desigry has responded to what the essence of what
is being proposed in the Design Considerations, that actua'lly have a building
fit the character of vail vi'l'lage, and actually fit the building that is
currently there. The design, we feel blends in with and is very
comp]imentary to the existing Red Lion bui]ding. The reconnendation of the
staff is for approva] of the request subject to three conditions,lthut th"
applicant agrees to participate and not remonstrate against the special
improvement district if one is formed for vai] village;2 That the applicant
agrees to upgrade the landscap'i ng along Mi'l I creek and present the p'l an
to the community Development Department for approva] ; and 3 the applicant
agrees to participate financially in street improvements, for example
street paving, street lighting, and relocating the focal pojnt of seibert
Circle if the improvement district is not fonned, then the app'l icant
would share simi'l ar amount, that if we were ab] e to get an agreement of
all property owners in the surrounding area to agree on something'l ike a
special assessment to improve seibert circ]e and that I'm sure the Town
would also be participating in whatever improvements would be there, so,
it wou'ld be the recornnendation of the conrnunity. Development Department
is for approval of this request.
Are there conments from the appl'icant?
Dick, you might want to read this. Do you want me to do it?
Bill why don't you wait and we'll read into the record that we have
received one letter. Go ahead.
Yea, we received a letter, I think al'l , wel'l the Planning Cormissioners
may not have rece'ived it, dated February 3, l98l addressed to p'l anning
and Environmenta'l conmission. Dear Mr. cha'irman and commission Members;
"llith regret I am unab'le to attend your published meeting on February 9,
1981, as I must be in Chicago that day. I wish to present to the
Cormission by way of a l5 minute walking site visit, opposition by
Mrs. Court'l and Hill and myself, Jack Curtin, to the request to modify the
exterior of the Red Lion Build'ing in Conmercial Core I. I respectfully
request that you a'l low a continuance of your hearing until I may present
collective'ly orindividually to you, my opposition material . your schedule,
I understand is very full, but because of the importance of your decision
I hope you wil'l feel compelled to hear the property owners who are defjnitely
PEC ug/a-' - 4 oo
February .|0, on, for my presentation. Thank you for your consideration
of my request. Very truly yours, Jack J, Curtin, cop'ies to Rodney Slifer,
' Richard Kaplan, myself and Mrs. Joan Hill (Plaza Lodge owner).
GERRY: 0K.
RUOFF: Thank you, I am Bill Ruoff, Architect for the applicant for the project.
Before I go into my speal of presentation, I'd'l jke to say Dick just
stole my thunder. You said a'll the things I'm prepared to say. I can
repeat them al'l and elaborate on any, or I might ask for some direction
from you, the Planning Cormission. Do you want to hear me say it a'l 'l
aga'in, point to the pictures at the same time, or move on to particulars,
because Dick gave a rather comprehensive point-by-po'int.
DAN: Has the presentation changed any at all, or any substantial'ly from what you
gave us at our joint meeting. |rJe're still looking at the same building, aren't
RUOFF: Noth'ing substantive. At that time, when you saw thjs model , four weeks ago,
there weren't any windows sn this bui'lding, there weren't any people in the
streets, but the Red Lion Building itself has not been touched.
I can't remember, maybe you could, did we have a picture painted on the wa1 'l ?
DAN: No I don't remember either, I didn't notice.
DAN: The presentation isn't any different, or what I'm getting at, if there's
something really different that we djdn't discuss last time that's naybe
what we ought to go over.
RUOFF: No there is not. [.Je have come prepared today to show you again the
same presentatjon that you saw at the joint meeting at the Ath'letic C'lub
our weeks ago.
R0GER: I think that everybody on the Town, on our Cormission heard that and unless
' there are people in the audience that are here particularly for this issue
and would'l ike to hear it aga'in, I don't think it's necessary.
PETER: Sid just brought up a point, and that is maybe the presentation shou'ld be
made with, in 'light of that, if an appeal is fi'led they have to make the
same presentation.
Proceed.
RUOFF: Peter does it have to be word for word? I didn't bring my tape recdrder.
PETER: It just mostly to iust go over again the various exhibits, and then later on
we'll have it for the Council if we need it.
GERRY: I think that's sufficient.
RU0FF: The, yes the graphic materials, p'i ctures of the model are identica'| . l,le
have added nothing to what was there. If you'd like in the interest of
saving time, we can identify them for the record.
PETER: Uhm, that might be a good idea.RU0FF: It took a'lmst 40 minltes.
Maybe we ought to get to just discuss the things that were guestioned
PEC 2/9/81 - 5
?
ESKI.IITH:
SIBLEY:
?
SIBLEY:
GERRY:
RUOFF:
GERRY:
ROGER:
?
RUOFF;
GERRY:
ROGER:
JIM:
RUOFF:
last time.
Can't we just enter some stuff.
You know, I mean if he want to protect the record I think you should add
to what you feel you should need to protect it, but I think most of the
findings have beem made by the cormission and that the, it,s been found
to comp'ly with the relcvent ordinances. I don't know if you would have
to go through the entire presentation again.
I just want to make sure that the exhibits as might be used at the time
that were in front of the council are, in fact, the councils. As this
letter indicates of mine, I wou'ld just assume at least make reference to
those specific exhibits that you have up and the other drawings that we
have. So that,
Certa i nly.
I think it would be good
I would just make one coment and that is that I think that the questions
that were raised and discussed at that joint meeting should be raised and
discussed again. Right now. For the record.
The substantial points, running down the Iist from the guidelines, Dick
has already done. I can repeat that or we can, I then I agree I w.i't 1 go
through' talk briefly about the drawings, we wil] look at the photo overlays
that we had, whjch display the vjew corridors and how they are affected.
I guess what I'm saying, do you feel that it is necessary for me to repeat
substantial'ly what Dick just went through.
No I don't. I th'ink it is .important
I think if you endorse what he said.
All right if you can support
I do, and then, because,
I think it's important to bring out, right, once again the questions that
were raised by the conrnissioners at that time, and we can start with whoever
wou]d I i ke to start.
I think it was view corridors primarily that were the things I was concerned
about' and the relationship of your drawings to the urban Design plan
and that's already been covered.
Oidn't you have some photographs at one pointl
Yes' I will. Let me run through the drawings quickly first and then we'll
run through the photographs. This is the base plan. This p'lan includes
al'l of upper Bridge Street and crosses M'ill creek and takes in l4ill creek
court and the christiania, a]l the surrounding buildings. The Red Lion
superimposed upon the blue p'lan of the new building is here for reference
rrv 1l tl6l
to show. The Red Line is the exitring wa11 of the Red Lion as you see it in
this photograph. It does not come out to property ljne at present though.
The proposed addition does. These are the three elevations drawings which
show in considerable detai1 the proposed changes, and they answer rather
specifically the points in the Guide Lines for Architectura'l detail,
articulation and a, pedestrian sca'le on the street. The top drawing on
this side and the one be'low it, i]]ustrate the difference between the
street enc'losure ratio as it exists today with fh. 'lo*, with the roof of
the Red Lion coming down very1ow to only about 7 or 8, only about 7 feet
really above the street. The existing patio in there is actually below
street level . The drawing irmediately below shows the same re1 ationsh'ip
as it wi'l'l exist after the addition is made. The ratio of w'idth to height,
is the average ratio of width to he'ight is almost exactly a l/4 to 'l
at present. Under the guide'lines., this is considered beyond the limits of
good, comfortable street enc'losure. Uhat we've been able to do is achieve
one of 112 to I, a'lmost exact'ly 1/2 to I which is considered opt'imum.
The next drawing be'low is really just an i'llustration of the height
restriction, pardon me the height statistics on the bui'lding. The red
line running up to this he'ight, shows the height that is a'l1owed under the
currently existing zoning and guidelines. It cou'ld be a three story
building as are all of the surrounding buildings, except one 2-story and
one 4-story. The average height of all surrounding buildings in the
neighborhood is three stories. We're proposing though, for a number of
reasons, the Red Ljon addition be kept down to two stories. This a'lso keeps
GRFA and other things way under the limit, about 4,000 square feet under
the ]imit on GRFA and the whole store height under on a hejght of build'ing.
The bottom drawing i'l'lustrates the principal pedestrian pathways up Bridge
Street, in and out Eridge Street, around Seibert Circ'le as they will exist
after the project is finished. They are not substantia'lly different
from what they are today, but we feel that the introduction of interesting
transparent shop fronts, from the Red Lion entrance on around the corner
into Hanson Ranch Road, toward Mil'l Creek Court building will draw the
pedestrians in a way they do not go. They come up, they follow this
path on by Baxters, the S'lope tourard the nountain, or hit the shops here
go over to Cyrano's, but there is nothing to draw them th'is way. lle think
we can close the Circle and contain this square, the whole plaza area.
Rdally, we think we are going to complete it. There are several other
drawings that we have here, which you saw at the other meeting. tle pick
them up and down and I think we should do so again today.
YLC Zl9l6t -
?
RUOFF:
For a very brief revjew. They are background information and we used
them to answer questions if you wi'l I remember on a heights and what if we
did something else instead of what we did.
Certa i nly '
0K. }Je have here, we spent no tirne, didn't even refer to them much
more than to say we had them the other time because they are not of
direct jnterest at thjs time. They are the floor pl ans of the three
f1oors as they will exist after the addition is made. The basement
which will contain the new night club and contajn the noise because there
won't be any windows that wi'l I open out be'low the neighbors. The shops
and the new condominiums as they will exist on the f'loor above. llel'l
let's just run through them all. This is a picture, I don't believe I
did show this the other time, because I don't think we even got into it.
l'le have this one up at Red Lion to show the outline of what the 3-story
building would like, would'look'l ike. This is an actua1 rendered elevation
of what it wou'ld]ook like. l,le think that it is a moot point at this stage,
cause we don't rea'l 1y want to go to that height. These are overlays of
the principa'l elevat'ion of ttre building. If you, there are severa'l series
of dotted'l ines. They're all a'l ittle from the one you see. But within
it we are able to show the principal alternative methods of putting the
roofs on this building. The reason that we chose the one that you see
in the model , and in the final drawings up here' is because we fee'l it
is the best compromise on the issue, we1 1 really only one issue is at
stake here and it is view plains, view corridors. l'Je feel that the
two low gables that we've shown there are better than any of these.
We bring these along, occasiona'l ]y someone asks what if you did this
instead of that, we can show on these exactly what would have happened
if we had done this instead of that and why we chose the one that you see
in the mode'l . These are sun angle and shadow diagrams which we only referred
to the last time because, again, as Dick said' they're really not germain
to our problem because we're fortunate enough to be on the north side
of the street. lle're not casting shadowi on anyone. These basically show
how the neighbor casts a little bit of shadow on us. And this is a
depjction of the actual view corridor as it exists through Hill Street.
There is a very slight difference between this one and the angles as they
are shown on the official Town Map in the Guidelines. l,le discovered when
we got out there with instruments and cameras and measurements and so forth
that the one on the Town P'lan is off by about maybe 1 degree. It's a very
minor thing. lJe plotted this one from informatioir which we have' which we
PEC 2/9181 -8
generated through the project, and is a litt]e more accurate, cause
we had more time to dig jnto it. And so, this is an extremely accurate
ca]culated proiection of the view corrjdor. The Vjew corridor: the
principal exhibits concerning the view corridor, of course' are the
pictorial ones. These blown-up photographs. That's it for now. Not
today, it was a few months ago' before we November
or December, the over'l ay done jn color to emphasis rather than diminish
it, the impact as jt will, the impact on the view corridor' As it wi] l
be viewed from what we consider is probably the most critical point'
in the entjre'l ength of Hil'l Street, which isn't very much, that critica1
point we feel is back here. It's actually standing in Jack Curtin's front
door - curtin & Hill, which is right there. The reason we picked thjs as
the most important because a'll of the people traversing l{al'l street
heading toward the mountain, or wherever' pass this way, they can look
over their shoulder and thjs'is what they will see as opposed to the
people wa] king through the street. 0n1y ha] f of them can see it, un'less
they have eyes on the back of their head. so we feel that this is the
most important one. Ne do have also, a smal]er scale' a series of photographs
show.ing how jt disappears as you walk forward up Hill street. They are
sma'l ler, we did not pin them up at the other presentation, we again iust
mentioned that they are here as part of the material from which these were
enlarged so you could see them across the room' The view of the snow-
capped peaks of the Gore remains. But we wj'l I cut off some of the
foreground and big brown hil'l-side above the h'ighway. It actually comes
down by the golf course. That part we feel that the visitor or most
people jt's the snow-capped peaks out there that are the most important part
of the view. so that is the degree to which we impinge upon the minor
view corridor in Hill Street.
l,le went a'l itt'le farther than was required strictly under the zoning
and other regulations in this Town and we djd the same kind of study on
the two adjoin.ing neighbors upon whom there is impact on views. And that
is the two on either side of Hil] Street. Here on the second floor at the
end of the Plaza Lodge is the apartment of l'lrs. Joanne Hill. Across the
street on the entire second and third floor of thjs bui'lding is the
residence of l.lrs Court'land Hil'l . }Je wil'l have an impact upon the view
from Joanne Hill's living room and we will have an impact on the view
from, I forget what christy uses this room for, the room at this corner
-That's Jack's apartment. Jack.Curt :in's apartment-
,0h wait a minute that's what it js. It'S been remode'l ed So much' Irve
PETER:
RUOFF:
?EC2/s/81 - e o
GERRY:
GAYNOR:
o
only been up there once since it's been done, just to'look at Jack's place.
Yea, this is, now the windows over here and the rest of her house are not
affected. 0K. This photograph was taken from just inside, maybe 20 inches
back of the glass of the b'ig sliding glass door which is the main viewing
point from Joanne Hi'l l's'l iving room, This is what she sees today.
The impact on her view, 'is rather similar to what jt is in Hill Street.
Her view now is cut off by the existing chimney of the Red Lion and
the top floors of the Christiania. She sees the peaks across here and
some of the va1 ley and brown hillside of the foreground, Our new roof
line will come across here, cut-off that bottom piece right in there
about like this. It wil1 still leave the view of the peaks. Now
'l et's 'look at the similar th'ing as seen from Christy Hil'l 's house.
Here is the view presently. Down onto the 1ow parts of the roof here.
The addition will come out this way. The piece of view that is cut-off
here, none of the peaks are impacted at all. Th'is end of the roof right
here will cut-off this piece of, aga'in the same sage brush hill side
that's above the b'ig cuts opposite the 9th and'l0th fairways on the golf
course wh'ich are, we al'l know are beside the Highway. In brief form that
is the presentation of the points that we reviewed at the joint
meeting three or four weeks ago. The material that we showed at that time.
0K.
Thank you Bill. I wou'ld like to just make one corment quick'ly, and the same
coment I made at that joint meeting, and that is I think that you have
a rather significant impact on the view corridor on Hill Street, and that
in terms of the streetscape, that by moving the, what would be the southwest
corner of your roof, which 'is western roof, back about 15 feet it would
be more inviting in terms of taking people around the corner, which is after
all what your design plan is hoping it wi'l'l achieve and would have 'less
of an impact in terms of a confin'ing streetscape, which I think is what
the impact wi'll be. It will be confining in terms of Bridge Street. It
wi1l extend Bridge Street up a litt'le bit further than I think it should be.
So that's my cornent, which is the same corment I made before. Does anybody
else have sorrc corments about anything?
I think I lfked it the way it's being proposed in the sense that I think
they have, on the south end have done enough design work both on the roof
and indentations and entrance ways and windows to not create a square
building on the end and I liked it the way it was proposed.
If you move back 15 feet, then you would go, you wou'l d have a 'less than
1/2 to I ratio which for some reason is the magic number in the Guideline.
SCOTT:
PEC 2/e/81 - 10
GERRY:I would just comment that that is a recorme
o
nded
view corridors are not necessarily determined by
That view corridor js identified as a secondary
number. Streetscape and
numbers, a1one.
view corridor in the,ROGER:
GERRY:
?
ROGER:
GERRY:
DAN:
GERRY:
DUANE:
GERRY:
J IM:
RUOFF:
GERRY:
is it not?
Yes
Minor view corridors
In our de'l iberations I think, in the development of the Guide PIan those
were not considered as primary factors to be concerned with, and I liked
the design the way you have it. I think its a very nice job in addressing
the problems and in trying to litigate all of the potential objections
and I think that, based on the a1lowed GRFA, I think they exhibit a lot
of restraint.
(CHANGE TAPE)
Dan do you have any comnents?
I like the presentatjon. I think jts a nice treatment of the site.
Duane
Really, I do agree with you. l.|e have obstructed to a certain degree
a minor view corridor. I feel in this particular case that the improvement
to the more intimate street sense of views and the arrangements of the
buildings outweigh the fact that we do have slight obstruction there.
I do'like the addition and am in favor of it.
Jiruny do you have any comments?
tllell I think the'impact that's been shown here is probably the best picture
you can get of it. I think as you go down the alley the impact of the
building is considerably more. I mean you on'ly move about l0 feet down
and you 'lose the peaks, don't you?
Jim, as you walk through now you begin to lose the view about here.
l,lith the new wing you wi'l'l begin to lose it about here. tJe1l say, yea
it diminishes until we reach this point or thjs area, then it's gone. As
it is now, it diminishes and you lose you about here.
My concern isn't with seeing the peaks in tota'l pey'se. My concern is with
the sense of space. That, that the whole concept of space, of course, is
what makes Bridge Street unique, and versar, and I think this goes just
a little bit further than it should in terms of enclosing the street. I
think that both things can be achieved. I like the building and I like
the fact that the building is bigger in that particular spot.
I ]ike that fact that the road is closed, but not that much.
As with most of these th'ings, Gerry we end up all compromjsing between
..
a lot of different aspects. There is some compromise in shape of bu'ildings
RUOFF:
rEv al>l o1 - rl
GERRY:
OLIVER:
DICK:
OLIVER:
DICK:
OLIVER:
oo
to maintain as much as possible the view. It's true, on the ratios in here,
we have followed the new recormended Guide1 ines rather c1ose1y. It wasn't
difficult because it did happen to work out the two story scheme here
gave it to us. l,le conscjously wanted to create rpre of a sense of enclosure
for the Seibert Circ'le area, and we feel now that with the roof sloping
down, the space isn't contained very well. But, this we have all discussed
before. There is no doubt it is a compromise amongst many elements.
Yea, Are there any corments from the audience, questions?
My name is Robert 0liver and I didn't introduce myse'l f before but I
represent I work for the Plaza Lodge and a'lso for the P'l aza building and
I'm representing Mrs. Hi11. She's concerned about the things your
talking about as far as the view corridor down Hill Street and, of
course. more primarily mostly because of the obstruction of the view
from her apartment. What's going to happen, these people who are
trying their best but she's still concerned about the lack of
view corridor that is going to come our of her casement windows and also
that sliding glass door. I, just one thing that I caught when you were
saying Dick,-and this is me, I can't understand why you can say that there
is a potential loss of traffic. You can'tchange onecondominium and turn
it into five and add five shop space and not expect the traffic flow
on Bridge Street. For someone who has a shop there or someone is giving
the condomjnium to Slifer to rent out every week, that traffic is
go'ing to much greater.
I think there is the potential for being less traffic in the sense that
right_ now I
But the odds are greater, I mean
there a lot, there's a lot of people who come there and park in those
spaces on a continuing basis of just pulling in and pulling out of using
the Core area. Why with the condominiums there is at least the potential
that you cone in, drop your clothes off, bags off one day, and you may
not need to come back to the to actua'lly the building until you actually
leave the site, instead of coming in there and driving in and say I want
to go lomep'l ace for, do some quick shopping and you probably are going
to walk down there and get on a shutt'le bus rather than walk back to the
Transportation Center if you left your car there., or turn the car in.
l{ell that might be true, but you can't add all the space and say the traffic
flows going to go down.
I guess my feeling is that it's notRYAN:going to increase dramat'ica'l ly from the
PEC 2/9/81 -12
OLI VER:
J IM:
DICK:
RUOFF:
JIM;
RUOFF:
from the, there's the potentia'l that jt could go down' Just from what
I see the use of those spaces that are in front of the garage now which
areconstantlybeingusedbyeverybodyjnTowntopul.|jnandparkbecause
they-now there's a parking space there'
Ithjnktheoddsareit'sgojngtogoupparticularlywjtha].|the
shops
Yea, you would have to expect that you're going to have more traffic
with npre peop'le having to bring stuff into shops etc" I think what
your say'ing is that there is space there that people are parking in
and for some reason because your going to have, your going to eat up
some of that space maybe you're going to have less park'ing' but the
actua]demandof,likethosefiveshopsandfivecondominiums
obvious'ly'i s going to have more demand then what you've got there now
in terms of
Ithjnkthepotentia.lfortheshopsisgo.ingtobethreesmallshops
probably, because there's only some 3,000 some odd square feet of
Yea, the potential-here js for three shops'
yea, wel runut.r"rl ffi:}"'s got to be an jncrease in vehicular traffic'
I don't see how you can go from the restaurant and one condo to' '
0h, Jim, we don't feel that there is going to be any substantjal'increase
innumbersinvehic]es,becausethevehic]esthatserve'thesearenot
foodoperations,wedon'thavebeertrucksormeattrucksthathavetocome
everydaytothe.Theyaresmallshopsthattendtogetshipments'sure
they get shipments pretty often, most of them by UPS or occasionally by
freight or some delivered to the'ir homes cause thg\^e using their garage as
an extra warehouse and they have to get their own car in there' But
aside from the owner bring'ing in a. station wagon occasionally to haul
sonething that he.is storing in his garage, we see that a UPS Van parked
here, somewhere today anyway while he goes to four or five places here
goes to two ski shops and a'l 'l the surrounding neighborhood. Ne're going to
bring the UPS van in more often. l'Je may cause him to park there an
extrafiveminuteswhi.|eherunshjs,intothesethreeshopsandmakes
adelivery.Butwefeelthatisquitedjfferentfrombringinghimin.
manymoretimes.|,|edon'tthinkhewilldothat.}|ethjnkthatthe
existing pattern' the trucks that park along here from Cyrano's and
Go'l d Peak will continue. Some of the points that we discussed before'
they go a ljttle beyond this project. l,Ie did at the work session discuss
a little bit, some of the things that wi]l happen when and if the seibert
Circ] e improvements are implemented because they compliment what we are doing'
PEC 219181 - '13
GERRY:
RYAN:
o
That will help to channe'l ize the traffic so the trucks, then will always
park on the same side of the street and you won't fjnd Bj'l 'l Burnett's Van
b'lock'ing the other side so that if an emergency vehic'le does come through
he can get through. These will be improvements. Again' the cars'
we all know the history of the build'ing. For many years Marg and Laffy
Burdick lived there full time. It was the'ir main home. They kept two
cars in the garage. They were like us. They had a lot of business around
Town they'd run in and out. The number of vehicular movements is what
we,re concerned with. Now, I didn't have any reason and I don't think any
one did, but cormon sense-'if you think about it for a minute may point
the direction. An active coup'le'living here fu]l time, and the times they
bring there cars out and in every day on the average js two or three tjmes
a day for each car, is going to exceed the number of car movements
for a condo owner who comes and stays a week and comes in and out once. I
really think the s'ituation for the condos in the building is going to
be very similar to what you have at the Plaza Lodge today' because your
guests come in and out. How long, the length of stay - who knows?
l^lho knows who's going to buy those, how long they're going to use it?
