HomeMy WebLinkAboutVAIL VILLAGE FILING 1 BLOCK 5A LOT E-H RED LION 1990 2 of 3It
I
.a
?lbile not a street, the concept of dlning activity alongMill Creek is extrenely valuable Ln generating activity inthls area. As mentioned ln this Demo, and in other
nenorandums, the design Ls not adequate at this tlne. The
area has the potential to provide both the dining activity
and an adeguate walkway.
--_ Pa:iTruf,:SelefCgJoors are proposed for the nortb, south and west
Blfdes of the present Red L,lon Deck enclosure. operable
Streetscape Frameworl<
doors vill
exls earlv a
Street Enclosure
. ""}fr. enclosure along Bridge Street relates well with the
' Plaza Lodge building. ti nay ue ap!@rl'-aFnowever to:, stiiFFEFlfnass of tie builcliirg or pioviae additional oassI towards the south. This has the potential to acconplish twothings: <k Q
J ',/
" ,,/1. Shiftinq the mass to the south nay lessen thb inpacts\-/ on the Rucksack buildinq.:
'/2. Extending the nass of the building to the south could
-E-EEE-Fuildins.
Street Edcre
an Lnproved situation over what is
staff has serious concerns over the
6n the Bridgeclosure of thls deck on
landsca aIo the north s
amaticall Asd linefThis
olloss the property 1
The staff has Just
begrun working on a V Feetscape inprovenent plan
intent of thls plan is towith l{inston and Associates. The
evaluate the public spaces between buildlngs with regard to.
a ser
Etreet inproveuents.with the staff and tl
mater coEPa
to rork
erty.This will assure
future
streetscape irnprovements.
-'N A1* "l.'- s"-*
t{0?u 'tD-L[
6orr o -73 fifi,.o
t) .*J r \-JJ ( S e-t9c--.c'-L-9o
Building heights allow 40* of the structure to be between
and 43 ieet iittr the renaining eo* of the structure below
feet. As proPosed, 66t of the bultding is belon 33 feet
33.9t of the Luilding is above 33 feet but below-llftet-
At ltE highest point, the proposed ridgeline is(42.7 teet.
^*r7uffi
JG/n PearJd 7'*J-.-1.*/o
The appllcants have provided a number of photo overLays
a
33
33
and
ationship of this view
s
enerall rivate view
corrrdors.lbe
Fall
Guide Plan to protect th
e the staff can ii-nly sympathize vithi.ffiitrte"i,i"x"ack bullding, the tact riniins that the
Red Lion building has development potential that can be
built. The role of the Guide Plan is to ensure that the
development is designed in a way that is responsive to the
nurnerous design considerations of the pIan.
The proposed ridseline will
corriclo
dopted view
6T-corridor is frorn the stePs the
be
parking structure over Vail village. rt isdflstinq parking structure over Vaj.f vrll'age. rE ls
intende! Lo proviae unobstructed viewE of VaiI Uountain and
key architectural features such as the Clock Tower and
Rulksack Tower. As a general ru1e, the staff feels strongly
that these view corridors sttould not be disrupted to
acconmodate new buildings. Hortever, circurnstances specific
to this view corridor line supPort nodifications of this
line.
tls
House.
ever the v tl the Go
House r e. It s clear to the staff
corr drawn
House roof the Golden
Tower,
Thl.s amendrnent would relocate tbe view corridor line to the
Golden peak House ridge line. A condition of this approval
will be that the applicantrs resurvey the vies corridor and
provide all naterills and production of the revised-photos.
it snouta be noted that the redeveloprnent of the village
Parking structure will elininate the exact vantage Pgin!from wf,ich this view corridor was taken. Efforts will have
to be nade to ensure that a comparable vantage polnt is
available to reposition this view corridor line.
Serrrice and Deliverv
As with nany propertles in the Vi.llage, there are no back
doors to prov-lOe serrrice functions. Introducing dining and
the salknay along tlill Creek pet?etuates the problern of not
having enough Epace for these operations. Tlre existlnE
location of trash facilities is adJacent to Gore creek and
renains unchanged. Hoirever, thi's locatlon conflicts with
the dining deck and walkway. Unfortunately, this appears
be the only solution available. Trash ls lcall
the early no
on rs. Given the
the ec assune thaof this are ninfulized(s.l-
The proposed expansion will cast increased shad
Locating the
ding nass on this property is a very delicate
balance.
back fron
1 the buil to be pull
idqe
e-EFvious result is
on lti}l Creek as a trade off for naintainlng proPer street
enclosure along Bridge Street and Hanson Ranch Road-
Honever, it wouta be worth while to see how shifting the
nass of the building to the south could nininlze any shade
inpact on the Rucksack building.
Architectural /Landscape Considerations
Roofs tti theThe staff has serLous concerns over the
ng proPo s very 3
c elenents in the Guide Plan that denonstrate what
to
ed
tnpaE
oDerat
l-nsure
1 Creek and the Rucksack
building. The staff is willing to accept the Ehadow pattern
snoulA-not be done. There are certainly a variety of roof
forns throughout the Village. However' in general the roof
forns along-this area of eiiage Street are very sinplistic.
The roof friigtrt regulations do encoJrrage varied roof
heights, which this proposal does in fact do. Hosever'
theie aie a nunber oi areas in the building rhere roof lines
could be consolidated to sinplify the roof fom.
Sun/shade
a
As dlscussed at the Plannlng connJ-ssion work
degree of transparency proposed on the second
floor of this building is not consistent with
Design Guide Plan. Aq a general rule
on that are
sessLon, the
and thirdthe Urban
rency shoul.d
positlve.decrease on the er
v rade to ee eva
Id
Houever, the staf I uncomfortab
along Br dge
@
The staff can not support this proJect at this tine.
to the appllcants, this site is a very dlfficult one
because of the nany issues and concerns that rnust be
during the design process.
. Among
along on Ranch Road, the introdg
There are a nuraber sitive elements of this Plan tha
of this
There
arlv tbe
the vernacular.For tbis reason,staff reconnends
plan@ng in the Vill,age
i! considerable varJ.ety in design throughout
In fairnessto redevelop
addressed to
rovenents
on thefeels strongly
are the new
nassing and rooto conpletely
It is
orrrs, departs from
other reasonsof this request.
nall$ray along MiIl Creek, andThe fact that cleve
ffited. However, the staff
ttrat rnany elenents need refinement. Anong these
dining and wallmay along Mill creek, the overall
forms proposed on the building, and the proposal
enclose the existing Red Lion dining deck. iltaffdenial of this ;':iquest as currently proposed.
The U s based on achieving a balance-be
\
the purPose
look alike.the Village.The kev is to ensure that nelt devel
to the surr
and
and for
denial
ia t-<> q"tQ-
.h
a
TO:
FR,OU:
DATE:
SUBJEqI:
Planning and Environnental Couuission
connunity Developnent Department
March 19, 1990
A request for a streau setback variance in order toconstrrrct an addition to the Red Lion building.Applicant: Frankie Tang and Land.rrark Properties
I.DESCRTPTTON OF THE VARIA}ICE REOUESTED
portion of the proposed dining patij-aad-Lhe public walkway.
The building addition adds betwee feet of
e walkway and deck oach between
As defined in the zoning code, setbacks apply to both
buildings and structures. As such, all three of these. proposed improveuents nust be considered nben evaluatingthis variance reguest.
II. CRTTERIA AND FINDfNGS
Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.52.050 of
the Vail Municipal code, the Departnent of Conrnunity
Development reconnends denial of the reguested variance
based upon the following factors:
A. Consideration of Factors:
1. The relationship of the recmested variance to
other existing or notentiaL uses and structures in
the vicinitv.
Stream setbacks have been established to ensure
buffers between buildings and stream tracts.
However, the o<pansion is a ninor one and the
building J-s already located within the strean
setback. The bu
The 30 foot stream setback is ueasured fron the center lineof l{ill Creek. The existing Red Lion buildinq is locateh:sithin this r=o_ foot setback (encroachnents range fron@ldz
<€iqrrleen fee!]) Proposed inprovenents rdithin the requiEil
strean--5FEb-ack include a snall addition to the buJ.lding, a
existing or p6-tential uses in this area.
2.
The on grade vallnray is consistent with theexisting and potential uses in the strean tract.Indeed, the walkway will provide access to thisarea to naxinize its use. While the proposed
dining deck can also add life and vitality to thisarea, the proposed deck seriously constrainf thedesign of the stream walk (see Exterlor Alteration
and Conditional Use Pernit nernos).
The degree to which relief fron the strict andliteral interpretation and enforcenent of a
The proposed building expansion is a part of a
redesigned entry to an upper level condominium,
fhe degree of encroachnent ranges fron one to five
Jfeet, and acconnodates an entry vestibule, ski
/storage lockers, and a snal1 portion of a proposed
I elevator. Given the existinq locati.on-+Lthe-buridrng, c
flie-ie-cen
reSrES€-wou
As outlined in the conditional use nenorandum forthe dining deck, there are significant public
benefits that could result fron both the dining
deck and stream nallaray. llowever, as Proposed the
dining deck expansion is liniting the slze of thepublic valkway to 3r6tr. While sone degree of
encroachment for the dining deck is acceptable,the deck proposed is excessive rhen consideringthe atream tract and j.ts relationship to thepublic wallsray.
utilities, and public safetv.
fhe dining deck and vallaray Eust be consideredcollectively. the sallnvay does have tlre potentialto provide a positive affeet on public facilitiesby opening access to Mill Creek. However, ttre
extent of the dining deck proposal seriously
confines the dinensions of the wallaray.
rovenents will necessita
aree-. The applicantsr rrould relocate these neters
as a part of this redevelopment.
eI
3.
rivilege.
,Jb
I
I
IrI. REIATED POLICIES IN THE VAIL VILLAGE I'TASTER PI.,,AN
IV. FTNDINGS
Sub area 3.8 in the VaiI Vlllage ltaster Plan encourages the
developnent of a strean walk in this area. The dining deck
and walkway are potentially very conpatible. Houever, as
has been stated, the design proposed is not sensitive to the
needs of the public access.
A.
B.
c.
That the granting of the variance will not conetitute agrant of special privilege inconsistent with the
lirnitations on other properties cl.assified in the sanedistrict.
That the granting of the variance nill not be
detrimental to the public health, safety or selfare, or
naterially injurious to properties or inprovernents in
the vicinity.
That the variance is warranted for one or nore of the
following reasons:
v.
1. The strict literal interpretation or enforcenent
of the specified regulation would result inpractical difficulty or unnecessary physical
hardship inconsistent with the objectlves of this
title.
2. There are excePtions or extraordinary
circurnstances or conditions applicable to the sane
site of the variance that do not aPpty generally
to other properties in the sane zone.
3. lhe strict interpretation or enforcenent of the
specified regulation would deprive tbe applicant
of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other
properties in the sane district.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recoronendation for this request is denial . Some
degree of encroachment for the ral-kway and-deck is
wairanted. However, the current proposal is unacceptable.
The Staff can support the slight building expansion,
however, our reconnendation for this elenent of the proposal
is deniil until a revj.sed plan for this area is subuitted
for our review.
,
TO:
FROM:
DAIE:
SU&'ECT!
Planning and Environmental Connission
Cornnunity Developurent Department
ltarch 19, 1990
A request for a site coverage variance in order to addadditions to the Red Lion building.Applicant: Frankie Tang and Landnark Properties.
I.DESCRTFTTON OF THE VARIANCE REOUESTED
Pemitted coverage in Conmercial Core f is 80* of the lotarea. In Courercial Core I, site coverage ueans na portionof a site covered by buildings, and ground level patios anddecksft. Existing site coverage on the Red Lion lot is 83*.
This proposal will add site coverage in two areas:
50 sguare feet for a building addition along l{ill
Creek.
173 sguare feet for a proposed dining deck alongMil1 Creek.
II. CRITERIA AND FTNDINGS
Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.52.060 of
the Vail Muni.cipal Code, the Departrnent of Cornmunity
Developnent reconnends denial of the requested variance
based upon the following factors:
Consideration of Factors:
1. The relati.onship of the recruested variance to
other existina or potential uses and structures Ln
the vicinitv.
The proposed dining deck is directly adjacent tothis buildinq expansion. l{hile sorne degree ofsite coverage varj.ance may be acceptable for the
dining patio, the extent of dining deck proposed
is directly affecting the potential developnent of
the pedestrian wallcvay along HiIl Creek. (See
stream setback variance memorandun. )
The 50 square feet of aCditional site coverage for
the buil.ding e:<pansion is partly offset by a
deduction of 27 feet of building in thls area.this arnount of new building will not inpact
adjacent uses or activities in the area.
c
@
A.
ef,.!l['.s :,'
<a\
I
2.
specifLed regulation is necessarv to achieveconpatibilitv and uniformitv of treatment anonq
lllncluding patios and dining decks in sl.te coverage
llcalculations is'sonewhat of a hardship for
llapplicants in that these elements are encouragedllthroughout the Village. For this reaEon, staff
could support some degree of site coverage
variance to acconmodate the dining patlo.
Hordever, the dining deck proposed is not
acceptable because of the impacts related to the
pedestrian walkway along MiIl Creek.
The building site coverage variance Is a net
increase of 23 feet with no apPreciable irnpacts.
However, there is rro apparent physical hardship to
warrant this requests.
utilities. and publ.ic safetv.
As discussed in the Exterior Atteration and the
Conditional Use Permit memos, the deck and walkway
will affect the public enjoyrnent of Mill creek.
IIT. REI,ATED POLICIES IN VAIL COMPREHENSIVE PI,AN
There is one element of the vail viLlage Plan that is
directly related to this proposal , PoS.icy 3.4.1., which
reads:
0Physical improvenents to property adjacent to strearn
tracts should not further restrict public access.n
The proposed dining deck.would linit the space available for
a pulfiL walkway along MiII Creek to 3r6n. This is an
unacceptable width for what will one day becone a
significant pedestrian corrldor.
IV. FINDINGS
3.
That the granting of the variance will not constitute a
grant of -pecial privilege inconsistent with the
lirnitationi on other properties classified in the sarne
district.
j'-.
B. That the Eranting of the variance sill not be
detrinental to the public health, safety or welfare, oruaterially injurious to properties or irnprovements inthe vicinitY.
c. That the variance is rrarranted for one or more of thefollowinq reasons:./\./-\( 1.\ Tlre strict literal interpretation or enforcenent\-/ of the specified regrulation rould result inpractlcal difficulty or unnecessary physical
hardship inconsistent nith the objectives of thistitle.
2. There are exceptions or extraordinary
circunstances or conditions applicable to tbe sanesite of the variance that do not apply generallyto other properties in the sane zone.
3. The strict interpretatj-on or enforcenent of the
speclfied regulation rould deprive the applicantof privileges enjoyed by the owners of otherproperties in the Earoe district.
V. STAFF RECOII{UENDATION
Staff recommendation for the site coverage variance requestis denj.al . The design of these improvenents will have
direct, inpacts on the area surrounding these proposed
irnprovenents. The Staff encourages the applicantrs to
consider design changes to this element of the proposal .
.)
'l?
TO:
l'ROI't:
DATE:
SUBJECI:
Planning and Environmental Connission
conmunlty Developnent DePartnent
l{arch 19, 1990
A request to construct an outdoor dining patio at the
Red Lion Building.Applicant: Frankie Tang and Landnark Properties.
The area for the proposed dining deck is connected to
Hanson Ranch Road by an existing pedestrian walkway.
Directly adjacent to this walkway is a Town of Vail
J.oading- zonl . This Ioading zone will renain unchanged
by this proposal .
r. DESCRTPTTON OF rHE PROPOSIL REOUESTED
This outdoor dl.ning patlo is proposed for the Red Lion
Restaurant on the east side of the building directly
adjacent to !!i11 Creek. The proposed deck encornpasses 237
square feet, 101 square feet of which are located on Town of
vail land. The applicants have received penuission fron the
Council to incl.ude Town land as a part of the request before
the Planning Connission.
oRekordrr tlpe folding doors will be instal'led on the
building to allow the existing dining room to open onto the
dining deck. A 3r5rr public wall<nay is also proposed betiteen
the deck and Mill Creek.
II. REVIEI{ CRITERIA FOR THIS PROPOSAL
Conmercial core I outlines 7 specific criteria to be used in
evaluating conditional use reguests. These include the
folloving:
A. Affects of vehicular traffic on Coronerclal Core f
District.
This proposal should not appreciably increase vehicular
traffic in Conmercial Core I.
Reduction of vehicular traffic on Conmercial Core I.
This proposal should not appreciably reduce vehicular
traffic in Cournercial Core I.
C. Reduction of non-essential off-street parkl-nq.
Not Applicable.
B.
D.
t ,l ir
.{
t
E.
As proposed, trash dunpsters for the entire Red LionBuilding.are located next to the proposed dlning dec)<.Tlre physical relationship between- thEse tvo usei Is
99rtal4y not conpatible. However, trash plck-up inthe Village has traditionally occurred durlng thimorning hours prior to restaurant openings. ThissrEuatlon is unfortunate, but the nature of the Villageis such that there are no nback doorss to provide forthese operations.
Developrnent of oublic sDaces for use bv pedestrians.
As stated, 101 feet of this deck is proposed for Townof Vail land. This has linited the width of theproposed pedestrian ualkway to 3r6tr. Staff feelsstrongly that this ridth is inadequate for what villone day be a najor pedestrian walkway.
The redevelopnent of the A & D buildinq began the
deve).oprnent of a public walkway along MilI Creek. Tbecontinuation of the waLknay along the Red Lion Propertyvould leave only the Rucksack property as the nissinglink in establishing this corridor. Whlle the staff lssupportive of the dining activity in this area, theexisting building and the lrtill Creek flood pIainseriously confine the space available for these twouses. An acceptable width for this publlc wallaray
would be between 5 and 8 feet.
Continuance of the various cornnercial. residential and
Bublic uses in Commercial Core f District so as tonaintain the existino character of the area.
The introduction of dining aetivity, and creating
access to MiIl creek in thj.s area, is positive. It isa goal of the VaiI village Plan to establish norepedestrian activity in the Mill Creek area. The two
ways to accoruplish this are to increase retail andcounerclal activity ln conjunction rith inprovedpedestrian circul.ation. While this proposal is a stepin the right direction, it is in need of furtherrefinement in order to accomplish both of theseobjectives.
F.
Control cmalitv of constnrction. arehitectural deslqn
and landscape desisn in Coranercial Core I so as tonaintain the existino character of the area.
current plans indicate existinE trees will. be relocated
G.
in the UII1 Creek area. Tlris nay or may not beappropriate depending on the final design of this area.If this el-enent of the application is to proceed,additional detail and refinenent nill be necessary inorder to design an appropriate deck and valkway whlle
respecting tbe features of UiIl Creek.
rrl.
e1.rff reco13endation for this conditlonal use permlt is denia].
;r;ii; ihi" concept is desirable, the design proposed is not
l"li"nei"" to the needs and reguirenentg of a public walkway.
S"i'c. is confined, hovever, Lt -ls posslble to acconnodate both of
iirese actlvities as a part of this design process. Please refer
io the exterior alteration neno for additional comment on thls
elenent of the proposal .
I
Y
TO:
FROU:
DATE!
su&tEcT:
Planning and Environmental Connission
Conmunity Development Departnent
Itlarch 19, 1990
A request to construct an outdoor dining patio at the
I.
Red Lion Building.Applicant: Frankie Tang and Landnark Properties.
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL REOUESTED
This outdoor dining patio is proposed for the Red Lion
Restaurant on the east side of the buildinq directly
adjacent to Mil-1 Creek. The proposed deck encomPasses 237
sqluare feet, L01 square feet of which are located on Town ofVail land. The applicants have received permission from the
Council to include Town land as a part of the reguest before
the Planning Conraission.
xRekordil type folding doors will be installed on thebuilding to allow the existing dining room to open onto the
dining deck. A 3r6n public walkway is also proposed between
the deck and uil] Creek.
II. REVIEW CRITERIA FOR THIS PROPOSAL
Conmercial core I outlines 7 specl.fic criteria to be used in
evaluating conditional use requests. These include the
following:
Affects of vehicuLar traffic on Comnercial Core IDistrict.
This proposal should not appreciably increase vehicular
traffic in cornmercial Core I.
B. Reduction of vehicular traffic on Connercial
This proposal should not appreciably reduce vetricular
traffic in Commercial Core I.
C. Reduction of non-essential off-street parkincr.
Not Applicable.
D. Control of deliverv, tlick-up and service vehicles.
The area for the proposed dining deck is connected to
Hanson Ranch Road by an existing pedestrian walkway.
Directly adJacent to this walkway is a Town of vail
loading zone. This loading zone will remain unchanged
by this proposal .
A.
E.
As proposed, trash dumpeters for the entire Red LionBuilding are located next to tbe proposed dlning deck.
The physical relationship between these tno uses iscertainty not compatible. However, trash pick-up inthe village has traditionally occurred during the
norning hours prior to restaurant openings. Thissituation is unfortunate, but the nature of the Villageis such that there are no [back doorstr to provide for
these operations.
Development of public snaces for use bv nedestrians.
As stated, 101 feet of this deck is proposed for Townof Vail land. This has linited the width of the
proposed pedestrian wallnray to 3r6tr. staff feelsstrongly that this width is inadequate for what will
one day be a najor pedestrian walkway.
Ttre redevelopnent of the A & D building began the
development of a public nalkway along ltill Creek. The
continuation of the rralkway along the Red Lion Property
would leave only the Rucksack property as the nissinglink in establishing this corridor. While the staff is
supportive of the dining activity in this area, theexisting buitding and the llill Creek flood plain
seriously confine the space available for these twouses. An acceptable width for this public walkway
would be between 6 and 8 feet.
Continuance of the various cornrnercial . residentlal and
The introduction of dining activity, and creating
access to UiII Creek in this area, is positive. It is
a goal of the vail Vitlage Plan to establish more
pedestrian activity in the uill Creek area. The two
ways to acconplish this are to Lncrease retail and
conmercial activity in conjunction with iurprovedpedestrian eirculation. While this proposal is a stepin the right direction, it is in need of further
refinement in order to accomplish both of these
objectives.
Current plans indicate existing trees will be relocatedin the MIlI Creek area. This nay or may not be
appropri-ate depending on the final design of this area.If this element of the application is to proceed'
additional detail and refinenent will be necessary in
order to design an appropriate deck and watlaray while
respecting the features of Uilt Creek.
F.
G.
t.
!III. STATT RECOMUENDATION
Staff recomnendation for this conditional use pemit ls denial .
I$bile this concept ls desirable, the deslgn proposed ls not
responsive to the needs and reguirements of a public wallcway.
Spa-e is confi.ned, however, it ls posslble to acconnodate both of
these activities aE a part of thlg deElgn process. Please referto the exterLor alteration neno for additional conment on this
€lement of the proposal .
TO:
FRO}' :
DATE:
SURTECT:
Planning and Environmental Connission
Connunity Development Department
March 19, 1990
A request for a strean setback variance in order toconstruct an addition to the Red Lion building.Applicant: Frankie Tang and Iandrnark Properties
I. DESCRIPTTON OF THE VARIN{CE REOUESTED
The 30 foot stream setback Ls neasured from the center lineof l.till Creek. The existing ned Lion building is locatedwithin this 30 foot setback (encroachments range from one to
eighteen feet). Proposed inprovements within the required
strearn setback include a small addition to the building, aportion of the proposed dining patio and the public walkway.
The building addition adds between one to five feet ofencroachnent. The walkway and deck would encroach between
seven to ten feet.
As defined in the zoning code, setbacks apply to bothbuildings and structures. As such, all three of these
proposed improvements must be considered when evaluatingthis variance request.
II. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
Upon review of criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of
the vail Municipal Code, the Departrnent of Connunlty
Development recommends denial of the reguested variance
based upon the following factors:
A. Consideration of Factors:
1. The relationship of the recnrested variance to
other existinq or potential uses and structures in
lbe-:rieinilv-'
Stream setbacks have been established to ensure
buffers between buildings and strean tracts.
Horf,ever, the expansion is a ninor one and thebuilding is already located within the stream
setbac]<. Ttre building addition will not impactexisting or potential uses in this area.
The degree to which relief frorn the strict andIlteral interoretation and enforcernent of aspecified recrulation is necessarv to achieveconpatibility and unifomity of treatrnent anongsites in the viclnitv or to attain the obiectivesof this title yithout crrant of special privileqe.
2.
The on grade walkway is consistent with theexisting and potential uses in the Btream tract,fndeed, the walkway wi}l provide access to thisarea to naxinize its uee. I{hile the proposeddining deck can also add life and vitility to thisarea, the proposed deck seriously constraint thedesign of the streau vallc (see Exterior Alterationand ConditionaL Use Pernit rnenos).
The proposed building expansion is a part of a
redesigned entry to an upper level condoninium.
The degree of encroachment ranges from one to fivefeet, and accomnodates an entry vestibule, skistorage lockers, and a small portion of a proposedelevator. Given the existing location of thebuilding, the relatively ninor encroachnent, andthe recently approved A t D redevelopment, thisreguest would not be a grant of special privilege.
As outlined in the conditional use memorandum forthe dining deck, there are significant publlcbenefits that could reEult fron both the dinlng
deck and stream wa).kway. However, as proposed thedining deck expansion is liniting the size of thepublic walkway to 3r6n. While some degree of
encroachnent for the dining deck is acceptable,the deck proposed is excessive when consideringthe stream tract and its relationship to thepublic walkway.
The effect of the recruested variance on licrht andair, distribution of poputation. transportation
and traffic facilities. public facilities andutilities, and nublic safetv.
The dining deck and rralknay must be consideredcollectively. The walkyray does have the potentiaLto provide a positive affect on public facilitiesby opening access to Mill Creek. However, theextent of the dining deck proposal seriouslyconfines the dinensions of the wallnray.
Both of these improvements will necessitate therelocation of existing utility neters in thlsarea. The applicantsr would relocate these metersas a part of this redevelopment.
3.
III. REI,ATED POLICIES IN THE VATL VTLIAGE UASTER PI,AN
Sub area 3.8 in the Vail Village llaster PIan encourages the
development of a strean walk in this area. The dining deck
and walkway are potentially very conpatible. However, as
has been stated, the deslgn proposed is not sensitLve to the
needs of the public access.
IV. FINDTNGS
That the granting of the variance wllt not constitute a
grant of special privilege inconsistent with thelinitations on other properties classified in the sarnedistrict.
That the granting of the variance will not be
detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or
materially injurious to properties or improvernents in
the vicinity.
That the variance is warranted for one or nore of the
following reasons:
1. The strict literal interpretation or enforcenent
of the specified regulation would result inpractical difficulty or unnecessary pbysical
hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this
title.
2. There are exceptions or extraordinary
circumstances or conditions applicable to the samesite of the variance that do not aPply generally
to other properties in the aame zone.
3. The strict interpretation or enforeement of the
specified regulation would deprive the applicantof privileges enjoyed by the owners of other
properties in the sarne district.
STAFF RECOI,IMENDATION
Staff reconnendation for this request is denial. some
degree of encroachment for the wallarray and deck is
warranted. Hortever, the current proposal is unaeceptable.
The Staff can support the slight building expansion,
however, our reconmendation for this eleuent of the proposal
is denial until a revised plan for this area is subnitted
for our review.
A.
B.
c.
v.
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
suB.TEql:
Planning and Environmental Comnission
Community Development Department
March 19, l-99O
A request for a site coverage varianceadditions to the Red Lion building.Applicant: Frankie Tang and fandiark
in order to add
Properties.
I.DESCRTPTTON OF THE VARIANCE REOUESTED
Permitted coverage in Conmercial Core f is 80* of the lotarea. In Commercial Core I, site coverage means tta portionof a site covered by buildings, and ground level patios anddecks'r. Existing site coverage on the Red Lion lot is 83*.This proposal will add site coverage in two areas:
1. 50 sguare feet for a building addition along I'till
Creek.
L73 square feet for a proposed dining deck a).ongMill Creek.
II. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 ofthe Vail Municipal Code,r__t_he_Pepartment of Conmunity
Developrnent reconmends/deniaVof the requested variance
based irpon the followin!-?EEiors:
A.Consideration of Factors:
1. The relationship of the recruested variance toother existing or potential uses and structures inthe vicinity.
The proposed dining deck is directly adjacent tothis buiLding expansion. l{hile sorne degree ofsite coverage variance may be acceptable for thedining patio, the extent of dining deck proposedis directty affecting the potential development ofthe pedestrian walkway along Mil1 Creelc. (See
stream setback variance meurorandum. )
The 50 square feet of additional site coverage forthe building expansion is partly offset by adeduction of 27 feet of building in this area.this amount of new building will not inpactadjacent uses or activities in the area.
o
2. The degree to which relief fron the strict andliteral interpretation and enforcement of aspecified regulation is necessarv to achieveconpatibility and uniforrnLty of treatnent amonctsites in the vicinity or to attain the obiectivesof this title without grant of speciaL privileqe.
Including patios and dining decks in site coverage
calculations is'somewhat of a hardshlp for
applicants in that these elements are encouraged
throughout the village. For this reason, staff
could support some degree of site coveragevariance to accomnodate the dining patio.
However, the dlning deck proposed is not
acceptable because of the inpacts related to the
pedestrian walkway along Mill Creek.
The building site coverage variance Is a net
l-ncrease of 23 feet with no appreciable impacts.
However, there is no apparent physical hardship to
warrant this request.
3. The effect of the reguested variance on ligtrt andalr. distribution of population, transportation
and traffic facilities. public facilities andut.ilities. and public safety.
As discussed in the Exterior Alteration and the
Conditional Use Pernit menosr the deck and walkwaywl-ll affect the publie enjoyment of Mill Creek.
III. REI,ATED POLICIES IN VAIL COMPREHENSIVE PI,AN
There Ls one element of the vail village Plan that isdirectly related to this proposal , Policy 3.4.1., which
reads:
rrPhysical improvenents to property adjacent to streantracts shoul-d not further restrict public access.rl
The proposed dinlng deck would lirnit the space available for
a public walkway along Mil"l Creek to 3'6tr. This is an
unacceptable width for what will one day become asignificant pedestrian corridor.
IV. FINDINGS
That the granting of the variance will not constitute a
grant of special privilege inconsistent with the
linitations on other propertJ.es classified in the same
district.
A.
o
B.
c.
Ttrat the granting of the variance will not bedetrinental to the public lrealth, safety or welfare, ornaterially injurious to properties or irnprovements inthe vicinity.
That the variance is warranted for one or more of thefollowing reasons:
1. The strict literal interpretation or enforcementof the specified regulation would result inpractical difficulty or unnecessary physical
hardship inconsistent with the objectives of thistitle.
2. There are exceptions or extraordinary
circumstances or conditions applicable to the sanesite of the variance that do not apply generaltyto other properties in the sane zone.
3. The strict interpretation or enforcement of thespecified regulatlon would deprive the applicantof privileges enjoyed by the owners of otherproperties in the same district.
STAFF RECOIT{MENDATION
Staff recornmendation for the site coverage variance requestis denial . The design of these improvenents nill havedirect inpacts on the area surrounding these proposed
improvements. The Staff encourages the applicantrs toconsider design changes to this element of the proposal .
v.
)
TO: Planning and Environmental gsmnlssion
FROM: Connunity Development
DATE: lfarch 19, L990
RE: A request for an exterior alteration to make additions
to the Red Lion Building.lpplicant: Frankie Tang and Landmark Properties
DESCRIPTTON OF PROPOSAL
The redevelopment of the Red Lion Building involves rnodifications
to ground floor comrnercial space and a najor remodel of the upper
ftoor residential space' The nain elements of this plan are:
1. The development of three condorniniums totalLng 9207
sguare feet of GRFA. The property currently has one
condominiurn with 5231 square feet of GRFA.
2. Modifications to the existing Red Lion deck enclosure
on Bridge Street, including the enclosure of 1Oo
additional sguare feet of patio at the north end of the
existing deck.
3. Uodifications to the Red Lion Restaurant to include a
dining patio on the east side of the building along
t{ill Creek.
4. The development of a public walkway along llill Creek
over the J-ength of the Red Lion frontage.
This proposal entails the revien and approval of five separate
requeits-by the Planning comnission. These reguest include the
following:
1. Exterior alteration.
2. A stream setback variance for a snaLl building
addition, dining patio, and public walkway'
3. A site coverage variance for a snall building addition
and the new dining Patio.
4. A conditional use permit for the dining patio'
5. Uodification to adopted vielr corridor #1' (Vantage
point from the steps of the parking structure over Vail
Village to Vail Mountain.)
t
AppJ.icabte elenents of this proposal are revieved relative to the
ciiteria found in each of these requests. While each must be
considered on their own nerLt, it fs important that the Ptannlng
Cornrnission view this project a6 a whole when evaluating the
proposal . This exterior alteration memo will cover each of the
najor elements of this proposal , and will also address the
requested uodification to the view corridor. The other 3
memorandtrms provide additional detail relevant to those specific
reguests.
EXTERIOR ALTERATION REVIEW CRTTERIA
The Vail Vi11a9e Urban Desl.gn Gulde Plan inctudes three elements
that establish the review criteria for this application. The
first of these is referred to as The Guide Plan, which includes a
nurnber of sub-area concepts. These sub-area concepts identify
areas for potential developrnent and funprovements in the Village.
Secondly, the Urban Design Consideratlons cover large scale land
use/design issues. Finally, architectural/landscape
eonsiderations provide infornation on the detailed design
elements of a proposal.
In addition to these three elenents of the Guide Plan,
traditional zoning consideratlons are also considered as a part
of this review. The three acconpanying memorandums cover the
majority of ttrese zoning issues. one additional zoning
consideiation has to do uith parking. Any additional parking
demand generated by this proposal would be met by palment into
the parking fund.
URBATI DESIGN GUIDE PI,AN
Sub Area No. 8:Mi1l creek walking path, west side Mill
creek. Path completes linkage from
Pirateship Park and mountain path to Gore
Creek Drive.
This proposal includes a walkway along MilI Creek over the length
of thl Red I-,ion frontage. Ultinately, this section of the path
wiLl connect with the path constructed on the back side of the A
& D buitding. It is a long range goaL to improvepedestrianiiation in this area to strengthen the role of the Mi]l-creek building as a part of the Village. The proposed walkway is
3r6tr wide. This width is unacceptable for what will become a
significant walknay. Ttre staff would like to see this element of
the plan revised to include a walkway between 6 to I feet wide.
Seibert Circle. Feature area paving
treatnent. Relocate focal point (potential
fountain) to north for better sun elposure(fall/spring), creates increased plaza area
and/or backdrop for activities. Separated
path on north side for uninpeded pedestrian
route during delivery periods.
The applicants have stated that the owners are prepared to
discuss their ro1e, or involvement, in the relocation of SeibertCircle if and when those discussion begin. The staff believesttris sub-area concept has merit, however, there are currently no
plans to initiate the relocation of the circle. Iuprovement
prpposed for the Red Lion building will not irnpede or prevent tbe
qd-design of Seibert Circle.
Sub-area No. 12:Future nidblock connection to further tieMill Creek Court to core area. Entry
reinforced by pocket park created on Bridge
Street.
Of all the sub-area concepts outlined in this plan, this sub-area
could provide one of the most inrportant irnprovernents to thevitlage. This connection existed at one tirne. Unfortunately, a
ground level addition to the Rucksack building eliminated this
pedestrian corridor. Improvements to the Red Lion Building do
not change the exlsting situation. It aPPears that the
redevelopment of the Rucksack building will be required before
this sub-area concept could be inplernented.
URBAN DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
,/-peaestrianization
I/t/ Introducing another segment of the uiIl creek walkway is a
very positive step in expanding the Village's pedestrLan
systen. However, the staff feels strongly that this
improvement should be redesigned to provide a path 6 to 8
feet wide.
a"/vehicular PenetrationL/''/ Three condominiuurs will clearly generate more trafflc than
the one existing condominium. Holtever' it nust be pointed
out that zoning-on this property perrnits up to 8 units. In
this respect, iurpacts of vehicular penetration are not as
great as they couLd be.
Streetscape Framework
tlhile not a street, the concept of dining activlty alongl{ill Creek is extrenely valuable in generatlng activity inthis area. As nentioned in this memo, and in other
memorandums, the design is not adequate at this tine. The
area has the potential to provlde both the dining actlvity
and an adequate walkway.
towards the south. qhis has the potential to accolplish twothJ.nss: aksLf/ :/1 .',
" /t. shifting the mass to the south nay\-/ on the Rucksack buildinq.
d roof forns
//
/2. Extending the nass of the buiJ-ding to the south could
t-/ : r-r-^ Ar-^ ^--.: -r-: -- ---- --.r ---.c .c^s-
--- po:,-lrug-
lgIb are proposed for the north, south and west
s:Ldes of the present Red Llon Deck enclosure. Operable
doors siII an improved situation over what isexisting.staff has serious concerns over the
exist Approvearl dn the aridge strErx.osure of thiE deck on
oDt e etaffstroofpulled back over itsentire length of Bridge Street frontage to allow for a rowof outdoor tables along the Bridge Street.
Street Enclosure
Ttre enclosure along Bridge Street relates qell with the
Plaza r.odge builcling. r{, rnay be apffopTlEF-nowever toffffEfe nass of tie buildiirg or iioviae additional mass
Street Edoe
ed landsca aIo the north BticaIl Asd line
Thisolloss the property
I The staff has just
tscape improvenentbegrun working on awith tlinston and Associates. Theevaluate the public spaces betweenstreet inprovements. The a riwith the staff and W
macerlal compa
intent of this plan isbuildings with regardto work
ly.This willer future
plan
toto'
r
aasure
streetscape inprovenents.
nu.r-;eaj
*U -9.lro {- st,-
emons
Irs.EaIl
Farking structure over vail Village. It is
intendei Lo proviae unobstructed views of VaiI I'lountain and
key architeclural features such as the Clock Tower and
Rulksack Tower. As a general rule, the staff feels strongly
that these view corridors should not be disrupted to
accommodate new buildings. However, circumstances specific
to this vLew corridor line support modificatlons of this
line.
li,\1*)t \-d,,t* tS o-qG.-.-.e'\*9-
BuiJ-ding heights allow 40t of the structure to be between
and 43 ieet iitfr the renaining 608 of the structure below
feet. As proposed, 56* of the building is below 33 feet
33.9t of the building is above 33 feet but belos 43 feet.
At its highest point, the proposed ridgeline is 42-7 feet .
lffi-T6/^' The applicants have provided
p*^"^Lu exAf.-fA-
oto overla
ationsh of this bull view
srivate view lbe
Guide PIan to protect
e the staff can fsyurpathize with
6€-6i the Rucksacl< bullding, the fact remains that the
Red Lion building has development potential that can be
buiIt. The role of the Guide Plan is to ensure tlrat the
development is designed in a way that is responsive to the
numerous design considerations of the plan.
The
Vflew corridor is fron
opt
the -tep-o-:Ftheviewridqeline will
corr
idqe tis
Ic House.
below the Golden
Hguse r
e vlew corr drawn g! the
House roof ridge.ui ow the Golden
ollse ridge and behind the clock
Tower, s
33
33
and
This amendment would rel0cate the view corridor line to the
Golden Peak House ridge line. A condition of this approval
will be that the applicantrs resurvey the vlew corridor and
provide aII naterills and production of the revised photos.
it shouLa be noted that thl redevelopment of the ViLlage
Parking Structure uilI elinlnate the exact vantage poin!
fron wf,ich this view corridor was taken. Efforts will lrave
to be made to ensure that a cornparable vantage point is
available to reposition this view corridor line.
Senrice and Delivery
ls wLth nany properties in the Village' there are no baclc
doors to provide service functions. rntroducing dining and
the walkway along tlill Creek perpetuates the problem of not
having enough space for these operations. The existinglocation of trash facilities is adjacent to Gore creek and
remains unchanged. Hottever, this location conflicts with
the dining deck and walkway. Unfortunate'ly, this appears to
edbe the only solution available. trrash is icall
the early norni
inpa ers.the dinin thatof this acrr-rEy are uinirnized(s.l
the
on
proposed expansJ-on will cast increased sha
new Iding mass on this
delinesbalance.
back fron dqe s
The obvious result is
ow pa iT ng uill creek and the Rucksackbuildlng. The staff is willing to accept the shadow pattern
on uill creek as a trade off for maintaining proper street
enclosure along Bridge Street and Hanson Ranch Road.
However, it would be worth while to see how shifting the
nass of the bulLding to the south could rninimize any shade
impact on the Rucksack building.
Architectural/Landscape Considerations
Roofs
Ttre staff has serious concerns over the iti the
proposa very s
c elenents in the Guide Plan that denonstrate Ithat
should ngg be done. There are certainly a variety of roof
forns throughout the Village. However' in general the roof
forns along this area of Bridge Street are very sinplistic'
trhe roof height regulations do encouraqte varied roof
heights, which this proposal does in fact do. Hosever,
there are a nurnber of areas in the building where roof I'ines
could be consolidated to sinplify the roof fotm.
N o -rr6tc G-{-i M {A-fr/*d V '
ol
Lf
LlA-,- L* Y '- G-":* Y*'t'-"5 wrw-c*1n--
r.o4--tb 'rv {A' V
property
encourage
Locating theis a very delicatethe building to be pulled
Sun/Shade
,'
q
As discussed at the Planning Connission work
degree of transparency proposed on the secondfloor of thls building is not consistent with
session, the
and thirdthe Urban
should
positive.
Design Guide Plan. -As a general rule
decreaEe on the oora o
ma evation that are
llowever, the staft st I uncomfortabl
eongBr
STAFF RECOI,IIIENDATION
The staff can not support thisto the applicants, this site Ls
because of the many issues and
during the design process.
project at this tine.
a very difficult one
concerns that nust be
In fairnessto redevelop
addressed to
There are a number sitive elements of this PIan. Anong
along Ranch Road, the
rovenents
on thefeels stronglyare the new
massing and roofto conpletely
It is no
plan to have every buiis considerable varietY
illng in the villagein design throughout
walkway along MilI Creek, and-tEe fact that deve
sffiibd, However, the staff
that many elements need refinenent. Anong these
dining and walkway along MilI Creek, the overall
forms proposed on the building, and the proposal
enclose the existing Red Lion dining deck. Staff reconmends
denial of this reguest as currently proposed.
The U is based on achieving a balance bet
elook althe Village.The is to ensure that new devel
to the arly the mass f forms, departs from
the vernacular.For this reason,and for other reasons
ii-EElfs-fiernt tne staff reconnends denial of this request.
of this
There
Ia to LLa-a-
vate dev
o
t-cL -,4-*. t;*14-*l*
nV
1U'o^.e=
7*+T*--+-*
---,li /t-AtL ^-L;
----ll - A u; 'a a>^^--2
'it tl ,, ,l u',t' ll r ,l v,i- 'Lawfurswt)<- 1,r\'r-< -t14rA^
n ' ttn "lr -
- * i"i i't lc.t.^-"^.{aj{y 'J\IJA .l *. i^ ".-.^a.
ri
iil
., -- ',i tt?,i
i;l." ii_rl ll n , I
. I ilv*J- \. t- ^--'-- - -- --ii- l'
tlfutd4*f , -+a.
p)/ L^- /qa (,\
l*l*: n*.y,
(L* GJ"&^- ?^*k u>tq.
o
a'tl f uJ-/v "t-,"-e .
/d> 4 onulgt'* ." G";fufr-
L^/4 81.- 'L,^ --"-Ul , .
ll v
-.*1 u/'""'^-
*..r" t .jz-
..
oI
dJ41+y .-,fd
,/ r- L
> C (<11v:y'-
TI /1 /
/b-<J<
(&{,h"0tf.
ALl.6K ,V J{,*<-
' C4wt/4n 4,64
*/. / p"*rt|
nA-l-!
)^y +- ,b)>trr.i7..- ptl),
ott.t-.ats kt/ 6,^k ,j al'
o
ALTA COMMITMENT
SCHEDULE A
Application No. Vt-4351-2
For fnformation OnIy
- Charges -
ALTA Owner Policy iZ,765.OO
52o.ooTaxcertit:-*oro,-',--
g2,7's.oo
With your remittance please refer to Vl_4351_-2.
1- Effective Date: November OL, L9B9 at g:00 A.M.
2. Policy to be issued, and proposed Insured:
rrALTAn ownerrs policy $1,450, Ooo.OOFonn 8-1970 (tunended 10-17-70)
Proposed Insured:
FRANKTE TANG
3. The estate or interest in the land described or referred to inthis Cornrnitnent and covered herein is:
A Fee Sinple
4. Title to the estate or interest covered herein is at theeffective date hereof vested in:
EDWIN C. WHITEI{EAD
5. The land referred to in this Cornmitrnent is described asfollows:
CONDOMINTUM UNITS R-1 AND R-2, ]ITHE RED LION INN CONDOMINII'MS]I
ACCORDING TO THE CONDOMINT{JM MAp THEREOF RECORDED SEPTEMBER 18.].981 IN BOOK 329 AT PAGE 105 AND AS DEFINED TN THE CONDOMINITIM
DECIARATTON RECORDED SEPTEMBER L8' L981 rN BooK 329 AT PAGEl_04, couNTy oF EAGLE, STATE OF COLORADO.
PAGE 1
av
ALTA COMMITMENT
SCHEDULE B-].
(Requirements) Application No. Vt-4351_-2
The following are the requirements to be cornplied with:
1. Paynent to or for the account of the grantors or mortgagors'ofthe fulL consideration for the estate or interest to Eeinsured.
2. Proper instrurnent(s) creating the estate or interest to beinsured must be executed and duly filed for record, to-wit:
3. EVIDENCE SATISFACTORY TO THE COMPANY THAT THE TERUS, CONDTTTONS AND
PROVTSTONS OT THE TOWN OF VAIL TRANSFER TAX HAVE BEEN SATISFTED.
4. WARRANTY DEED FROM EDWIN C. ViHTTEHEAD TO FRANKIE TANG CONVEYING SUBJECT
PROPERTY.
PAGE 2
ALTA COMMTTMENT
SCHEDULE B-2
(Exceptions)Application No. V14351-2
The policy or policies to be issued will contain exceptions to thefollowing unless the sarne are disposed of to the satisfaction ofthe Company:
1- standard Exceptions l- through 5 printed on the cover sheet.
6. Taxes and assessments iot yet due or payable and specialassessments not yet certified to the Treasurer,s office.
7. Any unpaid taxes or assessments against said l-and.
8. Liens for unpaid water and sewer charges, if any.
9. RIGHT OF PROPRIETOR OF A VEIN
THEREFROM SHOULD THE SAITTE BE
AS RESERVED IN UNTTED STATES
OR LODB TO EXTRACT AND REMOVE HIS ORE
FOUND TO PENETRATE OR INTERSECT THE PREMISES
PATENT RECORDED July 11, l-899, IN BoOK 48 AT
PAGE 475.
]-0. RTGHT OF WAY FOR DITCHES OR
UNITED STATES AS RESERVED ININ BOOK 48 AT PAGE 475.
CANALS CONSTRUCTED BY THE AUTHORITY OF THE
ITNITED STATES PATENT RECORDED JuIy 1L t 1899 r
]-]-. RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS WHICH DO NOT CONIAIN A FORFEITURE OR REVERTER CLAUSE,
BUT oMITTING RESTRICTIoNS, rF ANY' BASED oN RACE, coloR, RELIGIoN, oR
NATfONAL ORIGIN, AS CONTAINED IN fNSTRIIMENT RECORDED August LO, L962, IN
BOOK ].74 AT PAGE 1.79.
12. THosE PRovrsloNs. covEirANTs AND coNDrrroNs, EASEMENTS AND RESTRrcrroNS,wHrcH ARE A BURDEN TO THE CONDOMTNTI'M UNrT DESCRIBED rN SCHEDULE A, AS
CONTAINED IN INSTRTTMENT RECORDED September L8, 1981, IN BOOK 329 AT PAGE104.
13. EASEMENT A}ID RIGHT OF WAY OVER PORTIONS OF SURTECT PROPERTY GRANTED TO GASFACILITIES, INC., IN INSTRWENT RECORDED I,TAY ]-0, 1966 IN BOOK 192 AT PAGE530.