I'll tell you one thing though, let's not go and play the paper numbers
game,but let,s be realistic about it. The prices for which units go
in the center of the Vi]]age automatically tell us something' That they
aregoingtobeboughtbypeoplewiththatmuchmoney.Peoplewiththat
9o
much money in the cookie jar t6 slap down on a coup'le of fancy apartnents
Ma
in the center of the vi'l lage, and then givenabout $200'000 to decorate
it are realiy not interested in having Slifer stuff it with every
come and run it like a hotel , because that amount of income they're not
interested in and most of those people don't want those people staying
in their p1 ace in vail. They aren't rented very often. They're given
away to friends and family. But, realities of economics and human
nature pretty welt te'l 'l us, no these are not going to have the
frequencyofusethatthesmallercondosor.|essexpensiveonesinother
parts of the cormunitY do-
Thank You,8i11.
I,d just like to add that there is also 90'ing to be a l0ading area a10ng
the east. side of the bujlding too, so that there will be the opportunity
for someone coming in there to un'load the'ir bags and luggage without
actually being parked in the street'
And the ne'ighboring adioining points in the Va'i.I, Jmprove Vail
Plan compliment this beautifully' and wil'l'
RUOFF:
PEC 2/9/81 - 14
GERRY: Are there other corments or questions? from the audience? Ed Drager.
DMGER: I'm Ed Drager and I'm here as an interested citizen. I sat on that same
Planning Cormission up there for four years.,and for four years myself and
a whole lot of other people worked to get the Improve Vai1
iob done 'o stop deve'lopment as a matter of right in the Corn-nercial
Core of Vai1, and it has been accomplished, and I think the developers
here have paid a great deal of sensitivity to the work and the desires,
and the hopes that we had and one of the agonizing things we went through
was whether or not Hill Street was or was not even a minor view corridor
at the time. It won out as a minor view corridor. I think the
modifications here on the Red Lion are going to hurt, maybe damage or shorten
up that view corridor, but I think the improvement overall is
a very good improvement and jf I were sitting on that sjde of the table
today I'd be voting for it. Thank you.
GERRY: Thank you Ed, Are there any other corrnents from the audience?
Gaynor:
GAYN0R: Are you going to be required to have parking spaces or-
RU0FF: Yes, it's in there- It's at the end of the Town's recomnendation,
it's stated in the conditions
DICK: 0n Page 3 on the bottom of the page, they are required to pay the
appropriate fee for parking.
GERRY: 0K, I'm just going to quickly ask Jeff if he is familiar wjth and
comfortable wjth the conditions of approval.
SELBY: Would you read those to me?
GERRY: Sure. -The app'l icant agrees to participate in and not remonstrate against
a special improvement district if and when formed for Vail Village. Z.
the Applicant agrees to upgrade the'landscaping alon.o Hill Creek and
present the plan to Corrnunity Development for approval. 3. The applicant
agrees to participate financially in street improvements e.g. street
pavers' street ljghts and the relocated foca'l point at Seibert Circle if
an improvement district is not formed. The applicant's share would be
determined by the street frontage of property in Seibert Circle and other
property owners in area wou'l d also have to agree to participate.
SELBY: 0n the final one, it would be basical'ly, it would not be a situation
where we'd be the onry property owner in the area, would be, the
applicant's share would be determined by street frontage property
on Seibert Circ'le of all property owners contributing, is that correct?
GERRY: That's. correct.
? i Is that the understanding of your recommendation?.' ;
Pgc 2/9/81 - 15
SELBY: I think we can live with all those recormendations'
GERRY:If,youknow,youareawarethatitwouldbeaconditionforapproval.
If approved, it wou'ld be approved on that condition'
SELBY: Yea, I understand. Those things may not be know unti'l such a time
as improvements are comp'leted, but I wou'l d assume that those conditions
wouldgobeyondtheper.iodinwhichweimprovetheproperty.Itseems
to me that we may get down the road a year or two everyone will say 1et's
upgrade the Seibert Circle, jn that area, and we wou'l d be requested to come in
at that time to contribute funds towards those improvements. That's fine'
yea, I have no troub'l e with that as long as it's an area wide understanding
with other ProPerty owners.
GERRY: OK
DAN:Iwouldmovetoapprovetherequestforanexteriora.|teration
and modification in Cormercia'l Core I for the Red Lion bui'lding per the
staff memo and as Presented today.
GERRY: Motion for approval by Dan Corcoran. Is there a second?
ROGER: Yes. I second.
GERRy: second by Roger Tilkemeier. A'l'l those in favor? scott Edwards' Roger
Tilkemeier, Gaynor Mil.|er, Dan Corcoran, Duane Pipe' Jim Morgan.
and I'm aga'inst because I don't like that one section of the of that
one building, so.
SELBY: Thank You very much
GERRY: Motion passed and that's the end of that'
o
o Dcte ofJelicofion tvu/e0
APPTICATION FORM FOR EXTERIOR ALTERATIONS
oR MODtFtCAT|ONS lN COMMERCTAL CORE 1 (CCl)
l. This procedure is required for ollerotion of on existing building which odds or
removes ony enclosed f loor oreo or ouldoor potio or replocemeni of on existing
building sholl be subiect fo review by the Plonning ond Environmeniol Commission.
The opplicotion will not be occepled until oll informofion is submitted,
A. NAME OF APPLICANT Mr. Jeff Selbv
ADDRESS P.O. Box 1528 Voil, Colorodo 81657 PH ONE 476-0s22
B. NAME OF APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE RuoffAentworth Architects, A.l.A.
ADDRESS 500 Lionsheod Moll Voil Co 81657 PH ONE 476-3051
C. AUTHORIZATIO PERTY OWNER
SIGNATU
ADDRESS P .O.,8o]}/1525 YoiI,lorodo 81657 PHONE 4764522
D. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL
ADDRESS Red Lion Inn 304 E. Bridge Street Voil, Colorodo
LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lois E, F, G, & H, Block 5 A, Voil Villoge lst Filing
I
fi Ar ^.1|l'tv
'J ,,1
qb
\oo'
E. FEE $ 100.00 plus l5f for
F. IMPROVEMENT SURVEY OF
LOCATION OF BUILDING
G. A LIST OF THE NAME OF
SUBJECT PROPERTY.
ll . Site Plon - See ottoched drowinos.
eoch property owner to be notified.
PROPERTY SHOWING PROPERTY LINES AND
AND ANY IMPROVEMENTS ON THE LAND.
OWNERS OF ,ALL PROPERTY ADJACENT TO THE
o
ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS TO THE RED LION INN
- Mill Creek Court Condominium Associotion
c/o Arthur G. Bishop & Compony
302 Honson Ronch Rood
Voil, Colorodo 81657
,./,PorV,s Bui lding
c/o Elton Bud Porks
303 Gore Creek Drive
Voil, Colorodo 81657
Golden Peok House Condominium Associotion
278 Honson Ronch Rood
Voil, Colorodo 81657
r,The Plozo Building
c/oMrs. Joonne V. Hill
301 Bridge Street
Voil, Colorodo 81657
The Rucksock Condominium,Associotion
c/o R.endezvous West
P.O. Box 397
. Voil, Colorodo 81657
Hill Buildino
[z Mrs. Cortloiat Hill
3ll Bridge Street
Voil, Colorodo 81657
V
et'
C /'' t fi," ':
,'*"f Qa/a soa
iJ.x 6{
,"J,
{Ly
vt/ / n-
/l,l ^(L"'oc(L'L'',5./ ft-L-.
fror 1
J"f-l Sa
T3ol
Red Lion Exponsi ono Pg'2
o
III. RATIONALE FOR THE PROJECT AND COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN
GUIDE PL,AN
l. The design of the proposed Red Lion exponsion is the result of o sfrong ond
purposeful effort to respond to both the spirit ond the letter of the Voil
Villoge Urbon Design Guide Plon.
2. To understond the opprooch token in fhis proiect ii is necessory to consider
the noture ond function of Bridge Street. Bridge Street hos olwoys been the
most successful pedeslrion woy in Voil. The covered bridge is its beginning,
importing o wonderful sense of enchonimeni ond prornise. As one odvonces
up the sfreet the sense of promise is odmirobly fulfi lled by the comfortobly
pedestrion scoled spoces of the streei cnd its livelyness ond excitement
sustoined by its confinous porode of colorful ond individuolisfic shops ond
restouronts .
Unforf unotely, the "end" of Bridge Street hos never quite fulfilled the prcnise
of its "beginning" ond "middle". The very successful streetscope of Bridge St.,
its neckloce of shop ond resfouronts, breoks obrupily iust post the entronce
to the Red Lion Restouront. Here the comfortoble sense of street enclosure
begins to leok owoy to the left where it sort of trickles oround the corner
loword nothing in porticulor. Bridge St. deserves o more fiiting "end".
Whqt could be more oppropriote fhon o smoll, sunny plozo with the some
pleosont feeling of enclosure os fhe rest of the street, cornpletely ringed wiih
the some kinds of smoll shope ond resfouronfs? Sornething with o reol sense of
t'ploce " .
Fortunoiely, neorly oll the pieces needed io moke this cqne true olreody
exist. Seibert Circle is "olmost buf not quite" whot it could be . Only fill in
the gop on ils northeost ( Red Lion ) side ond it wi ll become complete .
5. This is precisely vhot the Red Lion Exponsion is designed to do. ,Al I the
ingredients of the recepe for "how to do it" ore contoined in the Voil
'3.
4.
Red Li xponsion Pg.
Villoge Urbon Design Guide Plon . The two most signif icont concepts frrn
the Guide Plon which occornplish this ore:
o. Street Enclosure: By roising the Red Lion south woll to 2
onEo
height ond moving it oui to the pr-operty line, the present
rotio of 1/4 to one (bod) between Red Lion ond Cyrono's is
l/2 lo one (optimum).
b. Streetscope Fromework: Interesting smoll shop fronts continue from
Red Lion entronce oround the corner to their noturol terminus ot
Mill Creek opposite Cyrono's . This increoses focode tronsporoncy ond
strengthens pedestrion octivity wifh entries into ihe streef where none
now exist.
6. Bridge Street Sub * Areo Concept #l I in ihe Guide Plon oddresses specificolly
the Red Lion property. 'lt reods os foliows:
ll . Limited bui lding exponsion/im provemen ts , Increose focode tronsporency
on south side to strengthen pedestrion ociivity, with entry to street.
Potentiol exponsion of building to south property line. Additionol veriicol
exponsion moy be considered on south end of building to improve sfreet
enc losure proportions but must respecl designoted Hi ll slreet - Gore
Ronge view corridors. Potentiol second level open bolcony deck (sun
pocket ) to resforeoctivify to slreei lost from ground floor terroce.
The Guide Plon Mop of the oreo designotes the site of the proiect os
"lnfill Exponsion Opportunity - Within Estoblished Constroints".
7 . On ly one oreo of difficulty wos discovered in following the directions of the
Guide Plon. The Minor View Corridor from Hill 5t. is presently defined on
its bottom side by ihe existing roof of the Red Line, Therefore, ony exponsion
whotsoever to fhe south side of the Red Lion must necessorily offect this
view corridor. Deiermining the lowest feosible roof line ihus become the
overiding design limitotion which led to the use of two porollel ridges os
indicoted on the design drowings, Only o flot roof could be lower, but it would
- story
enc los ure
chonged fo
Red Lion Expcnsi on Pg. 4o
be orchitecturolly unocceptoble in this port of the Villoge.
8. .lt
wos felt thot the moior improvements ochievoble by exponding the Red
Lion ond their positive impoct on lhe very lorge numbers of people who
frequent the Bridge St./Seibert Circle oreo worrenfed f oleronce of the
negotive impoct of portiol encroochment into the Hill St, minor view corridor
which impocts signif icontly smoller numbers of people.
9. One point of posiiive impoct from the p'roiect which is not covered by the
Guide Plon is eliminofion of noise pollution ' At present, when loud bonds
ploy in the street leve I bor, especio lly with the windows oPen I o number of
the neighbors hove hod couse to comploin. The proposed design moves the bor
to the bosement ond ploces o l0t' solid concrele slob over it. effectively
conloining ihe noise .
.10. Bridge St. Sub - Areo Concept #10 in the Guide Plon specificollyoddresses
Seibert Circle . lt reods os follows:
I0. Seibert Circle. Feoture oreo poving treoment. Relocote focol point
(potentiol fountoin) io north for better sun exposure (foll/spring), creotes
increosed plozo oreo ond ore the bockdrop for ovtivifies, Seporoted poth
on north sides for unimpeded pedestrion route during delivery periods.
The Town of Voil is currently moking design studies to implement the Guide
Plon suggestions for Seibert Circle ond Honson Ronch Rd. to its crossing of
Mill Creek. The Red [on Project designers hove worked closely with the
To,vn of Voil's designers to ossure thot both the privofe ond public proiects
work togeiher os one unified oreo improvement. lt is hoped thot these two
proiecis con be considered togeiher, becouse eoch is dependont upon the
other to ochieve its full effectiveness '
P.ei Lion lxponsion Pg. 5
U
IV. COMPLIANCE WITH SPECIFICALLY DESIGNATED ITEMS FROM THE URBAN
DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
A. Pedestrioni zoii on: Use of feoture povers olong retoil shop frontoge ond
between shops ond proposed focol point (see item l0 of Urbon Design
Guide Plon for Bridge St. ) leods to unimpeded pedestrion route, especiolly
during delivery times. lnteresting ond colorful shop fronts encouroge
pedesfrion movement from Bridge St. into Honson Ronch Rd ond on toword
shope in Mill Creek Court Bldg.
Vehicle Penefroiion: Current potterns of vehiculor use wi ll remcin unchonged
except for more oitroctive ond effeciive seporotion of vehicle ond pedestrion
poihs. The Urbon Design Guide Plon colls for norrowing of Honson Ronch Rd'
os it crosses Mi ll Creek to creoie o more posiiive sense of eniry into the
Seibert Circle oreo from the eost. Continuoiion of the pedestrion woy defined
by povers to the eosl side of Mill Creek will enhonce this concept'
Streeiscope Fromework: The existing south foce of the Red Lion (Honson
Ronch Rd.) consisis mostly of low blonk wolls. semi-opoque windows, ond
goroge ond fire exit doors seporoted from the street by o seldom used dining
ierroce ond low stone woll. These feotures hove o negotive impoct on the
quolity of the wolking experience, especiolly when controsted wifh the
exciting experience of o wolk thru Bridge St. which now ends roiher obruptly
on the eosi side iust post the entronce to the Red Lion reslouroni. One of the
most imporiont feotures of the proposed proieci is thot it will extend the highly
successful Bridge St. ombionce oround the corner ond into Honson Ronch Rd.
io its noiurol ierminotion oi Mill Creek.
D. Slreet Enclosure: Between the preseni Red Lion bldg. ond Cyrono's the roiio
of overoge building height io distonce seporoting buildings is opproximotely
1/4 to one, which imports olmost no sense of enclosure. The proposed proiect
will chonge this rotio to olmost exocily l/2 to one. which provides the most
comfortoble sense of sireet enclosure '
B.
c-
Red Li xPonSron Ps.6
E.Street Edge: Smoll irregulorities in the building focode ond intimotely scoled
individuol shop fronts creote visuol interest oi pedestrion level. Chonge of
moteriols from stucco of street f loor reinforces pedestrion scole ond further
defines ground leve I commercio I frsn upper leve I residentio | .
F. Building Height: Highest roof ridge of proposed oddition is 25' obove
streel level, two feet lower fhon moin roof ridge of exisfing Red Lion.
Yf.:, The view thru Hill St. ioword the eost is designofed o Minor View
Plone. The north - south roof ridge of the proposed oddition to the Red
Lion will form o minor encroochment into this View Plone. Accomponying
morked phoiogrophs illustrote the extenf of this encroochmeni.
Service & Delivery: The existing common service entry to the Red Lion
onEo
G.
H.
l.
building on the eost side will be
further screened by oddition of o
Sun Shode Considerotions: The
property or public righis-of-woy.
retoined. lt will be slightly enlorged ond
fence ond heovy plonting .
proieci wi I I cqsl no shodows on od iocent
Rec Lion fxp:nsion PS, 7o
V. ZONING CHECK
Zone: Commerciol Core I
Lots E, F, G, & H, Block 5A, Voil Vi lloge lsi Filing
18.24.020 Use-Bosemenr Existing: Restouront & Storoge
Proposed: Resiouront, Storoge & Bor-Lounge
18.24.030 Use-First Floor Existing: Restouront & Bor-Lounge
Proposed: Restouronl & Retoil Commerciol
18.24.040 Use-Second Floor Existing: 2 Dwelling Units
Proposed:
{
Dwellins Unirs
18.24.050 Use-Above Second Floor N,/A
18.24.065 Conditionol Uses N/A
18.24.080 Accessory Uses Existing: Outdoor Dining Areo, 2830 sg. ft.
Proposed: Ouidoor Dining Areo, 183 I sq. ft.
, 18.24.100 Setbocks None Required
18.24.1l0 Distonce Between Buildings None Required
18.24.120 Height Existing: Moin Ridge -27'; Loft -30'
Proposed: New Ridge - 25'
18.24.130 Densiiy Control 80% of 13,989 sq. ft. = I l, l9l GRFA ollowed
Existing: 3,690 sq. ft. GRFA
Proposed: 7, 100 sq. ft. GRFA (increose of
3,410)
18.24.140 Reconsfruction of Existing Uses N/A
18.24.i50 coveroge 80"/o of 13,989 sq. ft- = ll, l9l sq. ft. ollowed
Existing: 8,301 bldg. plus 2,830 potio =
ll,13l sq. ft.
Proposed: 9,341 bldg. plus 1,83 I potio =
11,172 sq. ft.
18 .24 .170 Londscoping & Site Developrnent 20o/" of 13,989 sq . ft . = 2,798 sq . ft. minimum
Existing: Approx. 3,050 sq. ft.
Proposed: Addit. 355 sq. ft. povers ot shop
entronce plus 220 sq- ft' on Rucksock lond-
18.24.]80 Porking & Looding Existing 2 - cor goroge eliminoted
looding ond service oreo unchonged-
lt
i Existing proposed Add. Toto|
(, D ..l Doremeni: S r7l0 234 S rg44
:
, ?sl Fld'or: B,3Ol I,MO 9,341
2nd Floor: 3,813 j,g3'4 7,747
Totol: 17,824 S,ZO1 23,032
o Red Lionifnsion Ps. B
4.
Exterior Modifications ReviewJeff t,linston, Gage Davis Associates
December 3, 1980
Red Lion Inn
A Rationale for ProJect
1. No mention of the real rationale which is the creation of new
condo units, new bar downstairs, new shops and improvements to
the restaurant.*It is "do-hble" within the prov'isions of the Guide Plan, but
the Guide Plan is not the rationale or justification. I do not
think Se'lby's only-motivation is to create a better environment
on Ser'bert Circle. It just may be that Selby's objectives cou'ld
be accomplished in a manner that wou'ld be consistent with
commun'ity desires to upgrade the Seibert Circle.
2. Graphic demonstration of street enclosure ratio?
3. Shou'ld point out in submittal that by definition a "minor view
corridor" allows some modification.
In item #10 (p.a) suggests that Town is currently doing designsfor Seibert Circle. Not true but not Ruoff's fault. Clarification:
the Town's response to this and all other applications is to
authorize brief design eva'luation to determjne how the proposal
might affect e'lements of the Guide P'lan - as a means of giving
meaningful comnents about the project, and to make suggestion
which might al'low Guide Plan objectives (or even additional
ones) to be achieved.
0n page 5 of submittal, items A & B: Is applicant proposing to
also do, or participate w/Town in paving for pedestrian routes,
namowing Hanson Ranch Rd., etc? 0r merely showing that what
he's doing upuld be compatible?
Urban Design Considerations seem to be met adequately. Wish to
see graphic demonstration of street enclosure an4 sqlr/shade.I peFsonal ly fedl the
one and encroachment alone
7. Do feel a significant concern to be studied is the roof form -
the degree to whjch it appears to be additive and out of
character with the building. It is a district departure from
the existing roof shape of the building. This issue is really
best studied in model form and is a subjective one at best.
One of the neasons that the "justifjcation" statements are not
serving the project we11 is jf the justification is as stated,
to improve Seibert Circle it may well be that cutting back on
the building program wou1d allow a different roof with better
Vjews issue is adequately documentEd.
view is nice, but not a major or keyis not justification for denial.
5.
6.
Itt
Page 2
overal'l results (enclosure still there, but more consistent
roofscope, less vievr encroachment, etc.)I personally feel that a stronger case is the fact that cument
zon'ing wou'ld al'l ow nuch more significant expans'ion, but that it
has been scaled down to be in compliance w/the U.D. P1an, and still
has one or two minor impacts--which need to be consldered in the
tota'l context.
Where is the improvement survey that is required?
Stl]l feel the south end
the pedestrian scale next
balcony on the 2nd 'level
necessari'ly a PC one.
needs some reconsideration to strengthen
to the buj1d'ing--overfiang, set back or
perhaps. This may be a DRB issue not
9.
10. Overall the building seems to have been very careful'ly and taste-fully considered, and has many aspects that would be very positive
contribution to the Core Area. If the PC finds deficfencies I
would encourage that every effort should be made to encourage and
channel the applicant toward modification that are an acceptable
compromise--and avoid approaching work of this quality in a negative
way--or attempting to discourage the applicant from any of the
elements of his submittal.
Red L;or$nsion Ps.2
III. RATIONALE FOR THE PROJECT AND COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN
GUIDE PLAN
'| . The design of fhe proposed Red Lion exponsion is the result of o sirong ond
purposeful effort to respond to both the spirit ond ihe letter of the Voil
Villoge Urbon Design Guide Plon.