14. EASEMENT FOR I'{AINTENANCE AND RESTORATION OF A BALCONY OVERHANG IMPROVE},IENT
GRANTED TO OTTO KUEHN, rN INSTRUMENT RECORDED AUGUST 10, L967 IN BOOK zLLAT PAGE 26.
].5. EASE}4ENTS, RESERVATIONS AND RESTRICTIONS AS SHOWN OR RESERVED ON THE
RECORDED PLAT OF VAIL VILLAGE, FIRST FfLINe AND THE RECoRDED CONDOMINIITM
MAP OF THE RED LION CONDOMINTWS.
fit \rA
o
ALTA COMMITMENT
SCHEDULE B-2
(Exceptions) Application No. VL43Sj--2
16. A PERPETUAL EASEMENT FOR INGRESS AND EGRESS OVER, UNDER AND ACROSS THE
PROPERTY FOR PURPOSES OF MATNTAINING, REPAIRING AND REPLACINC THE
MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT OR ADDITIONAL EQUIPMENT-LOCATED_Otr_TO_BE_L'OCtrTE-D- O-N----THE ROOF OF THE PROPERTY AND TO THE MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT IN THE ATTICSERVICING CERTAIN COMI,TERCIAL UNITS, WHICH EASEMENT SHALL BE APPURTENANT TOTHE OTHER TINITS IN THE RED LION INN CONDOMINIUMS, AS RESERVED IN WARRANTYDEED RECORDED SEPTEMBER 25, t-981 IN BOOK 329 AT pAcE 391_.
17. EXISTING LEASES AND TENANCTES.
PAGE 4
p- 7/, /??o
7r hJ/.*, J/ wg C^arl'"'
T/'" /'4" ;U"**?
c /r,L //, /r,^'r-u*f h
4?,^ ? /ry,427*Lh'/-'-rr,."^ e U "+' dv Fr^
0 U ^i-/ -,1/r a efrrt4;(
/* ryfu, bL %*h;'y''a'
/1/ v,r,u nU,'h nlt?1 t**l-<na O
"L P*( 7-,.^ /?u t-'uf,,u./,-4
fla4444
o
Via overnlght Mail
February 91 1990
Town of Vail
Planning Department
75 S. Frontage Road westVail, CO 81657
nE: Red Lion Expanslon/Consent to Applicatlons
To Whom It May Concern:
The undersigned, as owner of the resldential unitsIocated at the Red Lion Condominiuns, hereby consents to theapplication being subml-tted by Landnark Development Companyand/or The Red Lion Restaurant.
RETAserv Corp.,
a Del-aware Corporation
By:
U€r te 2800
I+p,,9]'srnlqht Mar! .r
February 9, L990
Town of, vallPlonning DeparLmerrt
75 S. Frontage Road ltest.Vatl, CO 81657
RBr Red Lion Expansion/Consent to applicaf,ior:s
fo Whom Ic May Concern;
The undersigned,, as owner of the resldential units
', tocated at the Red Lion Cond,onriniuns, hereby consents to the- appllcat,lon bclng submltt,ed ny landrnirk Dev6topment Companyiaqd/or The Red Lion Restaurani
Rl?A8erv Corp.,I Dalaware Corporat,lon
By:
r!J.v1J ttu.vl.9 I .v4
(l
BEST COPY
AVAILABLE
I
I
:
I
,-i
,Pt^-( /
raqg
Av6nue,
Febnrary 8, 1990
Iorrtr of Vail
Planning Department
75 S. Frontage Road WestValll C1t 81657
$O T|ITODI IT }IAY CONCERN:
rtlb undersJ.gned as general
Conpany hereby consentE to
Reta s6ffi. Corp., the RedDevelolnent Company.
Slncerely,
partner of Landmark Connercial Development
aL1 appllcations being submitted by either
Lion Restaurant, or Landmark Conmercial
I
Januery' 5, t9g0
,.'-.
Krtctan: Prlts
Town of, Vatt
75 Sout! Ffontagc Road
Vatlr Cplorsdo 91657
(
conflroretr.on that
Kathy W*rren,, lsto your recorile .
Deat Krletan,
,ftrta lcfter ra
ae prenlnted bythl* edluatment
304 Bridge Street, Vail, Colorado 81657,3O9t476-7676
:
the prevloue subftlttal for the Red l.ton,
hereby wlthdrawn. Thank you for naktng
-i1- --\.t
a-'J-Best
coPY
Available,.'ii -.
(
tr
ts
I
I
I
I
I
I
d
z
cc:',
et.
It
Irt
1Z aYi E
-:-
tr
27'
sol
+a
i -.
I .-3 \ i_ :rl
5:
'r, .-3 (
: ,.:I. ;.i !.3! ;r f? 3 i-r t zs - vEi 52't ri- E 9+ i
.1 F S^x. '-{ fio s 5nro*; 3X o
a,5 5t*: g-
ir ,- t 2i: EJ JI
- !l'
ta
|:Xx!;t
E
I
ri
=; 3 i -; :.
F ig ii ii :;=t ii9t ;
::3: i; ;lziisi "iili;ii
iiiiiii
ry;i;$il
ll3fr
F{b F
sfifE
tII
t
o?
It
o,
6||
o
€
tr
14I
q
.Y
!t0
6Ilt\
R
13
x
i
t,t
Ia
*fIL I.t
5
O
g)
zi !,
:i(r, l; r'ti
.i.-
5
I
ca
tl
K.t, Irs{
t
,,ti,
,t
L. .. ... -::..'..-, .. . .:.j; :::_;i:= :::: -. : :-_:
l"-*r::r;'.- "'l
j:
ri '!t4t2trli
Tf,| : d ,'r*flr
r.ttr itclLtd n. lfu||n,(t!.lr: et H. fic rcrEu I rt
i.
, t9 a6,
Satby rrd
rr-d
Chasl- t.
,.'b,
.-^ -*4-
"rerJil_ . -_ .-!.:xltr:l 1t ,.{ttt tf ltrtl! 0lY. it Fr:
h l0 ll u n.tt
hd
J.ffr:'Gy l.
.t rlE T,{r. of Vill.t+.{f, t!.Ela
d dE (rty and . htt d
'!.-f'
g r?tt . irrb c+t'n,
TIE lr.tont iroruhr.r..r CaAOt AO
Crrl-erdrr. :r&rrr al Unlrr* barcj.rt Daraf(Farfac.tripany, r cajordq c,nrat ,.rtrNtrrr+ -- ri
i,
rh.r ktrt.rrd'rr\ r. tTfO GoE?l ,allrllr, Sultr loti i
'; batac. -r.'lor.ao aotl2
'i .'".'
Errt
--aL
Ic,*fA
'i'
Jri
'l..'
i.i
e
rynluo-nLJ.l?(dcl_
E gh CurFty -
Doc
t; atl1c{t?6 4-Q
q)
5 >.s3*s
^ -Y'=V>
Lc?tlcr
?fllA DEED , ka rht. a, .r ltovlla.rr 15,
btnn
ErIx c. ffinEGrD
1989
t.
?lffifl{fdtil *'-
RETA 3erv r Corp. r I Dcllrlre Corporrtlon
at tli cwry rr lELl
*.3a taaal d"tra lrot ttraIllllttttt. ttt.t
ot rrlt li iat irnr! ,trrr tn,3S !t ur' n o aan
*s,ir*il:*h *\s'l**
rrd tt|ta rl
100 Prrk Avc
''i'#*,_L
Stolc Doe, Fec
ato,o0o.o0 r
sqona
lr. tlr-l.ld Frtt af tia ll?at rt#lrffi-i:iwrffintriffi,,
rl- Irli.r r rrrt t r-.r u|rlg Fr t R_2, RtD tJE|| It|I ocfllncllc
-- _Imir rl alt rd r|r1d.. r{ |a11larrer ra F1ltru!.rnffin i#fr.d:,#?H:!fr';ri.
rr, 'rre ri. lrta |'t tlrt rh b.trlia rl acalbd..rltt ttr_ tlrtrrtar. ||ita fi -ta l.'tr afi, Fri:fi d'JjH'nf'*ff#:Effi F3'':*C&'WSsl.-,im=.rtF. ilrrt .t rtro ttr rr rm inirr ri ri Oi ti.r?-idl-#
xfit- r"r*r; ma*e##ffiffi ,*dl !H lTfi+"3Llrr Fr. r-. .rr trr rl c1.." t.r.. iqr; ri."i. ri.ir] Ei,,., -rr. I tf,r., tr.a. mr-itr dffimffiffie
ri- dl drovrd }.t.li.d t.trtr- ll.,+:*'$fl ryffi t:Wssni#trtrt'H*rh
*t,.lL'tttt* l*ftd. ri. r.la trt * ttr-iiirt iri-ti'ffi]e rh t i tra !.t rrr rr -Jrr.. rtnr aq
cl
N!
0,1
bE
-O
8d
r
;toi>
eil
I r,l
id
td
8.
oFOra
IF
"jOFrano,
Io tr,l
F
D ttl;tjt
ab
I
'.1
%Cr.rt.t t. ,.S.. rrf ;
D ta.
I
It|. f-.i|rt tnt.rtrt - -H.{J btlr r - l|t. -, ,F|
-c l!t. llg8lt
. r Etnllr c. IIIIE{EID
It cr.liillr anl... n\. . t \ t,.lt l, Jlq!. ? t ,a .d ,ltct.t -t.
t..r qt2t CoFt nrlsmrtt lto - ta tht tdrfc r.G-{
,,*:h
vt{g
Best
copy
Available
J
I
EXHTEIT'A'
4t{3{/ H.-5tA tr-l/b ltlcllA! l.-t:4r,
2.
!I9!1-9F PnoPRtProR ot_A r/ltr| oR roD! ro urrRAct
^lrD
na|otr! nrs oR!rHERrrRou sHouLD rH! 3!!! ai rotno-m irlrtnerr on nrrr.nsrct-ra-iiacselAs RtsrRvED ril sdrrrD saArra perim-nr6i6ro .roty ri,-rrii,-ri*rcox .s ATPAGE {79. --, 'e", ^N t
Rrcfia oF rAy FoR DtrcttEg 0R cNrA&s corslngqrrD !r tar AnzfioRr?t or tnEurrrgD srArns As RasERvrD rr urircD-srir;i pitrrn REaoiid;-;uii u, rscr,rx Boor 18 At PACE {73.
3' RrsrRrerrvE covENltlrlt-wfltcg m t'o! coxr^nf A Fontttrma oR RF lt1rrr ctrplt,lur ol{rtuNc R!stRreltg',!r-,I! xrr, rr.rm or r^c!;-coi6i,-iiuoror, onIlTIoIlt ontcrr{, rs,eonrrirro n ixirarnruu mcoiDiD-iiiEull ro, IrG2, rn800K 17{ At PAC! 179.
4, I|gsl llgvlsrors, covENNTlr lrfD corDrrtgrs, ElaEiuns ArD nrEsrnrssroils,l|Hrclt ARr A BUnDEI AO rnr co||mrnrrux ulfrr'DEsculcD rrf icrbFE-i;-ii'corfiArNED tN rlflrrnrrilrH:r rucoRDrD s.Dt.!b.r ia; taat; iii rodr rre Ar plc!10a.
5 ' Etslxwr lI'fD RTGHT o? rAr ovln poRrTrom or suu Eer pnoprrrt cRllrrD to crsFAcrLrrrEs, rNe,, tN lNstRUxEm RlconDrD xlr lo, rcce ri-roor rrz Ar plc!
53 0.
6 ' aAsEtrENt FoR ltlrlfrEr tfcE ArrD REsronl?ror op A Brrcon ovrngrurc rilpngvutElsGR.nlfitED To oTTo KuElIN, Ir rlf!ilnoxElilT RECoRDED tgcust' 10, 196? nr gooR 211AT PAGE :6.
7, EASETEIfIS, REsERvATrols lrD rulttRteltoNs llt gHurr oR RrslwED or r|!RECoRDED PIAT ol vAtL vltrtlc!, lrRsr rrlttrc Al|D fit! RlconDlD cot|milrxntrllAP Ot tHl RED LIOr col|DottlIttttis.
B. A PIRPEIUAL EASEI{IXT FOR mcRltt AtrD gtRlt! ottlR, qfDlR lltD Acnost tttt
PROPERU FOR FURPOSES OP tlttElrrrrc, RlP^rRtlfc AlfD EEPtlcilc frE
XEcrnr{IcAL EQUIPTnTT OR AODXIIoXAL EQOIPlTlnt' l'OCtllD OR tt' BE IPcttED OX
rHE ROOF OF THE PROPERT! ttfD TO TBt ItECEltfTCf,I, IQI'IPIIIITT TT THE AfIIC
sERVrCrlfG CERTATH C€tOGnerA& tttftlls, rf,rcr lrsEl@ll snN.L Bg l9FttRgixtm m
fltE (rrHER Ut{trs rr tHl ruD Llolt Dtlt cc,tlxturlolct, lg nEglS\tgD rx rrRR ltTr
DEEt RECORDED SEPrEI{IER 2t, 19at rx Boor 329 m Pl6t t91.
9. . txlstrxc LelsEs AND TElfltrclE.
I'G .l (t d
i
I
I
I
I
I
a
I
aI
I
II
rEl
.Tt
dr
'Co
xt
s,
ffiH lf:*-Ot-;--.r.!. ri-. rr- r.crrcr -!L-',rf*
.9
EFE-lJ I
THf S DEED . k(b tht. i, ., l{ovttr.rt, 15.
blfn
ErIr| c. ffirrE[rD
1989
-g
Il,1!Jau
fi>
-3qf
19 La
ilur>d-.(I
tr,l
6t\o-o
OJ
Or.
FTolJFFit
JT
b $ra r.ld F"v ot dia fl?ri rr.li lrl_ts|! t r! --tl F.r' or tt ci Ft, tta rclt,t a..rf ta t .ri,crarl.{t r! cqrrrrtd, h.r'b"rrtrr.. rllrr, rrr r,i ii,nrlri.'rr rl_d5 ftiiiI5jiilirr,n. ,.n.ctitry td crtltrl. rato rtr rrlrt ittr-* ib d,i;;.1i;fii.i _.lg- tnr. .ll or ,ltlatrf cr.rtu tdc:,,,tr or- HA! ef 'rd. irrit,.rritrIjl'' '-
.1.. lrD.r - rtnrt i.-|" lttlE n-l t R_2, tl|D l.Illl Dll crGiIIIIrS
. tl[lrf,r r3 rrr .lr rl arrrutr .l Ldrtfrrr ri atF r|r'!aa lt...'ia blrrr|tL .? ti rFrr Fr.tilrr. dD'l nrslrl,dr }! ?.r"rt'r. r-lil"-ai, rrt,*.r. rrii, iilL frrfra ttf,aor, r, rll r|r |3tita. rtarr tl oInrff..r. cr.rr al rhd ra.rr-rrr d..rx xta rri ri fri iffi-jr,.rrrrre ra ri irE iii.i] ii.l r. ttrh !.trJ|!t Fitr|!. rtrt ri trtattrrrr i;;r;;:' -'rc r.r re ro q,D lr! trta lnltF rh -.t|t|!, rt -G?tt-. -rltt l|f llnf,Gra. Irt. fi rtaFty.fl|ttr F t F.r. hl. h.tn ag rtirr trt*..trt ti. rir iw-ii iir-^flrrt^F.r. L rt-.rr; tt. t tn. rFrrrrr,ia -lil.r".r.... .r.. ..rrrrc. ra. f4rrq rf fr 6 j;.?;i| |'r xta F.t,,, tfr lcrl ,rr. rtr Ltr! dtrlrr, th.l lt tht :t- or rtrr;r.li ifci rr-r-E-iri-;;3. rr t. rtt rtr.a.f tf Frrrr. _orioFq!.. r. ot 'd. r... r?rcr. -r-sr. a r*iirii-ii.i. ;-i,r,;iiii; i;'i;.-i"'a-.;ill r, ir rdtlltt. lull F." d trlel rrrtrirr tr flr. trrt;. iii ii-il1 dr n t; rrr-rd rr. rr-riinllc. rftlrt th. r- r.r f?.r rs crrr? r .la i.d; d:dr;;;;; ilii,r. rirj. i. i*-..iliJ* affii$ffi, w
!la.F --.-r b.llid F-tri tl !" !4i ti tEt-t._F-r.tG.f ..:a Ftr.t tto..c.l fi. itr Lh dttrtr. ... , all tt a!t|r r -r irr.| triu tr ctitiil r rr ctrtr- rrr f!!r-r rr rd dr.-r. h -ta F.ty.t rh. I d Ji.tl ri r r cfi.f'r r[rfl r,tr: rt.-riirr:-.* rrii -riril E'ri;r,';.
'.un
r $.rlt1d.' : rh. !.. cf rlr rqr. frtt f etieCo r iti-ijiil'
-t,,ll.'t"'t lrl4ot. itx r.la ;ttt .l rt llttt rr rr rru*r |.t th t l d Ft tb -.1 F f I'tr -i
tt f..i.ltt Inrn-t r *It{d ba-r. - - ia. -t ilottlh: l!1, 1999
. b ECnlH C. ||IrlErEN,
It c-lttlar a||lraa G'.rr'!r lr .t'It Jltribi.l .t cl.a rt.
f.3
::.:',- S ffi,i*ry:,-'$,ifri!*ifo *\H**
}|.)
b
8qar:a
,r8llj rco
rl
N-3
ilsc-o
8d
at li.cxtrt .f EEll
$aar tn t.t thr9t?rtttlt.
!t tttrlfl rcr trnt0 tr t[,ltD F,un F o cEtr
.l ttatt at
$n&'r{fdf;l -,,-
RETA sary, Corp. , I Dcltrrrr Corpor.tlon
i50,000.o0,
Srotc Doe. Frc
arrrr or -i-l-c;;FiiT.-=-C.r$t tf t...S..,rf 1, at.
q
t.r rlil^ !(Ftrrrf||r|rr Ftt . r- *l:!siit. H
vt{sl
Best
copy
Available
I
l. ! gH" oF pRopRtEToR o? A vtttf oR t o! To txt'^c? lt,D nE'ow ar! or!THERrrRor{ sHouLD -rHE srx! rr roqrD m pgxrtrrrr on intr.nsrcr'-rnr-iirrasl{As RtstRvED rx udrrrD stATls pr$rn nrconoro Jury ri,-iii-,-nr-rooi-ri-r]PA6E 475. r
2 ' Rrc8t or nly FoR DtacttEs on cmArs corsrnuclrD !r rf,r AumoRrrr or ,tr!urfrrED s?ArEs As RESERVID tr urtrED srArls pATEnr nsconoio.ruii ii,-iice,IN BOCIX '8 AT PACE I?r.
3' nrstnterrvE covExtf,rg mtrctt F rcr! cgt.ar tt| A roRrlrtuRr oR nwrxttn ctrgtt,lur orrr?tNc REsrRtc"totf!1 I? rxr, llsED olr ucl, cotoi, nrLsoroi, oi- ---'
r{lttot{AL ORrCrN, Aa cornArHlD rr tNst"trtlxa nrcoiogo euiuri 10, lict, ttlBOOK 174 At Pl6t 1?9.
4. IPq! rygvlslo{9r covE}r^rRs lr|D coNDraroxsr Elsrulrrts ArD RlsrnrlelroN8,wt{rcH IRE A tuRDtN ?O ?fi! cormrtxru{ uilt8 DlscRtlgD ttf scEDott l, l3coNtAlNED rll rNstRltilrl|lr RICoRDED g.pt.rb.a lt, 19t1. rl| Dot tzr ri prcll0{.
EXHTBIT'A'
5. EAltE!{Drrr AND RrcHT oF rAl ovtR poRrtors ot su!it!e! mopllrt cn f,rED re clsFACTLTTIES, INC., tN llrgTRtt(ExT Rfc-oRDrD r^t lo, 1t66 llf loox rt2 lt Dtc!tl0.
6. Ef,sEt{Elrr FoR HArHrENAtfcE AxD ngsmR Trox oF A B rcolrt o\nrRgArrc rxplovn{Err
GRAI{rED TO OTTO KUENI{, Ilf IXSTRIfiEHT RACORDID AUCUS? lO, 1967 tX EOOX 2r1AI PA6E :6.
7. EISETENTS, RESERVA?IONS AlrD RrSTRtetIOl{s lS tHOtOt OR rusERlrtD Ort 1T!
RECORDED PIIT OP Vlll. VlLII6l, PIRS! tILttfC AND tHt RICORDID ColfDoHrrtglt
ltAP ot tHf, ntD LIor cc,Noollltflnilt.
8. A PERIDTUAI l SEttEll? loR tlctllts lltD IGRltt ottl, utlDll N|D rCnOSt trc
PROPIR?Y FOR PURPOSES Or rAtl|TArrl||c, RrPtlRtltc ll|D ng?lrcnrc n|l
rEcxN|rctLEQuIPrENToRlDDnIot|At.rngrnonl,clflDonTollllcA.rEDoN
TltE ROOr OF tllE PROPER5i[ tl(D to trE [Eqtnrtcu, SQrnn'lll|ll lr tEE A1|:lrc
SERVICING eERTAIN COTOmC[f. gftTli, t|f,ICA ErSalE|l SEILr BE
^PPUFr!J|NI
tO
tHE CTTHER U{ITS llf Tr|r RlD LIOF rxtt coxDotctlgttg, l3 nlSEnIIED Ilt mnntltlir
DEeg RECORDED SIPIETBER 25, 19!l Df loox t29 tl Pl(;l 391.
9. . IXTSAING I.Ef,SES
^rID
TETII|CIES.
rrla36, l, !llj 1.'-llb lllllllS't lc t qt,l'ti L u r.'
I
I
I
6
e
MINNESOTA
TTTL,E l\
5440 Ward Road
Arvada, CO 80002
420-0211
3300 So. Parker Rd., Suile 105
Aurors, CO 80014
75 r -4336
l8l0 30th Streel
Boulder, CO 8030 |
444-4tOl
200 North Ridge
P. O. Box 2280
Breckenridge, CO 80424
453-225s
512 Wilcox
Cdslle Rock, CO 80I04' 688-6363
212 North Wahsatch
Colorado Springs, CO 80903
634-48?l
GommitmentTo Insurc
lssudilmtghtln 0ffin of:
P. O. Box 5440
Denver, CO 80217
32t-l880
8821 E. Hampden
Suite | 00
Denver, CO 8023 |
750,4223
8333 Greenwood Bouleva rd
Denver, CO 8022 |
427-9353
'1201 Main Avenue
Durango, CO 81301
247-5860
7700 E. Arapahoe Rd.
Suite 150
Englewood, CO 80112
770-9596
3600 So. Yosemile
Denver, CO 80237
694-2537
LAilD TITLE
GIARANTEE
CC)f\4FANY
'108 Soulh Frontage Road W'
P.O. Box 357
Vail, CO 8l 658
476-2251
3030 S. College Avenue
Suile 20 |
Fort Collins, CO 80525
482-90r 5
710 Kipling Streer
Lakewood, CO 80215
232-31l. I
3609 So. Wadsworth
Suite I | 5
Iakewood, CO 80235
988-8550
| 1990 Granl Streei
Suite 220
Northglenn, CO 80233
452-0149
I9590 East Ma in Street
Parker, CO 801 34
84 t -4900
108 South Frontage Road W.
P.O. Box 357
Vail, CO 81658
1/6-22s1
!1,. ,.:.!
.tiz
itltilir, .i:ll
1, .-'j:
I :lf:.
-1970 Hev.
MINNESOTA
TITLE INSURANCE C0MPANY 0F MINNES0TA. a Minnesota corporation, herein called the Company, for a
valuable consideration, hereby commits to issue its policy or policies of title insurance. as identified in
Schedule A, in favor of the proposed Insured named in Schedule A, as owner or mortgagee of the estate or
interest covered hereby in the land described or refened to in Schedule A. upon paymenl of the premiums and
charges therefor; all subject to the provisions o{ Schedules A and B and to the Conditions and StiDulations
hereof.
This Commitrnent shall be effective only when the identity of the proposed Insured and the amount or the
policy or policies committed for have been inserted in Schedule A hereof by the Company, either at the tjme
of the issuance of this Commitment or bv subseouent endorsement.
This Commitment is preliminary t0 the issuance of such policy or policies of title insurance and all liability and
obligations hereunder shall cease and terminate six months after the effective date hereof or when the policy
or policies committed for shall issue, whichever first occurs, provided that the failure to issue such polic.y or
policies is not the fault of the Company,
CONDITIONS AND STIPULATIONS
1 . The term "mortgage". when used herein, shall include deed of trust, trust deed, or other security instrument.
2. lf the proposed Insured has or acquires actual knowledge of any detect, lien, encumbrance, adverse claim
T|T:E !\
or other matter affecting the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitnent other than those shown in Schedule B hereof, and shall fail
to disclose such knowledge to the Company in writing, the Company shall be relieved from liability for any loss or damage resulting from any act of reliance
hereon to the extent the Company is prejudiced by failure of fie proposed Insured to so disclose such knowledge. lf the proposed Insured shall disclose such
knoivledge to the Company. or if the Company ottrenrvise acquires actual knowledge of any such defect, lien, encumbrance, adverse claim or other mattel the
Company at its option may amend Schedule B 0f this Commitment accordingly, but such amendment shall not relieve the Company from liability prwiously
incuned pursuant to paragraph 3 of these Conditions and Stipulations.
3. Liability of the Company under this Commitment shall be only t0 fie named proposed Insured and such
parties included under the definition of Insured in the form of policy or policies committed for and 0nly for actual loss incuned in reliance hereon in
undertaking in good faith (a) to comply with the requirements hereof or lb) t0 eliminate exceptions shown in Schedule B, or {c} to acquire or create the estate
0r interest 0r mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment. In no event shall such liability exceed the amount stated in Schedule A for the policy or policies
committed for and such liability is subject t0 the insuring provisions and the Conditi0ns and Stipulations and the exclusions from Coverage of the form of
policy or policies committed for in favor of fre proposed Insured which are hereby incorporated by reference and made a part of this C0mmitment except as
expressly modified herein.
4. Any action or actions 0r rights 0f action that the proposed Insured may have or may bring against the
Company arising out of the status of the title to the estate or interest 0r the status of ttre mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment must be based on
and are subject t0 the prwisions of this Commitment.
STANDABD EXCEPTIONS
In addition to the matters contained in the Conditions and Stipulations and Exclusions from
Coverage above referred to, this Commitment is also sublect to the following:
1. Rights or claims of parties in possession not shown by the public records.
2. Easements, or claims of easements, not shown by the public records.
3. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments, and any facts
which a correct survey a nd inspection of the p remises would disclose a nd which a re n ot sh own by the public rec ords.
4. Any lien, or rightto a lien, for services, laborormaterialtheretoforeorhereafterfurnished,
imposed by law and not shown by the public records.
5. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters, if any, created, first
a ppea ring in the pu blic records or auaching subsequentto the effective date hereof but p rior to the date the proposed insured a c qu ires
of record for value the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment.
lN WITNESS WHEREOETitle Insurance Company of Minnesota has c a used its corporate
name and sealto be hereunto affixed by its duly authorized officers on the date shown in Schedule A, to be valid when countersigned
by a validating officer or other authorized signatory
TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY OF MINNESOTA
:/.. 7i 1, r '\
"4t\1..,,
i '-.I ,
Authoized Signatory
TIM Form 2582
;i. -.' -4 .-€
z 'i ''4
l''',
I,AND r r fre A"PANYGUARANTEE
Representing Title Insurance Company of Minnesota
TIIANK YOU FOR YOI'R ORDER
December 11, 1989
Our Order: V14598
:BllYSR,r
SEI,T,FR:
ADDRESS:
I,ANDMARK COUIIERCIAL DEVEISPMENS COI.TPANY,
COIJORADO GENERAI., PARTNERSHIP
RED LION COITIMERCIAL
A
I|ORTER ARCHITECTSv cALr, To prcK up
Attn; ARLIN
PICKED UP FOR DEIJIVERY AI,I PM
ALToO"oMMTTMENT
SCI{EDULE A
Application No. Vl-4598
For Information Only
RED LION CO!,!I,!ERCIAL
- Charges -
ALTA Owner PolicyPRELr!''rNAR:Yi8fiI"- - El33:33
With your remittance please refer to Vj.4599.
L. Effective Date: November 23, L9B9 at g:OO A.M.
2. Policy to be issued, and proposed Insured:
nALTArr Ounerrs policy
form 8-1970 (Amended l_0-i_7-70)
Proposed Insured:
3. The estate or interest in the rand described or referred to inthis Conunitment and covered herein is:
A Fee Sinple
4. Title to the estate or interest covered herein is at theeffective date hereof vested in:
r,ANDl'tARK coMl'IERcTAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, A cor,oRADo GENERAL
PARTNERSHIP
5. The land referred to in this comrnitrnent is described asfollows:
coNDourNlul[ UNITS cL, c2, c3, AND c4, THE RED LION coNDoMrNltrus
AccoRDrNG To rHE coNDoMrNrII'{ I'{Ap THEREoF RECORDED sEpTEMBER 18,1981 IN BOOK 329 AT PAGE ]-05 AND AS DEFINED IN THE CONDOMINII'MDacraRATroN RECoRDED SEPTEMBER l-8' l-98L rN BooK 329 AT PAGE1.04, COttNTy oF EAGLE, STATE OF COI_,ORADO.
PAGE 1-
t.
SCHEDUI.,,E B-1
(Reguirenents) Application No. V14598
The follo'rLng are the requirements to be cornplied with:
1. Plyrsrt to or for the account of the grantors or nortgagors ofthe f,ull conEideratLon for ttrd eatate or interest to belncured.
2. Propar instrument(s) ereating the estate or intereEt to be
J.nsured must be executed and-du1y filed for record, to-wit;
flllB Co!'!Ur1!IENT Is FoR INFoRMATIoN oNLY, AND No PoLIcy WILL BE IssuED
PUNBUANT HERETO.
ALTol"oilMrrrrtENT o
PAGE 2
ALroO"oMMrrMENr
SCHEDULE B-2
(Exceptions)application No. VL4598
The policy or poricies to be issued will contain exceptions to thefolJ-owing unless the same are dJ-sposed of to the satisfaction ofthe Company:
L. Standard Exceptions l- through 5 printed on the cover sheet.
6. Taxes and assessments not yet due or payable and specialassessments not yet certified to the Treasurerrs office.
7. Any unpaid taxes or assessments against said land.
8. Liens for unpaid water and sewer charges, if any.
RIGHT OF PROPRIETOR OF A VEIN OR LODE TO EXTRACT AND REMOVE HIS ORE
THEREFRO}! SHOULD THE SAME BE FOIJND TO PENETRATE OR INTERSECT THE PREMISESAs RESERVED rN uNrrED srATEs PATENT RECORDED July LL, j-999, rN BooK 48 AT
PAGE 475.
1.0. RIGHT OF WAY FOR DITCHES OR CANAI^S CONSTRUCTED BY THE AUTI{ORITY OF THEUNITED STATES AS RESERVED IN UNTTED STATES PATENT RECORDED July l-l-, Lggg,rN BOOK 48 AT PAGE 475.
11.. RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS WHICH DO NOT CONTAIN A FORFEITT'RE OR REVERTER CI,AUSE,BUT OMITTING RESTRICTIoNS, IF ANY. BASED oN RACE, coloR. RELTGION, oRNATIONAL ORIGIN, AS CONTAfNED IN INSTRUMENT RECORDED August l-0, l-962, INBOOK 174 AT PAGE 179.
L2. THOSE PROVISTONS, COVENANTS AND CONDITIONS, EASEIT{ENTS AND RESTRICTIONS,WHICH ARE A BURDEN TO THE CONDOMINTIIM uNrT DESCRIBED rN SCHEDULE A, ASCONTAINED IN INSTRITMENT RECORDED September 18, 1981, IN BOOK 329 AT pAcE
Lo4.
13. EASEITIENT AND RIGHT OF WAY OVER PORTIONS OF SUR'ECT PROPERTY GRANTED TO GASFACTLTTIES, INC., IN rNsTRUl,tENT RECORDED MAy l_0, t-966 rN BOOK 192 AT PAGE530.
]-4. EASEMENT FOR MAINTENANCE AND RESTORATION OF A BALCONY OVERHANG IMPROVEMENT
GRANTED TO OTTO KUEHN, IN INSTRiJI,IENT RECORDED AUGUST l_0, l_967 IN BOOK 2L1_AT PAGE 26.
].5. EASEMENTS. RESERVATIONS AND RESTRICTIONS AS SHOWN OR RESERVED ON THE
RECORDED PI,AT OF VAIL VTLI,AGE, FTRST FILING AND THE RECORDED CONDOMINTUMI.IAP OF RED LfON CONDOMINIWS.
9.
PAGE
A L T of" o u l,r r r M E N T
SCHEDULE B-2
(Exceptions) Application No. V14598
16. EXTSTING LEASES AND EENANCIES.
17. A DEED OF TRUST DATED November 03, L977 FROI{ RICIIARD N. BROWN, CHARLESH' ROSENQUIST AND JEFFREY B. SELBY TO THE PUBLIC TRUSTEE OF EAGLE COUNTY
FOR THE USE OF THE EMPTRE SAVINGS, BUILDING AND IOAN ASSOCIATION TO SECURE
THE St'M OF $45O,OOO.OO, AND ANY OTHER AMOUNTS PAYABIE UNDER THE TERMS
THEREOF, RECORDED November L4, 1977, IN BOOK 262 AT PAGE 25L.
NOTICE OF CONTINUATION OF LIEN OF DEED OF TRUST AGREEMENT IN CONNECTION
WITH SAID DEED OF TRUST WAS RECORDED MARCH 29, L985 rN BOOK 41_O AT PAGE t_0.
(AFFECTS EASEMENT oN LoT E, BLocK 5A VAIL VILLAGE FIRST FILING)
18. TERMS, CONDITIONS AND PROVISIONS OF SECURITY AGREEMENT AND PLEDGE OF
PARTNERSHIP INTERESTS RECORDED Novenber 06, 1986 IN BOOK 451 AT PAGE 87G.
19. A DEED OF TRUSI DATED JanuaTy 09, ].987 FROM I,ANDMARK coMMERcIAL DEVEIJoPMENT
COIi{PANY, A COLORADO GENERAL PARTNERSHIP TO THE PUBLIC TRUSTEE OF EAGLEcoItNTY FOR THE USE OF THE EMPTRE SAVINGS, BUTLDING AND I_,,OAN ASSOCTATTON TOsEcuRE THE sIlM oF $2,!55,855.00, AND ANy orHER AI,IouNTs pAyABLE UNDER THE
TERMS THEREOF, RECORDED January 20, r9g7 | rN BooK 456 AT pAcE 254.
(AFFECTS CONDOMINITT'' UNrTs ct, c2, c3 AND C4)
20. FINANCING STATEMENT WITH CENTRAL BANK OF ASPEN, N.A., THE SECURED pARTy,
RECORDED MARCH 7, l_988 IN BOOK 48O AT pAcE 48.
(AFFECTS A PORTION OF CONDOMINIUM UNIT C4)
2L. TERMS, CONDITIONS AND PROVISIONS OF ASSIGNMENT OF REAIJ ESTATE LEASE AND
AGREEMENT RECORDED March 07, l-9BB IN BOOK 4gO AT PAGE 49.
(AFFECTS A PORTION OF CONDOMTNTUM UNrT C4)
PAGE 4
+-
SCHEDULE A
Application No. VL435l--2
-For Infornation only
- Charges -
ALTA Owner Po1icy $2,765.00
$20.00Taxcertit]-toro,,--
92,785.00
With your remittance please refer to V14351-2.
1. Effective Date: Novernber 01-, 1989 at 8:00 A.M.
2. Policy to be issued, and proposed Insured:
rrAr'TArr owner,s Policy $1,4501000.00
Form 8-1970 (Anended 10-L7-70)
Proposed Insured:
FRANKIE TANG
3. The estate or interest in the land described or referred to inthis Cornrnitrsent and covered herein is:
A Fee Sirnple
4. Title to the estate or interest covered herein is at theeffective date hereof vested in:
EDWIN C. WHITEHEAD
5. The land referred to in this Connitnent is described as
follows:
CONDOIIfNIIII-I UNITS R-1 AND R-2, rTHE RED LION INN CONDOMINIII,ISTI
ACCORDING TO THE CONDOMINIUM MAP THEREOF RECORDED SEPTEMBER 18,
1981 IN BOOK 329 AT PAGE 105 AND AS DEFTNED IN THE CONDOMTNTI'I'I
DECIARA1TION RECORDED SEPTEMBER 18, ],981 IN BOOK 329 AT PAGE
1O4, COUNTY OF EAGLE, STATE OF COT,ORADO.
-ALTA COMMITMENT
PAGE 1
if.
SCHEDULE B-1
(Requirements) Apptication No. V14351-z
The following are the reguirenents to be cornplied with:
1. PFlment to or for the account of the grantors or mortgagors ofthe f,ull consideration for the estate-or interest to be
insrrred.
2. Pfonrer instrument(s) creating the estate or interest to be
insured nuet be executed and duly filed for record, to-wit:
3. EIIIDEDTCE SATISFACIORY TO THE COI'IPA}{Y THAT THE TERl.tS, CONDITIONS AND
FBOVISIOilS OF THE TOWN OF VATIJ TRANSFER TAX EAVE BEEN SATISFIED.
4. T'ANRJf,}ITY DEED FROM EDWIN C. I{HTTEHEAD TO TR,ANKIE TAT{G CONVEYING SUS\'ECT
mopBHrY.
ttFlrB
ALTA COMI,IITI.TENT
PAGE 2
t ALTA COMMIT
SCHEDUI,E 8.2
(Exceptions)
MENT
Application No. Vl-4351-2
The policy or policies to befollowing unless the same arethe Conpany:
issued will contain exceptions to the
disposed of to the"satisfaction' of
l-. Standard Exceptions 1 through 5 printed on the cover sheet.
6. Taxes and assessments irot yet due or payable and special
assessments not yet certified to the Treasurer,s office.
7. any unpaid taxes or assessments against said land.
8. Liens for unpaid water and sewer charges, if any.
9. RIGHT OF PROPRIETOR OF A VEIN OR LODE TO EXTRACT AND REMOVE HIS ORE
THEREF'ROM SHOULD THE SAME BE FOUND TO PENETRATE OR INTERSECT THE PREMISES
AS RESERVED IN UNI?ED STATES PATENT RECORDED July 1L, L899, IN BOOK 48 AT
PAGE 475.
]-0. RIGHT OF WAY FOR DTTCHES OR CANALS CONSTRUCTED BY THE AUTHORITY OF THE
UNITED STATES AS RESERVED IN UNITED STATES PATENT RECORDED July L1, L899.IN BOOK 48 AT PAGE 475.
].1. RESTRICTIVE COVENANIS WHTCH DO NOT CONTAIN A FORFEITURE OR REVERTER CI,AUSE;
BUT OMITTING RESTRICTIONS, IF ANy, BASED ON RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, OR
NATfONAL ORIGIN, AS CoNTAINED IN INSTRUMENT RECORDED August 10, 1962, IN
BOOK 174 AT PAGE 179.
l-2. THOSE PROVTSIONS, COVEiTANTS AND CONDTTTONS, EASEMENTS AND RESTRTCTTONS,
WHICH ARE A BURDEN TO THE CONDOMINIT'M UNIT DESCRIBED IN SCHEDULE A, AS
CONTAINED IN INSTRIJMENT RECORDED Septenber 18, 198L, IN BOOK 329 AT PAGE
104.
13. EASEMENT AND RIGHT OF WAY OVER PORTIONS OF SUB.TECT PROPERTY GRANTED TO GAS
FACILITIES, INC., IN INSTRUMENT RECORDED MAY ].0, 1966 IN BOOK 192 AT PAGE
530.
14. EASEMENT FOR MAINTENANCE AND RESTORATION OF A BALCONY OVERHANG IMPROVEMENT
GRANTED TO OTTO KUEHN, IN INSTRIII{ENT RECORDED AUGUST 10, 1967 IN BOOK 211-
AT PAGE 26.
15. EASEMENTS, RESERVATIONS AND RESTRICTIONS AS SHOI{N OR RESERVED ON THE
RECORDED PIAT OF VAIL VrLr_,AGE, FrRST FTLTNG AND THE RECORDED CONDOMTNTIIM
!4AP OF THE RED LION CONDOMTNIUMS.
PAGE
\
,I\'
SCHEDUI,E B-2
(Exceptions) Application No. Vt43St-2
16. A trERPETUAL EASEMENT FOR TNGRESS AND EGRESS OV8R, UNDER AND ACROSS THE
FROPERTY FOR PURPOSES OF MAINTAINTNG, REPAIRING Al{D REPLACING THE
}'ECITANICAL EOUIPMENT OR ADDITIONAL EQUTP}TENT IOCATED OR TO BE IPCATED ON
THE ROOF OF TIIE PRoPERTY AND To TIIE I'{ECHANICAL EQUfPMENT IN THE AITIC
SERVICING CERTATN COI,IMERCIAL UNITS, WHICS EASETIENT SHALL BE APPURTENANT TOtHE O(ItlER UNrTS rN TH8 RED LION INN CONDO!,IINIU].!S, AS RESERVED IN WARRANTY
DEED RECORDED SEPTEMBER 25, L98L IN BOOK 329 AT PAGE 391,
].7. EXTSTtrNG I,EASES AND TENANCIES.
l!=:=r!!
PAGE iI
ALTA COMMTT}tENT o
a
IAND *ril,"GUARANTEE OMPANY
Representing Title Insurance Conpany of Minnesota
THANK YOU FOR YOUR ORDER
Dece$ber 11., 1989
. Our OJder: V14598
BUYER:
'$EIL,ER:
I.,ANDMARK COMMERCTAL DEVEIfPMENT COMPANY,
COLORADO GENERAL PARTNERSHIP
ADDRESS:
LION COMMERCIAL
A
RED
. y',toRtER ARCHTTECTS* CALL TO PICK UP
1 , Attn: ARLTN
PTCKED UP FOR DELIVERY AM PM
MINNESOTA
TtTLEf\GommitmentTo Insure
lssued throt'qh the 0lfte of
LAXD TITLE
GLJARAI{TEE
CCt\4PAi'j'''
ALTA COMI{ITMENT
SCHEDULE A
Application No. V1.4598
For Information Only
RED LION COMMERCIAL
- Charges -
ALTA Owner PolJ.cyPRELTMTNA.::TBIIL- - 3133:33
With your remittance please refer to V14598.
1. Effective Date: November 23, 1989 at 8:00 A.M.
2. Policy to be issued. and proposed Ineured:
rrALTArr Ownerrs Policy
Form 8-1970 (Arnended l-0-17-70)
Proposed Insured:
3. The estate or interest in the land described or referred to inthis Commitment and covered herein is:
A Fee Sinple
4. Titl,e to tbe estate or interest covered herein is at theeffective date hereof vested in:
I,ANDMARK COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, A COLORADO GENERAL
PARTNERSHTP
5. The land referred to in this Connitnent is described asfollows:
CONDOilTNIUIT' UNITS CTI C2, C3, AND C4' THE RED L]ON CONDOMTNIUMS
ACCORDING TO THE CONDO},IINIUM MAP THEREOF RECORDED SEPTEMBER 18,
1981 TN BOOK 329 AT PAGE 105 AND AS DEF]NED IN THE CONDOMINIUM
DECI,ARATION RECORDED SEPTEMBER ].8, ]-98]. IN BOOK 329 AT PAGE104, COUNTY OF EAGLE, STATE OF COLORADO.
PAGE 1
A L r ^q o M lr r r M E N r a
SCHEDULE B.1
(Reguirenents) Application No. V14598
rhe f,ollouing are the requirements to be conplied with:
X. Palnnent to or for the account of the grantors or rnortgagors ofthe full coneideration for the egtate or interest to be
inEured.
2. Ptroper instrunent(s) creating ttre estate or l-nterest to beinsured must be executed and duly flled for record, to-wit:
THIS COHMITMENT IS rOR TNFORMATION ONLY, AND NO POLICY WrLL BE ISSUED
Pt,RSUA!{T HERETO.
PAGE 2
A L T oO" o M M r r M E N T
SCHEDULE B-2
(Exceptions)
The policy or poricies to be issued will contain exceptions to thefoLrowing unress the same are disposed of to the satisfaction ofthe Company:
1. Standard Exceptions 1 through 5 printed on the cover sheet.
6. Taxes and assessments not yet due or payable and specialassessments not yet certified to the Treasurerrs office.
Any unpaid taxes or assessments against said land.
Liens for unpaid water and sewer charges, if any.
RIGHT OF PROPRIETOR OF A VEIN OR LODE TO EXTRACT AND REMOVE HIS ORE
THERETROM SHOULD THE SAI.{E BE FOUND TO PENETRATE OR INTERSECT THE PREMISESAS RESERVED IN UNITED STATES PATENT RECORDED July LL, L899, fN BOOK 48 AT
PAGE 475.
]-0. RIGHT OF WAY FOR DTTCHES OR CANALS CONSTRUCTED BY THE AUTHORITY OF THE
UNTTED STATES AS RESERVED IN UNITED STATES PATENT RECORDED JuLy 11 , l-8gg,IN BOOK 48 AT PAGE 475.
RESTRTCTIVE COVENANTS WHICH DO NOT CONTAIN A FORFEITURE OR REVERTER CLAUSE,BUT OMITTING RESTRICTIONS, IF ANY, BASED ON RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, OR
NATTONAL oRrcrN, As CONTATNED rN TNSTRUMENT RECORDED August l-0, !962, rN
BOOK ].74 AT PAGE ]-79.
THOSE PROVISTONS, COVENANTS AND CONDTTTONS, EASEMENTS AND RESTRTCTIONS,
WHICH ARE A BURDEN TO THE CONDOMINIUM UNIT DESCRIBED IN SCHEDULE A, AS
CONTATNED rN TNSTRUMENT RECORDED septenber 18, 1981, rN BooK 329 AT PAGE104.
EASEMENT AND RTGHT OF WAY OVER PORTIONS OF SUBJECT PROPERTY GRANTED TO GASFACILTTIES. INC., IN TNSTRUMENT RECORDED MAY ].0, 1966 IN BOOK ]-92 AT PAGE
53 0.
EASEMENT FOR MATNTENANCE AND RESTORATTON OF A BALCONY OVERHANG TMPROVEMENT
GRANTED TO OTTO KUEHN, IN INSTRUMENT RECORDED AUGUST ].0, !967 TN BOOK 2],],AT PAGE 26.
EASEUENTS, RESERVATTONS AND RESTRTCTTONS AS SHOWN OR RESERVED ON THE
RECORDED PI.,AT OF VAIL VILLAGE, FIRST FILING AND THE RECORDED CONDOMINIUM
MAP OF RED LION CONDOMINIUMS.
Application No. v14598
8.
9.
11
72.
1.3.
1E
PAGE
A L T AO" o M M I T M E N T
SCHEDULE B-2
(Exceptions)Application No. V14598
].6. EXISTING LEASES AND TENANCIES.
L7. A DEED OF TRUST DATED November 03, L977 FROM RICHARD N. BROWN, CHARLESH. ROSENQUTST AND JEFFREY B. SELBY TO THE PUBLIC TRUSTEE OF EAGLE COUNTY
FOR THE USE OF THE EMPIRE SAVINGS, BUILDING AND LOAN ASSOCIATION TO SECURE
THE SIJI{ OF S45O,OOO.OO, AND ANY oTHER AMOUNTS PAYABLE UNDER THE TERI'{S
THEREOF, RECORDED November 14, t977, IN BOOK 262 AT PAGE 251.
NOTTCE OF CONTINUATION OF LIEN OF DEED OF TRUST AGREEMENT IN CONNECTION
WITH SAID DEED OF TRUST WAS RECORDED MARCH 29, 1985 IN BOOK 4].0 AT PAGE 10.
(AFFECTS EASEMENT ON LOT E, BLOCK 5A VAIL VTLISGE FTRST FILING)
TERMS, CONDITIONS AND PROVISTONS OF SECURITY AGREEMENT AND PLEDGE OF
PARTNERSHIP INTERESTS RECORDED Novenber 06, 1.986 IN BOOK 451, AT PAGE 876.