2, To understond the opprooch token in this proiect it is necessory to consider
the noture ond function of Bridge Street. Bridge Street hos olwoys been the
most successful pedestrion woy in Voil. The covered bridge is its beginning,
importing o wonderful sense of enchontment ond prornise. As one odvonces
up the streei the sense of promise is odmirobly fulfilled by the comforiobly
pedestrion scoled spoces of the street ond its livelyness ond excitement
sustoined by its continous porode of colorful ond individuolisiic shops ond
restouronts .
3. Unfortunotely, the "end" of Bridge Sfreet hos never quite fulfilled the pronise
of its "beginning" ond "middle". The very successful sfreetscope of Bridge 5t.,
its neckloce of shop ond restouronts, breoks obrupily iust post fhe enironce
to the Red Lion Restouront. Here the comfortoble sense of street enclosure
begins to leok owoy fo the left where it sort of trickles oround ihe corner
toword nothing in porticulor. Bridge sl . deserves o more fitfing "end".
Whot could be more oppropriole thon o smoll, sunny Plqzo with the some
pleosont feeling of enclosure os the rest of the street, completely ringed with
the some kinds of smoll shopo ond restouronts? Something with o reol sense of
t'ploce " .
4. Fortunotely, neorly oll the pieces needed to moke ihis corne true olreody
exist. Seibert Circle is "olmost but not quite" whof it could be . Only fill in
the gop on its northeost ( Red Lion ) side ond it wi ll become complete .
5. This is precisely vhoi the
ingredients of fhe recePe
Lion Exponsion is designed fo do. Al I the
"how to do it" ore contoined in the Voil
Red
for
Red Lion tU"""
villoge Urbon Design Quids Plon. The two most significonf concepis fron
the Guide Plon which occornPlish this ore:
o.SfreetEnc|osure:ByroisingtheRedLionsouthwo||to2-story
height ond moving it out to the property line' +he present enclosure
rotioofl/4toone(bod)betweenRedLionondCyrono'sischongedto
l/2 to one (oPtimum).
b. StreetscoPe Fromework: lnteresting smoll shop fronts continue from
RedLionentronceoroundthecorneriotheirnoturolterminusot
MiIlCreekoppositeCyrono's.Thisincreosesfocodetronsporoncyond
sirengthenspedestrionoctivitywithentriesintothestreetwherenone
now exi st
6. Bridge street Sub - Areo concepi #ll in the Guide Plon oddresses specificolly
the Red Lion property. lt reods os fol iows:
ll. Limiied building ex ponsi on/im provements ' lncreose focode tronsporency
on south side lo strengthen pedestrion octivity' with entry fo street '
Potentiol exponsion of building to south property line' Additionol veriicol
exponsionmoybeconsideredonsouthendofbui|dingloimprovestreet
enclosure proporfions but must respect designoted Hill street - Gore
Ronge view corridors. Potentiol second level open bolcony deck (sun
pocket ) fo restore octivity to streei lost from ground floor terroce '
The Guide Plon Mop of the oreo designotes the site of the proiect os
,,lnfi ll Exponsion opportunity - within Esfoblished Constroints" '
T.Grlyoneoreoofdifficultywosdiscoveredinfol|owingthedireclionsofthe
griigPlon.TheMinorViewCorridorfrornHillst'ispresentlydefinedon
its bottom side by the existing roof of ihe Red Line. Therefore' ony exponsion
whotsoever io the south side of the Red Lion must necessorily offect this
viewcorridor.DetermininglhelowestfeosibIerooflinethusbecomethe
overidingdesignlimitotionwhich|edtotheUseoftwoporolleIridgesos
indicoted on the design drowings. only o flot roof could be lower, but it would
tKec Ll oll L^
be orchitecturolly unocceptoble in this port of fhe Villoge '
It wos felt thot ihe moior improvements ochievoble by exponding fhe Red
Lion ond their positive impoct on the very lorge numbers of people who
frequent the Bridge St./Seibert Circle oreo worrented ioleronce of the
negotive impoct of portiol encroochment into the Hill St' minor view corridor
which impocis signif icontly smoller numbers of people '
One point of positive impoct from the proiect which is not covered by the
@ulfls Plon is eliminotion of noise pollution ' At present' when loud bonds
ploy in the sireet level bor, especiolly with the windows oPen' o number of
the neighbors hqve hod couse to comPloin ' The proposed design moves the bor
to the bosement ond ploces o l0" solid concreie slob over it' effectively
contoining the noise
Bridge St. Sub -Areo Concepr #10 in rhe Guide Plon specificolly oddresses
Seiberl Circle . lt resds os follows:
'10. Seibert Circle . Feoture oreo poving ireoment ' Relocoie focol point
(potentioIfounioin)tonorthforbettersunexPosure(fo||Aprins)'creotes
increosed plozo oreo ond ore the bockdrop for ovtiviiies ' Seporoted poth
on north sides for unimpeded pedestrion route during delivery periods '
TheTownofVoiliscurrentIymokingdesignstudiestoimp|ementtheGuide
Plon suggestions for Seibert Circle ond Honson Ronch Rd' to its crossing of
Mill Creek. The Red lion Proiecl designers hove worked closely with the
Torn of Voil's designers io ossure ihot both the privote ond public proiects
work together os one unified oreo improvement' lt is hoped thot these two
proiects con be considered together' becouse eoch is dependont upon the
other to ochieve iis full effectiveness'
8.
10.
Red Lion Exponsion Pg. 5
IV. COMPLIANCE WITH sPECIFICALLY DESIGNATED ITEMS FROM THE URBAN
DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
A. Pedestrion izoti on: Use of feoture povers olong retoil shop frontoge ond
between shop cnd proposed focol point (see ilem l0 of Urbon Design
Guide Plon for Bridge St. ) leods to unimpeded pedestrion route, especiolly
during delivery times. Interesting ond colorful shop fronts encouroge
pedesirion movement from Bridge 5t. into Honson Ronch Rd ond on toarord
shop in Mill Creek Court Bldg.
B. Vehicle Penetrotion: Current potterns of vehiculor use will remoin unchonged
except for more oilrociive ond effective seFlorotion of vehicle ond pedestrion
poths. The Urbon Design Guide Plon colls for norrowing of Honson Ronch Rd.
os it crosses Mi ll Creek fo creote o more positive sense of entry inlo the
Seibert Circle oreo frorn the eost. Confinuotion of the pedestrion woy defined
by povers to the eost side of Mill Creek will enhonce this concept.
C- Streetscope Fromework: The existing south foce of the Red Lion (Honson
Ronch Rd.) consists mosf ly of low blonk wolls, semi-opoque windows, ond
goroge ond fire exit doors seporoted from the streei by o seldom used dining
terroce ond low sfone woll. These feoiures hove o negotive impoct on the
quolity of the wolking experience, especiolly when controsted with the
exciling experience of o wolk thru Bridge St. which now ends rother obruplly
on the eost side iust post the entronce to the Red Lion reslouront. One of lhe
most importont feotures of the proposed proiect is thot it will extend the highly
successful BricJge 5t. ombionce oround the corner ond inio Hsnson Ronch Rd.
io its noturol terminotion of Mill Creek.
D. Street Enclosure: Between the present Red Lion bldg. ond Cyrono's the rotio
of overoge building height to distonce seporoting buildings is opproximotely
l/4 to one, which imporis olmost no sense of enclosure. The proposed proiect
will chonge this rotio lo olmost exoctly 1/2 to one, which provides the most
comforioble sense of streel enclosure.
o
Red Li on Ex
a
ponsion Pg. 6
E. Streef Edge: Smoll irregulorities in the building focode ond intimotely scoled
individuol shop fronts creote visuol interesl ot pedestrion level. Chonge of
moferiols frorn stucco ot sireet floor reinforces pedestrion scole ond furfher
defines ground level commerciol frsn upper level residentiol.
F. Building Height: Highest roof ridge of proposed oddition is 25' obove
street level, two feet lower thon moin roof ridge of existing Red Lion.
G. Views: The view thru Hill St. toword the eost is designoied o Minor View
Plone. The north -souih roof ridge of the p,roposed oddition to ihe Red
Lion will form o minor encroochment info this View Plone. Accomponying
. morked photogrophs illustrote lhe extent of this encroochment.
Service & Delivery:
building on the eost
The existing common
side wi ll be reloined .
service entry io the Red Lion
It will be slightly enlorged ond
H.
further screened by oddition of o fence ond heovy plonting.
t.Sun Shqde Considerotions: The proiect will cosi no shodo,rrs on odiocent
property or public rights-of*voy.
t!
ZONING CHECK
Zone: Commerciol Core I
Lots E, F, G, & H, Block 5A, Voil
18.24.020 Use-Bosement
18.24.030 Use-First Floor
18.24.040 Use-Second Floor
18.24.050 Use-Above Second Floor
18.24.065 Conditionol Uses
18,24.080 Accessory Uses
18.24.100 Sefbocks
18.24.1l0 Distonce Between Buildings
18.24.120 Heisht
,|8.24.130 Density Control
18.24.140 Reconstruction of Existing Uses
18.24.150 Coveroge
LO4Oh,fa'rila- CW-vaf'll1fio
18.24.170 Londscoping & Site Developnent
Pe. 7
Villoge lst Filing
Exisiing: Restouront & Storoge
Proposed: Resfouront, Storoge & Bor-Lounge
Exisfing: Restouront & Bor -Lounge
Proposed: Restouront & Retoil Commerciol
Existing: 2 D,lrelling Units
Proposed: 5 Dwelling Units
N/A
Existing: Outdoor Dining Areo, 2830 sq. ft.
Proposed: Outdoor Dining Areo, 183 I sq. ft.
None Required
None Required
Existing: Moin Ridge -27'i Loft -30'
Proposed: New Ridge - 25'
80o/o of 13,989sq. ft. =-ILI9[-9BEA-s.llercd
(increose of
3,410)
N/A
80o/" of 13,989sq. ft. = Il,l9l sq. ft. ollowec
Existing: 8,301 bldg. plus 2,830 poiio =
ll,l3l sq. ft.
Proposed: 9,341 bldg. plus 1,83 I potio -
11,172 sq. fi.
2oo/o of 13, 989 sq . ft . = 2,798 sq . ft. minimum
Existing: Approx . 3, 050 sq . ft .
Proposed: Addit. 355 sq. ft. povers ot shop
entronce plus 220 sq. ft. on Rucksock lond.
Existing 2 - car goroge eliminoted
looding ond service oreo unchonged.
Lion Exmnsiono
4\ \''o
18.24.180 Porking & Looding
o-
TABULATION OF GROSS BLDG. AREA.S
Red Lion Exponsion Ps. 8o
Exisiing
5,71O
8,301
3,813
t7,824
Proposed Add.
234
1,040
3,934
5,2O8
Totol
-
5,9M
9,341
7,747
23,032
f Mrs. oorllanrtt rrint
Sll l3r'idgo Slrcrrt
Vailo Colorildo {tl$itz
tr'ebruary 3, 1981
Planning and Environmental Commission
Town of Vail
Vai1, Colorado 81657
Dear Mr:. Chairman and Commission Members:
With regret I am unable to attend your published
neeting on February 9t 1981, as I must be in Chicagothat day.
I wish to present to the Commission, by way of a
15 ninute walking site visit, opposition by Mrs. CortlandtIlill and myself, Jack Curti-n, to the request to modifythe exterior of the Red Lion building in Commercial Core f.
f respectfully request you a11ow a contlnuance ofyour hearing until I rnay present collectively orindividually to you my opposition material. Your
schedule f understand is very ful1, but because of the
importance of your decision I hope you will feel com-
pe11ed to hear the property owners who are definitelyeffected by any decision you make.
I am at your convenience Tuesday, February 10th on,for my presentation. Thank you for your considerationof my request
JJCldi
cc: Rodney E. Slifer, Mayor
Bichard Caplan, Town Manager
Peter Patten, Senior Planner
Mrs. Joan Hill, PLaza Lodge Owner
February L6, 1981
Mr. Richard Caplan
Town Manager '
Town ot vii. r
75 South Frontage Road lVestVaiI, Co1orado STOSZ
Dear Mr. Caplan:
In compliance with Vail Municipal Code Section78.62.O7O, Mrs. Cortlandt Hill and myself, are appealingthe Planning and Environmental Commission'decisibn togrant variances for the Red Llon Inn expansi.on. Thevar,iances were approved February g, 1981
Mrs. Hill ownes the Hill Building located at 311Bridge Street. We are partners in Curtin-HiLl Ltd.,
244 WaLl Street and I am an owner of the commercialspace in the Mill Creek Court Building occupied byArthur G. Bishop and Company. As adjacent prope.rty
owners we feel the variances that were granted areabsolute detriments to our neighborhood.
Please notify me of the date I may present mvmaterlal to the Town Council.
Very tru151 yours,
Mrs'. -ebrtlandt T. Hiil --
Jack Curtin
:
:fn , -1 icJU / Ctl-."i hi.k Ryan, Director of 'community DevelopmentJeff SelbyBill Ruoff '
Mrs, Crprll:rrrqId; F&il!
&II E3riqlgtc S$irce4
Vcril. {)o[srr*drs flI{ii67
l'larch 20, l98l
Mr. Richard Caplan
Town Manager
Tovrn of Vail
75 South Frontage Road West
Vai l , Col orado, B'1657
Dear I4r. Capl an:
In compljance with the zoning code Section 18.54.090 Mrs. Cortlandtttill and myself are appealingthe Des'ign Revievr Board approval of
the Red Lion expansion design. the design tlas approv€d by the Board
on l'larch l8th.
Mrs. Hill ovrns the Hill Building located at 3ll l3rictge Street. lie
are partners in Curtin-Hill Ltd.,244 l,la'l I Street and I am an ownerof the commercial space in the Mill Creek Court Bujldino occupied
by Arthur G. Bishop & Co. As adjacent property ewners ne feel the
design is improper for the neighborhood.
l,ie request thc council review our request at their council meeting
on April 7th or May 5th.
l4rs. Hill cni'J myself urill be out of tor,*n on the coi::rr:il's l:ipril 20th
meeting date.
Thank you.
{ar.#s-"ht+s_
cc. Dick RyanJeff Sel byBill Ruoff
BS'.)j' i
Verv trul v vours .
Lhl"#G::'#lvks" Cortlanc$t T.Cortl
r-
GARRETT, LETBETTER & PAYNE
lNcotr Po'lA T gD
AT'TORNEYS AT LAW
7I 5 HOUSTON CLUB EIUILOING
HOUSTON, TEXAS 77OO2
March 24, 1981MAX GIRF€T'
T()M R. LEI!'ETTER
GE€'IIGE PA Y NE
AFEA CODE 713
224.2715
Mayor Rod Sli.fer
Town of VaiI
P. O. Box 100
VaiI, Colorado 81657
Dear Mayor Sl"j.ller and Councilmen:
This letLer will constitute Plaza Lodge, Inc.'s noticeof its arppeal- of the Design Revierv Boarc's clecisj-on on l4arch18, 19SL approrring the Red Lion,s Remodel., othervr.ise knor,rnas the "Dxtericrr Alt.eration RequcsL For The Red Lion - JeffSe1by". This appeal lvilI be to the Town Council and Lhedate to be set for such appeal hearing shourd be cornmunicatedto the following:
I"1r. Roger Noonanf Attorney at LawGorsuch, K-irgis, Campbe1l, Walker & Groves1200 American t{ational Bank Bldg.Denver, Colorado 80202
I"1r. l-Iax Garrett, Altor:ncy at LarvGarretto l,etbetter & Paylts
715 llouston Club BuiLdi.ngIlouston, Texas 'l'l 002
Pl.aza l,odge, f nc.P. O. Box 68Vai.l-, Colorado 81657
Mr. Jack Curtin, et a1
254 aridqe Sti:eeLVail-, Colorado 81.657
I\tr. Riclrar<l tl .l'{r. .Ief f rr:y B.Mr. Charies H.P.O. Box l52BVaiI, Colorado
Brorvn
Se1by
Rosenqu j. s {:
81657
MG/bd
Certificti No, ltOB
CC to abo.,'e l.isi:.- ***saliht$r,$i!,*b$ria!,rr5*.,
3 B 6159 B/RnR
F'
/ -i oo
,E\lw4c<- wbtflorrwl,z w'LEttJ 7ve n^b
J"ff Ui'ftru
$ rb4 IAn^
A VArtLn^afL {-- f*ri*ft. trc vttw-hha q tt^* E*1- ra'h^^i- un^r;.l^ ai
nt-. W4,hrv tA nlwr trt*-b t^^/r;rk , W C*^/
fD tUL actb,u'{--?vwf.
{"lt i.b 'ran'rlt-o titt,.,; 1t,r- Vto*tiur attrar-
eil^4cnart^ ,lm^l tl,* Auil.?liu^lb Wf n^r-
ranhra,tu- * iutrtt*hj.r-.T io h,itt fh;rdL
%1111'\ ,\ iA +D eF4lc PWM
+vilau*ai*of ot^ 9ei+zwt a;rl*. ft fal t*1
Urfie, h"rt Toltx* d/rirc+1/;,c', .4r&l ,a4-
Dv a- a^^t'u*rLtr Ib* untt4 ta<-
At;-tta,tlr u;n qznvn*vi,hfu4'tru h ruvl+
t1*- gd"Qlt Uhtl-
Z. Ao4rtilrc- aa^rau.+Att;n 4 +twt u^dowr*< tat$ ?
1. Zf'trtLtl rc;,//t tuq uvr +t-brwilal hr*lf Ir"1
a,1^fYiru n"f,nrhor Vu*,t e?r;4n" 41v^A
+61/tr* tt*d;l*,ohtu.
+. ffio^ + ioTlqrat ftnr Pa'^;t eawry
4oous d)4,;fu fo'Sr;ha/f e;ih-. Ptt +vltui-
v"rt'trt Pait @. cln,rfrtuhi""4 tkTr,rn^*
tr*t]du4- h flA,b art&tJJ- 6n/,ur ut
t> a,r,rtrrrytg Wbt /u,+q h dtlcrtutg
lnmt it^t f,wonil-' ,n;$rt ditr4t 4
14.oo
fi^-Aw;&W** - a4 ^ tl fuhr**;If* ea*nu'a'h &aut tl^L We\.A^/,
b Wiltt- Wr* vtlA^;ttr, t^Aty* ,Jla^)
el'il flAu- alrictfiw, (av .tt+,r. "l*'frfuA
"ru.) +" la4 ,*t^t r*rl.
5. 61^ p+ 5 4 +dowilltf , ifz,^r 4 ,ltt :
1+ sn'rnt^'t WM1 l"
yaan 4'tt wlTow.tt ;^, ?4 fuI,lt',Iht:
w*a t llnt, wD/**+i2l ,+)v. 7
vft^rt lil"t ln "l t4lt:nLl6t u{xt4 +lAtruq
V cir$u/Y)fu-'7t
46,
l/rn,./i
Utbm\dy bl^*tdt4ah;r^t ztttt* t" Lr-
wrtt 4&\, Iiltrln lr+.-- 1@
AA^ ^vilr't ^"og ?tklt e*a'tttun- I:at^l*alt
U,i-t Ih4tL lr affil obaua*','t<,a. J
fry 4 1r1^* vtrt*, it wit'-tlrutwt
L *1^i *@ry d)Ld *'ervklt nil'44
a'l.r; th dfn{,}ahtA (e, a'*ia4 .
l> Srr* n &pfu*.i tiuea,tL b trt-
-/b;4id t+ tt- wt $rrt* - h^. at'A'r*
ta t^/uo)h *a %Wh I? In, ,'adihiz u*l
tut t1 altau$ar wn tUttn;t*4.LT tq a-
drtlw4* *yuW ("*" +1'* a!+v1 rrr1
yt- 4 t1r* t t t l^r1 'Tht LZrr.At-' th F^JI'J
txuf **gn| vu t^^Etl-L k b u.,A t's A-
+urbr\c:-l*t ctr* e^t lcAf.
'1,
oo
6w n F* ftrat;) 'fu*t tl^."A;frtfao*^"
*r^tt^*ctuwh er vat TNif fLu- Ncrf hfiJL
L 3 i{ n-- y;t}r;a+Un ii u -,}*tcl , b
lr*Y't'M- ">r:t etlf C,fut it ,,,r* t ttnlt tu-
fa^,t e^,|+nia torr*- a-tt l't^t VM1'Au4
fvp tt b'l pLLw ^- nfu1"nr h*tt
br.ilw ottzvt/cl iwilh (urtl*u*< +fitt lw<t rut
v.rtL enWVt*A fiu*1*-, ttrt l4it^t +4.watv+,o't,
4,tt).
f1"4 r @u cca* il a/Det'+I 7w",rr^ry Pnklr il, 1* 'fl^tt 16"d,1 .Itutrl/"l ilJau, t^rAHA v^aL +fil&-,r*I 4faa.+t t)
Wt fW it t^ro l4r' adl-i lnnL It Ir- r^^
Wl'u'rtt- wl tt,L [D.T'\tu^, a^4 *iU Lu
trlt dv h^ra wl:nev u;/tf,a'ttr- utl^"'il^ \A'-t''| fa
nuqu-*'l tnJ i^It'* ttb-L eJv'rto$,
8. ru[.r+r- tb t* l
q. ,lfr]t Fl tta+ qn'fl^, .tr*4 htl.A 7'aYF'_
Vr-cllruvr&k*,,t:',ir lD th,'ulftau^ lt--
{v-ttilrrLi^ ao*lt- ,',hf t, il^t to*r\th\'
tvvrl^^ur^i , -t' t"dt- w hilu"1 i tt^* t^l
I;ard, V*4r, 'lU;. IrL L fft4 ,slu.-
\^fbr,;tr+pa\ r- 7C M,
[o. *rru,rell- tl&tr';lJ"Lf ye'4 hbv,ArL b*",rr!1
Mv(* ari4 WLtufitu{, tu4 l"u
l/t^^tt1 ;4W4t t1^^t ;rr-"dJ b+ uq,t erbfh;L
o Tttow"rryu,e'
E tilartA t ^14rr*-1* l+Art
aayfa;louklal* 'b tfr* be.Au4,,n?te+1 -ff"f
Clt*r,^^*C FA* tit,h;-f htn*l "uoli{**;"
t14t **'t- M Hl4te.*-
hHLarFJt Wt ryItd,rqfi^ a- W Tl -,hr4u^fhi I'
dnur-^ai4 tt*.1/.2.a"^^tt 4tlr* dtlrrra /t\ 4 lAt,
-W /*=--O
f-***n Ca yr.ezu,t or-- /.*-.-,ne o,r-r.--^(
L C)-t* utmhn. '
QLdrt'- /l:t c- e/4. -<,t1a.1 Ls?t.1:.4-. .
./
evv Cr€.,r-te -,-e.'e
h'ncaa.-- *7 TC" d-.p /l g (p,r-t*r..-")-^'
.,fU
n
'ro
a - !/ azaa/' tt-11' e"4'.
o
'ia--e-L/'r-:-'
ry &"*6?e9 ,'y'*4 d*,-,'*--),,,* frGEr* ,)utt- c,Jt-*k- c.an",uzt.tr.L t
/-4 t *Lo.-'- \i1-" tt .Jft fi /--*. ,-?.---
' !'o n -U,' *-- -"/. u:,:,.(f 4,z*hls $ .t-n-- ''^{orE;-L
/-/,-"--( 4 ftd^teT
*/;
:.r
IN TIIE DII;'TIIIC'I' COUIIT
D''I NN) FOII TIIE.COIIN'|Y OT EAGLI
AND STATIi OII COI,OIIADO
civirAction vo. tl cu t | 7
. PI.AZA LODGE, INC., a eorporation. ' )
)
: Plaintiff, )Ys. i
)
TOWN OF Vn IL, COLOR.ADO, )
TOWN COUNCI, OF TIIIi TOIVN OF )
VAIL, IlOD\Ey SLIFEii MAyO3. A!.rD )
RODNfY SLIFil]t, BUD llEl'{t)IC'l'; PAt'L )
JOHI,ISTON, tsOIl F.UDitP,, TOl,1 )
STEINBERG, nO-\ TO'D, At{D BILL )l lttILTO, os menrbers of the Town . )
Council of tl:e Town ol V.r.il: )1 TltE.PLANNI\G n \"D Etivl:,r.oNMENTAL )
coi\lMlssroN oF THE TO1VN OF VAIL, )
GERIIY WHI'l!, P.OCDIi TILI{El'riEIER,
DAN COIICOF"AN, SCOT'I EDlirlRDS,
DUANI-l Plf Ell, Jiir'l i\lCltCAN, and
- F. GAYl{Oit l1iLLEP,, ts rncnbers of )
the Piannjng nnd Xrvircnmental )
Commissiorr ol the Torvn of Vs!i; )
RICIIAR|) N.'dItO\l'N, "lLiFFFt lty B. )
SEL9Y, CHARL:S 1{. ROS,ENQUIST, , ) :
IIILCP.EEi( CONDOI'llNiUl'l r\SSOCIA- \
TION, COLL\5N P!-{i( !iO-rtsE CONDC- ,
MINIU},,i ASSOCIATiON. \" F"UC](SZ\CI{ )
CONDOl:1.\lU)i Al;S0CL\i'lOIl, )
iUF,S. COil'lLi\ND'1' I:il,l,,'I'llE i,n III(S )
BUILDI\G, liI,TON IJL1D P r\i:.iiS.
Ti!E CiI J1.]S'II)IIA LO DTJIl. V AIL
ASSOCl/r'fEtl. I.\ C., T ! i!l lil{PI il,I
SAYINGS, IIU]LDINC AND LOAN
ASSOCIATION,
Delcnclants.
MOTION TO SUSPEND OR
STAY BUILDING PERMIT
'l
\I.
)
)
't
c0Mts l{01''l the Plajntiff by its attorneys Gorsuch, l(irgis, canrp-
bell, l,lalker and Grover and respectful lJ/ nloves the Court to order the
pefcndant Toun of Vail to revoke, rescjncJ,-suspend or stay the builcl -
ing perntit issued pursuatrt to the [>ltcfior Alteration llequest for the
Red Lion (irere'i nafter "lled Lion Iiequest") r.nd as grourrds therefore
vou'l d s horr tlre Cou r t.
'l . As al)cgcd itt tlte Cotnplain1. lrerr:jri c,rr I'iar.ch .|7, lgSl tlrc
-l'oun of Vail dnr ied lhe al)pcdl of plii inl: if1, iirrtl rrthcr.s fr-orrr tllc ducj-
sion of tlte Plarrrtittcl artil [:rrvirorrnrerrtir I Corrruiss jon approvirrg thc licd
l" i on lie r; ur-'s t
2. That Plaintiff commenced this action in a timely manner
on April .|4, l98l within 30 days of said decision as required by
106 (a)(q) c.n.c.p.
3, That on April .l3, l981 , as shown by the affidavit of
Les streeter whi ch i s attached and made a part of thi s moti on,
the city Manager of the Town of Vajl was personally not.i fied that
the Pl ai nti ff wou'ld exerci se i ts ri ght of appeal to thi s court
under the rule and would file this action.
4. That on April 14, 198'l at approximately l:.|5 p.M. the
court issued its citation and Ruie to show cause and to stay pro-
ceedings. Said citation is directed to the Defendant rown of Vail
and the Town council of the Town of vail and states, inter al.i a:
"You are further ordered to stay a1l proceed-ings 'i n connection wi th the above natter andto issue no permi ts to the proposed expan-sion until further order of this Court.',
5. That the Town of vai I has advi sed pl ai nti ff that on or
about 8:30 A.M. on April .|4,'198.| it issued a building permjt for
the Red Lion construction notrvithstanding the actu.al knowledge
that Planitiff's time for appeal had not run and despi!e knowledge
that Plaintiff was prepari ng and would exercise its right of ap-
peal by filing th'is lawsu.it.
6- That Plaintiff belives that the issuance of the build-
ing permit rvas expedited or advanced because of the knowledge and
anticipation of this Ialsuit and in violat'i on of plaintiff ,s
ri ghts on thi s appea) .
7. That as this motion 'i s being prepareci no construction
has comrnenced, but Plaintiff is informed arr d bclives that constuc-
l]on j.s schedul ed to conrmence on Monday, Apri 1 20, l ggl .
B. That the ordi nances of the Tor+n of vai I requi re the Torvn
to inspect construction as i t progresses. . That the performance of
such inspections, approvals ancl other requj recl sLi pervi sion by the
Town would violate the citation issuerj by this court, and requirc
that the building perrnit be suspendcd or stayecl .
9. That Vai I ordi nance I8.54.030 requi rcs dcsi gn approval
o
by the Design Review Board of the Town of Vail as a prerequisite
to construction. That such approval is subject to appeal to the
Town Council of the Town of Vail, which appeal in turn is subject
to the provisions of Rule 106 (a)(q) C.R.C.P.
'10. That the Pl ai nti ff and others di d i n fact appeal the
Design Review Board's decision and the Town Council denied that
appeal on April 7, 198.l.
ll. That the P'laintiff has 30 days from April 7, tg8l to
file an appeal from that decision of the Defendant rown council
and that Plaintiff does in fact intend to do so.
12. That the i ssuance of the bui l di ng permi t by the Town
of Vail is an abuse of the Town's authority and a violatjon of
Plaintif f 's rights.
lll{EREF0RE PLAINTIFF PRAYS: That the Court
herr:in directing the Town of Vail to withdraw,
or stay the bui I di ng permi t for the Red Li on ex
such other relief as the Court may deem proper
Respectful ly
GORSUCH , KI R
!{ALKER and G
ter its order
cind, suspend
sion and for
the premi ses .
bmj tted,
, CAMPBELL,
LK
t/
o L. Ferguso
1200
3089
5Ul
8lB l Tth Street
Denver, Col orado 8020?.
534-1200
en
res
pan
in
)u
GIS
ROV
L-// I
U
IN TIItr DISTITICT CC!UITT
IN AND FOR TITE COUNTY OF DAGLE
AND STATD Of COI,OP.ADO
Civil Action No.
- F. GAYr.'*OR ivlll,LEF,. as members of
the Planning and lin vircnm ento.i
Cornmisslon of lhe Town of Vaii;
RICI{N RD N. tsROIiN, .TEFFRIIY B.
SELI]Y, CIIARLES I{. F.OSENSI;IS'I.
MILCII 5 ll( C ON l-\3 -''i I i'{l U :';l r\SSO CIA-
TION. C;OLL\I]N PEAii }IOL;SE CONDO.
SAVINGS, BUILDING N ND 5OAS
ASSOCiATiON.
Defendants.
PLAZA LODCE, ll{C., I corporatlon. )
)
Plaintif f'
ys.
TOtt'N OF VAIL, COLORADO,
TOWN COUNCIL OF'TI]E'IOWN OF )
vAlL, RODNEY St tFEIt. MAyOR AND )
RODNEY SLIFEll., BUD B:NEDICT; PAUL )
JOI{NSTON, EO3 ItgDi:3, TOll )
STEINBERG, 3O-\ TOID, ANI-) SILL )
WILTO, as rnernbes of the Town )
Council of the Tovrn of Vail;)
TIIE PLAN\I.\G AND 5N\']R.ONMEI{TAL )
COMMLSSION OF THE TOWN O!' VAIL, )
GERRY MITE, ROGEF" TTLKEMEIIIR, )
DAN CORCORAN, SCOTT EDITAIIDS, )
DUANE PIPER, ,1i]4 l\lOItcAN, and )
)
)
)
)
)
AFFIDAVIT_--.0.F*
LES STN-EETER
t{t\tu},i ,,\s;SoclATioN. v. RUci(sACt( )
coNDoi\liNluN Assoctnl'lo:{, )
Jllls. COI{TLANDT i{rLL,'l'Ht-'-, p.^itl(s )
tsUlLllNG, nL'iON BLrD Prl.l'.i(S! )
TliE CI'lnlS'ilNIA LODGE. Vr\lL )
ASSOCi.{Tri:i, i){c., Tt{s Etc'lIF_E )
)
]
)
)
C0l''lES ll 0l,l the Affiant Les Streeter, and, being first duly sworn,
upon oath deposes and says:
T.hat on April .|3, lgBl at approxirnately l0:45 A.M. he accompa-
nied l'lax Garrett, an attorney f or Pl aza Lodge, Inc. , to the of f i ces
of the Town of Vail and at that tjrne and place he and 1,1r. Garrett met
!^,i th Town Manager 14r. Richard Capian i n the presence of Col I een Kl i ne,
the Town Clerk. That Mr. Garrett advj sed Mr. Capl an at that time
that Mrs. Joanne Hi1), thc owner of Plaza Lodge, Inc., was preparing
and would file a lar^rsuit on behalf of Plaza Lodge, Inc. challenging
the actions of Town of Vail in connection wjth the Red Lion Request.
;And that the l awsu it wou l
derstood that the P'lai nti
suit.
d be filed as soon as
ff had unti'l Apri I 17
possible.
, l9Bl to fi
It was un-
le that
Further Affj ant sayth not.
Dated this 20th day of April,198] .
re me ttri r-b th day of Apri I , .|981Subscri bed and
l,li tnes s
l4y Commi
sworn to befo
my hand and of
ssion expi res
o taly
a
IN THE DISTRICT COURT
I}I AND FOR TI{E COUNTY OF EAGLE
AND STATE OF COLORADO
,.
'k*:::,rn^the u,sr.cr L,'un
e;i',"ii,jili]''sk'cloin and fo'
APR z 01981
K",M*q
{-Bp,{r -
Civit Aetion Nr. f /e nt?
PLAZA LODGE, INC., a corporation.
Plaintiff.
ys.
TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO,
TOWN COUNCIL O!- TI{E'|OWN OF
VAIL, RODNEY SLIFER MAYOR AND
RODNEY SLIFER, BUD BENEDICT: PAUL
.-TOHNSTON, BOB RLIDER, TOU
STEINBERG, RON TODD, AND Bii,L
WILTO, as members of the Town
Couneil of the Town oi Va.ilr
THE PLANNI\G AND ENVIRONMENTAL
COMMISSION OF'I'HE TO1l'N O5 VA!L,
GERRY i{HITE, ROGER TILKtl,lEiER,
DAN CORCORAN, SCOTT EDTVARDS,
DUANE PIPER, JII{ t\lORCAN, and
F. GAYNOR N{ILLER, as members of
the Planning and Environmental
Commission of the Town of Vail;
RICHARD N. tsRO1\'N, JEFFREY B.
SELBY, CHARLES H. ROSENQL;IST,
MILC]?.EEI( CON L]OTIINiU M ASSOC]A-
TION, GOLDEN PE-U( HCUSE CONDC-
MINIUI,{ ASSOCIATION. \" RUCI(SACK
CONDO\1IN]L]N ASSOCiATION,
\IRS. CORTLANDT FIILL, TIIE PARKS
BUILD]NG, EL'ION BUD P A;iIi,S,
TI{E CHIIIS'IINIA LODGE. VAIL
ASSOCIATES, INC., TI{n EIIIPIRE
SAVINGS, BUILDING AND LO.\N
ASSOCIATION,
ORDER
Defendants.
This matter coming on to be heard upon Motion of the Plantiff
To Suspend or Stay Building Permit, and the Court having considered
sa id Moti on and the arguments of counsel herei n :
DOTH ORDER:
That the Town of Vajl is hereby ordered to suspend or stay the
building permit issued pursuant to the Exterjor Al teration Request
for the Red Li on, unti I further order of th is Court.
Done and Signed this r4flth day of April, .l981.
BY THE COURT:
/'s/ wMt. r-;:'"l0slEs
JUDGE
IN TTIE DISTITICT COURT
LI.I AND FOR TI{E COUNTY OF EAGLE
AND STATE OI.' COLOITADO
civir Action No. tl c U I l7
. PLAZA LODGE, INC., a eorporation . )
)Plaintiff, ivs. i
)
TOWN OF VArL, COLOF.ADO, )
TOWN COUNCU, OF TI{!] TOWN OF )
VAIL, ROD\EY SLIFEIT MAYOR AND )
RODNIY SLIFER, BUD l]EN3)ICT; PAUL )
JOHNSTON, tsOB F,UDnR, TOll )
STEINBERG, RO-\ TODD, AI.{D BILL )' WILTO, as mem'cers of the Town )
Couneil of the Town of 'r'.s.il; ). THE PLANNI\G AND EI{VIS,ONMENTAL )
MOTION TO SUSPEND OR
STAY BUILDING PERMIT
cot{MtsstoN oF THE TowN oF VAIL,
GERltY $'llITE, ROGDIT'ilLK!MEIER,
DAN COITCORAN, SCOTT EDi\'ARDS,
DUANE PIPER, Jit"l I\{CIIGAN, and )- F. GAYNOI1 I\4ILLER, es mernbers of )
the Planning and lnvircnrn cntal )
Commissiorr of the Town of Va!l; )
RICI{^ RD N" BllO\i'N, JltFFlllly B. )
SELBY, CHARL'S H. ROSENQLTTST,
I{ILCREII( CONDOI,IiNIU lvl ASSOCIA-
TION, COLDSN PE.ql( HOLTSE CONDC-
MINIU},,i ASSOCIATiON. V. 1]"UCI(SACK
CON DO \1I.\ ] U N ASSO CIA1]O I{.
11F"S. CORTLi\ND'I' I:11,L, 1'lll: PAP.I(S
BUILDING, TI,'|ON IJUD i)AR.I{S.
T}IE CII liiS'IJNIA LOi]GIi. VAIL
ASSOCINTI]S. INC., 1'110 :1]{P:ilE
SAVINCS, BUILDINC AND LOAN
ASSOCIATIO'r",
Dcf enclants.
c0MES N0t{ the Plaintiff by its att0rneys Gorsuch, Kirgis, canp-
bel'l , lnlal ker and Grover and respectf ul ly noves the Court to order tlre
Defendant Tor,{n of Vail to reyoke, rescind, suspend or stay the bujld-
ing permit jssued pursuant to the Exterior Alteration Request for the
Red Lion (hereinafter "Red Li on Request" ) and as grounds therefore
woul d show the Court:
l. As alleged jn the Conrplaint herein on March 17,'l 9Bl the
Torvn o1'Vajl denicd the appeal of plaint.iff antl otlrcrs front tlre decj-
sion of tlie Planning and Environnrental Ccninrjssion approving the Red
L i on Requcs t.
o
2, That Plaintiff commenccd this actjon jn a timely manner
on Aprll .|4, l9Bl within 30 days of said decision as required by
106 (a)(+) c.R.c.P.
3. That on April 13, l98l , as shown by the affidavit of
Les streeter which is attached and made a part of this motion,
the city Manager of the Town of Vail was persona'lly notified that
the Plaintif,f wou'ld exercise its right of appea'l to this court
under the rule and would file this action.
4. That on April ,l4, 198.| at approxirnately l:15 p.M. the.
court issued its citation and Rule to show cause and to stay pro-
ceedings. said citation is directed to the Defendant Town of Vail
and the Town council of the Torvn of vail and states, inter alia:
"You are further ordered to stay a1l proceed-ings in connectjon with the above matter andto i ssue no permi ts to the proposed expan-sion until further order of this Court. "
5. That the Town of Vail has advised plaintiff that on or
about B:30 A.M. on April .l4, l98l it issued a.building permit for
the Red Lion construction notwithstanding thc actual knowledge
that Planitiff's time for appeal had not run and despite knowledge
that Plaintiff was prepari ng and would exercise its right of ap-
peal by filing this lawsuit.
6' That Plaintiff bel ives that the issuance of the build-
'i ng permjt was expedited or advanced becaus{1 of the knowledge and
anti ci pati on of thi s l awsui t r.nd i n vi ol ati on of pl ai nti ff,s
rights on this appeal.
7 , l'hcrt as thi s mot j on 'i s bei ng prepi, r-.ed no constructi on
has comnenced, but Plaintiff is informed and lii:'l ives that constuc-
tion is scheduled to.or*.n.,, crr Monday, Apri I 20, 198'l .
8. That the ordindncc:i of the Town .'i yai 1 require the Town
to inspect construction as it p'rogresses. .l.h;rt the performa'nce of
such inspections, approvals arici other required supervision by the
Town wou'l d vicrlatc the citation issued by -this court, dhd require
that the bui'l ding permit be suspendecl or staycd.
9. l'hat Vail ordinance .t8.54.030 requires design approva'l
by the Design Review Board of the Town of Vail
to constructlon. That such approval is subJect
Town Council of the Town of Vall, which appeal
to the provisions of Rule 106 (a)(a) C.R.C.p.
:10. That the Plaintiff and others did i
Cou rt
as a prerequi si te
to appeal to the
in turn is subject
n fact appeal the
Design Review Board's decision and the Town Council denied that
appeal on Aprl 1 7, '1981 .
ll. . That the Plaintiff has 30 days from April 7,'t9BI to
flle an appeal from that decision of the Defendant Touln Council
and that Plaintiff does in fact lntend to do so.
12, That the issu.ance of the building permit by the Town
of Vail is an abuse of the Townrs authority and a violation of
Plaintiff 's rights.
[,tl{EREF0RE PLAIf{TIFF PRAYS: That t
herain d j recting the Town of Vai'l to wi
or stay the building permit for the Red
such other relief as the Court may deem
'
Resp
GORS
l,llALK
b
Jo
Sui 1200
818 lTth Street
Denver, Colorado 80202
534-1200
he
th
L
p
ec
UC
ER
ter its order
cind, suspend
sion and for
the prem'i ses.
bmi tted,
, CAMPBELL,
en
res
pan
in
Su
GIS
ROV
v
draw,
ion ex
ropef
tfu 1 1y
H, KIR
and G
o
IN TIIE DIST]TICT COLIItT
IN AND FOR TIIE COUNTY OF DACLE
AND STATE OF COLOIIADO
Civil Action No.
PLAZA LODGE, INC., a eorporation. )
)
Plaintif f, )
)Vs. )
)
TOI{N OF VAIL, COLORADO, )
TOWN COUNCTL OF'TIlE'IOWN OF )
YAIL, RODNEY SLIFEIT, r4AyOR AND )
NODNEY SLIFER, BU,D 9:NEDICT; PAUL )
JO!{NSTON, BQ3 RUDE3, TO}1 )
STEINBERG, nO^\ TODD, n ND BILL )
WILTO, as membes of the Town )
Couneil of ihe Town of Va.il:)
THE PLA:{NING AND ENYIRONMENTAL )
C0MMISSION OF Tli[ TOiVN OF VAIL,
GERRY t{HITE, ROGEIl TILKEMgIEn,
DAN COITCORAN, SCOTT EDlfi\RDS,
DUANE PIPER, JI14 i\{OltGAN, and )- f. GAYNOR irilLLER,, as members of )
the Planning and invircnmental )
Cornmission of '.hc Town of Vail; )
RICIiASD N. tsIl()l.JN, .rEFFR]iy B. )
SELI]Y, CHAJII,ES H, ROSENQI;IS'I, )
MILCF.gli( CONDCl,1lNIU.';1 r\SSOCIA- )
TloN, cioLDtN PE\r( 9OL;S[ CONDO- ) .
lrl I r*lU l.'r ASSOCIATION, V. !1, U(l lis ACl{
coNDolriNr uN ASSOCIA'!'IO :{,
rI}TS. COIiTLANDT }'I!LL, 1'iII] PAIiI(S
tsutLDING,liL'iON BUD PAIl;(Sr )
TIiE CIIRIS'iINIA LODGE. Vr\lL )
ASSOCIATEIj, INC., T1]E E;dPIR,D )
SAVINGS, BUiLLTING AliD IOAN )ASSOCI^TION, )
)Defendants. )
C0i4ES l'l0b! the Affiant Les Streeter, and, being f irst duly sworn,
upon oath deposes and says:
That on April .l3, lgBl at approximately l0:45 A.M. he accompa-
nied Max Garrett, an attorney for Plaza Lodge, Inc., to the offices
of the Town of VaiI and at that time and place he and Mr. Garrett met
with Tor,ln Manager 14r, Richard Caplan in the presence of Colleen Kl ine,
the Town Clerk. That Mr. Garrett advised l'lr. Caplan at that time
that Mrs. Joanne Hill, the orvner of Plaza Lodge, Inc., was preparing
and would file a lawsuit on behalf of Plaza Lodge, Inc. challenging
the actions of Town of Vail in connection wjth the Red Lion Request.
AFFIDAVIT-----T.E-_
vl
LES STR'ETTER
o
And that the lawsuit would be filed as soon as
derstood that the Pl ai ntl ff had unti I Aprl'l 17
sult.
Further Affi ant sayth not.
Dated this 20th day of April, 198.l .
t
possible. It
, 19Bl to file
liraS un-
that
't
Subscr,l bed and sworn to bef o
llitness my hand and of
My Commi ss i on expi res
re me ttricb-th day of April, '1981
ota
t
luwn
box 100
uail. colorado 81657
(3031 476-5613
April 17, l9B0
Bob Beebe
Beebe Realty Investments, Inc.