A DEED OF TRUST DATED January 09, 1987 FROM LANDMARK COMMERCIAI-,, DEVEIOPMENT
COMPANY, A COLORADO GENERAL PARTNERSHIP TO THE PUBLIC TRUSTEE OF EAGLE
COUNTY FOR THE USE OF THE EMPIRE SAVINGS, BUILDING AND LOAN ASSOCIATION TO
SECURE THE SUM OF $2,].55,855.00, AND ANY OTHER AMOUNTS PAYABLE UNDER THE
TERMS THEREOF, RECORDED January 20, 1987,IN BOOK 456 Al PAGE 254.
(AFFECTS CONDOI{INTUM UNITS C\ , C2, C3 AND C4)
FINANCING STATEMENT WITH CENTRAL BANK OF ASPEN, N.A., THE SECURED PARTY,
RECORDED I'IARCH 7. ]-988 IN BOOK 480 AT PAGE 48.
(AFFECTS A PORTION OF CONDOMINIUM UNIT C4)
TERMS, CONDITTONS AND PROVISIONS OP ASSIGNMENT OF REAI, ESTATE LEASE AND
AGREEMENT RECORDED March 07, 1988 IN BOOK 480 AT PAGE 49.
(AFFECTS A PORTION OF CONDOMINIUM UNIT C4)
18.
19.
2t.
20.
PAGE
ALTA COMMTTMENT
SCHEDULE A
Application No. VL435t--2
For fnfornation Only
- Charges -
ALTA Owner Policy $2,265.00
$20,00Taxcertit--totol--
92,785.00
With your rernittance please refer to VL435l_-2.
1. Effective Date: November OJ_, l9B9 at g:OO A.M.
2. Policy to be issued, and proposed fnsured:
rrALTAn owner, s policy $1, 450, ooo . ooForIII B-l-970 (Arnended L0-17-70)
Proposed Insured:
FRANKTE TANG
3. The estate or interest in the land described or referred to int,his Cornrnitment and covered herein is:
A Fee Simple
4. Title to the estate or interest covered herein is at theeffective date hereof vested in:
EDWIN C. WHITEHEAD
5. The land referred to in this Cornrnitment is described asfollows:
CONDOMINITN{ UNITS R-]. AND R-2, 'ITHE RED LION INN CONDOMINIUMS'I
ACCORDING TO THE CONDOMINIW UAP THEREOF RECORDED SEPTEMBER 18,1981 IN BOOK 329 AT PAGE 105 AND AS DEFINED IN THE CONDOMINITJM
DECLARATION RECORDED SEPTEMBER L8, 1981 IN BOOK 329 AT PAGELO4, COUNTY OF EAGLE, S?ATE OF COTORADO.
PAGE 1
_t- tALTA COIi{MITI.[ENT
SCHEDULE B-]-
(Reguirernents) Application No. Vf+fSf-z
The fol.lrowing are the reguirernents to be eomplied vith:
1. F-ayftent to or for the account of the grantors or mortgagors oflhe full consideration for the estate-or interest to be-insured.
'
2, Proper inEtrument(s) creating the estate or interest to beinsured must be executed and duly filed for record, to-wit:
3. 8VIDE$CE $ATISFACTORY TO THE COMPANY THAT THE TERI'IS, CONDITIONs AND
PROT|ISIONS OF THE TOWN OT VAIL TRANSFER TAX ITAVE BEEN SATISFTED.
4. I{ARRAIilTY DEED FROM EDWIN C. WHTTEHEAD TO FRANKIE TANG CONVEYING SUEJECT
FROPE-RTY.
=i==
PAGE 2
ALTA COMMTT
SCHEDULE B_2
(Exceptions)
The policy or policies to be issued willfollowing unless the same are disposed ofthe Company:
MENT
application No. VL435L-a
contain exceptions to theto the satisfaction of
1' standard Exceptions 1 through 5 printed on the cover sheet.
6- Taxes and assessments rlot yet due or payable and specialassessments not yet certified to the Treasurerrs office.
7. Any unpaid taxes or assessments against said l_and.
B. Liens for unpaid water and sewer charges, if any.
9. RIGHT OF PROPRIETOR OF A VEIN OR LoDE TO EXTRACT AND REMOVE HIS ORE
THEREFROM SHOULD THE SAME BE FOUND TO PENETRATE OR INTERSECT THE PREMTSESAS RESERVED IN UNITED STATES PATENT RECORDED July LL, 1899, IN BooK 4g AT
PAGE 475.
10. RIGHT OF WAY FOR DITCHES OR CANALS CONSTRUCTED BY THE AUTHORITY OF THE
UNITED STATES AS RESERVED IN UNITED STATES PATENT RECORDED July 11, 1999,IN BOOK 48 AT PAGE 475.
11. RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS WHICH DO NOT CONTAIN A FORFEITURE OR REVERTER CI,AUSE,
BUT OMTTTING RESTRICTIoNS' IF ANY, BASED ON RACE, COLOR, RELIGIoN, oR
NATIONAL ORIGIN, AS CONTAINED IN INSTRIJI',IENT RECORDED August 10, 1962, IN
BOOK 174 AT PAGE ].79.
12. THOSE PROVISIONSI COVEIiIANTS AND coNDITIoNs, EASEMENTS AND REsTRTcTIoNs,
WHICH ARE A BURDEN TO THE CONDOMINII'Ii UNIT DESCRIBED IN SCHEDULE A, AS
CONTAINED IN INSTRUMENT RECORDED September 1-8, l-98L, IN BOOK 329 AT PAGE104.
13. EASEMENT AND RIGHT OF WAY OVER PORTIONS OF SUBIECT PROPERTY GRANTED TO GASFACILITIES, INC., IN TNSTRUMENT RECORDED MAY 10, ].966 IN BOOK ]-92 AT PAGE
530.
14. EASEMENT FOR MAINTENANCE AND RESTORATION OF A BALCONY OVERHANG TMPROVEMENT
GRANTED TO OTTO KUEHN, rN TNSTRITMENT RECORDED AUGUST l-O, 1967 IN BOOK 2t l_AT PAGE 26.
15. EASEMENTS, RESERVATIONS AND RESTRTCTTONS AS SHOWN OR RESERVED ON THE
RECORDED PI,AT OF VATL VILI,AGE, FIRST FII.ING AND THE RECORDED CONDOMTNIUM
MAP OF THE RED LION CONDOMINTUMS.
PAGE
"o
A L r of" o M M r r r,r E N r I
SCHEDULE B-2
(Exceptions)Application No. va43s1,-2
16. A PERPETUAT EASEMENT FOR INGRESS AND EGRESS OVER, UNDER AND ACROSS THE
PROPERTY FOR PURPOSES OF MAINTAINING, REPATRING AND REP],ACING THEI€CTIANICAL EQUIPMENT OR ADDITTONAL EQUIPMENT INCATED OR TO BE IOCATED ONItrIE ROOF OF THE PROPERTY AND TO THE TIECHANICAL EQUIPMENT rN TttE ATTrCSERVICING CERTAIN COII{MERCIAL UNITS, WHICS EASEMENT SHALL BE APPURTENANT ToTHE OAHER UNITS IN TIIE RED LION INN CONDOITIINIUI{S, AS RESERVED IN WARRANTY
DEED RECORDED SEPTEMBER 25, 198L IN BOOK 329 AT PAGE 391.
]-7. EXI$TING IJEASES AND TENANCIES.
PAGE
To3
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Planning and Environmental Coumission
CoununitY DeveloPment
l{arch 19, 1990
A request for an exlerior alteration to make additlons
to the Red Lion Buitding.Applicant: Frankie Tanf and Landmark-Properties ^-
n"scnrprror er pnoposJq$Mw,,tffi,lt,r,a.{Do htti; {eou aa t{'"}r Y\,lqq0
The redevelopment of the Red Lion Building involves nodlfications
to ground fl-oor corn'nercial space and a najor renodel of tbe uPPer
flo5r residential space. ThL uain el.enents of this plan are:
^nr 6.) Tbe deveropment of three condominiurns totarin q gzo. tuitaQb)e'd'
-..^nff\Wtt \J square feel of GRFA. The property currently has one
)Ur"' condoroiniurn with 5231 sqluare feet of GRFA'
fn Modifications to the existing Red T.,,ion deck enclosure
\--l on Bridge Street, including the enclosure of 100
additional square f9q!,,of-pa!i:-""F the north ena of__t)finh,;il ; i ;;- 8"Zi =- r-p*+ @' L:"lP dod'r |t** t s- +o Foy'' ts..\ f+
'tffi^f'#'#'Modifications to the Red Lion Restaurant to includ" ^'fr)&aifrdining patio on the east side of the building along ttd"Iul
Mill Creelc.
:l:'uil:'i:ffill :: l':"*i'"I3l.IiL#:: r{i'' cree" 6kKK',s r.rrt:r\.r. 6dll/1$
This proposal entails the revien and approval of five separate ^ryWiequeits-by the pii"ning-corurission. inese request include |-,r,;e @fola$U;foltowingt &{
1. Exterior arteration. 'ffii, ,Nrdar\,AKt4aL2. A stream setback variance for a snal1 building W+WUAaddi.tion, dining patio, and public walkway' I(ffi*:o
3. A slte coverage variance for a small building addition
and the new dining Patio.
4. A conditional use pe::nit for the dlning patio'
5. ttodification to adopted view corridor *1. (vantage
loint frorn the stepi of the parking structure over VaiI
tittage to Vail Mountain. )
Applicable eleDents of this Proposal are revieued relative to the
criteria found in each of these requests. While each nust be
considered on their own nerit, it is important that the Planning
conruLssion view this project as a whole when evaluating the
proposal . This exterior alteration nemo will cover each of the
najor elenents of this proposal , and wj.Il also address the
requested uodification to the view corridor. The other 3
menoranduns provide additional detail relevant to tlrose specific
requests.
EXTERIOR ALTERJATION REVIEW CRTTERTA
The vail VillaEe Urban Design Guide Plan includes tbree elements
that establish the review ciiteria for this appllcation. Tbe
first of these is referred to as The Guide Plan, shlch includes a
nurnber of sub-area concepts. These sub-area concepts identify
areas for potential developnent and improvements in the Vlllage.
Secondly, the Urban Design Considerations cover large scale land
user/design issues. Finally, architecturalr/landscape
considerations provide infornation on the detaiLed design
elements of a proposal.
In addition to these three eleuents of the Gulde Plan,
traditional zonlng considerations are also considered as
of this review. The three accoropanying memoranduns cover
najority of these zoning issues. one additional zoning
consideration has to do with parking. An onal parking
demand s proposal would be net lment lnto
URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PIJ\N
l{ill Creek walking path, west side Mill
Creek. Path conpletes llnkage fron
Pirateship Park and nountain path to Gore
creek Drive.
a part
the
This proposal includes a nalkway alonE Mill Creek over the length
of thl R;d Lion frontage. Ultiroately, thJ-s sectl'on of the Patbsi}l connect rith ttre path constructed on the back side of the A
s D building. ft is a long range goal to irnprove
pedestrianiiation in this irea to itrengthen the role of the !ti}}-Creef building as a part of the Village. The proposed nalkway is
3r6tr wide. trris width is unacceptable for r{hat w111 becorne a
significant walkray. The staff would like to see thls elenent of
th6 plan revised to include a walkvay between 6 to 8 feet wide.
Seibert Cl-rcle. Feature area paving
treatnent. Relocate focal point (potential
fountain) to north for better sun e)q)osure(fall/spring), creates increased plaza area
and/or backdrop for activities. Separated
path on north iiae for uninpeded pedestrian
route during delivery Periods.
The applicants have stated that the owners are prepared to
discuii their role, or involvenent, in the relocation of Seibert
Circle lf and when those discussion begin. The staff believes
this sub-area concept has nerit, however, there are currently no
plans to initiate the relocatl.on of the circle. ItoProvement
lroposed for the Red Lion bullding will not inpede or prevent the
ip-design of seibert Circle.
. /sub-area No. 12: Future nidblock connection to further tle
I / Mill creek court to eore area. Entryt'/ reinforced by pocket park created on Bridge
Street.
Of all the sub-area concepts outlined in this plan' this sub-area
could provide one of the nost inportant inprovements to the
vilJ.ag-. This connection existed at one tine. Unfortunately, a
ground leveL addition to the Rucksack building elininated this
pedestrian corridor. Irnprovements to the Red Lion Building do
not change the existing situation. ft aPpears that the
redevelopment of the Rucksack building nill be reguired before
this sub-area concept could be inplernented.
I'RBAN DESIGN CONSIDERATTONS
, ,/-fseuS:i."i+i*l./t
.^.il(€Lfftf i\ rntroducing another segment of the Mill creek vallnray.is a
l\:0V-t' very positive step in expanding the Village's pedestrian\'i'*: ' syslero. However, the staff feel.s strongly that this
0), iiprovernent should be redesigned to provide a path 6 to 8' feet wide.
-"'
, r./Vehicular Penetration
l-/./ Three condoutiniuns sill clearly generate nore traffic tban
the one existing condoniniun. However, it nust be-Sginted
outthatzoning-onthispropertypemitsuPto@Inthis respect, inpacts of vehicular penetration are not as
great as theY could be.
It
I
.a
?lbile not a street, the concept of dlning activity alongMill Creek is extrenely valuable Ln generating activity inthls area. As mentioned ln this Demo, and in other
nenorandums, the design Ls not adequate at this tlne. The
area has the potential to provide both the dining activity
and an adeguate walkway.
--_ Pa:iTruf,:SelefCgJoors are proposed for the nortb, south and west
Blfdes of the present Red L,lon Deck enclosure. operable
Streetscape Frameworl<
doors vill
exls earlv a
Street Enclosure
. ""}fr. enclosure along Bridge Street relates well with the
' Plaza Lodge building. ti nay ue ap!@rl'-aFnowever to:, stiiFFEFlfnass of tie builcliirg or pioviae additional oassI towards the south. This has the potential to acconplish twothings: <k Q
J ',/
" ,,/1. Shiftinq the mass to the south nay lessen thb inpacts\-/ on the Rucksack buildinq.:
'/2. Extending the nass of the building to the south could
-E-EEE-Fuildins.
Street Edcre
an Lnproved situation over what is
staff has serious concerns over the
6n the Bridgeclosure of thls deck on
landsca aIo the north s
amaticall Asd linefThis
olloss the property 1
The staff has Just
begrun working on a V Feetscape inprovenent plan
intent of thls plan is towith l{inston and Associates. The
evaluate the public spaces between buildlngs with regard to.
a ser
Etreet inproveuents.with the staff and tl
mater coEPa
to rork
erty.This will assure
future
streetscape irnprovements.
-'N A1* "l.'- s"-*
t{0?u 'tD-L[
6orr o -73 fifi,.o
t) .*J r \-JJ ( S e-t9c--.c'-L-9o
Building heights allow 40* of the structure to be between
and 43 ieet iittr the renaining eo* of the structure below
feet. As proPosed, 66t of the bultding is belon 33 feet
33.9t of the Luilding is above 33 feet but below-llftet-
At ltE highest point, the proposed ridgeline is(42.7 teet.
^*r7uffi
JG/n PearJd 7'*J-.-1.*/o
The appllcants have provided a number of photo overLays
a
33
33
and
ationship of this view
s
enerall rivate view
corrrdors.lbe
Fall
Guide Plan to protect th
e the staff can ii-nly sympathize vithi.ffiitrte"i,i"x"ack bullding, the tact riniins that the
Red Lion building has development potential that can be
built. The role of the Guide Plan is to ensure that the
development is designed in a way that is responsive to the
nurnerous design considerations of the pIan.
The proposed ridseline will
corriclo
dopted view
6T-corridor is frorn the stePs the
be
parking structure over Vail village. rt isdflstinq parking structure over Vaj.f vrll'age. rE ls
intende! Lo proviae unobstructed viewE of VaiI Uountain and
key architectural features such as the Clock Tower and
Rulksack Tower. As a general ru1e, the staff feels strongly
that these view corridors sttould not be disrupted to
acconmodate new buildings. Hortever, circurnstances specific
to this view corridor line supPort nodifications of this
line.
tls
House.
ever the v tl the Go
House r e. It s clear to the staff
corr drawn
House roof the Golden
Tower,
Thl.s amendrnent would relocate tbe view corridor line to the
Golden peak House ridge line. A condition of this approval
will be that the applicantrs resurvey the vies corridor and
provide all naterills and production of the revised-photos.
it snouta be noted that the redeveloprnent of the village
Parking structure will elininate the exact vantage Pgin!from wf,ich this view corridor was taken. Efforts will have
to be nade to ensure that a comparable vantage polnt is
available to reposition this view corridor line.
Serrrice and Deliverv
As with nany propertles in the Vi.llage, there are no back
doors to prov-lOe serrrice functions. Introducing dining and
the salknay along tlill Creek pet?etuates the problern of not
having enough Epace for these operations. Tlre existlnE
location of trash facilities is adJacent to Gore creek and
renains unchanged. Hoirever, thi's locatlon conflicts with
the dining deck and walkway. Unfortunately, this appears
be the only solution available. Trash ls lcall
the early no
on rs. Given the
the ec assune thaof this are ninfulized(s.l-
The proposed expansion will cast increased shad
Locating the
ding nass on this property is a very delicate
balance.
back fron
1 the buil to be pull
idqe
e-EFvious result is
on lti}l Creek as a trade off for naintainlng proPer street
enclosure along Bridge Street and Hanson Ranch Road-
Honever, it wouta be worth while to see how shifting the
nass of the building to the south could nininlze any shade
inpact on the Rucksack building.
Architectural /Landscape Considerations
Roofs tti theThe staff has serLous concerns over the
ng proPo s very 3
c elenents in the Guide Plan that denonstrate what
to
ed
tnpaE
oDerat
l-nsure
1 Creek and the Rucksack
building. The staff is willing to accept the Ehadow pattern
snoulA-not be done. There are certainly a variety of roof
forns throughout the Village. However' in general the roof
forns along-this area of eiiage Street are very sinplistic.
The roof friigtrt regulations do encoJrrage varied roof
heights, which this proposal does in fact do. Hosever'
theie aie a nunber oi areas in the building rhere roof lines
could be consolidated to sinplify the roof fom.
Sun/shade
a
As dlscussed at the Plannlng connJ-ssion work
degree of transparency proposed on the second
floor of this building is not consistent with
Design Guide Plan. Aq a general rule
on that are
sessLon, the
and thirdthe Urban
rency shoul.d
positlve.decrease on the er
v rade to ee eva
Id
Houever, the staf I uncomfortab
along Br dge
@
The staff can not support this proJect at this tine.
to the appllcants, this site is a very dlfficult one
because of the nany issues and concerns that rnust be
during the design process.
. Among
along on Ranch Road, the introdg
There are a nuraber sitive elements of this Plan tha
of this
There
arlv tbe
the vernacular.For tbis reason,staff reconnends
plan@ng in the Vill,age
i! considerable varJ.ety in design throughout
In fairnessto redevelop
addressed to
rovenents
on thefeels strongly
are the new
nassing and rooto conpletely
It is
orrrs, departs from
other reasonsof this request.
nall$ray along MiIl Creek, andThe fact that cleve
ffited. However, the staff
ttrat rnany elenents need refinement. Anong these
dining and wallmay along Mill creek, the overall
forms proposed on the building, and the proposal
enclose the existing Red Lion dining deck. iltaffdenial of this ;':iquest as currently proposed.
The U s based on achieving a balance-be
\
the purPose
look alike.the Village.The kev is to ensure that nelt devel
to the surr
and
and for
denial
ia t-<> q"tQ-
.h
a
TO:
FR,OU:
DATE:
SUBJEqI:
Planning and Environnental Couuission
connunity Developnent Department
March 19, 1990
A request for a streau setback variance in order toconstrrrct an addition to the Red Lion building.Applicant: Frankie Tang and Land.rrark Properties
I.DESCRTPTTON OF THE VARIA}ICE REOUESTED
portion of the proposed dining patij-aad-Lhe public walkway.
The building addition adds betwee feet of
e walkway and deck oach between
As defined in the zoning code, setbacks apply to both
buildings and structures. As such, all three of these. proposed improveuents nust be considered nben evaluatingthis variance reguest.
II. CRTTERIA AND FINDfNGS
Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.52.050 of
the Vail Municipal code, the Departnent of Conrnunity
Development reconnends denial of the reguested variance
based upon the following factors:
A. Consideration of Factors:
1. The relationship of the recmested variance to
other existing or notentiaL uses and structures in
the vicinitv.
Stream setbacks have been established to ensure
buffers between buildings and stream tracts.
However, the o<pansion is a ninor one and the
building J-s already located within the strean
setback. The bu
The 30 foot stream setback is ueasured fron the center lineof l{ill Creek. The existing Red Lion buildinq is locateh:sithin this r=o_ foot setback (encroachnents range fron@ldz
<€iqrrleen fee!]) Proposed inprovenents rdithin the requiEil
strean--5FEb-ack include a snall addition to the buJ.lding, a
existing or p6-tential uses in this area.
2.
The on grade vallnray is consistent with theexisting and potential uses in the strean tract.Indeed, the walkway will provide access to thisarea to naxinize its use. While the proposed
dining deck can also add life and vitality to thisarea, the proposed deck seriously constrainf thedesign of the stream walk (see Exterlor Alteration
and Conditional Use Pernit nernos).
The degree to which relief fron the strict andliteral interpretation and enforcenent of a
The proposed building expansion is a part of a
redesigned entry to an upper level condominium,
fhe degree of encroachnent ranges fron one to five
Jfeet, and acconnodates an entry vestibule, ski
/storage lockers, and a snal1 portion of a proposed
I elevator. Given the existinq locati.on-+Lthe-buridrng, c
flie-ie-cen
reSrES€-wou
As outlined in the conditional use nenorandum forthe dining deck, there are significant public
benefits that could result fron both the dining
deck and stream nallaray. llowever, as Proposed the
dining deck expansion is liniting the slze of thepublic valkway to 3r6tr. While sone degree of
encroachment for the dining deck is acceptable,the deck proposed is excessive rhen consideringthe atream tract and j.ts relationship to thepublic wallsray.
utilities, and public safetv.
fhe dining deck and vallaray Eust be consideredcollectively. the sallnvay does have tlre potentialto provide a positive affeet on public facilitiesby opening access to Mill Creek. However, ttre
extent of the dining deck proposal seriously
confines the dinensions of the wallaray.
rovenents will necessita
aree-. The applicantsr rrould relocate these neters
as a part of this redevelopment.
eI
3.
rivilege.
,Jb
I
I
IrI. REIATED POLICIES IN THE VAIL VILLAGE I'TASTER PI.,,AN
IV. FTNDINGS
Sub area 3.8 in the VaiI Vlllage ltaster Plan encourages the
developnent of a strean walk in this area. The dining deck
and walkway are potentially very conpatible. Houever, as
has been stated, the design proposed is not sensitive to the
needs of the public access.
A.
B.
c.
That the granting of the variance will not conetitute agrant of special privilege inconsistent with the
lirnitations on other properties cl.assified in the sanedistrict.
That the granting of the variance nill not be
detrimental to the public health, safety or selfare, or
naterially injurious to properties or inprovernents in
the vicinity.
That the variance is warranted for one or nore of the
following reasons:
v.
1. The strict literal interpretation or enforcenent
of the specified regulation would result inpractical difficulty or unnecessary physical
hardship inconsistent with the objectlves of this
title.
2. There are excePtions or extraordinary
circurnstances or conditions applicable to the sane
site of the variance that do not aPpty generally
to other properties in the sane zone.
3. lhe strict interpretation or enforcenent of the
specified regulation would deprive tbe applicant
of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other
properties in the sane district.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recoronendation for this request is denial . Some
degree of encroachment for the ral-kway and-deck is
wairanted. However, the current proposal is unacceptable.
The Staff can support the slight building expansion,
however, our reconnendation for this elenent of the proposal
is deniil until a revj.sed plan for this area is subuitted
for our review.
,
TO:
FROM:
DAIE:
SU&'ECT!
Planning and Environmental Connission
Cornnunity Developurent Department
ltarch 19, 1990
A request for a site coverage variance in order to addadditions to the Red Lion building.Applicant: Frankie Tang and Landnark Properties.
I.DESCRTFTTON OF THE VARIANCE REOUESTED
Pemitted coverage in Conmercial Core f is 80* of the lotarea. In Courercial Core I, site coverage ueans na portionof a site covered by buildings, and ground level patios anddecksft. Existing site coverage on the Red Lion lot is 83*.
This proposal will add site coverage in two areas:
50 sguare feet for a building addition along l{ill
Creek.
173 sguare feet for a proposed dining deck alongMil1 Creek.
II. CRITERIA AND FTNDINGS
Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.52.060 of
the Vail Muni.cipal Code, the Departrnent of Cornmunity
Developnent reconnends denial of the requested variance
based upon the following factors:
Consideration of Factors:
1. The relati.onship of the recruested variance to
other existina or potential uses and structures Ln
the vicinitv.
The proposed dining deck is directly adjacent tothis buildinq expansion. l{hile sorne degree ofsite coverage varj.ance may be acceptable for the
dining patio, the extent of dining deck proposed
is directly affecting the potential developnent of
the pedestrian wallcvay along HiIl Creek. (See
stream setback variance memorandun. )
The 50 square feet of aCditional site coverage for
the buil.ding e:<pansion is partly offset by a
deduction of 27 feet of building in thls area.this arnount of new building will not inpact
adjacent uses or activities in the area.
c
@
A.
ef,.!l['.s :,'
<a\
I
2.
specifLed regulation is necessarv to achieveconpatibilitv and uniformitv of treatment anonq
lllncluding patios and dining decks in sl.te coverage
llcalculations is'sonewhat of a hardship for
llapplicants in that these elements are encouragedllthroughout the Village. For this reaEon, staff
could support some degree of site coverage
variance to acconmodate the dining patlo.
Hordever, the dining deck proposed is not
acceptable because of the impacts related to the
pedestrian walkway along MiIl Creek.
The building site coverage variance Is a net
increase of 23 feet with no apPreciable irnpacts.
However, there is rro apparent physical hardship to
warrant this requests.
utilities. and publ.ic safetv.
As discussed in the Exterior Atteration and the
Conditional Use Permit memos, the deck and walkway
will affect the public enjoyrnent of Mill creek.
IIT. REI,ATED POLICIES IN VAIL COMPREHENSIVE PI,AN
There is one element of the vail viLlage Plan that is
directly related to this proposal , PoS.icy 3.4.1., which
reads:
0Physical improvenents to property adjacent to strearn
tracts should not further restrict public access.n
The proposed dining deck.would linit the space available for
a pulfiL walkway along MiII Creek to 3r6n. This is an
unacceptable width for what will one day becone a
significant pedestrian corrldor.
IV. FINDINGS
3.
That the granting of the variance will not constitute a
grant of -pecial privilege inconsistent with the
lirnitationi on other properties classified in the sarne
district.
j'-.
B. That the Eranting of the variance sill not be
detrinental to the public health, safety or welfare, oruaterially injurious to properties or irnprovements inthe vicinitY.
c. That the variance is rrarranted for one or more of thefollowinq reasons:./\./-\( 1.\ Tlre strict literal interpretation or enforcenent\-/ of the specified regrulation rould result inpractlcal difficulty or unnecessary physical
hardship inconsistent nith the objectives of thistitle.
2. There are exceptions or extraordinary
circunstances or conditions applicable to tbe sanesite of the variance that do not apply generallyto other properties in the sane zone.
3. The strict interpretatj-on or enforcenent of the
speclfied regulation rould deprive the applicantof privileges enjoyed by the owners of otherproperties in the Earoe district.
V. STAFF RECOII{UENDATION
Staff recommendation for the site coverage variance requestis denj.al . The design of these improvenents will have
direct, inpacts on the area surrounding these proposed
irnprovenents. The Staff encourages the applicantrs to
consider design changes to this element of the proposal .
.)
'l?
TO:
l'ROI't:
DATE:
SUBJECI:
Planning and Environmental Connission
conmunlty Developnent DePartnent
l{arch 19, 1990
A request to construct an outdoor dining patio at the
Red Lion Building.Applicant: Frankie Tang and Landnark Properties.
The area for the proposed dining deck is connected to
Hanson Ranch Road by an existing pedestrian walkway.
Directly adjacent to this walkway is a Town of Vail
J.oading- zonl . This Ioading zone will renain unchanged
by this proposal .
r. DESCRTPTTON OF rHE PROPOSIL REOUESTED
This outdoor dl.ning patlo is proposed for the Red Lion
Restaurant on the east side of the building directly
adjacent to !!i11 Creek. The proposed deck encornpasses 237
square feet, 101 square feet of which are located on Town of
vail land. The applicants have received penuission fron the
Council to incl.ude Town land as a part of the request before
the Planning Connission.
oRekordrr tlpe folding doors will be instal'led on the
building to allow the existing dining room to open onto the
dining deck. A 3r5rr public wall<nay is also proposed betiteen
the deck and Mill Creek.
II. REVIEI{ CRITERIA FOR THIS PROPOSAL
Conmercial core I outlines 7 specific criteria to be used in
evaluating conditional use reguests. These include the
folloving:
A. Affects of vehicular traffic on Coronerclal Core f
District.
This proposal should not appreciably increase vehicular
traffic in Conmercial Core I.
Reduction of vehicular traffic on Conmercial Core I.
This proposal should not appreciably reduce vehicular
traffic in Cournercial Core I.
C. Reduction of non-essential off-street parkl-nq.
Not Applicable.
B.
D.
t ,l ir
.{
t
E.
As proposed, trash dunpsters for the entire Red LionBuilding.are located next to the proposed dlning dec)<.Tlre physical relationship between- thEse tvo usei Is
99rtal4y not conpatible. However, trash plck-up inthe Village has traditionally occurred durlng thimorning hours prior to restaurant openings. ThissrEuatlon is unfortunate, but the nature of the Villageis such that there are no nback doorss to provide forthese operations.
Developrnent of oublic sDaces for use bv pedestrians.
As stated, 101 feet of this deck is proposed for Townof Vail land. This has linited the width of theproposed pedestrian ualkway to 3r6tr. Staff feelsstrongly that this ridth is inadequate for what villone day be a najor pedestrian walkway.
The redevelopnent of the A & D buildinq began the
deve).oprnent of a public walkway along MilI Creek. Tbecontinuation of the waLknay along the Red Lion Propertyvould leave only the Rucksack property as the nissinglink in establishing this corridor. Whlle the staff lssupportive of the dining activity in this area, theexisting building and the lrtill Creek flood pIainseriously confine the space available for these twouses. An acceptable width for this publlc wallaray
would be between 5 and 8 feet.
Continuance of the various cornnercial. residential and
Bublic uses in Commercial Core f District so as tonaintain the existino character of the area.
The introduction of dining aetivity, and creating
access to MiIl creek in thj.s area, is positive. It isa goal of the VaiI village Plan to establish norepedestrian activity in the Mill Creek area. The two
ways to accoruplish this are to increase retail andcounerclal activity ln conjunction rith inprovedpedestrian circul.ation. While this proposal is a stepin the right direction, it is in need of furtherrefinement in order to accomplish both of theseobjectives.
F.
Control cmalitv of constnrction. arehitectural deslqn
and landscape desisn in Coranercial Core I so as tonaintain the existino character of the area.
current plans indicate existinE trees will. be relocated
G.
in the UII1 Creek area. Tlris nay or may not beappropriate depending on the final design of this area.If this el-enent of the application is to proceed,additional detail and refinenent nill be necessary inorder to design an appropriate deck and valkway whlle
respecting tbe features of UiIl Creek.
rrl.
e1.rff reco13endation for this conditlonal use permlt is denia].
;r;ii; ihi" concept is desirable, the design proposed is not
l"li"nei"" to the needs and reguirenentg of a public walkway.
S"i'c. is confined, hovever, Lt -ls posslble to acconnodate both of
iirese actlvities as a part of this design process. Please refer
io the exterior alteration neno for additional comment on thls
elenent of the proposal .
I
Y
TO:
FROU:
DATE!
su&tEcT:
Planning and Environmental Connission
Conmunity Development Departnent
Itlarch 19, 1990
A request to construct an outdoor dining patio at the
I.
Red Lion Building.Applicant: Frankie Tang and Landnark Properties.
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL REOUESTED
This outdoor dining patio is proposed for the Red Lion
Restaurant on the east side of the buildinq directly
adjacent to Mil-1 Creek. The proposed deck encomPasses 237
sqluare feet, L01 square feet of which are located on Town ofVail land. The applicants have received permission from the
Council to include Town land as a part of the reguest before
the Planning Conraission.
xRekordil type folding doors will be installed on thebuilding to allow the existing dining room to open onto the
dining deck. A 3r6n public walkway is also proposed between
the deck and uil] Creek.
II. REVIEW CRITERIA FOR THIS PROPOSAL
Conmercial core I outlines 7 specl.fic criteria to be used in
evaluating conditional use requests. These include the
following:
Affects of vehicuLar traffic on Comnercial Core IDistrict.
This proposal should not appreciably increase vehicular
traffic in cornmercial Core I.
B. Reduction of vehicular traffic on Connercial
This proposal should not appreciably reduce vetricular
traffic in Commercial Core I.
C. Reduction of non-essential off-street parkincr.
Not Applicable.
D. Control of deliverv, tlick-up and service vehicles.
The area for the proposed dining deck is connected to
Hanson Ranch Road by an existing pedestrian walkway.
Directly adJacent to this walkway is a Town of vail
loading zone. This loading zone will remain unchanged
by this proposal .
A.
E.
As proposed, trash dumpeters for the entire Red LionBuilding are located next to tbe proposed dlning deck.
The physical relationship between these tno uses iscertainty not compatible. However, trash pick-up inthe village has traditionally occurred during the
norning hours prior to restaurant openings. Thissituation is unfortunate, but the nature of the Villageis such that there are no [back doorstr to provide for
these operations.
Development of public snaces for use bv nedestrians.
As stated, 101 feet of this deck is proposed for Townof Vail land. This has linited the width of the
proposed pedestrian wallnray to 3r6tr. staff feelsstrongly that this width is inadequate for what will
one day be a najor pedestrian walkway.
Ttre redevelopnent of the A & D building began the
development of a public nalkway along ltill Creek. The
continuation of the rralkway along the Red Lion Property
would leave only the Rucksack property as the nissinglink in establishing this corridor. While the staff is
supportive of the dining activity in this area, theexisting buitding and the llill Creek flood plain
seriously confine the space available for these twouses. An acceptable width for this public walkway
would be between 6 and 8 feet.
Continuance of the various cornrnercial . residentlal and
The introduction of dining activity, and creating
access to UiII Creek in this area, is positive. It is
a goal of the vail Vitlage Plan to establish more
pedestrian activity in the uill Creek area. The two
ways to acconplish this are to Lncrease retail and
conmercial activity in conjunction with iurprovedpedestrian eirculation. While this proposal is a stepin the right direction, it is in need of further
refinement in order to accomplish both of these
objectives.
Current plans indicate existing trees will be relocatedin the MIlI Creek area. This nay or may not be
appropri-ate depending on the final design of this area.If this element of the application is to proceed'
additional detail and refinenent will be necessary in
order to design an appropriate deck and watlaray while
respecting the features of Uilt Creek.
F.
G.
t.
!III. STATT RECOMUENDATION
Staff recomnendation for this conditional use pemit ls denial .
I$bile this concept ls desirable, the deslgn proposed ls not
responsive to the needs and reguirements of a public wallcway.
Spa-e is confi.ned, however, it ls posslble to acconnodate both of
these activities aE a part of thlg deElgn process. Please referto the exterLor alteration neno for additional conment on this
€lement of the proposal .
TO:
FRO}' :
DATE:
SURTECT:
Planning and Environmental Connission
Connunity Development Department
March 19, 1990
A request for a strean setback variance in order toconstruct an addition to the Red Lion building.Applicant: Frankie Tang and Iandrnark Properties
I. DESCRIPTTON OF THE VARIN{CE REOUESTED
The 30 foot stream setback Ls neasured from the center lineof l.till Creek. The existing ned Lion building is locatedwithin this 30 foot setback (encroachments range from one to
eighteen feet). Proposed inprovements within the required
strearn setback include a small addition to the building, aportion of the proposed dining patio and the public walkway.
The building addition adds between one to five feet ofencroachnent. The walkway and deck would encroach between
seven to ten feet.
As defined in the zoning code, setbacks apply to bothbuildings and structures. As such, all three of these
proposed improvements must be considered when evaluatingthis variance request.
II. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
Upon review of criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of
the vail Municipal Code, the Departrnent of Connunlty
Development recommends denial of the reguested variance
based upon the following factors:
A. Consideration of Factors:
1. The relationship of the recnrested variance to
other existinq or potential uses and structures in
lbe-:rieinilv-'
Stream setbacks have been established to ensure
buffers between buildings and strean tracts.
Horf,ever, the expansion is a ninor one and thebuilding is already located within the stream
setbac]<. Ttre building addition will not impactexisting or potential uses in this area.
The degree to which relief frorn the strict andIlteral interoretation and enforcernent of aspecified recrulation is necessarv to achieveconpatibility and unifomity of treatrnent anongsites in the viclnitv or to attain the obiectivesof this title yithout crrant of special privileqe.
2.
The on grade walkway is consistent with theexisting and potential uses in the Btream tract,fndeed, the walkway wi}l provide access to thisarea to naxinize its uee. I{hile the proposeddining deck can also add life and vitility to thisarea, the proposed deck seriously constraint thedesign of the streau vallc (see Exterior Alterationand ConditionaL Use Pernit rnenos).
The proposed building expansion is a part of a
redesigned entry to an upper level condoninium.
The degree of encroachment ranges from one to fivefeet, and accomnodates an entry vestibule, skistorage lockers, and a small portion of a proposedelevator. Given the existing location of thebuilding, the relatively ninor encroachnent, andthe recently approved A t D redevelopment, thisreguest would not be a grant of special privilege.
As outlined in the conditional use memorandum forthe dining deck, there are significant publlcbenefits that could reEult fron both the dinlng
deck and stream wa).kway. However, as proposed thedining deck expansion is liniting the size of thepublic walkway to 3r6n. While some degree of
encroachnent for the dining deck is acceptable,the deck proposed is excessive when consideringthe stream tract and its relationship to thepublic walkway.
The effect of the recruested variance on licrht andair, distribution of poputation. transportation
and traffic facilities. public facilities andutilities, and nublic safetv.
The dining deck and rralknay must be consideredcollectively. The walkyray does have the potentiaLto provide a positive affect on public facilitiesby opening access to Mill Creek. However, theextent of the dining deck proposal seriouslyconfines the dinensions of the wallnray.
Both of these improvements will necessitate therelocation of existing utility neters in thlsarea. The applicantsr would relocate these metersas a part of this redevelopment.
3.
III. REI,ATED POLICIES IN THE VATL VTLIAGE UASTER PI,AN
Sub area 3.8 in the Vail Village llaster PIan encourages the
development of a strean walk in this area. The dining deck
and walkway are potentially very conpatible. However, as
has been stated, the deslgn proposed is not sensitLve to the
needs of the public access.
IV. FINDTNGS
That the granting of the variance wllt not constitute a
grant of special privilege inconsistent with thelinitations on other properties classified in the sarnedistrict.
That the granting of the variance will not be
detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or
materially injurious to properties or improvernents in
the vicinity.
That the variance is warranted for one or nore of the
following reasons:
1. The strict literal interpretation or enforcenent
of the specified regulation would result inpractical difficulty or unnecessary pbysical
hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this
title.
2. There are exceptions or extraordinary
circumstances or conditions applicable to the samesite of the variance that do not aPply generally
to other properties in the aame zone.
3. The strict interpretation or enforeement of the
specified regulation would deprive the applicantof privileges enjoyed by the owners of other
properties in the sarne district.
STAFF RECOI,IMENDATION
Staff reconnendation for this request is denial. some
degree of encroachment for the wallarray and deck is
warranted. Hortever, the current proposal is unaeceptable.
The Staff can support the slight building expansion,
however, our reconmendation for this eleuent of the proposal
is denial until a revised plan for this area is subnitted
for our review.
A.
B.
c.
v.
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
suB.TEql:
Planning and Environmental Comnission
Community Development Department
March 19, l-99O
A request for a site coverage varianceadditions to the Red Lion building.Applicant: Frankie Tang and fandiark
in order to add
Properties.
I.DESCRTPTTON OF THE VARIANCE REOUESTED
Permitted coverage in Conmercial Core f is 80* of the lotarea. In Commercial Core I, site coverage means tta portionof a site covered by buildings, and ground level patios anddecks'r. Existing site coverage on the Red Lion lot is 83*.This proposal will add site coverage in two areas:
1. 50 sguare feet for a building addition along I'till
Creek.
L73 square feet for a proposed dining deck a).ongMill Creek.
II. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 ofthe Vail Municipal Code,r__t_he_Pepartment of Conmunity
Developrnent reconmends/deniaVof the requested variance
based irpon the followin!-?EEiors:
A.Consideration of Factors:
1. The relationship of the recruested variance toother existing or potential uses and structures inthe vicinity.
The proposed dining deck is directly adjacent tothis buiLding expansion. l{hile sorne degree ofsite coverage variance may be acceptable for thedining patio, the extent of dining deck proposedis directty affecting the potential development ofthe pedestrian walkway along Mil1 Creelc. (See
stream setback variance meurorandum. )
The 50 square feet of additional site coverage forthe building expansion is partly offset by adeduction of 27 feet of building in this area.this amount of new building will not inpactadjacent uses or activities in the area.
o
2. The degree to which relief fron the strict andliteral interpretation and enforcement of aspecified regulation is necessarv to achieveconpatibility and uniforrnLty of treatnent amonctsites in the vicinity or to attain the obiectivesof this title without grant of speciaL privileqe.
Including patios and dining decks in site coverage
calculations is'somewhat of a hardshlp for
applicants in that these elements are encouraged
throughout the village. For this reason, staff
could support some degree of site coveragevariance to accomnodate the dining patio.
However, the dlning deck proposed is not
acceptable because of the inpacts related to the
pedestrian walkway along Mill Creek.
The building site coverage variance Is a net
l-ncrease of 23 feet with no appreciable impacts.
However, there is no apparent physical hardship to
warrant this request.
3. The effect of the reguested variance on ligtrt andalr. distribution of population, transportation
and traffic facilities. public facilities andut.ilities. and public safety.
As discussed in the Exterior Alteration and the
Conditional Use Pernit menosr the deck and walkwaywl-ll affect the publie enjoyment of Mill Creek.
III. REI,ATED POLICIES IN VAIL COMPREHENSIVE PI,AN
There Ls one element of the vail village Plan that isdirectly related to this proposal , Policy 3.4.1., which
reads:
rrPhysical improvenents to property adjacent to streantracts shoul-d not further restrict public access.rl
The proposed dinlng deck would lirnit the space available for
a public walkway along Mil"l Creek to 3'6tr. This is an
unacceptable width for what will one day become asignificant pedestrian corridor.
IV. FINDINGS
That the granting of the variance will not constitute a
grant of special privilege inconsistent with the
linitations on other propertJ.es classified in the same
district.
A.
o
B.
c.
Ttrat the granting of the variance will not bedetrinental to the public lrealth, safety or welfare, ornaterially injurious to properties or irnprovements inthe vicinity.
That the variance is warranted for one or more of thefollowing reasons:
1. The strict literal interpretation or enforcementof the specified regulation would result inpractical difficulty or unnecessary physical
hardship inconsistent with the objectives of thistitle.
2. There are exceptions or extraordinary
circumstances or conditions applicable to the sanesite of the variance that do not apply generaltyto other properties in the sane zone.
3. The strict interpretation or enforcement of thespecified regulatlon would deprive the applicantof privileges enjoyed by the owners of otherproperties in the same district.
STAFF RECOIT{MENDATION
Staff recornmendation for the site coverage variance requestis denial . The design of these improvenents nill havedirect inpacts on the area surrounding these proposed
improvements. The Staff encourages the applicantrs toconsider design changes to this element of the proposal .
v.
)
TO: Planning and Environmental gsmnlssion
FROM: Connunity Development
DATE: lfarch 19, L990
RE: A request for an exterior alteration to make additions
to the Red Lion Building.lpplicant: Frankie Tang and Landmark Properties
DESCRIPTTON OF PROPOSAL
The redevelopment of the Red Lion Building involves rnodifications
to ground floor comrnercial space and a najor remodel of the upper
ftoor residential space' The nain elements of this plan are:
1. The development of three condorniniums totalLng 9207
sguare feet of GRFA. The property currently has one
condominiurn with 5231 square feet of GRFA.
2. Modifications to the existing Red Lion deck enclosure
on Bridge Street, including the enclosure of 1Oo
additional sguare feet of patio at the north end of the
existing deck.
3. Uodifications to the Red Lion Restaurant to include a
dining patio on the east side of the building along
t{ill Creek.
4. The development of a public walkway along llill Creek
over the J-ength of the Red Lion frontage.
This proposal entails the revien and approval of five separate
requeits-by the Planning comnission. These reguest include the
following:
1. Exterior alteration.
2. A stream setback variance for a snaLl building
addition, dining patio, and public walkway'
3. A site coverage variance for a snall building addition
and the new dining Patio.
4. A conditional use permit for the dining patio'
5. Uodification to adopted vielr corridor #1' (Vantage
point from the steps of the parking structure over Vail
Village to Vail Mountain.)
t
AppJ.icabte elenents of this proposal are revieved relative to the
ciiteria found in each of these requests. While each must be
considered on their own nerLt, it fs important that the Ptannlng
Cornrnission view this project a6 a whole when evaluating the
proposal . This exterior alteration memo will cover each of the
najor elements of this proposal , and will also address the
requested uodification to the view corridor. The other 3
memorandtrms provide additional detail relevant to those specific
reguests.
EXTERIOR ALTERATION REVIEW CRTTERIA
The Vail Vi11a9e Urban Desl.gn Gulde Plan inctudes three elements
that establish the review criteria for this application. The
first of these is referred to as The Guide Plan, which includes a
nurnber of sub-area concepts. These sub-area concepts identify
areas for potential developrnent and funprovements in the Village.
Secondly, the Urban Design Consideratlons cover large scale land
use/design issues. Finally, architectural/landscape
eonsiderations provide infornation on the detailed design
elements of a proposal.
In addition to these three elenents of the Guide Plan,
traditional zoning consideratlons are also considered as a part
of this review. The three acconpanying memorandums cover the
majority of ttrese zoning issues. one additional zoning
consideiation has to do uith parking. Any additional parking
demand generated by this proposal would be met by palment into
the parking fund.
URBATI DESIGN GUIDE PI,AN
Sub Area No. 8:Mi1l creek walking path, west side Mill
creek. Path completes linkage from
Pirateship Park and mountain path to Gore
Creek Drive.
This proposal includes a walkway along MilI Creek over the length
of thl Red I-,ion frontage. Ultinately, this section of the path
wiLl connect with the path constructed on the back side of the A
& D buitding. It is a long range goaL to improvepedestrianiiation in this area to strengthen the role of the Mi]l-creek building as a part of the Village. The proposed walkway is
3r6tr wide. This width is unacceptable for what will become a
significant walknay. Ttre staff would like to see this element of
the plan revised to include a walkway between 6 to I feet wide.
Seibert Circle. Feature area paving
treatnent. Relocate focal point (potential
fountain) to north for better sun elposure(fall/spring), creates increased plaza area
and/or backdrop for activities. Separated
path on north side for uninpeded pedestrian
route during delivery periods.
The applicants have stated that the owners are prepared to
discuss their ro1e, or involvement, in the relocation of SeibertCircle if and when those discussion begin. The staff believesttris sub-area concept has merit, however, there are currently no
plans to initiate the relocation of the circle. Iuprovement
prpposed for the Red Lion building will not irnpede or prevent tbe
qd-design of Seibert Circle.
Sub-area No. 12:Future nidblock connection to further tieMill Creek Court to core area. Entry
reinforced by pocket park created on Bridge
Street.
Of all the sub-area concepts outlined in this plan, this sub-area
could provide one of the most inrportant irnprovernents to thevitlage. This connection existed at one tirne. Unfortunately, a
ground level addition to the Rucksack building eliminated this
pedestrian corridor. Improvements to the Red Lion Building do
not change the exlsting situation. It aPPears that the
redevelopment of the Rucksack building will be required before
this sub-area concept could be inplernented.