15610 S.E. Eastgate Way
Bell evue, Washington 98008
Re: Letters dated April 9th and llth
Oear Bob:
I am in receipt of your letters of April 9th and'l'lth. I find it
extremely difficult to believe that anyone working for the Town in-
dicated that the roofline of the Red Lion Inn could not be expanded
upvlards. The present height in the Commercial Core I area is 35 feet
which means that al'l buildings could be three to three and one haif
stories in height. This is not saying that every building wil'l be
this height, but this is the he'ight that is allowed.
As far as the Urban Design P'lan which is al]uded to in your Aprit 11th
letter, the part of the Red Lion designated as a potential expansion
area is on the south side of the building and a maximum of two stories
in height. This plan has been discussed by the Plann'ing and Environmenta'l
Cormission and the Town Council, but has yet to be formal Iy adopted by
elther group. (I have enclosed a copy of the plan for your review)
I appreciate your concern for wanting to protect the value Qf your
investment, and we will make sure that you are notified of any
proposed changes to the Red Lion or on any other abutting propert'ies.
This, however, does not preclude the possibility of the Red Lion or any
other building from considering changes similar to the one done to the
Rucksack Bui'ld'ing.
Thank you for your consideration on this matter.
Sincere'ly,
department of community development
fu*^ CI^
f,Oames A. Rubin
Zoning Administrator
Encl s.
lnwn
box 100
vail, colorado 81657
(303) 476-5613
TO: : R]CHARD CAPIAN
FROM: .fIM RUBIN
DATE: June 24,
/^t/.RE: Red'Lion
department of community development
198 0
Inn Appeal Hearing Date
I have set the hearing date for the appeal of the RedLion rnn for July 1, 1980 at 7:30 P.M. in the VaiI
Town Council Chambers. This Notice is being sent tothe people listed below, which should serve as suffi-cient notification.
cc: Cox and Goss
Bob Beebe
,foann Hill,Jeff Selby
Chuck Rosenquist
1;. Ii*--
JONATHAN C. S. COX
PAUL G. GOSS
RICHAFD J. WEDGLE
LAW Of l: lcE oF
COX & GOSS
A P NO F€ S SION AL COITPOBATION
SUITE 6OO. OO MADISON STNEET
DENVER. COLORAOO BO 2OO
TELEPHONE (303) 3S3-O800
July 3, 19 t]0
VaiI Town Council
c/o RodneY E. Sli-fer, Mayor
Box 24B
Vail, Colorado
Re: Conditionaf Use Pel:rni
Vail, colorado
Dear Mernbers of the Town Council:
t for the lt.ed Lion Inn,
PursualtttotheVail,Municil;Jcordi.nanceIB'54'090
and the sub-paragral>hs thet:eol. , t-lr is IcLt-er sha l. I constitul-e
formal written notiie of appeal of the Design lieview'Board's
decision to approve a condit-ional Llse I']ermit to allow the
e*pinsion of ii-re hed Lion Inn . T5 i s clccis i on was approved
by the Desi.gn Review Boarcl on Jurrc 18, I9B0 '
This appeal i.s f i Ied ori l-rchalf of Dr ' t'lartin and
Yvonne MuIIalIy and Mr. and I'lrs - Bob D - Beebe ' owners of
the Condominium Unit R-2 which is located directly north -andadjacent to the Red Lion rnn and Mrs. Joann Hill owner of the
pliza Lo6ge rvhich is directly west across ttridge street from
the Red Lion Inn. Represenl,atives from both parties were
present at the Design Review Boarcl hcaring and formally objected
lo such Conditional Use Pcrmit beirrg issued
Theobjectiorrsofourc]ientsrveresetforthwitlr
specificity in oirr letter datecl June 16, I980' appealing from
t'he Planning and Environnrentat conrm j ssion's decision to also
ippr""" tl-re Conclit.ional Use Pertnit of the Red Lion Inn. Those
oLjections anrl concerns of our clicnLs are specifically
inlorporated by reference herein as though fully set forth'
Irr aclclit ion , our clients f eeI that the Des.ign
Review Board approveci the Condit-ional Use Permit of tbe Red
Lion Inn, contrary to their objectives as set forth in the
VaiI t'tunicip.rl coie 1B - 54.01-0, spcc.if icaIly sub-paragraph B
wh ich s ta l-os :
"'Io ensure that tlrc Iocation and
configuration of structures are vi'sualIy
harmonious with their si tes and with
surroudnirrg ditcs and structures, and do
nob unnecessarily block 9ca!rcl-i{lcrvs-iroaffifto Uuifdfitis- oi"Ccnilto tomi natc the
to"n=calrc oL--tttc' r'ta Ltrre I I.rtrdscape ' "
vait 'fown ci,,"ir
Page Tr^roJuly 3, I9B0
AIso the Design Guidelines set fort.h in VailMunicipal Code I8.54.0.70 sub-paragraph R states:
"In residentiaL areas, location andconfiguration of builcl irrqs shouldmaximize thc privacy of iurroundingdleIlings and shoulcl j.ntrude into i.heirviews to the nrinimum extent feasible. "
I,Je urge that you review (-lnd reverse theDesign Review Board I s decision to .-rl)r)t:ove .the conclitionalUse Pernrit for the Recl t,ion Irrn.
Very truly yours,
cc: Bob D- Beebe
Joann Hill
Members of Town Council
Certified-Return Receipt Rcqrlested
PGG/bal
t
Cornuri r;s iotr 5.qrro.r:crcl t:lrc Cri tr't .iir
Co\t(rnant:s of ViriI Vi IJ.a<1t:, Fit'sl-
August I0, I962 it) llool:174 l'.rgu
MEMORANDUM
TO:TOWN COITNCIL
FROM: LAURENCE C. RIDER, TolfN ATTORNEY
DATE:
RE:
25 JUNE 1980
APPEAL OF DECISION BY PEC GRANTING APPROVAL OF
PHASE I, BED LION INN EXPANSION
The Town council has received an appeal of the PEC decision
approving the expansion of the Red Lion Inn. The appeal was
tiled by an attorney representing Dr. and Mrs. MulLally' Mr'
and Mrs-. Beebe, owners of condominium unit R-2 north of and
adjacent to the Red Lion Inn and JoannaHill owner of the PLaza
Lodge, west across Bridge Street from the Red Lion'
Tbe appeal alleges that the approval of the expansion violates
tbe prttective Covenants for Vail Village First Fili-ng, in that
it:
(a) interferes with their view;(b) does not imProve the Red Lion;
(c) is not visually harmonious witb
surrounding properties; and
(d) diminshes the value of the Beebe
unit because of the blocked view.
The appeal also states that since the expansion is to be done
in two pnases, that it would be better to view both phases to-
gether.- since Phase I makes the building look lopsided, Phase II
will have to be approved to balance it out.
Unless there are ecif ns in the Covenants that authorize
e o enlorce e restrictions in the Llov
ve no autnor
en EaEInE a decision on t 1
66'F aF both phases together i.s
a.practical one and not 1egal1y required. If application is made
must be reviewed as5i one part of the projeet, that applieation
submitte-cl. On the othei hand, an applj-cant who divides up a proJect
into pbases takes the risk that approval of one phase does not mean
that subsequent phases will be approved.
The criteria that should be used to review this application were
sent out in the Memo from the Department of Community Development
to tbe Planning and Environmental commission, dated June 6r 1980'
I would ea11 your attention to that Memo since your decision will
be based on this criteria.
0r
seL forth i l'r tlrc Plot:t:ct i t't:
f ili.rr<..y , wlriclt \'.'ere r:(''c()r<lr'<'l otr
1i9 in Lhc raElr: cotltlt)' 5L;s'1rl'tls
.i
a oo
llinutes of the June 9, 1980 Planning and Environmental Commission Meeti
- Members Present
Roger Tilkeneier
Gerry White
. Ed Drager
Jin Morgari
Sandy Mills
John Perkins
Dan Corcoran
Staff Present
Larry Eskwith
Dick Ryan
Peter Patten
Council,. Members Present
BiII T[i1to
Ron Todd
Jdn Donovan came in in the niddle of the Red Lion presentation.
Paul Palmateer came in for a few minutes.
1.) Approval of the Minutes of May 27, 1980 lfeeting.
Sandy Mi1ls made a motion to approve the minutes of the May 27,
1980 meeting. Ed Drager seconded the motion. The Vote was
unan imous.
2.> Conditional Use Permit to allo-w the expansion of the Red Lion
' Inn in two phases
Dick Ryan explained the application and then asked Bill Ruoff
to make his presentation.
Bill said Dick had made a tborough presentation and if it was
satisfactory, he would just answer questions of the Board and
audience. Dick said certain issues had to be addressed aud
asked Bill to make his presentation..
Bill Ruoff shocred a drawing of tbe proposed plan to the Board
and several members of the audience went up to see it also.
The Board asked questions of Mr. Ruoff. Gerry White mentioned
that he had recei.ved two letters of protest on this matter' one- from the Plaza Lodge (Mrs. Joanne llitl) and one from Mr. Beebe.
Mr. Ruoff said that Mr. Beebe will not have his view impacted
by this expansion and he wishes he would have contacted him
or Jeff Selby several montbs'ago and they would bave been
abl-e to answer all his questions. Mr. Ruoff said he feels
the mini park is a real improvement. They are asking for
approval of Phase I only today.
PEC Minutr"--.rrrl e, 1980 o
Page Two
Mr. Ruoff said Phase Two bas not even been defined yet. It wilL
be on the south side and needs more study- -He guarantees Phase I
will not look like something unfinished waiting for Phase If. They
hope to get started on Phase I tbis summer and have it finished by
faLl.
An attorney for Mr. Beebe asked some questions. Ee explained that
Mr. Beebe has the third floor condo iu the Rucksack Building. Mr.
Beebe seemed to think this expansion would block his views from
his living and dining areas. Ee.said he is also substituting for
Mr. McDermott who represents Mrs. Joanne llill who also wanted her
concerns voiced. She is upset with the pbasing of this project-
She would like to see all of it done or none. She doesnrt like
the roofline in phase f.
Jack Curtin speaking for Christy Hill said they have concerns about
the two phases al-so. Mrs. Hill met with Mr. Ruoff tbe day of the
meeting and also did some measuring. Phase I doesntt effect ber
andwould not mind if it were approved. However, they don't like
the idea of approving both phases. They feel each should be
handled separately. Phase II they feel will affe-ct-them and they
hope by approving Phase I today it does not give a blanket approval
to phase II. Jack also said there are several probLems that he
feels would have to be addressed before a building permit should
be issued on any phase. The problems are where building materials
will be stored, where the fence will be, and if there wilL be
adequate space for fire trucks etc. to get througb.
Jim Morgan- asked about the reduction of GRFA. Jeff Selby said that
portion will be retired until Phase II.
Dick Ryan said increasing the GRFA would have to be done with the
approval of Phase II and if Phase If were not approvedr they would
still have to come back to PEC for any changes not approved under
Phase f. ft may have to be incorporated back into phase I, but
it would have to come back.
Sandy Mills asked what the extra space will be used for between
Phase I and Phase If. Jeff Selby said it wil-l probably stay
as it is now for storage. It definitely will not be for seating
or kitchen.
Gerry lfhite said it is his understanding that the Board is only
looking at and approving Phase I today.
Dick Ryan said that tbe view corridors studied in the Village
Core Studies were not from one building to another but more from
the streets etc. There is not defined view corridors in Mr. Beebers
case. Dick Ryan reiterated that the Board will only be approving
Phase I here today. Dick also said that the problems of storage
and fencing will be addressed by the DRB and Building Departments.
IVr
PEC Minutes--June 9' 1980
Page Three
Gerry lYhite said be realizes that the view corridors discussed
in tbe study were from street leve} but he does think that other
view corridors must a1so be considered and anyone objecting must
be heard if their complaints are legitimate.
Ed Drager made a motion to approve tbe Conditional Use Permit
to a11ow expansion of the the Red Lion fnn Phase I. Roger Tilkemeier
seconded the nrotion.
There was more discussion.
Jack Curtin asked what happeDs if the Board approves tbis and the
Building Department cantt find a solution to the storage problems
etc. Larry -said no building permit can be issued until a solution
is found.
sandy Mil1s asked about the extra room being added. she said she
feel-s there is a visual impact. Dick Ryan said he thought she was
referring to the cut out for a deck on the south end. Sandy said
she feeli a view is lost to the Rucksack Tower. Jeff Selby and
Bill Buoff said no.
craig snowdon asked the Board to have the staff send DRB any
conc;rns they would like DRB to look at when seeing this proiect.
Jim Morgan asked if Phase I will definitely happen in this building
season. Jeff and Bill said Yes.
Tbe vote was taken. Everyone but sandy Mil1s voted for hpproval.
sandy voted against because she does not like the ehange in the
roofline and does not feel the change in the apartment is warranted.
She feels there are some view impacts. She does think the nini-
park and the entrance are good.
A short break was taken before discussion of item #3.
2.) Conditional use Permit to a1low expansion of the lower level
Dick Ryan made the Staff presentation on tbis. He said is
basically a l22O square foot addition to tbe south side
of the building to alleviate the crovrded conditions in
several departments. He mentioned that ttre Design Review
Board had been invited as tbey had turned down the proposal
at their meeting on June 4.
Gerry l{trite abked how far away tbe new Library' is. Diek
Ryan said it is one to two years away. The ?own can not
alk for anymore bond issues untiL they have the permanent
financing for the Parking Structure. Dick said tbe present
library contains 160O square feet and he feels that once
it is iracated, it will be used wltb or without this addition.
conditional use Permit to a1low expansion of the lower leveltti.
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
BE:
MEMORANDUM o
PLANNING AND FNVIRONMENTAL COl,llvtISSIoN
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DBVELOPMSNT/JAMES RUBIN
JUNE 5, 1980
EXTERIOR ALTEBATION REQUEST FOR THE RED LION INN
A. ) The Red Lion Inn has requested an addition of encl-osed floor
area as described below which requires them to obtain approvalof their request according to the following guidelines. Althougbthis application for this project was submitted prior to thepassage of the New Ordinances, we are revj-ewing it under the new. procedures, since the procedures are now in effect and theapplicant was ar,vare of the probability that they would be ineffect when this application was submitted
The Bed Lion fnn plans to proceed with their expansion in
two phases, with Phase I being the only one being reviewed atthls time. Phase II is planned to be submitted for review inthe latter part of August.
Phase I includes two additions of enclosed floor space: I2L
square feet on the first or ground 1eve1 , whieh is to becomea new entryway into the Lion's Den Restaurant and a 31-2 squarefoot loft addition whieh is above the second f1oor residences.'Also included in Phase I, but not involving the addition of
enclosed floor space is the addition of an exterior door andthe conversion of about 150 square feet of storage space intoa sma1l office for Red Lions Inn use on the North side of the
second floor, an addition of one window on the East elevation
and the addition of windows, a bal-cony and a stai-rway on theIfest side (which faces Bridge Street). Al-so incl,uded in theapplication is the conversi.on of the rock garden next to the
Rucksaek into a Public Park with brick pavers and bencbes.
B. ) EXISTING AND PROPOSED USE
BasementExiSiiE: Restaurant and StorageProposed: Unchanged
First FloorfnsTmg: nestaurant and BarProposed: Unchanged
Second FloorExlsifiEl---fuo Residential Dwelling UnitsProposed: Unchanged
Third Floorlffilfne: No Current UseProposed: Addition of Smal1 Loft Area
"' Red Lion--6-5-80
Page Two
C. ) STATISTICS
3.)
square feet
square feet
1. ) IleightIttowea: 6o% of site coverage under
401 between 30-40 feet
Proposed: IO07 under 30 feet
2.> Density Control
IoT-l[rea::TTF-69 square feet' GRFA Allowed--IL'191 square feet
GBFA with Loft Addition--3,?80 square
30 feet
feet
4. ) LandscapingITlowed: t,798 square feet minimum
Proposed: 31050 square feet
5,) Parking and Loading
Site Coverage
Allowed: 11r 191
Proposed: 10r901
Small Unit
Large Unit
TOTAL
(The 1,265 squareuntil Phase II)
Existing: Two car garage
Proposed: Parking Requirement is .797
greater because of increase
smaller unit.
Gross Residential Floor AreaExisting
583
4 1462
5,045
feet net loss of
ofin
a spacesize of
6.)Propqsed
1,38O
2 r4OO
3,78O
D.)COMPLIANCE I,YITH PURPOSE SECTION:
L8,24.O1O Purpose
The Commercial Core I Distri is intended to'provide sites and
Area. with its mixture of lodses and commercial establishments in
a predominatelv pedestrian environment. The Commercial Core I
District is intended to ensure adequate 1ight. air. open spaqg-
and othei ameni-ties appropriate to the permitted ty!e-E--Q-t--bg!!q1g
tenance and pieservaiion of the tiEhtlv clustered arranEements- of
buildinEs fronti!g on pedestrittt wavs and r:ub1ic greenwavs 4{td-togns[fe continuation of buildine scale and architectural qualities
and uses. The District rezulations in accordancq with the Vail
TillaEe uroanlesisn Guide ptan and oesisn Considerations preEcribe
aite development stanclards that are intended to ensure the main-
_
Net Change
+797
-2,062
-I t265
GRTA will remain unused
that distinquish the Vi11age.
"wt
Red Lion--6-5-80
Page Three I
The proposed Phase f expansion of the Red Lion Inn complies
with aLL aspects of the Purpose Section
E.)COMPLIANCE WITH VAIL VILLAGE I'RBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN AND
DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS IN NG THE \\I ING:
1.)Sub Area Coneents of Urban Design Guide Plan
Number 12 describes a future Mid-block connection to
MiIl Creek and a pocket park created on Bridge Street.
The proposed expansion does include a stairway connection
to Mil1 Creek and the pocket park on Bridge Street. The
park will be public but stairway connection will not really
be public due to private residences. The through connection
will be pursued when.substantial alterations are proposed to
either building face fronti,ng on the connection. No other
sub area concepts are considered 1n thls proposal .
Urban Design Considerations2.'
a. ) Pedestrianization on Bridge Street enhanced by
Pocket Park with Seating Area, which is aiso the
first step in the pedestrian eonnection through
to Mil1 Creek Court
b. ) Vehicle Penetration*-No impact.
c. ) Streetscape Framework--Improved landscaped area
by pocket park and i.ncreased exposure of commercial
activity of new entryway.
d. ) Street Enclosure: Improved by new Entryway- The
Height of the Loft Additlon only extends above the
existing rldge line by three feet which should not
have any impact on Street Enclosure.
e. ) Street Edge: New Entryway and park adds to the
Strong but Irregular edge of Bridge Street
f.)Building Height: Conforms completely with Height
Requirement. Loft Addition provides a mix of buildi.ng
heights (which is specifically mentioned as desirable
ln Height Section.
g. ) Views: No major of minor view corridors are impacted
by this proposal
Future submittal-s from this and other applicants should include
analysis of visual impact-sketch, photo simulation' or model of
building in its i.mmediate setting. An application form rvhich
contains this requirement is being put together at this time. )
Fffi
Red Llon--6-5-80
PpEe Four
h,)Sun/Shade: The three foot height extension over
the present roof line should have no impact on
the existing sun/shade conditions on any Public
Right of IVay.
3. ) Zoning Code Considerations
a.) Density Control: The proposal is ?411 square feet
under the GBFA maximum for the site.
b. ) Landscape Area Beduction:
The unimproved rock area is being converted into
a pocket park which is still a Landscape Use and which
we feel is an improvement. No other landscape area is
being removed or altered.
c. ) Parking: The .797 Lncrease in the parking requirement
would require prepayment lnto the Parking fund of $3985(which is the prorated share of the $5'000 space. )
4. ) Archi,tectural and Landseape Considerations
a. ) Roofs
b. ) Facades
c. ) Baleonies
d. ) Decks and Patios
e. ) Accent El-ements
f. ) Landscape Elements
g. ) Service
These are primarily the coneerns of the Design Review
Board and will be addressed by the applicant in thepresentation to the DRB. Based on preliminary reviewt
however, we do feel that the Phase I expansion sub-
stantially complies with all of the specific items
meutioned above.
F. ) RECOMMENDATION
Community Development recommends approvaL
Red Lion Expansion aecording to the plans
The Department ofof Phase I of theas presented.
) &d \h*
tsEEtsE Rnolrg gnunrtmemts
I56I O 5. E. EASTEATE VAY BELLEVUE. \TASHINGTON 98008 (zoe) z+z-r rzo
[iay 15, 1980
[[r. Jares A. Rubin
Zoning Director
City of Vail
Vai1, Colora& 4J-:657
Dear ilfr. Rrbin:
This will serve as a fo11ow r4r to our telephone conversation this
nnrrring. I understand you are as of this date sending IIE a copy of
the arctritectural dnwings outlining the raislng of the roof of the
Red Lion Inn.
lVe are willilg to nake available our Vail tsne so you can go into
it and see hovr the view is going to be changed j-n the event that the
Tcmn should al1orry the raising of the Red Lion's roof.
I suggest that the architect for the applicant put a llne on top
of the rnof strovrring the exact height. I also suggest that you haag
wrc red :reflectors frcrn the line and then go over to our house and
sit at or.rr dining roon table to see horr much of the visv is destrcyed.
Ctaig Snovdon has a key and is authorized to let you in.
We a6ain wish to state that uie axe absolutely optrrcsed to any ralsiag of
the roof of the Red Lion Inn. We also request again to be notified of
all neetings concenring the r:aising of the Red Lion Irut's roof.
bC"4--
DB: jlo
@i lilr. fraig Sncnsdon
7,"
tstr
I56IO S. E. EASTGATE WAY
o
trts Itr- Rnoltg 9^unrtmemts
BELLEVUE. WASHINETON 98008 (zotl t+t-ttzo
CBTIT'IID MAIL - RETTIRN RECEIPT RTjESiM
April 11, 1980
ldr. Jerry h:bin
Planning Director
Tlqm of Vail
Vail, Oolorado 81657
Dear Mr. Rubi-n:
The other day I sent you a letter of utrich you bad not had tine to
respond to. However I am sending a second letter restating Ir$7 concenr
in my first letter.
A copy of the enclosed ne$'spaper article entitled "Inprovenents for
Vail Village to be Renewed" appeared in the April 4 edition of the
Vail Tlail. There is one sentence i.n there that strikes hore,
"preliminary arctritectr:ral plans state that the Red Lion Cyranors . . .
buildingg could be e>qranded". When ue renndeled and added turc bedroons
and two bathrocxt's to our mndcrninir.m above the Rucksack we had to
secure 1) a building perroit and 2) a Design Revlew Board approval to
erpand and change the windows in our condoninium ttwt fac'e the rmuntain
and overlook the top of the Bed Lion Inn. Ttre renpdeling of the wildows
has greatly expanded our visr and added significant value to our
condorninium wlrich has been appraised at nearly $750,000. The appraisers
have ildicated that our visp as a result of the treatrcnt of the whdoqc
that uas allowed by the Tbvm of Vail for us to renlrdel has greatly
ilcreased the value of our condsniniun.