URBAN DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
,/-peaestrianization
I/t/ Introducing another segment of the uiIl creek walkway is a
very positive step in expanding the Village's pedestrLan
systen. However, the staff feels strongly that this
improvement should be redesigned to provide a path 6 to 8
feet wide.
a"/vehicular PenetrationL/''/ Three condominiuurs will clearly generate more trafflc than
the one existing condominium. Holtever' it nust be pointed
out that zoning-on this property perrnits up to 8 units. In
this respect, iurpacts of vehicular penetration are not as
great as they couLd be.
Streetscape Framework
tlhile not a street, the concept of dining activlty alongl{ill Creek is extrenely valuable in generatlng activity inthis area. As nentioned in this memo, and in other
memorandums, the design is not adequate at this tine. The
area has the potential to provlde both the dining actlvity
and an adequate walkway.
towards the south. qhis has the potential to accolplish twothJ.nss: aksLf/ :/1 .',
" /t. shifting the mass to the south nay\-/ on the Rucksack buildinq.
d roof forns
//
/2. Extending the nass of the buiJ-ding to the south could
t-/ : r-r-^ Ar-^ ^--.: -r-: -- ---- --.r ---.c .c^s-
--- po:,-lrug-
lgIb are proposed for the north, south and west
s:Ldes of the present Red Llon Deck enclosure. Operable
doors siII an improved situation over what isexisting.staff has serious concerns over the
exist Approvearl dn the aridge strErx.osure of thiE deck on
oDt e etaffstroofpulled back over itsentire length of Bridge Street frontage to allow for a rowof outdoor tables along the Bridge Street.
Street Enclosure
Ttre enclosure along Bridge Street relates qell with the
Plaza r.odge builcling. r{, rnay be apffopTlEF-nowever toffffEfe nass of tie buildiirg or iioviae additional mass
Street Edoe
ed landsca aIo the north BticaIl Asd line
Thisolloss the property
I The staff has just
tscape improvenentbegrun working on awith tlinston and Associates. Theevaluate the public spaces betweenstreet inprovements. The a riwith the staff and W
macerlal compa
intent of this plan isbuildings with regardto work
ly.This willer future
plan
toto'
r
aasure
streetscape inprovenents.
nu.r-;eaj
*U -9.lro {- st,-
emons
Irs.EaIl
Farking structure over vail Village. It is
intendei Lo proviae unobstructed views of VaiI I'lountain and
key architeclural features such as the Clock Tower and
Rulksack Tower. As a general rule, the staff feels strongly
that these view corridors should not be disrupted to
accommodate new buildings. However, circumstances specific
to this vLew corridor line support modificatlons of this
line.
li,\1*)t \-d,,t* tS o-qG.-.-.e'\*9-
BuiJ-ding heights allow 40t of the structure to be between
and 43 ieet iitfr the renaining 608 of the structure below
feet. As proposed, 56* of the building is below 33 feet
33.9t of the building is above 33 feet but belos 43 feet.
At its highest point, the proposed ridgeline is 42-7 feet .
lffi-T6/^' The applicants have provided
p*^"^Lu exAf.-fA-
oto overla
ationsh of this bull view
srivate view lbe
Guide PIan to protect
e the staff can fsyurpathize with
6€-6i the Rucksacl< bullding, the fact remains that the
Red Lion building has development potential that can be
buiIt. The role of the Guide Plan is to ensure tlrat the
development is designed in a way that is responsive to the
numerous design considerations of the plan.
The
Vflew corridor is fron
opt
the -tep-o-:Ftheviewridqeline will
corr
idqe tis
Ic House.
below the Golden
Hguse r
e vlew corr drawn g! the
House roof ridge.ui ow the Golden
ollse ridge and behind the clock
Tower, s
33
33
and
This amendment would rel0cate the view corridor line to the
Golden Peak House ridge line. A condition of this approval
will be that the applicantrs resurvey the vlew corridor and
provide aII naterills and production of the revised photos.
it shouLa be noted that thl redevelopment of the ViLlage
Parking Structure uilI elinlnate the exact vantage poin!
fron wf,ich this view corridor was taken. Efforts will lrave
to be made to ensure that a cornparable vantage point is
available to reposition this view corridor line.
Senrice and Delivery
ls wLth nany properties in the Village' there are no baclc
doors to provide service functions. rntroducing dining and
the walkway along tlill Creek perpetuates the problem of not
having enough space for these operations. The existinglocation of trash facilities is adjacent to Gore creek and
remains unchanged. Hottever, this location conflicts with
the dining deck and walkway. Unfortunate'ly, this appears to
edbe the only solution available. trrash is icall
the early norni
inpa ers.the dinin thatof this acrr-rEy are uinirnized(s.l
the
on
proposed expansJ-on will cast increased sha
new Iding mass on this
delinesbalance.
back fron dqe s
The obvious result is
ow pa iT ng uill creek and the Rucksackbuildlng. The staff is willing to accept the shadow pattern
on uill creek as a trade off for maintaining proper street
enclosure along Bridge Street and Hanson Ranch Road.
However, it would be worth while to see how shifting the
nass of the bulLding to the south could rninimize any shade
impact on the Rucksack building.
Architectural/Landscape Considerations
Roofs
Ttre staff has serious concerns over the iti the
proposa very s
c elenents in the Guide Plan that denonstrate Ithat
should ngg be done. There are certainly a variety of roof
forns throughout the Village. However' in general the roof
forns along this area of Bridge Street are very sinplistic'
trhe roof height regulations do encouraqte varied roof
heights, which this proposal does in fact do. Hosever,
there are a nurnber of areas in the building where roof I'ines
could be consolidated to sinplify the roof fotm.
N o -rr6tc G-{-i M {A-fr/*d V '
ol
Lf
LlA-,- L* Y '- G-":* Y*'t'-"5 wrw-c*1n--
r.o4--tb 'rv {A' V
property
encourage
Locating theis a very delicatethe building to be pulled
Sun/Shade
,'
q
As discussed at the Planning Connission work
degree of transparency proposed on the secondfloor of thls building is not consistent with
session, the
and thirdthe Urban
should
positive.
Design Guide Plan. -As a general rule
decreaEe on the oora o
ma evation that are
llowever, the staft st I uncomfortabl
eongBr
STAFF RECOI,IIIENDATION
The staff can not support thisto the applicants, this site Ls
because of the many issues and
during the design process.
project at this tine.
a very difficult one
concerns that nust be
In fairnessto redevelop
addressed to
There are a number sitive elements of this PIan. Anong
along Ranch Road, the
rovenents
on thefeels stronglyare the new
massing and roofto conpletely
It is no
plan to have every buiis considerable varietY
illng in the villagein design throughout
walkway along MilI Creek, and-tEe fact that deve
sffiibd, However, the staff
that many elements need refinenent. Anong these
dining and walkway along MilI Creek, the overall
forms proposed on the building, and the proposal
enclose the existing Red Lion dining deck. Staff reconmends
denial of this reguest as currently proposed.
The U is based on achieving a balance bet
elook althe Village.The is to ensure that new devel
to the arly the mass f forms, departs from
the vernacular.For this reason,and for other reasons
ii-EElfs-fiernt tne staff reconnends denial of this request.
of this
There
Ia to LLa-a-
vate dev
o
t-cL -,4-*. t;*14-*l*
nV
1U'o^.e=
7*+T*--+-*
---,li /t-AtL ^-L;
----ll - A u; 'a a>^^--2
'it tl ,, ,l u',t' ll r ,l v,i- 'Lawfurswt)<- 1,r\'r-< -t14rA^
n ' ttn "lr -
- * i"i i't lc.t.^-"^.{aj{y 'J\IJA .l *. i^ ".-.^a.
ri
iil
., -- ',i tt?,i
i;l." ii_rl ll n , I
. I ilv*J- \. t- ^--'-- - -- --ii- l'
tlfutd4*f , -+a.
p)/ L^- /qa (,\
l*l*: n*.y,
(L* GJ"&^- ?^*k u>tq.
o
a'tl f uJ-/v "t-,"-e .
/d> 4 onulgt'* ." G";fufr-
L^/4 81.- 'L,^ --"-Ul , .
ll v
-.*1 u/'""'^-
*..r" t .jz-
..
oI
dJ41+y .-,fd
,/ r- L
> C (<11v:y'-
TI /1 /
/b-<J<
(&{,h"0tf.
ALl.6K ,V J{,*<-
' C4wt/4n 4,64
*/. / p"*rt|
nA-l-!
)^y +- ,b)>trr.i7..- ptl),
ott.t-.ats kt/ 6,^k ,j al'
<T)c/F- e-\- \;r.>-,^-:
\/fr Tr.>a2.- S+- >.-./( ",,-/-r.-^.--
K t/,c^r.r
W h L*t- t^'/'y
ii
\-_-.->
2"^tl)t l/
w)9,.1'(v
'(e
T-6 '/" * j
'f'?<l-,,L y fo:..yr--'s
"f ,-e td 7r
rJ4'u2 f*/: + o-*od 9 -.llf Y 4
v? 'r?:s 11"-Y'4e^N fl
oo
',)
i"': '
+-lA
- a| c*d=-. .-* "**\tt l
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SURTECT:
Planning and Environnental Cornnission
Cornnunity Developnent Departnent
April 9, 1990
A request for a stream setback variance in order to
construct an addition to the Red Lion building.Applicant: Frankie Tang and Landmark Properties
I. DESCRIPAION OF THE VARIANCE REOUESTED
The 3O foot strean setback is measured from the center line
of ililI creek. The existing Red Lion building is located
within this 3o foot setback (encroachments range from one to
eighteen feet). Proposed improvernents nithin the reguired
stream setback are lLnited to a sroall addition to the
building. The building addition adds betneen one to five
feet of encroachment.
II. CRTTERIA AND FINDTNGS
Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.050 of
the Vail Municipal- Code, the Department of Conrnunity
Development reconmends approval of the requested variance
based upon the following factors:
A. Consideration of Factors:
1. The relationship of the requested variance to
other existing or potential uses and structures in
the vicinity.
Stream setbacks have been established to ensure
buffers between buildings and stream tracts.
However, the expansion is a minor one and the
building is already located within the strearn
setback. The buiLding addition will not impact
existing or potential uses in this area.
2. The deqree to which relief from the strict and
literal interpretation and enforcenent of a
specified regulation is necessary to achieve
conpatibil-itv and unifornitv of treatnent.amolgsites in the vicinitv or to attain the objectivesof this titLe without orant of speciaf pr
The proposed building expansion is a part o9 a
reaeligned entry to an upper level condominium.
The degree of encroachment ranges from one to five
feet, ind acconmodates an entry vestibule. ski
storage lockers, and a snall portion of a proposed
elevator. Given the existing location of the
building, the relatively minor encroachment, and
the rec6ntly approved A & D redevelop-rnent,.tli=
reguest wou-Id not Ue a grant of special privilege'
3.
This building expansion woul-d not affect any of
the above considerations.
III. RELATED POLICfES IN TIIE VAIL VILLAGE UASTER PLAN
sub area 3.8 in the Vail Village Master Plan encourages the
developnent of a stream walk in thiE area. The building
extrransion would not precJ-ude the developnent of this vralk.
rV, FINDINGS
The Planning and Environmental Conunission shall make the
followino findings before granting a variance:
A. That the granting of the variance will not constitute agrant of special privilege lnconsistent with thelinitations on other properties classified in the samedistrict.
B. That the granting of the variance wilL not bedetrlnental to the public health, safety or welfare. ormaterially injurious to properties or irnprovements in
the vicinity.
C. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the
following reasons:
l. The strict llteral interpretation or enforcenentof the specified regulation would result inpractical difficulty or unnecessary physical
hardship inconsistent with the objectives of thistitle.
2. There are exceptions or extraordinary
circumstances or conditions applicable to the samesite of the variance that do not apply generally
to other properties in the same zone.
3. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the
specified regulation would deprive the applicantof privileges enjoyed by the owners of otherproperties in the same district.
STAFF RECO}IMENDATION
Staff recomrnendation for this request is approval . Theslight building extrransion ni1l have no aPPreciable affects
and is not considered a special privilege.
v.
:
ro!
FROM:
DATE:
SUB.TECT;
Planning and Environnental Conrnission
Connunity Developnent D,epartnent
April 9, 1990
A request for a Conditionaloutdoor dining patio at theApplicant: Frankie tang and
Use Permit to conEtruct an
Red Llon Building.
Iandmark Properties.
I.DESCRIPTTON OF THE PROPOSAL REOUESTED
This outdoor dining patio is proposed for the Red LionRestaurant on the east side of the building directlyadjacent to MiIl Creek. The proposed deck encompassesapproxinately 100 square feet and is located entirely on RedLion land.
trRekordtr type folding doors will be installed on thebuilding to allow the existlng dining room to open onto thedining deck. The deck will be acsesied by an existingwalkway from Hanson Ranch Road.
II. REVTEW CRTTERIA FOR THIS PROPOSAL
Cornrnercial Core I outlines 7 specific criteria to be used inevaluating conditional use requests. These include thefoLlowing;
A. Affects of vehicular traffic on Comrnercial Core IDistrict.
This proposal should not appreciably increase vehiculartraffic in Commercial Core I.
B. Reduction of vehicular traffie on eonnercial Core f.
This proposal- should not appreciably reduce vehiculartraffic in Comnercl.al Core f.
C. Reduction of non-essential off-street parkinq.
Not Applicable.
D.Control of delivery. pick-up and service vehicles.
The area for the proposed dining deck is connected to
Hanson Ranch Road by an existing pedestrian walkway.Directly adjacent to this wallaray is a Town of Vail
loading zone. ThiE loading zone will remain unchanged
by this proposal .
As proposed, trash dumpsters for ttre entire Red Lion
Buitding are located next to the proposed dining deck.
The physical relationship between these two uses iscertainly not compatible. However, trash pick-up in
the Village has traditlonally occurred during the
norning hours prior to restaurant openings. Thissituation is unfortunate, but the nature of the Villageis such that there are no rrback doorsrr to provide for
these operations.
Developrnent of public spaces for use by pedestrians.
Improvenents along the stream and adjacent to the decklliLl be accessible to the public. This area wil-l
provide a snall, but pleasant infornal seating area
along Mill Creek. Staff would encourage the placenent
of a bench or large boulders in this area for public
seating.
Continuance of the various comnercial , residential and
E.
F.
The propoEal will strengthen the pedestrian characterof the village. lhe proposal does not include the
developrnent of a streamwalk, but nothing ln thisproposll would prevent the future developnent of this
walk. The staff stitl supports the concept of this
walk, but does recognize the site constraints involvedj.n rrconnectingtt this area with the A & D buiJ.ding
segment. This proposal is a good interLn solutionuntil a design for the entire length of the walk can be
developed.
G.
Thls criteria ls addressed in the exterior alteration
memorandum.
maintal-n the existinq character of the area.
i
rII. STAFF RECO!,TMENDATION
Ataff reconmendation for this conditional use pernit is approval .nopenl,nEn the restaurant up to the creek with thls dining deck.is
a posltive step towards inproving pedestrian activity in the uill
Creelc atrea, The inforaal landscape treatnent along the creekwill increaae public access Ln tlris area.
The use restriction on Red Lion windows
The 1982 approval. that peruritted the original Red Lion deck
enclosure required that the windows be removed between June
15 through Septernber 15. This condition was applied to
ensure that the deck remain open during the sumner months.
The staff nould reconnend that this condition be nodified to
all.ow the Red Lion to close up the windous durlng non-
business hours during the sunmer hours. Little has changedwith this space to justify nodifying this condition of
approval . Given the exiEting solid roof enclosure over thisdining deck, requiring the windows to be open is the mininunthat can be done to replicate the experience of outdoordining.
Transparencv
Considerabl-e changes have been rnade to the fenestration onthe upper levels of this bullding. A maJor irnprovenent isthat all windows on stucco wall plans will be recessed 3-4tr.
The current proposal is now much more consistent with the
Urban Design Guidelines. As was stated in the previous
memo, this design element is tlpically the purview of the
Deslgn Review Board, and any final approvals concerning
window treatnents will be made by the DRB. Given the
changes that have been made, the staff would recomnend thefinal decisions pertaining to fenestration be dealt wittr atthe Design Review Board level .
Entry to Bridqe Street Condoninium
Concerns were raised regarding the proposed condominiurnentry that irnpacted an existing planter adjacent the pocketpark. While the originat deslgn lras been nodified, the
revised entry still affects the existing planter area.
Maintaining the existing staimay to this condoninium wouLd
have no affect on the pJ-anter area. Staff would reconnrendthat this alternative be used in Lieu of the current
proposal .
Restaurant Vents
The proposed venting solution will consolidate the three
vents that serve the two restaurants in the bullding. The
duct systen will be totally enclosed and the fans thenselveswill be screened with siding to match the building. The
fans will be located approxinately lor above their existinglocation. This tocation should help the dispersal of odorsenitted from these fans.
TO:
FROITI:
DATE:
RE:
Planni-ng and Environnental ContnLesion
Connunity Development Depadnent
April 9, 1990
A request for an exterior alteration in order to makeadditions to the Red Lion Buildlng.Applicant: Frankie Tang and the Landmark Properties.
This application was last considered by the Planning Coumission
on ltarch 19, I-990., At that neeting, this reguest was tabled bythe applicant in order to allow then the opportunity to respondto issues and concerns raiaed by both the staff and the PlannlngConmission. A nunber of changes have been made to this proposal
over the past three weeks. This memorandun will outline thestaffrs response to these changes.
A SUII'MARY OF TTAJOR ISSUES
Based on input received during the Uarch lgth neeting, thefollowing items highlight the major areas of concern relative tothis proposal.
Dininq Deck Enclosure along Bridge Street
As proposed, this elenent of the project has remained
unchanged and would enclose an additional 100 s.f. of dining
deck along Bridge Street. The staff remains strongly
opposed to this element of the proposal . To allow for the
continued enclosure of thiE dining area iE contrary to the
fundamental goals of the Urban DesJ-gn Guide Plan in theVillage.
While there are positive aspects of installing the rekord
doors on the walls of the existing restaurant area, this
door system cannot Justify the continued enclosure of thisdining deck. In every case where rekord doors have beeninstalled to restaurants in the Village, legitinate outdoordining area has remained in front of the enclosure.
operable doors do open up the interior space to the street,but they do not duplicate the vitality of outdoor dining
al.ong Bridge Street.
One additional factor to be considered is the enclosurersrelationship to the adjacent pocket park. This portion ofthe building will create an unconfortable sense of enclosurein the pocket park and cast increased shadow pattern in this
area.
Restrictions on Renaining GRFA
At the l,[arch 19 meeting the applicant offered to placerestrictions on the property that would prohlbit the
developurent of any additional GRFA beyond what Ls approvedby this plan. While the staff had not contemplated inposingthis restriction, they would certainly be willing to workwith the applicant to facilitate this restriction.
Anendroents to View Corridor No. 1
As stated in the }larch 19 memoranduns, the staff supportsproposed nodifications to View Corridor No. 1. Afterevaluating the wording of the Ordinance and the other fourview corridors, staff feels the most prudent way tofacilltate ttris arnendnent is to adjust the line on thephotograph that depicts Viehr Corridor No. 1. To nodify thevording in the ordinance would create further conplicationsthat nay threaten the integrity and interpretation of other
View Corridors. Siurply resurveying the line to run directlyover the top of the new Red Lion roof ridge (this line wouldstill be below the existing Golden Peak House roof ridge),
appears to be the nost approprLate way to nodify thiscorridor.
STAFF RECOMI'fENDATION
Located on Bridge Street in the heart of Vail Village, the
redevelopnent of the Red Lion Building is certainly one of thenost high profile projects to be proposed in the Village over thepast decade. Numerous issues and concerns have been discussed bythe staff and Planning Conrnission in response to thisapplication. Many positive nodifications to the design have been
rnade in response to these concerns, and the staff ls nowsupportive of the proposed design that is before the Planning
ConrnLssj-on. our support, however, is predicated on two changes.
These included:
1. The deletion of the 100 s.f. of additional deck
enclosure along Bridge Street.
2. Further nodification to the entrlnray to the
condominium along Bridge Street.
I{ith these changes, the staff would reconrnend approva} of thisexterior alteration. The staff would also recorlrmend tbefollowing condj-tj.ons of approval:
Viewe from the Rucksack Buildinq
A number of Conmissioners encouraged the applicants to study
design alternatives that would reduce the view inpact ofthis proposal on the Rucksack building. The applieants have
responded by pulling back the east face of the building
between 8 and 9 feet directly adjacent to the Rucksackproperty. Thls design change si1l lessen the view inpact ofthis proposal on the Rucksack Building.
Roof Forns
Very positive changes to the building mass and roof form
have been nade on the south-east sLde of the bullding. This
design change consolidates the building mass and entirelyellninates one roof plane. This tras reduced what the staff
tras considered to be o trbusyrt roof form. Portions of the
west elevation will still have a trstair-stepped,/wedding
caker! tlpe of look. However, the staff feels this is
acceptable given the many design parameters that have had to
be addressed as a part of the deslgn process.
Dinincr Deck/l{alkwav aloncr MiIl Creek
A nunber of changes have been made to this element of the
proposal . The dining deck has been significantly reduced insize and is located entirely on Red Lion property. The
proposed walkway along the strean has been deleted, however
nothing is proposed that would prevent this walkway fron
being constructed at a later date. The existing pine trees
along the back side of the Red Lion wiII remain in theircurrent location. In lieu of the walkway, the applicants
have proposed an infornal open area in between the dining
deck and the stream. This should provide a smaIl, butpleasant inforrnal seating area along the creek that can be
accessed fron the existing sidewalk on tbe east side of the
building.
The staff rernains a strong supporter of a wallnray along this
side of lttill Creek. Holrever, we understand the difficulty
l-n developing this portion of the walk without a designsolution behind the Rucksack property. The staff considersthis proposal a very positive inprovenent for tbis area.
The rekord doors and outdoor dining will still provldeactivity along the creek, and the design does not preclude
the development of a walkway in the future.
1.
2.
3.
4.
The proposed landscaper/streetscape treatment alongthe south side of the buildlng is consldered
conceptual . The appllcants agree to work wl-th
Ttinston and Assoclates and the Etaff during the
development of the vail VilJ-age Streetscape plan
and will agree to nodify this design as necessaryin order to conpLy with the VaiI Village
Streetscape PIan.
The rekord doors (or other tlpe of window systeminstalled) to the Red Lion Restaurant along BridgeStreet shall renain totally open during business
hours between,tune 15 and Septenber 15 of eachyear. These windows uay be opened at any ottrer
tfune during the year at the discretion of the
restaurant nanagement,
The applicants shall be responsible for all
inprovements shown to the Town of Vail streantrack between MilI Creek and the Red LionBullding. The final design in thls area sha1l besubject to a review and approval by the Design
Review Board and Town staff.
The applicants shall be responsLble for re-photographing and resurrreylng view corridor #1after the bulldlng ridge has been erected. this
work shall be coordLnated with the Conmunity
Development staff and shall be completed prior tothe issuance of a temporary certificate of
occupancy.
,., ')
,
TO:
FRoU3
DATE:
Planning and Environmental Conmission
Coronunity Developrnent Departnent
April 9, 1990
SU&fEcT: A request for a site coverage variance in order toconstruct an addition to the Red Lion building.AppJ.icant: Frankie Tang and L,andmark Properties.
r. DESCRII{TION OF THE VARIANCE REOUESTED
Permitted coverage Ln Cornmercial Core I is 8Ot of the lotarea. In Conmercial Core I, site coverage means tra portion
of a site covered by buildings, and ground level patios anddecksil. Existing site coverage on the Red Lion lot is 83t.This proposal will add site coverage in one area:
1. 50 square feet of building expansion along Mill
Creek.
Construction in this area wiII actually elininate 27 sq. ft.of existing site coverage, resulting in a net gain of 23 sq.ft. of coverage.
rI. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
Upon review of criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 ofthe Vail Municipal Code, the Department of Cornrnunity
Development recornrnends approval of the requested variance
based upon the following factors:
A. Consideration of Factors:
1. The relationship of the recruested variance to
other existinq or potential uses and structures in
the vicinitv.