19e have no objection to the expansion of the Red Lion provided that the
rpofline does not elevate higher than its present height or does not i:r
any $ay change our existing vitr. We wisb to go on record as requesti-ng
to be notified of any irr{rending cbanges that vuould a-ffect our view or
any cbanges to the exterior of the Red Lion. We are 1,50O miles avay
and use the condqninir.ur only in the winter tine and thus are at the rercy
of the Tovn of Vail iaforrning us of vdrat is happening to our view. That
.is why this letter arrd the previous letter have been sent to you certified
mail, return receipt requested.
Page 2
snow j-s on the roof we vis,v tbe npuntaj.rr over untouctred virgin snow whictt
has fa11en on the roof of the Red Lion fnn and this enhances our spectacular
view of Vail Mountaia'
l{hen r,,e pr:rchased our wj.nter hore frcm selby, Rosenquist & kown they
assured us with great vigor that:
1. ,|Ye could rgrcdel and add two bedroors and two baths onto
the existing structure and,
z. IVe coufd rsrndel the window of the existiig structure to take
fu-11 and better advantage of- the viqry "as the r.dofling of ?e
Bed Lion fnn was f1xed',. O,i view could never be destroyed
ffil would not a11ow any building to be
built higher tba-n the existing roofline'
our architect, craig snowdon, who superwised the rermdeling, represented us
before the Design Review Cormittee. He explained to the-conmittee how ue
were going to change the exberior of our hone and its effect fr"om those utto
view our hone frorn att algles and frqn the streets be1ow. Ttre Design Revietrr
Connrlttee a.s lvell ".-in" Fr"""ing Staff indicated to CYaig Snowdon the Town
rvanted to pr.otect and insure the integrity and chanacter- of one of its npst
fancus and wel-l lorounr tanOnrartcs, thu,s the enlarging of the window and
obvious external change was weti scrutinized. In addition I personally -
have long distance prrlne carr records showing ruy phone ca11s wtrich included calls
to the Tor,vn of Vai1. Ttrese call-s r''ere initiated over the changing of the
wj-ndorvs and the guaranteeing of our view by the Tloln of-vail. It was j-n
oqr opision there was no n.6d for 's to go to the trou6le aad e>rpense to
enlar'ge our windows to take a.dvantage of the view if at a Iatev date it was
going-to be era.dicated by the evalu.tion of the roofline of the Red Lion
Inn. lVe r,lere *"*.d tbe Red Lion Inn's roof vould not be raised and our
view of Vait Mountain would rernain forever'
I wrote a letter on Aprit 9, April 11 to li[r. Janres Rubin, a @PV of ttttictt
is attached. He qui.ci<ly .."ponded to nV letters--on-Apri1 17 and enclosed
a copy of the ,r.* pffiluo lou* design- for the village area dated April
S, 1980. lye onl"y r*-il ;dorniniun-jn the winter tirne and we are 1,500
,if""-"r"V frcrn Vail itself. -It becones very obvious bgcluse of the great
distance ttrat we are jll an r:nfortr:nate position of not being able to f on
the site to protect our interests. \Te
-are interested i-n securing connitnents
frm the Town of vaif inat the origisal connr-itnrent received frorn the Toim
of Vail is not eoing t;be alteredl Otrr condorniniun has been appraised at
nearfy $1,OOO,OOO ii value. 1Ve have no objection to the Red Lion Inn
undertaking ary new renodeling or adding oi ad+itionll sOr,ure footage provided
that the roofline a.s we see it frcrn our concl0rniniurn is not distulbed as shown
on the nap as figure o*ro"t rr. In addition we vpuld like to have figure
nrrolcer 12, the futurgmiOOioct connection to Mi1l Creek Court area, erplained
indetailtoirs.Ttreonlyr,rraythatyoucangettoMillCreekoourtfrrcrn
Bnidge street .,*r1J.L-gr"i"c op o.ll steps to the second 1evel and walkijrg
to tf,e ba.dr of the builEj:agl tnen golng dovm our steps and across a new
bridge that nrsL be built.
I
Ite are opposed to this and u'ould like to liarow if you plan on condarning our
property to use that right of way. Please recogpi-ze f:rcn 1,500 miles auaylt vnuld appear to us to be a very sca::y situation for us to be involved in.
,dc: li{r. Jares Rubia
P.S. E:closed are copies of letters dated April 9,11, a^ud 17.
1..
i
-tstrtrts t
tr G,d"ltg 9*unrtrnemts, 9rr.
f 56r0 s.E. EASTGATE \(Ay BELtEvuE, \rAsHlNGToN 98oo8 (zool 74t-3t20
April 9, 1980
illr. Janes A. Rubin
Zoning Ldninistrator
!ov'n of Vail
Vail, Colorado
Dear LIr. Rubin:
Thank you for sending ne the pr:lclic notice, a copy of u'hich is attached
for your clarification as to ufuat I am writing about.
llyself and my partner Martin Mullally own Unit #2 of the Rucksaek
Oondoniniun. Our condcnii-niun is the top three floors of the building.
A year and a half ago \rre comnenced a rencdelilg program wherejn ue
built two bedroon's and two baths out over the roof of the then existlng
roof of Kelton Gardens Real Estate office. fn the process of getting
the building perrnit and securilg design review approval for the trvo
bedroom tllo bath addition we also secured the torvnrs approval to
ctrange the exterior wjldows frqn a srall configirration to large plate
glass windows in our kitchen, dining roon, and livilg room area. This
enabled us to opand our view fron our condorniniun over the roof of
the Red Lion Restaurant so that we could see the nor.untajl ilcluding
chair 1, 16 and 6 as well as e>qlanding our vierv of the MilI CYeek
Oourb and the Gore Range llountains.
I'ie have no real- conplaints with the pncposed ehanges with one orception.
We were told by the Town of Vail wi.ien v,e did our respdeling of our
w"indous in our ki-tehen, diailg and living roorn areas that there uou.ld
be absoluteJ.y no possibility nol, or ever in the future that the roofline
of the Fed Lion Iru: would be epanded r-pward. If the roof}ine is exbended
rpward it qould totally destroy our view a:rd take away hundreds of
thousands of dollars ia the value of our condorninir-un. Therefore we wish
to put you and the Tbwn of Vail on record with this registered letter
that any ctunge in zoning that vould detrirrentally result fu the destroying
of our view and lessenirtg the value of our condaniairm will be resj-sted
vigorously.
I
Janes A. hrbi:l
9, 1980
z
It sould verXr well be that I aru getting a,larrned over nothing, hcmeventhe mclosed public notice doqrrents nptirrates re to rmite this letter.
I "q[q alrpneciate by retu::"n uail you settli'g rgr uneasioess by stat.lngtbat the roofliue of the Bed Lion rnn wirt neven be atlowed to increaseln height ths destrcying onr viem.
Dts:J1o
cc: l[r. Martin Mu1la11y
0 rd'
tsEEtsE Rnol,g grunrt,ments ill
I56IO S. E. EASTGATE WAY BELLEVUE, \TASHINETON 98008 (zoc)
lvlay 1, 1980
yfir. aoOney E. Slifer
IvIr. John Donovan
14r. Scott Ho1rnan
Ii{r. Bill Wilto
Dr. Tcm Steinberg
lvls. Paula Palmateer
Ivlr. Ron lbdd
Itr. Ed Drager
L{r. John Perkins
IUr. Jim Morgan
1,4s. Sandy Mi-IIs
l'4r. Dan Corcoran
[4r, Gerry lllhite
l,{r. Roger Tilkqreier
IvIr. Fritz Glade
li4r. I-ewis [leskirnen
[4r. Iftis Sivertson'
I{r. Craig Snordon
ladies and Gentleren:
We purchased oilr condcrniniuu, the pyranid tourer of the Rucksac,k Building,
h Janua^:ry of 1978 fr"crn the otners of the Rucksack Building, Selby'
Rosenquisl & Barown. Sdne 30 different postcards and placqnats that we
have been able to secure indicate our condsniniun is one of Vairl's rnst
photographed landnarks.
In Septenber of 1978 we added tuo bedrosns and tuo baths out over the roof
of Kelton Gardens Real Estate firm toryards Bridge Street. At the sanre tj:re
we were rennd,eling we enlarged every windog in the existing structure, as
well as adding a *indow for lighting, escape puryoses and also for its vieu'
frcrn our pyramiO tower. A11 windous on our 1gi.11 1ivjlg 1eve1 were erpanded
to the ngr<nnnn possible size for the purpose of taking ful1 advantage of
one of the nrcst spectacular viev,s of Vail Mountain in Vail. Ttris visr
extends frcrn the far west side of Chair 1, all of Chair 16 aJ.1 the way over
to Chair 6 and east. lbcrn oqr kitchen, dining roqn, living rocrn, and from
one of the new bedroqrs we ca.n take in thls velry gniqr:e and closeup one of
a kind view of Vail li{ountain. Our view overlooks the noof of the Red Lion
Irut. ltre present heigbt of the Red Lion Innrs noof is just perfect' I'then
Gti^\-ffift
747-t|20
box 100 department of community development
vail, colorado 81657
(303).476-5613
April 17, .|980
Bob Beebe
Beebe Realty Investrnents, Inc.
15610 S.E. Eastgate l.lay
Be11evue, l,lashington 98008
Re: Letters dated April 9th and llth
Dear Bob:
I am in receipt of your letters of Apri'l 9th and llth. I fjnd it
extremely difficul t to believe that anyone work'ing for the Town in-
djcated that the roofline of the Red Lion Inn could not be expanded
upwards. The present height in the Commerc'ial Core I area is 35 feet
which means that all bui'l dings cou'l d be three to three and one half
stories in he'ight. This js not saying that every building will be
this height, but th'is is the height that is allowed.
As far as the Urban Design Plan'which is alluded to in your April ]1th
letter, the part of the Red Lion designated as a potential expansion
area is on the south side of the building and a maximun of two stories
in height. Th'is plan has been discussed by the Planning and Environnental
Corrnission and the Town Council, but has yet to be formally adopted by
either group. (I have enclosed a copy of.the p'l an for your review)
I appreciate your concern for wanting to protect the va'l ue of your
investment, and we will make sure that you are notified of any
proposed changes to the Red L'ion or on any other abutting properiies.
This, hovlever, does not preclude the possibility of the Red Lion or any
other build'ing from considering changes similar to the one done to the
Rucksack Buil ding.
Thank you for your consideratjon on this matter.
Sincerely,
A n -,\
/'l'^^"A t''^o<.-'--
lOames A. Rubin
Zoning Administrator
Encl s.
Page 2
snorv is on the roof we visv the rpirrtain over untouched vlrgin sorp wtrictr
has fallen on the roof of the Red Li.on Inn and this enhances our spectacular
view of Vail Mountain.
When r,rc purcha.sed our winter hcrre frcm Se1by, Rosenquist & Brown they
assured us with great vigor that:
1. We couLd rsnrdel and add two bedrosns and tuo baths onto
the eedsting structr.ue and,
2, We could renpdel the windour of the existing slnrcture to takeful1 and better advantage of the vi€iqr "as the :roofline of the
Red Lion Innla5 llaqd". orr view cour@ffiI u,ouJ.d not allour any buitding to bebuilt higher than the e<isting nooflirte.
Our architect, Cbaig Snowdon, wtro srryervised the rerndeling, retrlresented us
before the Design Review Cqmdttee. He eplained to the cornrittee how we
were goiag to change the exberior of our hqre and 1ts effect frpm those r,vtro
view our hqne frcrn all angles and frun the streets belor. Ttre Design Revieur
Cqnnittee a.s uell as the Planning Staff indicated to Ctaig Snowdon the ltorvn
wanted to prctect and insure the integrity and character of one of its rcst
fanrcus and well lmoun landrBrks, thus the enlargj.ng of the wirtdow and
obvious external cbange uas well scrutinized. In addition I personally
have long distance phone c+11 records showing rry phone calls wtrich jlcluded callsto the Town of Vail. Ttrese ca1ls lrere lnitiated over the chaaging of the
windows and the guaranteeing of our view by the Town of Vail. It wa,s in
our opiaion there was no need for us to go to the troubLe and e>rpense to
enlarge our windovas to take advantagp of the vienry if at a later date it was
going to be eradicated by the evaluatlon of the roofline of the Red LionInn. We were assured the Red Llon Inn's noof uould not be raised and our
view of Vail Mourtain would rernain foreven.
I wrote a letter on April 9, April 11 to Mr. Janes Rrbln, a @pV of rdrich
is attached. He quichly reslrcnded to nry letters on April 17 and enclosed
a erpy of the new proposed urban design for the Village area dated April
3, 1980. IIe only use our condqninium in the winter time and we are 1,500
niles away frqn Vail itself. It becmes very obvi-ous because of the great
distance that we a^re in an unfortunate position of not being able to be on
the site to protect our interests. We are interested jl securilg cqnnitnents
frqn the Tlovn of Vail that the original ccnmitnrent received frcrn the Tlown "?of Va11 is not going to be altered. Our condoninir.m has been appraised at
nearly $1,000,000 in value. Ile have no objection to the Red Llon Inn
undertaking any nes/ rerodeling or adding on additional sqlrare footage prcvided
that the r",oofline as e see it frcm our condcmi-nium is not disturbed as slrovn
on the rap a"s flgure nurber 11. In addition we uouJd like to have figure
nunlcer 12, tlrre future nidblock connection to Mi1l Cleek @urt area, explained
in detail to r.s. The only way that you can get to Mil1 C?eek Court frffi
Bridge Street $ould be going up our steps to the second level and rr'all<ing
to the back of the building, then going dCI^'n our steps and acnoss a new
bridge that rmst be built.
a
rue3
IYe ane opposed to this and would rike to loa[4, if you pran on conderming orrproperty to use that rigbt of vray. Please recognize fron 1,5oo mltes awayit would appeax to us to be a very sca^rr situation for us to be inrrcrved in.
,E"t '''-
PnB:J1o
cc: Mr. Janes krbin
P.S. hclosed a"re copies of letters dated April 9, 11, a.nd 17.
-
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMEN]AL CCI.IMISS:ION MEETING
Febnrary 9, 1981 3:00 p.n.
STAFF PRESENTPRESENT
Gerry ltlhite
Roger Tilkeneier
Dan Corcoran
Scott Edwards
Duane Piper
Jirn Morgan
Gaynor Miller
1. Approval of ninutes of meeting of Jinuary L2, LggL,
Dick Ryan
Peter Patten
Betsy Rosolack
COTJNC IL REPRESENTAT IVE
Bud Benedict
Scott rnoved and Gaynor seconded that these ninutes by approved. Vote was 7-0 in favor.
2. -Approval of minutes of neeting of January 26, 1981.
Dan noved and Roger seconded that these ninutes by approved. Vote was 7-0 favor.
l' t*e-
fron January 26 neeting).
Peter: I was able to meet with l,lr. Luke between the last neeting and this one, we went
over and looked at both topographic surveys--the e.arly one and the one that was done,I believe last year. As far as trying to compare the tt.,'o suryeys to see if there wasa slope changc, that was inpossible to do because the early survey was not adcquateto be able to conpute slope on the site. I did take Mr. Lukets recent survey and re-
analyzed the slope. I did a slope analysis mysel!, and it turned out that Mr. Luke would
be allorved 2 units on the property rather than one. I inforrned him of that fact, and'it did not change his wish to get a variance to construct 3 turits on the property. As
nost of you know, we were able to look at the site today. We took 5 of the planning
commissioners and Bud Benedict from the Council out to the site and we did a conplete
inspection of the site. As far as the staff reconmendation on this, there is no change.
To repeat, we still feel strongly that, of course we would allow 2 units which is aliowed.
llie feel strongly that the best solution in the development of this property is to developit in accord with the adjacent lot, where there is a buildable area, and finally Itdlike to quickly go through and read off the findings which the Planning and Environnent
Cornnission nust nake before granting a variance. Before any variance i.s approved, the
three points that the Connission nuit fi.nd are:
l. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege
inconsistent t.,ith the lirnitations on other properties classified in the same district.
2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health,
safety, or welfare, or naterially injurious to propertics or inprovements il the vicinity.
3. 'lhe tlre variance is warranted for one or nore of thc fol lorving reasons:
a. The str ct or literal interpretation and .enforcernent of che .specified regulstj.on
,'.uould rcsult in plactical diffiiufty or unnec,essary physical hardship j.nconsistcnt,
with the objectives of this title.
PEC-2-2-9-81
3.b. There are exccptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicableto the site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties inthe sane zone.
c. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation
would dePrive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other propertiesin the same district.
The Planning Comnission must nake all of these findings in orcler to approve the variance,and, in conclusion, our reconmendation remains as the original neno states, denial ,
Gerry: Thank you. Would the applicant like to nake sone cornments ?
Mr. Luke: Ycs, please. Irve been here now three tines, and I thought that we had. madethe rninutes of the neetings fairly c1ear, but I don't see any addressing of the problernby the Planning Commission. I'n going to state it one more tirne for the record., andthatfs it. Low Density }frltiple Family equals north sicle of lot 3 equals 1,ot 4 , 3.7units. Sarne topogrsphy, and I believe you gentlenen have seen that today, an<l Irm sorry,but Irm getting a Little bit impatient because Irve been here 3 tines and not.hing seensto be happening. If you deny this today I would appreciate under the constitutionalprocess the reasons why you are denying it. I have and they are part of the ininutesof the neeting and I should not take the tine of the group to reiterate for the thirdtime, and I l'ri1l not. If you would like some reiteration, I would be happy to presentit to you. Thank you,
Gerry: Thank you. Conunents from the planning Commission?
Dan: As I recall ' the Postponenents and the reguests for tabling were on your part,not the planning cornrnission. We were inore than willing to take a vote the first tineyou were here .
Luke: That is not true, sir. In talking to Mr. Patten, we had. to narly the originalsite pJ'an Process which as you know is the site plan, to the survey rvhich was Mx. R.W.
Consultants, July 1980, rnarry those two to see if therc was a consi,<]crable difference"Now. The rocks have,been thrown on rny land by you :ld the State. liow nany of eachI do not knorv. I told you thi-s three'weeks ago. This has not been <iec ided. because
!f91e- ar9 scar places nry trees, there are also no lichen moss, ca1 1ed noss rock. Now,Ir11 be happy to go into it, Irve into it three times, and ali I get is bottles andbees. Nobody has ever answered one questi.on. Irrn a little bi-t tired.
Dan: You said that the rocks on your property substalttially changed the topography,and that's why there is a difference. -r irguld with yo,, *'d expliinecl to yiu-whyif your lot was surveyed properly, those rocks would not affect your topography. you
obviously didn't listen to that.-
Luke: No, you havenrt checked it out.
Dan: 0h, yes' I have. Irve been out to your lot 5 tines in the last two weeks walkingit by myseLf, and with the Planning Cornrnission today. Itrn a licensed land surveyorin this state, also, I know what is required on topography.
LYI:: linu. I'ly point sti!.l rcmains, ancl r have not changed. -I belicve the mj.nuteswill reflect this and this history, it ,irr be forever in perpetuity. Jherefore, rwill rest and I want to know what-the appeal proceclures ""i.
^I have an idea that Itnrbeing denied ny three units,
Gerry: Mr. Luke, you havenrt been denied three units. Any other comments ?
;i !: !r'-scott: Ird like to move that since the applicant has not satisfied thc requircments
PEC -3- 2-9-8L
of the ordinance in requesting a variance, that the variance
Roger: Second.
Gerry: To the Town Council.
Luke: And then what is the
ied.
30 days?
Gerry: I donrt know
Luke: Ithinklhave
Ir11 be back with you
Gerry: No, you would
Luke: Pardon ne?
anybhing about it.
to appeal within 30 days as I recalr. you might check that anclin l0 days. Thank you very much.
appeal to the Town Council.
:.ij.'
o
be den
99Tyt Motion by Scott Edwards, seconded by Roger Tilkeneier. A1l those in favor.(All voted in favor.). unanimous. And I would renind you, l*{r. Luke, that you have10 days to appeal to Town Council if you would like to.
Luke: l0 days. Is that for appeal to the Town Council?
legisJ.ative process for the State of Colorado? Is that
Gerry: r said that you rr,ould appeal to the Town corurcil , if you wish to appear thedecision of the planning Conr:nisiion.
Peter: Mr- Luke, the appeal procedure is for you to submit in writing to the TownManagerrs office, if you would like to appear on their agenda if you would liketo appeal this decision. One other thini, the presentation that you nake at theTor+n council nay not be different than wfiit you rtarr" pt*r"rrt*d here.
Luke: Is that 10 days from today?
Peter: Yes.
Luke: Do I appear here 10 days from today?
Peter: No, you will not, just submit in writing.
Luke: You don,t know the rules of that? Mren do I appear?
Peter: Sir, again, you subrnit in writing to the Tourn Council within 10 days. Theywill schedule you on a regular Town cotniit meeting. you wirr.be inforned.
4. A request
5 and 6,
Gerry: Corunents frorn the staff?
Peter: Yes' This is.the site nap out in East vail, lots 5 and 6 are the ones concerned.
!11' B9rs9n is requesting that the existing 1ot line be abandoned, and that a new rotline be dra}rn, a very minor change, and rirr tet-tir-"-pi"i, trru-r""ioni-;"; ;;:
Borgen: Itir asking that this conmon corner uctw""rr'rot 5 and lot'u o"',no]r*o 12 feet
;:r:l:."""' rtrren this singre r.arnirr fo3e. ""' f:ll,:.g; gi;.roir 3s*,F,a a Jeiachea
., r!-ii th( J.i;ir:
PEC-4-2-9-81
Peter: Basically,
are different fron
6 is still a 1egal
this is cleaning up
the Townrs. It will
size.
the lot line becaus" .t?*.y rcgurationselininate the non-conforming use, and lot
After nore discussion, Gerry asked for a notion. Roger moved and Duane seconded thatth-e request to revise the existing lot line betrceen lots S and 6, Block 5, BighornSubdivision, sth Addition be approved. The vote to approve was 6-0, with Dan Corcoranabstaining.
!.- -A-requgst for an exterior alteration and rnodification in connercial Core I andheight variance or"creek Drive. Applicant: Bob Fritch. o rvver's\! cL! rc
Peter went over his nerno. He explained that this r.ras revlewed at the Decenber lZwork session briefly-, nrentioning that it was a rninor addition, and that the only reasonthat it was before the Pr aan:.ng"con*irr ion was because it bras an exterior alteration,as ni'ninum as it is. The stafi had reviewed it ancl j-t had no effect on any of theurban Design Criteria really, as the meno stated. The questi.on was did it need zrheight variance, the staff has determinecl that it is basically an architecturalprojection and no height variairce is recluired. The sitzrnark i.s a legal existingnon-conforming structure with regard to height, and the ,hurt "r" not going to increasethat discrePalcr, so that no heilht variance is needed., and staff is recornrnendingapproval of the project.
Duane Piper of wheeler-Piper explained that the height was i5r ancl showed drawi_ngswith rnore explanation. The break down square footage to this is: mechani.cal equipment298 sq ft., public lobby space increased 17g sq ft, the hallway is extended to putthe elevator on the interior^space, upper two
-floors have storage roons, 132 sq ft,so total envelope sg ft is 60g.
Dan corcoran moved, and Gayn or seconded to grant the request as stated in the mernofrom the staff srtrtlject to the following conJitior,: .
. The applicant agrees to participate j.n the Vail Vil1ageimprovernent district if and wlien formed for Vail Village. ,The vote to approve was 6=0, with Dtrane pipir abstainlng.
6; A st- fgl _?n exterior alteration atrd nodification in Corunerciir.l Core I foreReon
04 East Bridge Street. Appticant: Jeff Selby.
1ding., toco-ffij 11ing ts and additshops at
3*:l-*f*,_^ll":-!*::lln:'11d nembers of the Ftannins comrtsrior,, rhis is a requestunder the new procedure. that was just adopted uy the*eranning conmission last ,ff;;for a new addition to the Red Lioi. The Planning cornnission has had extensivepresentation at the joint-neeting between the ptlnning-po*ritrion and the coulcilon the proposal. Proposcd^is approximatery 2,lclg0 sq Ft'of n", conrnerciar spaccwhich would be by seibert circle'"nJ-*" febr ivoutd tr" u t"tiu. connection in seibertCircle for pcople to go up there and shop and browse and just nake the area a nuchmore active and pleasant space. Also iequested is 3 seiond floor dwelling unitsthat would contaj.n approxirnaiely s,5g0 sq ft. The proposar for residentiar spaceis substantially under the allowed 6ross Residential Flior Area for the buildi.ng.r think the appl icant has been very responsive to conceins of dealing with the sitecoming up wi-th a new addition to tire stiucture that i.s very compatible r+ith what isproposed under the Vail village urban Design Guide pran. ilso, the applicant hasresponded, in the staffts view, to dealing with the rninor view corridor of the VaiIVillage Urban Dcsign Guide plan. In the ninor view corridor, thore can be some mod.i_
PEC-s-2-9-81
The view conidor : There is soneHill Street. The staff does feel
oa of
fication to this view corridor. I think werve all seen the presentation on the nrodi.-fication that would take place at the vierrr corrj-dor. I think werve also looked atwhat some of the inplications are if the building is nodified in other ways whereother pri.vate views woulcl be blocked substantialiy if the applicant continued to gowith the Gross Residential Floor Area that is allbwed. The-ltaff has looked at theUrban Design Considerations that the Planning Cornrnissi.on needs to review as far aspedestriani zati-on is concerned. I think it Ir * improvernent to pedestriani zationinto the seibert circle area. There is a better conirection to thl Mill Creek Buildingnoving the Seibert Circle area to the north, which is proposed under the Urban DesignGuide Plan. The seibert Circle which actuatly have nore sun during certain times ofthe year and becorne an even more viable place with sone redesign oi that particulararea' The vehiclc penetration: Potentially there could be fewer vehicles there becausrthere is presently a 2 cat garage where pcople cone to park at the garage and they alsotend to park at the.back of the garage, so at times theie could be 4 vehicles corninginto the core at al1 tirnes, reatizin! ih"t th"y have almost a permanent parking ptacei-l tttg Village. under the proposal, therc would be a loading and unroacling zone byMill Creek' so that the people-rt'ho would be using the condominiurns would bc able rouse that area to load and unload their vehicles, and then they rvould be required, .unlesstltuy l"a sone space that we don't know about, to go to the parkilg structure, or ifthey had a aental car, they could return the rentil car, because they nay not need i-tuntil the end of the week or until they go back to Denver, or_'*h"""r'"r ;i.r"t-;; be going.
on the east side would also be the loading area, so that the trucks that would be servicithis building would be able to use that, The sireetscape framework I think werve alreadytalked about, in fact, we feel that adding conmercial s-hops to ttrat ena "r trt" street
$]J nrovide-the opportunity for people to actually "om" up there and walk throughSeibert Circle instead of just, wirat- rnany do, look'.down the street and decide tharit is not worth going down further to Mill Creek, and r think it will be an irnprovedoPportunity pius, f1o^ the design viewpoint, j.t will be a very beautiful entry-intothe shops.
Street edge and street enclosure: The applicant has denonstrated that the stxeet enclo-sure of I/2 to I that_ is expressed in the vail Village Urban Design Guide plan isnet by thi.s, and that therc ii some street enclqsure by the proposui, but I think ifyou look at the nodel here today, there is stil1 a very comfirtiure ieering as you wouldwalk down the stTeet.
Building height: The proposal does neet the urban Design Guide plan for builCing height,actually the whole building, r believe is under 30 feet which is one of the rnain criteria:It doesntt even have-to. have the other perceirtage--50 to 40 feet where a certain percen-tage could be actually higher.
intrusion into the view corridor taking place frornthat that is an.acceptable change to the vj_ew corridor.
The sun/shade: There is no impact because the sun is coming fron the south and thebuilding is not shading the street or another building-
As far as the zoning code j-s concerned, the rnajor aspect there would. be that the applicantwould-be required to p1y the_park:'.ng fee that iras been established for Vail villagefor the new addition of rcsidential spacc ancl for the new a<idition of the conunercialspace that wj.ll be in the building, and would be responsible for paying for the renovalof. the parking spaces that are in-ihe pr"r"nt garage. ,-- j,:.
- t l]'"
PEC-6-.2/s/8t
Itnder the architectural and landscape controls that are in the Design Considerationsof the Urban Design Guide Plan, I think the applicant, as far as the architecturaldesign, has responded to the essence of what ii Ueing proposed in the Design Considera-tio_ns, and actually has the design of the'building fit-the character of Vait \riltage,and also fits the building that is currently there. The design, we feeL, blends inand is very complinentary to the existing Red Lion building. The recornmendation ofthe staff is for approval of the request subject to i conditions:
1: The applicant agrees to participate in and rernonstrate against .a special improvemendistrict if and when formed for Vail Village.
2: Ttre applicant agrees to upgrade the landscaping along Mil1 Creek and and presentthe plan to the Conmunity Developurent departneni for appioval .
3. And the applicant agrees to participate financial1y in street improvenents, forexample street pavers, strect lights and 'the relocated focal point ai Seibert Circleif an inprovement district is not formed, and the applicant rvill share a sinilar anounr,if we are able to get agreernent frorn all the prop""iy owners in the surrounding areat-o agree uPon sonething like a special assessment to improve Seibert Circle. itr ,.1tethe Town would also be participaiing in what inprov"r"ni, would be there.
Gerry: Are there corulents frorn the appljcant?
Peter: ltle received a letter, I think all of the planning comnission nenbers have acopy of this, dated February 3, 1981, addressed to the Pianning and EnvironnentalCorunission: Dear Mr. Chairman and Corunission menbers:
I'With regret I am unabtle to attend your published rneeting on February 9, 19g1, as Inust be in Chicago that day. I wish to present to the -ornmission, Ly *"y of a lS ninutewalking site visit, opposi.tion by Mrs. Coitlandt Hill and nyself, iuck Cuttin, to therequest to nodify the exterior of the Red Lion building in Corunercial Core I. I respect-fully request you allow a continuance of your hearing intii r nay present collectivlyor- individually to you tny opposition naterial . Your schedule, I understand, is veryfull, but because of the importance of your decisi.on, I hope you will feel compel ledto hear the property ouners who are definitely affecied by'-ty decision you ri.". Ian at your convenience Tuesday, February lOth on, for my presentation. Thank you foeyour consideration of rry request.rr
And signed by Jack J. curtin wi,th copies to stifer, caplan, Mrs. Joan Hill, and rne.
Bill Ruoff: r an Bill Ruoff, architect for the project. Before I go into ny presentatioIrd like to say that Dick. just stole ny thunder.- He saicl all the tiings I aln prepared
!9 t"y. I could repeat then all and elaborate on any, but Itd like to ask for soruedirection frorn-the planning conrni.ssion. Do you want to hear me say it all again andpoint to the pictures at the sane time, or move on to particulars? Dick gave a rathercomprehensive point by point explanation.
Danl l{as the presentation changed any at all, or.-substantially from what you gave usat our joint neeting?
Ruoff: Nothing substantive. At that time, when you saw this rnodel 4werenlt any windows on this building, there werenrt any people in the
Red Lion building itself has not be6n touched. r canri iemenber, didpaintcd on the wall?
Dan: If there is something really different that we dj.d not go over
weeks ago, there
streets, but the
we havc the picture
last time, thatts
PEC-7-2l9l8r
naybe l,rhat we should discuss.
Ruoff: No, there is not. We have come t oday prepared to show you again the same pre-
sentation that you sarv at the joint meeting at the Athletj.c Club.
Roger: I think that everybody on our Conrnission heard that, and unless there are
people in the audience who came here particularly for this issue and would like to
hear it again, I don't thi.nk that is necessary.
Peter: Sid just brought up the poi.nt that maybe the presentation should be made in
light that, if an appeal is filed, they will have to nake the same presentation to
the Council.
That might be a good idea.
Larry Eskwi.th: If he wants to pnotect the record, I think you .should add to what you
think you need. Most of the findings have been nade by the Conmission, and it has been
found to comply with the relevant ordinances. I donrt know if you ar:e going to have
to go through the entire presentation.
Ruoff:
nothing
identify
Peter:
Rrlolf.: ,.;I .do and have. because.
I think it is
The graphic naterials, the pictures and
to what was there. If you would like,
then for the rccord.
tlrc model are idcntical . We have added
in the interest of saving time, we couid
'
: r r'r'-r,r3li ., I li'r r:,:.
. :-, ::.. - .. . ,, - a.,, .,questions -tiiat were rai.ied at that time.
I wds concerned with
that has already been
i l-dJ;i F.1,., . :. --
Sibley: I just want to rnake sure that the exhibits might be used at the tine that we are
in:front of the Council, as this letter indicates might happcn, I would just "is soon
at.'least make reference to those specifj.c. exhibits that you have up.
Gerry: I vrould just nake one co ncnt, and that is that the questions that were raiscd
and discussed at that joint meeti.ng should be raised and discussed again right now.
For.the record.
Ruoff:. Running dowa t-he list from the Guidelines, bibk has already doire. I can repeat
thirt, .I qan. talk briefly a-bo-ut the. dra,wjags,. We will -19o.\ et the phblo oVerlays tha.t
we.,:have that display the view corridors and how they_are affected. I giieds what Irm
saying, do you think that it is nec-essary for me to.rcpiat substant-j.ai1y irhat Dick just
wort through. .i. -- ..
i,j. ,;: - - -:o, - -:-';", i'Gerry.: - No, I don't. I thin-k it- is important.. .
Roge!:...,It you cndorse whac. he s4!d.......,;",. -,. ::..:.,:.. l-::- : -., . ,_ro'r, l: ,
errr to raiseinportant the
Roger: I think it was view corridors prinarily were ,tfri ifrings
and relationship of your drawings to the. Urban Design Plan, and
covered.
i,.:; i:... .. i,.: --i:r .. _,,., iin,. Ji rj ij.i. _<ual:;i;.: .Jim: .,Bidn't you have sone photograpirJ af one poinif -
RqRf.l:, Leg,.;r1c rttn-ttrrougfr,,\h.e {rawj,ilgp flH*Sk1X,.f+r,s,t,r ggr,p then IS.iJl .Cq,,t\rough the, .,.p\qtoBrnplts. l'his is the. base plan-... f'hij illarr .i.nctri..teS aIl of uppcp, Bridgc Strcct
sqd..cr;o5st's }lill Crc'ek and;L1k-q5 iir ltitt, Cic'cf Court.+iirl tlc Chri5ii-4n'a,. aIl of thc
sqrp'orurding llril{ipg5. Ihe lc<l Line suplrimposcd i.rp-oir the bluc ptbn'iif thc ncw building
is hcre for rcfclcnce to shor,r thc red line is thc cxisting wa1l of the P,ed Lion as you
sQQrr*:t i4 t{is .pltgto$r*P.\ii,,rlt, Jlgff, l?:tr.rc.9r[r,-e,] pu.,q,,lo ol.b".i]r.fqqplt{ f,ip.e' art,I,rrqsgnt . ,Tlp, ..'
PEC-8 -2/e/8L
proposed addition does. These are the 3 elevation drawings which show in considerabledetail the proposed changes. To answer specific point-s in the Guide Lines for archi-tectural det.ai.l, articulation, pedestrian scale on the street.
The top drawing on this side and the one below it j-llustrate the difference betweenthe street enclosure ratio as it exists today with the roof of the Red Lion coming downvery low to only about 7 feet, really above the stTeet. The existiag patio there isactually below strcet 1eve1 , The drawing immediately below shows the sarne relationshipas it will exist after the addition is nade. The average ratio of width to height isalmost exactly L/4 to 1 at present. Under the Guide Lines, this is considered beyondlimi.ts of good comforable stTeet enclosure. lVhat werve been able to do j.s achievel/2 to 1, almost exactly I/Z to l which is considered optimun.
The next drawing is rea11y just an illustration of the height statistics on the buj.ldin8the red line shows the height that is allowed rmder the cuirently extisting zoning andGuide Lines. It could be a 5 story building, as are all of the lurrounding buildingsexcept one 2 story and one 4 story. The avcrage height of all sumounding buildingsin the neighborhood is 3 stories. Werre proposing, though, for a number of reasons,the Red Lion addition be kept down to 2 stories. This also keeps GRFA and other things
way under the limit--about 4000 sq ft under the lirnit on GRFA and a whole story heightunder on the height of the building.
The bottom drawing illustrates the principal pedestrian pathways up Bridge Street, in
and out of Bridge Street, and around Seibert Circle as they will exist after the projeci.is finished. They are not substantially diffcrent fron what they are today, bur wefeel that the introduction of interesting transparent shop fronts frorn the Red Lion
entrance on around the corner into Hanson Ranch Road toward Mi11 Creek Court buildingwill draw the pedestrians in a way that they presently do not go. When they come up,they fo1low thlspathon by Baxterrs and The Slope toward the nountain or go over toCyranors, but there is nothing to draw them thil way. We think we can close the ciicleand contain this square, the plaza area, Really, we think werre going to complete it.There are severaL other drawings that we have h-eie which you saw at the other rneeting.
We pinned*them up and- dolrn, and I think we should do so again today for a very briefreview. They are background. inforrnation, and we use then to ansl,iex questions, ifyourll ternernber, on heights, and what if we did something else instead of w\at we did.
W-e spent no tine, we didntt even refer to them much more than to say that we had themthe other time, because they are not of direct interest at this timl. They are thefloor pLans of the three floors as they will exist after the addition is nade. The
basement which will contain the nite club and contain the noise because there wonrtbe any windows that will open out below the neighbors, the shops and the newcondorniniums as they will exist,on the floor above. iet us juit run through them all.
This, I dontt believe I did show the other tine, because I donrt think we got int.o it.
We had-this ole uP. The red lines show the outline of what the 3 st.ory buitding wouldLook like. This is an actual rendered elevation of what it would look like. We thinkthat it is a moot point at this stage, because we donrt really want to go to that height.
These are overlays of the principal elevation of the building. there are severalseries of dotted lines. They are all a little different from the one you see. Butwithin it, we are able to shorv the principal alteinative methods of putting the roofs
on this building. The reason we ch-ose th-e one that you see in the final drawings uphere, is because we feel it is the best compronise on the issue of view planes and'view corridors. We feel that the two 1ow gabtes that -werve shown there are better thanary of these. We bring these along, and occaisionally soneone asks, I'Well, what if:"you did this instcad of that?", we can show on tllese.exactly whai would have happened'if we had done this instead of that and why we r:hose the one that'you see i.n the rnoclel.
'' i ' iJt
, : ; i , :-,.r;1, tiili .J(\irji .,rul i (r : iri :,
PEC - 9- 2/9/Br
These are sun angle and shadow diagrarns which we refered the last tine, because, as
Dick says, they really aren rt germain to our problern because werre fortunate enough
to be on the north side of the street. Wetre not casting shadows on anyone. These
basically show how the neighbor casts a little bit of shadow on us.
And this is a depiction ofl the actual vi.ew corridor as it exists through Hill Street.
There is a very slight difference between this one and the angles as they are shown
<in the officiai Toun nap in the Guide Lines. We discovered when we got out there with
our instrunents and caneras and measurenents and so forth, that the one on the Town
plan is off by about rnaybe one degree. It is a very ninor thing. We platted this
one from information which we generated through the project, and it is a little more
accurate because we had a little nore ti.me to dig into it. This is an extremely accurat
calculated projection of the view corridor.
Ihe principal exhibits concerning the view corridor, of coutse, are the pictorial ones.
the large photographs
Thatts it for now. The overlay done.in color to enphasize rather than dininish it,
the impact on the view corridor as it will be viewed frorn what we consider is probably
the moit critical point in the entire length of Hill Street which isntt very ntuch.
That critical poini, we feel is back here. It's actually standing in Jack Curtints
front door, which is ri.ght there. The reason we feel this is important is because all
of the people traversing Wall Street heading tor,/ard the nountain or wherever, pass this
rvay, they can look over their shoulder..is what they'll see as opposed to the people
walking through the street. Only half of thern can see it, unless theyrve got eyes on
the back of their heads, so we feel that this is the nost inportant one. l{e do have
also on a smaller scale, a series of photographs showing how it disappears as you walk
forward up Hill Street. they are srnaller, we Cid not pin then up at the other- neetitig'
we again, just nention that they are here as part of the rnaterial from which these were
enlarged, so that you can see fron across the room. The vj-ew of thc snorv capped peaks
of the Gore renains, but what we will cut off is sone of the foreground and a big broirm
hillside above the highway. It actuaLly comes dor,,n by the golf course.
We feel to the visitor and to most people it is the snow capped peaks out there tltat
are the most inpor:tant part of the view. So tlrat is the degree to which we impinge
upon the rninor view corridor in Hill Street.
We went a little farther than is required strictly under zoning and other regulations-
We did the sane kind of study on the two adjoining neighbors upon rvhon there is inpact
views. And that is the two on either side of llill Street here on the 2nd floor at the
end of the Plaza Lodge is the apartment of Mrs. JoAnn Hil1. Across the stT,eet on the
entire 2nd and Srd floors of this buitdj.ng is the residence of Mrs. Cortlandt Hi11.
l{e will have an inpact upon the view from JoAnn Hillts living room, and we will have
an inpact on the view from Jack Curtints apaxtnent. Windows over here and the rest
of hei house are not affected. O.K. This photograph was taken from jus! inside, 20'l
back of the big sliding glass door which is the nain viewing point from JoAnn Hillrs
living roorn. This is what she sees today. The impact on her view is rather slni-lar
to whit it is in Hill Street. Her view now is cut off by the existing chinney of the
Red Lion and the top floors of the Christiana. She sees the peaks across here and
some of the valley and brown hillside in the foreground. Our new roof line will corne
across here and cut off that botton piece ritrlrt. j.n there about l.ike this. It will
still leave the view of the peaks. illow letts look at the similar thing as seen from
Mrs. Cortlandt Hillts house. Here!s the vicw. I'hc addition will cone out this way.
The piecc of view that is cut off here--nonc of the peaks are irnpacted at all. This
end if.the roof right here will cut off this piece of, again, the sane sage brush hill-
side opposi"te the Sttt C tOtir fairways on the golf course beside the highrvay. In brief'form, iirat is the presentation--tlre points thit we reviewed at the joint neeting 5 or
4 weeks ago, the material that we showed at that time.
PEC r0 - 2/9/8L
Gerry: Thank you, Bill. I would just like to nake one conmcnt quickly, the sane connenl
that I rnade at the joint meeting. That is, that I think that you have a rather signifi-
cant impact on the view corridor on Hill Strcet., and that, in terms of the streetscape,
that by noving what would be the southwest corner of your roof
back about 15 feet, it would be more inviting in terns of taking people around the cornet
which is, after all, what your design plan is hoping will be achieved, anrl would have
less of an impact in terns of a confining streetscape which I think is what the inpactwill be. It will be confining in teilns of Bridge Street. It will extend Bridge Street
up a little bit further than I think it should be. So thatts rny corunent which is the
same conment I made before. Does anybody else have cornrnents?
Gaynor: I think I Liked it the way it is being proposed in the sense that I think that
they have, on the south end, done enough design work, both on the roof and the indenta-
tions and entrance ways and windows to not create a square building on the end, andI like the way it is proposed
Scott: If you moved back 15 feet, you would have less than L/2 to 1 ratio, for some
reason, the rnagic number in the Guide P1an.
Gerry: I would just connent that that is a recorunended nurnber. Stxeetscapes and view
corridors are not necessarily determined by nunrb crs ,- aTone .
Roger: the view corridor is identified as a secondary view corridor, is it not?
Gerry: Yes.
Roger: In our deliberations, I think, in the development of the Guide P1an, those were
not considered as primary factors to be concerted with. I like the design the way he
has it. It think a very nice job in addressing the problems in tryj.ng to mitigate alt
of the potential objections, and I think that, based on the allowed GRFA, I think they
exhibit a lot of restraint.
Gerry: Dan, do you have any conments?
Dan: I like the presentation. I think it is a nice txeatrnent of the site.
Duane: I do agree that we have obstructed to a certain degree the ninor view corridor.I feel in this particular case that the inprovenent to the nore intinate streetscape,
the sense of views, and the anangenents of the buildings out weight the fact that we
do have a slight obstruction there. I do likc the addition, and an in favor of it.
Jim: I think the inpact as being shown here is probably the best picture you can get
of it. As you go down the alley, the impact of the building is considerably nore.
You nove about 10 feet down and you lose the peaks, don't you?
Ruoff: Jim,
addition, you
in this area,
as you walk through now, you begin to lose the view about here. With the
begin to lose it about here. It diminishes until we reach this point
and j.t's gone. As it is now, it dininishes and you lose it about here.
Gerry: lr'ly concern isntt with seeing the peaks in total per se. My concern is with
the sense of space. That the whole conccpt of space, of course, is'vrhat nakes Bridge
Street uni.que. I think that this goes just a little bit furthcr t,han it should in
terns of enclosing the street. I think that both things can bc achieved. I like the
building, and I like the fact that the building is bigger in that Particular spot. I
like the fact that the road is closed., but not that nuch. .i,, ,
.. ,
PEC Ll- 2/9/81 --.
-.Ruoff: As with rort ofT"se things, Gerry, rve end uo "fi.rrrng between a lot of
different aspects, there is a compromise in shape of building to naintain as much
as possible the view. Itrs taue, on the ratios in here, we havc followed the recownended
guide lines rather closely. It wasnrt difficult because it just happened to work out
that the 2 story scheme here gave it to us. We consciously wanted to create nore of
a sense of enclosure for the Seiberf Circle arca, and we feel now that with the roof
sloping down, the space isntt contained very wel1. But this we have already discussed
before. There is no doubt it is a cornpronise amongst nany elenents.
Gerry: Are there any corunents from the audience?
Robert Oliver: tr{y nane is Robert Oliver, and I work for the Plaza Lodge and also
for the possibility of representing Mrs. Hill. She is concerned about the things that.
you are talking about as far as the view corridor down l{ill Street, and fron the vj,ew
fron her apartnent. Thcse pcople are trying thej.r best, and she is still concerned
about the lack of view corridor that is going to come out of her casement windows and
also that sliding glass door. Just one thing that I caught that you rvere .saying, Dick.I canrt understand why you can say that there is a potential loss of traffic there.
You can't take one condominiurn and turn it into 5 and add 5 shop spaces and not expect
a traffic flow on Bridge St.reet. For someone who has a shop ther:e, or for soneone
who has given their condorniniun to Slifer to rent out every week, that traffic is going
to be -much greater.
Dick: Well, I think there is a potential for being less traffic in the sense that
right now there are a lot of people who come and park in those spaces oir a continuing
ba-sis of just pulling in and pulling out using the core area. tllith the condominiums,
at least there is the potential that you would come in, drop your bags off one day,
and you rnay not need to come back until you actually leave the site-_-instead of coning
in th_ere and saying, 'tWell, I want to go someplace to do some quick shopping.tr You
are probably going to get on the shuttle bus rather than walk back tg the tTansportation
center if you left the car there, or if you have tumed the car in.,
Robert O1 iver: That might be true, but you can't add all that space and say that the
tJr-qffic is going to go down. , . r.i j
Q+gk: -I _guess rny feeling is that i!:t nqt going to,irrcrease dranatical_ly, and thereis the potentj.al that it could go down, just fron what I see of the use of those spaces
in fr.ont of the Sarage now, which are constantly bei-ng used by everybody in Town topull in and park, because they knorv there is a parking space there.-,-.
i. ir^*.^. -.r ...... :
Rplef-t Ol.iver: I think the odds are tlra_t it is going to go up. .:r i:
.littt: Y.eq, you would have to expect nore traffic with.people havin&-to.bring stuff into
s.l1ops,.. ltthat you are saying is that..thele is space.there that peop.leriare parking in,
an4 fo.r some reason, because you are go.rlg to eat up .some of that space neans that you
are going to have less parking. But the actual dernand of, like those 5 shops and 5
QQndos, I can see .is going to. have nore..denand that what you have :there now, in t errns
g.f vehicular traffic.
-' : j, .-:ri:. .:'Dick: I think the potential for shops will be 3 surall shops, probably, because there
qlg-pnly 13,0Q0 sq ft" , r.:.:. ::.. j.;. -i.r,,. - . ioil ii'r .:i,::'
i:. :".' ,.:.' - .'t':. ! ' i:i iil;:': :-. -Rr:ofJ: The potential. here is for. 3 shops. .:(. i. -;;r.:. .,
t a'l'r.'., .i: :. ..,, --..,..1 . , ll:itr" :: . tit;i: .,(lll('\.,.. .. .
.li{',it.il!g.ll, vhatevqr., I,.me?J\ the.rcl's.ggq,t9 be an inefease in vehicular traffic. : I
dpnlJ S-eS lro.w. ygU ga1. go, f Lorn, {he, rgp.tgqrgnt . gtrd. 9ne s:altdp to. . . .
Ruoff: Jim, we dontt feel that there is going to be any substantial incrcase ia..rrUubers
in vehicles because these are not food operations, we donrt havc food and neat trucks
PEC 12 2/s/8L
that have to corne every day to then. Thcy are snall shops that tend to get shipments
pret.ty often, nostly by freight, UPS, or sonething is delivered to their hone because
theytre using their garage as an extra warehouse. But, aside fron the owner bringing
in their station wagon occasj.onally to haul sonething that he is storing in his gatage,
we see the UPS man parked here somewhere today anyway, while he goes to 4 or 5 Places
here, goes to 2 ski shops, and all the surrounding neighborhood. }llerre not going to brir
the UPS in more often. We rnay cause hin to park there an extra 5 xninutes while he
runs into these 3 shops and rnakes deliveries. But we feel that that is quite different
fron bringing him in nany more tirnes. We donrt think he will do that. We thi.nk that
the existing pattem of the trucks that park along here in front ofCyranotsand GoId
Peak will continue. Sorne of the points that r,re have discussed before, go a litt1e beyonc
this project. We did at the work session discuss a 1itt1e bit sone of the things that
wilL happen when and i.f the Seibert Circle irnprovernents and irnplenented because they
conplenent what we are doing. That will help to chanelize the traffic so the trucks
then will always park on the sane side of the street, and you wontt find Burnettrs truck
clogging the other side, so that if an emergency vehicle does come through, he canrt
get through. These,will be improvenents. Agai-n, the cars. l{e all know the history
of the building. For many years Marg and Larry Burdick lived there full tine. It was
their nain home. They kept 2 cats in the garage, and they are like all of us. If they
had lots of business around town, and theytd r:un in and out. The number of vehicular
novements is what wetve concerned rsith. Now, I didnrt have any reason, and I donrt
think anyone else did, but conunon sense, if you think about it a minute, ntay Point a
directj.on. An actj.ve couple living here full ti.me, and the times they bring their cars
out and in every day on the average is 2 or 3 times a day for each car--is going to
exceed the number of car movements for a condo owner who cones and stays a week, whc
cones in and out once. I reatly think the situation for the condos in the building
is going to be very similar to what we have at the Plaza Lodge today, because your guests
go in and out. Now they won't like1y stay--who knorvs? I,lho knows who is going to buy
those, how long theytre going to use it. It11 te1l you one thing,.though, let's not
go and play the paper nunbers game, but let's be realistic about it. The prices for
which units go in the center of the Village automatically tell us something. That they
are going to be bought by people with that rnuch noney. People with that nuch noneyjn the cookie jar to slap dorr'n on fancy apartnents in the center of the village,
and then spend about $200,000 to decorate it, are really not interested in having Slifer
stuff it with every coner and run it lj.ke a hotel , because that anount of incone,
theyrre not j.nterested in, and most of those people don't want !!g!9.people staying
in their place in Vail . They arentt rented very often. Theyrre given away to friends
and family. Realities of economics and human nature pretty well tell us that, no,
these are not going to have the frequency of use that the snaller condos in other parts
of the commwrity do.
Gerry: Thank you, Bil1.
Dick: Ird just like to add that there is also going to be a loading area along the
east side of the building, too, so that there will be the opportunity for someone coning
in there to unload their bags and luggage wiLhout actually being parked in the street.
Ruoff: And the neighboring points in the Inprove Va1l plan complenent this beautifully.
Gerry: Are there other conments or questions?
Ed Drager: Irn here as an interested citizen. I sat on that same planning comrnission
up there for 4 years, and for 4 years I and a whole lot of other people worked to get
the Inprove Vail job done to stop development as a matter of right in thc conmercial
core of Vail . It has been accornplished, and I think the developers here have shown
a great deal of sensitivity to the work and the desires and the hopes that we had
and one of the agonizing things that we wcnt through was whether ox not l'lill Street
was a even:.'a ilinor view corridor at the tine. I think the nodifications here on the
7 PEC L3 2/9/8L ^,v
Red Lion are going to hufi maybe shortcn up
nent overall i.s a very good improvenent. If
today, Itd be voting fol it. lhank you.
thaFvaew Lru"', 0".
I were sitting on that
I think the improve-
side of the table
Gerry: Thank you, Ed. Are there any other comnents fron the audience?
Gaynor: Are you going to be required to have parking spaces?
Ruoff: At the end of the Townrs reconmendation, is stated the condition
Dick: On page 3 at the bottom of the page, they will be required to pay the appropriate
fee for parking.
Gerry: Itm just going to quickly ask Jeff
the conditicns of approval?
Sclby: ttiould you read those to me?
if he is faniliar with and comfortable bri.th
Gerry: Sure. The applicant agrees to parti.cipate in not remonstrate against a special
itnprovernent district if and ivhen formed for Vail Vi1lage. 2. The applicant agrees
to upgrade the landscaping along Mill Creek and present the plan to Conmunity lJevelopnenfor appror,'al , 3. The appl icant agrees to palticipate f inanc j.ally in street improvement.se.g. street pavers, street lights and the relocated focal point at Seibert Circle j-f
an improvement district is not forned. The applicantts share would be deterrni.ned by
the stTeet frontage of property j.n Seibert Circle and other pxopef,ty ownelrs iri a.rea
would also have to agree to participate.
Selby: On thc final one, it would not be of the situation rrhere lrd be the only property
owner in the area. The applicantrs share would be deternjned by street frontage property
on Seibert Circle of all property owners contributing, is that correct?
Gerry: Thatr s correct.
Selby: I think we can l ive with all those recorn-rnenrlations .-..:.
Gerry: You are aware that these are conditions for approval , if approved, it would
be approved on those conditions.
Selby: Yes, I understand. Those things may not be knorur until such time as inprovements
are conpleted, but I would assume that those conditions would go beyond the period Jn
which r.re improve the property. It seems to me that we may get down the road here in
a year or 2, and everyone will say, 'rletrs upgrade Seibert Circle in that areari). and
we would be requested to come in at that tirne to contribute funds towar:r1 those i.npiovemenI have no trouble with that as long as j.t is an area wide urderstaading with other
Property owncr.s.
Dan: I would lrove to aPprove the request for an exterior alteration and nnodification
in Couunercial Core I for the Red Lion building per the staff nemo_pfd as presented todal'.
Gerry: l{e have a notion for approval by Dan corcoran. rs there a second?
Rogcr: Ycs. I second.
Gerry: Second by Roger Ti.lkemeier. A11 those in fav6i? Scott Edi.rards, Roger Tilkeneier
&rynor l.liller, Dan Corcoran, Duane,.piper, Jin llorgan...,.. . - .-
: ' --1' ;
And J'rr against because I dontt likb that one sectiri'ii..of that one'birtlding.Itkrtion passcd 6-1. .r.'|: ,.. : . " . ;,.. ); i'
!.i:1' ,, ,.. : t. :ri i l;r.. t ir;r,.'. I thiUl.: tl' :,,'.lirlc:itJc}::: rr' ''
oa
IEI{ORAI{DUM
T0: Planning and Environnental Commission
FR0M: Corununity Development Department
DATE: February 2, L982
slEJEcT: Public Hearing and consideration for an-Exterior Alteration an4
Modi.fication in Conmercial Core lose 992 s
on
I. PROPOSAL:
ar
enclose 992 square feet of
fr6-Gi-abte the
COI"IPLIANCE II'ITH URBAN DESIGN GUiDE PL.AN
A. Pedestrianization: The enclosure of the patio should
negatfr6-ifr[fET3-Iffi pedestrian circulation along Bridgc
inprove the pedestrian experience along Bridge Street in
B. Vehicle Penetration: No change
the existing Patio
use of the area for
on the west
dininffioughout
II.
tne year.
coMPLI$!C.E .WIIq*PURPOSE SECTION 18. 24. 010
The conmercial core I district is intended to provide sites and to maintai-n
the unique character of the Vail Village conmercial afea, with its mixtule
of lodges and connercial establishments in a predominately pedestrian
environnent. The connercial core I district is intended to ensule adequate
light, air, open space, and other anenities appropriate to the perrnitted.
tyies-of tulriings-and uses. The 4istrict regulations in accordance with
tG V.if Village urban design guide plan and design consideratj-ons prescribe
developrnent standards that are intended to en,suTg naintenance and Preserva-
lhq tightly c).ustered aiang so lding scale
distingui.sh the vi1lage.
The.proposal is in comPliance
Core I zone di.strict.
with the purPose section of the Comnercial
III.
The Urban Design Guide Plan states that dlning decks contribute to the liveliness
of a busy street, making a richer pedestrian experience. The use of the
existing patio area for dining thrlughout the year wj.I1. enhance the street
.life aloni Bridge Street and will be in confornance with the plan.
il. URBAN DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
not have any
Street and should
the winter nonths .
c. 9t=e"!-:S-lL.--IIIggI!,:"the wintcr rvill inqrrovc the
morc strect life and visual
The addition of PcoPle dining on
quali ty of thc waIking cxpclictrcc
intetest along llridge Strect' The
the patio during
and wil I providc
gn6I6 5urc
of
of the deck in the sunmer,
an exciting relationship to
Red Li
however, would el i"minat e an
the strcet and provides a
a parking
would need
operi space r+hich has
strong, scnse of activity
to enclose the deck
ono 2/ Z/82-2-I
for the pedestrian.I icants are not proposi-ng
during th er nonths conpl etely -
ong Bridge Street clt"irin e SUnner 3.IIO f€- l The brick
aspen an oweTs wl iemain unchanged.
D. St"eet Enclosure: The staeet enclosure does not change since the gJ.ass
woulT-G-iiEEi-II6-&i st ing awnins.
E. Street_Edge: The Urban Design Guide Plan states that plazas, patios,
green areas are inportant focal points for: gathering, resting, orienting
and should be distributed throughout thc Village wi.th consi"deration to spacing,
stm access, opportunities for vj.er^/s, and pedestrian activity.
The Red Lion patio as it currently exists has characteristics wh.ich rnakeit a popular space within the Village during the sunrner rnonths, By enclosing
the patio during the winter months, the space can be a much nrore lively attraction
than it currently is when i.t is filled r.ri-th snow and void of people and activi-ty.It will becone a focal point along Bridge Street throughout the year, rather
than just for a portion of it.
F, Building*Height: No change.
lJ. V]"eWS: NO Cnangc.
H. Sgrvic.e anjl Delivery:- No change.
L Sun/Shade: The project will not increase shadows on adjacent property__-.--':.:-: or puDllc Property.
i T:*-ZONIN6-C€DE-EONSIDE.RATIONS
A. Parking:
The applicant will be required to payper each 10 seats provided. The fee
issuance of a building pernit.
STAFF RECONII,IENDATI0N
fee based
to be paid
-)
upon one space /
-t:_-
t' t""
/
.The Departnrent of Cou lrunity Development
proposal to enclose 992 square feet of
condition:
staff reconunend s
the Red Lion patio
approval of the
with the followi.ng
QI *"Ol -s- z/zlez
l. Due to the enhancement of Bridge Street which would result from the
enclosure during the winter months, we feel that the proposal is a
6ro sit ive onc .d not be appro-
g during 'the suruner months
re ations
t t the losure be
th
renovcd and the
e approval , however, sh
the street. Nothinbe
w1
The refore,
15 to Jtme 15
we reconunend
and that
remo Lng
s Dr10r to Jme or re-installing them later thanarlurc upon e appllcant rs pa 5-comply with this
condition would be grounds for not a1 lowing food or beverages to be
. served upon the patio until such tine as the condition is conplied
with.
box 100
vail. colorado 81657
(303) 476.s613
department of community development
T0: Dick, Peter, Peter, Jim
FR0M: Auth(LtU
RE: Red Lion's Enclosure of patio
DATE: February 2, 1982
At the request of Peter Jamar, I performed a fieldvisft at the Red Ljon Inn in regard to the enc'l osureof their patio. I spoke to both Peter Anerson and Tim
0aks, manager and chef respective'ly, concerning two
implications of the additional 50 seats: restroom faci lities
and food storage capacity. Between the upstairs and
downstairs restroom facilities, the Red Ljon Restaurantwill meet Health Code regulations. This does not include
the additisna) people present when the bar is Tn-use at the
same time as the restaurant.
At this time, the kitchen does not have enough cold storage
space for the food required for the present seating capacity.
Therefore, additjonal refrigeration units will be necessary, to
accommodate extended service. I would like specific recommendations
from the Red Lion as to the quantity and quality they wil't
instal l.
TRANSMITTAL
TO Town of Vail - Communitv Dev.
75 5. Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
Rucff rfeirtwsilth
ArchE8ecis*x#l?iAIA
RECORD
DATE November
JOB NO. #8002
JOB TITLI Red Lion Inn - Patio Enclosurd
We Are Sending:
For Your:
The Following:
coPlEs
Herewith (X)
lnformof ion (
Prints (X )
Shop Drowings
Requisitions (
Under Seporote Cover ( )
) Use () Action ()
Letters () Specs() Cuts
() Photogrophs() Photostots
)
()
()
DESCRIPTION REMARKS
Fees
List of Adjacent Property Owners
4 copies of Site Plan
E levation s
Floor Plan and Elevations
Sid Schultz
RUOFF/ WENMORTH ARCHITECIS, AIA
CoPies of Above ( )
Tronsmittol OnlY( ) To:
t-
--
a
11 l23 t 81
APFLICATIOl{ FOPi/: FOR E):TERIOR iLTEF;'TIOlrS
OR 1'rCDIFlCaTfO:\rS lli COI"r]'5ERCI-p-L COF.I I (CCf )
I. This procedure is required for alteration of an existing building
which adds or renoves apy enclosed floor area or outdocr patio or
replacement of an'existing building shall be subjec-u to review by
the Planninq and Environmental Ccnnission.
. ?l-re application r^'i11 r)a-y be accepled un-"il all information is subrnitied.
A. I;.ILM.E OF APPLICFI'T Jeff Selby
ADDP.ESS 108 S. Frontage Rd, Suite 307 Vail. Colorado PHONE Aze-oqrl
NA"I'IE OF APPLfCa,tr*TrS REPRESE]'ITATi\E Ruoff/Wentworth Architects, AlA, PC
ADDRESS 500 Lionshead Mall Vail, Colorado 81657 _PHONE 426,-305t
c.AUTHORIZATION RO TY OWi'-
STGI{ATiJRE
ADDRESS 108 S:rontage Rd.Vaif , Colorado PHONE 476-0522
D. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL
ADDRESS Red Lion l4n (Patio. Enclosure) j04 E- Rriclgp Strept V:il, Cotnrartn
.LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lots E. F, C. t H- Block 5A. Vait Vitlage Firqt
E. FEE $100.00 plus 18c for each propertl' owiler to be notified.
r. T}IPROVE]r'IENT SUR\EY OF PROPERTY SHOI,JTNG PROPERTY LINES AND LOCATTON
OF BUILDING AND ANY I]'IPROVEMENTS ON THE LA\rD.
G, A LIST OF THE NAME OF Oh'NERS OF ALL PROPERTY ADJACENT TO THE
SUBJECT PROPERTY .4"\D THEIR ADDRESSES.
II. Four (4) copies of a site plan coniaining the following information:
A. The site plan shalL be drawn on a sheet size of 24" x 36" at a scale
of L" = 2O'; a variation of the sheet size or scale may be aPProved
b1' the Community Development Departnent if justified;
:'''-ri .:: ; -- :. --,' :.
Red Lion lnn - Patio Enclosure
November 23, 19Bl
tll. As stated in the Urban Design Guide Plan, dining decks "contribute
to the liveliness of a busy street, making a richer Pedestrian
experiencerr.
The existing dining deck on the west side of the Red Lion already
has the characteristics of a good dining terrace: elevated above the
street, separated from the street by a landscaped planter, and Protected
from sun and wind by an overhead awning, For many years Bridge
Street has been enriched by the sight of diners under the brightly
colored awnings and umbrellas on the terrace. However the terrace
can onty be used for serving lunches during the summer and when
the weather is warm enough during the spring and fall. Even during
the warm summer months the evenings are usually too cool to serve
dinners outdoors. tn the fall the umbrellas and awnings are removed and
during the winter the terrace is usually filled with snow.
By enclosing the area under the awning with glass the patio can b.e
uied year round for outdoor dining. ln the summer the glass will
slide open; in autumn when the temPerature drops the glass panels
will slide closed. The terrace will look just like it always has except
for the additionat dark framed qlass. lt will have essentially the samd
feel as the glass elT-EEiEi-fi-G?inin9 terrace of the Arlberg Room
at the Lodge.
lv. compliance with specifically designated items from the Vail Village
Urban Design Considerations.
A. Pedestrianization: Pedestrian circulation will not be affected by
enclosing the'dining terrace. The sight of people dining year round
on Bridge Street will actually create a more lively atmosphere.
B. Vehicle Penetration : Current patterns of vehicular use will
be unchanged.
C. Streetscape Framework: Brick planter with aspens and colorful
flowers will be unchanged along Bridge Street.
D. Street Enclosure: Street enclosure is unchanged since the glass
around the terrace is in the same line as the existing awning.
E. Street Edge: The brick planter defines the street edge and will
not be changed.
F. Building Height: Roof structure of the terrace enclosure is in the
same plane as the existing awning.
G. Views: Unaffected by new enclosure.
H, Service and Delivery: Unchanged.
l. Sun/shade: The project will cast no shadows on adiacent Property or
public rights-of-waY.
V. ZONING:
18.24. 150 Coverage: The enclosure is around part of an existing
dining terrace which is already figured as coverage.
Total coverage allowed for site: I l, 191 sq . ft.
Actural coverage: 11,1t6 sq. ft.
18.24. 170 Landscaping: Unchanged
.ta
t t z-4i :
)L -/ '.
ADJACEI{T PROPERTY OWNERS TO THE RED LIOI{ INN
Mill Creek Court Condominium Associoiion
c/o Arthvr G. Bishop & Compony
302 Honson Ronch Rood
Voil,. Colorodo 81657
Porks Building
c/o Elton Bud Porks
303 Gore Creek Drive
Voif, Colorodo 81657
Golden Peok House Condominium Associoiion
278 l''lonson Ronch Rood
Voif, Colorodo 81657
The Plozo Building
c/o Mrs. Joonne V. Hill
301 Bridge Street
Voil, Colorodo 81657
The Rucksock Con,ior,inium Asociotion
c/aRendezvous West
P.O. Box 397
\foi1, Colorodo 81657
Hill $uildins
Mrs. Cortlondr Hill
3l I Bridge Street
Voil, 'Colorodo 81657