The 50 square feet of additional site coverage for
the building expansion is partly offset by a
deduction of 27 feet of existing building in thisarea. This srnatl amount of ne!'t building will not
inpact adjacent uses or activities in the area.
2. The deqree to which relief from the strict andIiteral interpretation and enforcement of a
specified regulation is necessarv to achieve
cornpatibility and uniformitv of treatment anonq
The site coverage variance is a net increase of 23
square feet with no appreciable irnpacts. While
there is no apparent physical hardship to warrant
this reguest, tbe .2 t increase in site coverageis certainly negligible.
-.. \.,
3. The effect of the requested varLance on liqht andair. distribution of populatlon. transportation
and traffic facilities, oublic facilitles andutilities. and public safety.
There are no affects on any of the considerationsIisted above.
rIT. REI.,ATED POLICIES IN VAIL COMPREHENSIVE PIAN
There j-s one element of the Vail Vill.age PIan that isdirectly related to this proposal , Policy 3.4.1.., which
reads:
rrPhysical improvenentE to property adJacent to streamtracts should not further restrict public access.rl
This design woul"d not restrict pedestrian access to this
side of the MilI Cree stream tract.
IV. FINDINGS
The Planninq and Envirorunental Connission shall rnake the
folfowincr findings before grantinq a variance:
A. That the granting of the variance will not eonstitute agrant of special privilege inconsietent with thelirnitations on other propertl-es classified in the samedistrict.
B. That the granting of the variance will not be
detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, ornaterially injurious to properties or inprovenents in
the vicinity.
c. That the variance is warranted for one or rnore of thefollowing reasons:
1. The strict literal lnterlrretation or enforcementof the specified regulation would result inpractical difficulty or unnecessary physical
hardship inconsistent with the objectives of thistitle.
2. There are exceptions or extraordLnary
circumstances or conditions applJ.cable to the samesite of the variance that do not aPply generally
to other properties in the sane zone.
3. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the
specified regulation would deprive the applicantof privileges enjoyed by the owners of otherproperties in the same district.
I
ST}FF RECOU!.ENDATION
Staff recomendation for the sLte coverage variance requestis approval . The proposed enpanEion will have.no negative
inpacts on the surroundl-ng area and the arnount of increaseis negligible.
l.
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
town Council
Coumunity Developrnent Departnent
lpril 17, 1990
A request to anend View Corridor No.of the proposed redevelopnent of the
1 and the review
Red Llon Building.
The Planning and Environmental ConnisEion approved the
redevelopment of the Red Lion Building at their April 9, 1990neeting. This approval Lnvolved:
1. A site coverage variance to penit a .25t increase lnsite coverage. I r(approved 6-1)'.: ';i f lrin,hl
A stream setback variance to allow a two foot
encroachment into the reguired 3Or strean setback.(approved 5-1) P4 n",'{ },t. rLrf
2.
3. A conditional use perrnlt for an outdoor dining deck onthe east side of the building.
(approved 7-0)
4. An exterior alteration to add enclosed floor area tothe building in Vail Village. 4.,.,,,., ; 6 r ,r,,hl
(approved 5-2) Connissioner WAlfbji reqiue'sted that the
Council be aware that she supported the project withthe exception of the proposed infill of a portion of
outdoor dining patio on Bridge Street.
The conditions of approval applied to these reguest inelude thefollowing:
1. As a part of this redevelopment, the applicants agreeto point and repair the brick wall along Bridge street
and in the area of the snall plaza at the north-west
corner of the site. Inprovenents to this plaza mayalso include upgrading existing benches, planters,
newspaper box and trash receptacle locations and
landscaping.
2. The streetscape inprovenents shosn along Hanson Ranch
Road are considered conceptual , and the appllcantsshall agree to work vith the staff and Winston
Associates in refining this design relative to the VailVillage Streetscape Plan. This condition shall also
apply to the plaza area referenced in condition No. 1
and the landscape improvements proposed adjacent toMill Creek.
3.
5.
AII windows located on etucco rall planes shall
recessed a mininun of 3.r.
4. State of the art venting ehall be uaed to reducenegative inpacts (snell, Bnoke, etc.) emanating fronthe site.
The owner/developers of the residential development onthis site shall agree to pernanently restrict crossResidential Floor Area (cRFA), building helght anddensity on this site to what is permitted by thls
approval . The Town of Vail shall be a party to thisrestriction and the reEtriction ehall be recorded vithresErrcElon anq Ene resEracEton EnaII De recorcreq wtEllthe Cterk and Recorders Office at Eagle County. gtfil**
Any trees danaged or killed wlthin two years of theconpletion of this project shall be replaced rtithsimilar size and tlpe tree.
this
6.
7. The Red Lion logo shalL be retaLned as a part of
redevelopment in approximately the same size andlocation' , ..il
8. The developers/owner" tF All*''gry-a".dFaffctoparticipate in developing solutions to^tpa,ffig,
and del-ivery problems Ln Vail Village.\Ihfory4(fli[
rdinq
ol)rss
%
0^\lnrn r'9,..9 i6
loa
fiflLC WN
D*{D
s'9. The Rekord doors (or other tlpe of window systeurinstalled) to the Red Lion Restaurant along BridgeStreet shall remain totally open during business hours
between June 15 and Septenber 15 of each year. These
windows rnay be opened at any other tine during the yearat the discretion of the restaurant managenent.
10. The applicants shall conplete stream-bank stabilization
work on both sides of Mitl Creek over the entire lengthof the Red Lion property. The final desJ-gn and
inplenentation of these inprovements ehall be subJectto review by the staff and the Design Review Board.
11,. The owrers shall agree to participate in , and not
renonstrate against, a special inprovenent district if
and when one is fotned in ttre Village.
;) r' . ''"'
I.i r i r: .1ts', ",'^- ..t i\jJ
1*11
itl\
IY
]t,
fe? l\
r1'rV
il(L, i.,r,'l,
f i 'f i^1 rrJti {,oJf i,''
b
{
IX
C"T' u. {r, , crfi .r:r l'
f-t ot'
'i'\
t- ') .r,'{ \c,'
kt '\i!.'
?
i\uha. n$dtrt
L{&'nQ
AII of these approvals are the authority of the Planning
Conmission. The amendment to View Corrldor No. 1 requires
approval by the Council . With regard to this amendnent, the
Planning Coumission reconnended by a 6-1 vote to reconnendapproval for nodification to this View Corridor. Tbeir support
nas predicated on two conditions:
1. That the photo depicting View Corridor No. 1 benodified to reflect the new Red Llon Buildlng at a tine
when the exlransion is cornpleted. fhe ConnisEionpreferred this alternative as opposed to uodifying theline that delineates the View Corridor.
While
View
2. That the speciflc leasons Justifylng this reguest beincluded in the prearnble of the ordinance authorJ.zlngthis amendment.
the staff rras supportive of this approach in anending theCorridor, Iegal conplications bave developed that prevent
from occurring. As written, the View Corridor ordinanceits any encroachnent above the llne indicated on the photo.
o allow this developnent to proceed and sinply rephotograph the
iew would be a violation of the ordinance because the new ridgein fact encroach into the View Corridor. Without changing
wording of the ordinance, this approach is not feasible. Toe language j.n the ordinance that uould allow buildlng
chnents over the line could create greater conplications
future developrnent in the Villa e.T t
feasible al the
The staff would reconmend that the view corridor be anended by
ornlt,o
allowing this developnent to proceed, and after the building is
conpleted, a nelt photograph will be takan and the line depicting
the View Corridor will be relocated and resu:rreyed to nrn
directly above the building's new ridge line. t{hile this
approach does alter the line depicting the View Corridor, lt
provides the greatest assurances against future encroachnentslnto the Vies Corridor. The accomPanying ordinance outlines
conditions that would be applied to this anendnent.
TO:
FROU:
DATE:
RE3
Town Council
Conmunity Developnent Departnent
April 27, L99O
The appeal of the Red Lion redevelopment approvals and
Ordlnance No. 16.
the a
vote at first reading. A motj.on
lhe Councilrs review of the Red Lion redevelopment proposal
entaits five (5) separate reguesta. This memo l-s intended toassist the Councif by outlining each of the rootions necessary in
responding to these reguests.
A site coverage variance to pernlt a .25* increase inthis propertyrs site coverage. This request ltas
approved by a 6-1 vote. A motion to uphold or overturnthis request is necessary.
A strearn setback variance to allow a 2 foot
encroachment into the reguired 30 foot strearn setback.
This reguest sas approved by a 6-1 vote. A motion to
uphold or overturn this request is necessary.
A conditional use permit for an outdoor dining deck on
the east side of the Red Lion Building. This request
nas approved by a 7-O vote. A motion to uphold or
overturn this reguest is necessary.
An exterior alteration to add enclosed floor area to
the Red Lion Buildlng. This request etas approved by a
5-2 vote wittr 11 conditions as outlined in the April
17th, 1990 memorandum to the Town Council . A 12th
condition to be added to this approval would require
the owners to pay any incremental increase in parking
fees that nay be established vithin two years from the
time a building perurit is issued for this project. A
motion to uphold or overturn this request is necessary.
ff the Planning Connissionrs
upheld by the Tolrn council,
approval of these four reguests is
the gssncil,-EbcuMdf-li9n- the ir
nf,5i,Ag-.f$. Oidinance No. 15
ew Corridor No. 1. Thisapprovq!
ordlnance lras approved by a 4-2to approve or deny ordinance No.
as outlined in the April 17, 1990
16 with 2 recommended conditions
nenorandum, is necessary.
I
tr
i
t
I
.{m'\ ),c tt,
-{6T
-l-l'|
alo
{.ln.v,
{
tnFtn
j
,.-=-- \
,/\
,\
vap?*n
4tr.-
.J
t
*ttfia>,-lwvj rr..;:'Aa'4e
-r ^n:r:g:r
EAST EIEVATION
7/8 inch to I foot
SOUTN ELEVATION
1/8 inch to 1 foot
I
tr
i
t
I
.{m'\ ),c tt,
-{6T
-l-l'|
alo
{.ln.v,
{
tnFtn
j
,.-=-- \
,/\
,\
vap?*n
4tr.-
.J
t
*ttfia>,-lwvj rr..;:'Aa'4e
-r ^n:r:g:r
EAST EIEVATION
7/8 inch to I foot
SOUTN ELEVATION
1/8 inch to 1 foot
H.
Any- proposed bui lding changes whichwould encroach into, or su6stantiallv
a'!!9r., the designated major view plaieswl|| be dtscouraged. Minor encroach_ments into the designated minornfiewplanes may be acceptable. -EiEfr-dfys
should be upon fram'ing and enhancinqview pJanes rather than protrudingdirectly into them.
Whether affecting the desjqnated
view_planes or not, the.r-iF;E -of al I proposed. buildinq
expansions on views frofr pedestrian
ways must be demonstrated, andmiti gated where warranted.
SERVICE AND DELIVERY
Any building expansion should preservethe functions of existing servicealleys.
The few serv.ice atieys that existin the Village are extreme'lyrmportant to minimizing vehicle
congestion on pedestrian ways.
The use of, and vehicular
access to, those al1eys shouldnot be eliminated except wherefunctional , alternatiyes areprovided.
In all new and remodeled con-struction, delivery which avoidsor reduces impacts on pedestrian
ways should beexplored; andadopted whenever practical , for
immediate or futuie usage. I Rearaccess, basement, and below-ground
del'ivery corridors reduce congestion.Weather protection increases delivervefficiency substantial ly.
€/{'a
Height of
s ide
wal'l
does not
i ncreas e
G. VIEWS
Vai I ' s mountai n,/va1 1ey setti ng i s a
fundamental part of its identity.
Views of the mountains, ski slopes,geologic features, etc. are constant
reminders of the mountain environ-
ment and, by repeated visibility,orientation reference points.
Major and minor view corridors have
been designated on the View plane
map, an elerent of the Vail Villaqe
Urban Design Framework plan.
qE_
PIAITNING AlfD EIIVIRONI.IENTAL
APRrL 9, 1990
Present
Chuck Crist
Diana Donovan
Connie Xnight
Ludwig XurzJin Shearer
Kathy l{arren
Dalton l{i}lians
couwssloN
StaffKristan Pritz
Tom Braun
She1ly Dlellol{ike }tollica
Penny Perry
'llhe Planning and Environmental Comission ueeting vas called to
order at 3:15 p.n. by Diana f,,onovan, Chairperson.
Iten No. 1: Approval of ninutes for lrlarch 26. 1990 ueetl.ncr.
lllotion for approval of ninutes as written was made bv Jim
shearer and seconded bv chuck Crist.
VOTE: 7-OINFAVOR.
Iten No. 2:A recruest for an exterior alteration and a setback
variance for the Lifthouse Lodqe' located at Block
1. Tract C, Site C (555 East Lionshead Circle)Applicant: Lifthouse Condominiurn Association
Shelly uello presented the proposal explaining that there nere
two reguests involved: an exterior alteration and a rear setback
varianCe. The applicant ras requestlng the approval in order to
construct an addition to the Lifthouse that sould add
approximately 21? sg. ft. of conmon BPace for a lobby and 45 sq-
ft. for a comnon office addition. The addition would encroach X0
ft. into the 1O ft. setback over an existing storage shed. Tbe
variance was necessary because ttre erpansion would increase the
nonconformity of the buildlng.
The staff reconmended approval of both the variance and the
exterior alteration. The expansion uould not be a grant of
special privilege and there were no negative inpacts that sould
rLsult flon the-addition. The proposed alterations would inprove
the appearance of the general area and the building.
John Rosolack, architect repreaenting the applicant, stated that
he felt he could not present much nore than shat Shelly already
had explained.
I
Shelly explal.ned that there raB no additl.onal parking requireDent
due to the fact the applicant raE lncreasing a conron spaee.
Xathy asked ilohn Rosolack if the space below the present deck,
where it sas eurrently wood, uould be etuceo as shosn on theplans and John responded that lt would be etucco. ftley wouldrebulld the foundation area as sell .
Dalton llillians asked if the area underneath the staitray could
be closed off Ln aone Danner and Jolrn answered tlrat Lt sould be
arkward to do eo.
Chuck Crist connented that he felt the proposal vould be a great
J.nprovement.
VOIE: 7-OINFAVOR.
1. Stairs to lower level openincr be improved.
2. The applicant rebuild the foundation and stucco the
wa11.
VOEE: 7-OINFAVOR.
Item No. 3:
Applicant: Pat Dauohinais. Dauphinaia-lloselev
Construction.
Kristan Pritz explained that the appllcant asked to have the iten
tabled to the next leetinq.
l{otion to table the item to the next neetinq wae nade bv
Kathy ltarren and seconded bv Dallon WillLams.
W
2
Block 2. Lionsridoe FillnE No. 3.
A notlon for approval ner the etaff neno with conditions asfollows was nade bv Ludwia Xurz and seconded bv Jim Shearer
1. No llve anlnal testino be allowed Ln the Learning
Center Lab Facility.
Diana conrmented that she would vote for the iten but ehe feltthat lct 10 Bhould not be lncluded in ttre total parklng figure.
!'OTE: 7-OINFAVOR
Iten No. 8:
hrlldinE.Applleant: Frankie Tano and Landrnark Propertl.es
ToD Braun presented the changes as outlined in the staff DeDo.
The vast rnaJority of the proposed changes were positive.
Jim tlorter concurred with those items presented by Ton Braun.
The basic changes included the elinination of another roof line,
the deck addition on the back side, and the roof change to
acconmodate the Rucksack private view as suggested at the last
meeting.
Dalton l{illians coronended Jim llorter and the applicant for
respecting the private view of the Rucksack Condo owner.
ilin Morter showed the new confignrration of the restaurant fans on
the nodel and Diana stated that-it looked like a good solution to
a necessary evil.
Jin tlorter conmented that he did not like the proposal to be
called a rdeck enclosurerr. The area vould be covered and
conditions applied to the current windows would be contlnued with
the Rekord dbors. As far as the current conditions inposed on
the sindows, the applicant would llke the opportunity to close
the doors during incleuent seather. Concerning the pocket park,
he felt if they took the planter (by the sczechnan restaurant)
out and put the trees at grade, it wouLd open the area up. Th?
applicanlrs plans were to repaLr and point, not replace the brick
wlff. they would like to keep the character of ttre old brick
wall. Jirn Shearer pointed out that to fix the wall sould be
expensive and Jin Uorter stated that tbey were aware of the cost
involved.
14
Iten No. 7: A request for a conditLonal use for a Learnino
Center Lab in the lower level of the proposed
Kristan Prltz brLefly presented the proposal explaining that theVall Valley lrledical Center waa proposing to add two 1/2 levels to
the ;lrevlously approved parking stnrcture on tbe northeast cornerof the property. In additlon, a portion of the facility rould be
used for a Learning Center Iab that would focuE on bionechanical
studies of athletes as a Deans of avoiding lnJury. She explainedthat she had letters from the appllcant etating that no live
aniraal research would be conducted in the facillty.
The staff reconmendation was for approval of the conditional use
request. The proposal sas very complinentary to the overall
master plan for the hospital site. There would be no negatlveiupacts. If fact, the concept of providing additional parklng
beneath the approved parking structure vas an efficient use of
the hospital site. i
Jay Peterson, representing the applicant, explained that they
were er<plorl.ng the break-out panel suggested by the staff.
Holtever, they would prefer not to nake it a condition of
approval .
Chuck Crist connented that lre had calculated a 17 space
requirement for the Learning lab and therefore a 9 epace net
increaEe and Kristan explained that the applicant had also added
surface spaces naking a total of 58 surplus spaces after the lab
uas removed.
Connl.e ltnight stated that the long range plan ras to convert the
apace to pirking and asked where tlre Iearning Iab vould go in the
future and Jay explained that nothing vas set'at the present
tlne. rhe applicint was in the process of completing a
conprehensive- long range plan. The L€arning Iab could be moved
to a future addition or in a present building area.
Diana asked if the break-out panel to existing surface parking
vas still proposed and ur. Feeney answered that nothing fron the
original proposal had changed. Diana Etill had a concenr with
Iot 10 being used in the parking BPace calculations and tay
responded that it had always been used in the cal.culationE.
Dlana etated that she Just dldnrt feel comfortable eince the
Iease could be revoked vith 3O days notice.
l3
c
i
I Jin Uorter, regardinE the private condo entranee, felt it was
inappropriate to have the entrance to a uulti-nillion dollar
condo cone under the entrance to a chlnese restaurant. Regarding
the 9r enclosure, if Lt sas not approved, lt was possJ.ble that
the rest of the restaurant lnprovenents sould not be conpleted.
Jay etated that he underetood the etaffrs position to not
consLder the econonlcs of a proJect. Hovever, from a practlcal
standpoint, the proprietor uust Daxl.uize the revenuepossl.bilities. He felt that the applicant had given a lot and
uas not asking for Duch aE presently proposed.
ilin lrlorter then explalned the rear deck area and the extensive
landscaping that uas proposed.
Yvonne Uullaly, RuckEack Condo osner, questioned the validity of
t{r. Sliferre statenent of the t{IIl Creek Condoroinl-um olrners
agreeuent vittr the project. She spoke with an ovner within ttrelast week who had no knowledge of the project. She stated that
she and her husband had dinner wlth the Tangs and that durlng the
course of the dinner, !lrs. lang nade ttre statement that they were
expanding because she didnrt lLke the view from her livlng room.
Ivonne felt the proJect would reduce lrer property value. Yvonne
also guestioned how the trash would be removed and Diana
explained to Yvonne that the trash would be handled I'n the saroe
manner that it waE currently being handled.
Ton Braun explaLned the other itens reguested in addition to the
exterior alteration and view corridor anendnent. The stream
setback variance wae for an area that already was in the eetback.
The Conditional Use Perruit was for the rear dining deck and the
site coverage variance tras for a 28 overage of what ras a1lowed.
The perrnitted coverage was 8ot and the reguested coverage ltas
e2*.- The app).icant was proposing a 23 sg. ft. net gain which vas
a .25* increase.
General concerns were expressed regarding constructlon during the
sunmer and Diana explained that the Town had strict gtuidelines
for traffic control and managing construction iupacts.
yvonne expressed concerns tlrat even though the applicant reduced
the building nass to provide sone view, there was still a deck in
the area. She was also concerned about the noise level that
sould increase fron the rear dinlng deck. Yvonne guestioned
whether the appllcant was using vaulted cellings. She felt that
lf there were vaulted ceiling proposed, the applicant could lower
the ceilings in order to provide her a view.
15
c
Jay, in response to Ivonne, etated that Rod S1ifer hadrepresented that the proposar was accepted by trre condoroiniumassociatLon. That when asked at the list ne6ting if thecondominiun board or all osners had accepted the-propoaal Jay hadstated that he did not know. Apparentlyl sone of-tbl ownersrithLn the lrllll Creek Condominiiris rere-not notifled by therepresentative of the Association. Jay did not rant the pEC
board to feel that he had uisled then.-
sid Schultz, representing Bob Galvin ttre owner of 2 unlts on the2nd floor of the ltirl creek buildlng, stated that ur. Galvin lradno knorledge of the project untll the last yeek. Sid read aletter from ur. Galvln. The polnt sid vished to nake ras thatregardless of what Rod slifer had represented as president of thecondoniniun aEsociation, there were i nunber of oirners rho verenot aware of the project.
Greta Parks, representing pepi Granshamer, stated that pepi wasunabre to Btay for the meeting and had requested her to read aletter fron hin in opposition. (Letter aftached)
Diana Donovan added to the record a letter fron llargret S.Burdick Ln support of the proJect. (Letter attachei)
Connie Kntght felt that architecturally the 9r deck enclosurealong Bridge St. yas pleasing. Howevei, she sas not for theenclosure on the East side of the building. She nae adamantlyopposed to encroacbing into the View Corridor. She uas againstthe variance on site coverage. Basically she was against-all ofthe request rith the exception of the 9r deck enclosure.
Jim Shearer asked the leasees of the connercial space rhatinpacts the 9r deck area had and Jan Ray responded. Sheexplained that they had been owners of the restaurant for alittle over 1 L/2 yeats. She had been in the restaurant businessfor approxiuately 20 years. She explained that the 9r areasinply did not sork. It was like dining in a hallway. lilostpeople do not like dining alone and conseguentLy, hei staff didnot pay as much attention to the area due to the tack ofcustoners who wished to sit there. If covered and enclosed, therpace could be utillzed in the sinter and sunner.
Xathy lfarren asked if the Daximnrn ridge height was under theallowed 43 feet and Ton responded that lt was 42.6r.
Kathy vished to thank the applicants for their dillgent effort inuorking with the PEC. In general she was in favor of ttreexterior alteration except the 9r deck enclosure. She felt thedeek area did get used contrary to Urs. Rayrs statenent. As faras the Rekord doors were concerned, she felt that the applicantshould be allowed to close the doors during inclenent seather.
She felt Lt was acceptable to allow the applicants to repair
a
16
'1:,
rather than rebulld the brick wall that the brick sall wasdefinitely a part of the total project. The brick vall should be
addressed even if the Raysr did not follon through with the
connercl.al portion of the proposal . Kathy had nq problen vith
the strean setback variance reguest and the conditional use for
deck dinl-ng (on the east elde) uas accePtable. She appreclated
the applicants keeping the rear deck on their own property.
Regarding the site coverafte, Kathy felt it vas the inature of thebeaetn. Responding to Pepirs letter regarding the nunber of
varl-ances asked for, she felt that rhat was being asked for waEsnall in proportlon and the Town uould be gaining protection from
future exlransion.
Chuck Crist felt that the nodifications to the rear dining deck
uere good. He sas Ln favor of the condltional use pernit for thedeck. He was supportive of the site coverage variance and the
stream setback varl.ance. Regarding the exterior alteration, hefel.t the applicants had done a good Job. Chuck llked the Rekord
doors and felt the applicants strould be allowed to close the
doors during inclenent weather as well as at late night hours ln
order to reduce the noise to the neighbors. Chuck also had no
problen with the 9r deck enclosure.
Dalton Willians was in favor of the stream setback, site coverage
variance, conditional use pemit, and the outdoor patio. .He felt
that the Red Lion buildingiwould not in reality encroach into the
view corridor and therefore was not ln opposition to the
rrnendment. He greatly appreciated the tine the applicants had-
Lnvested in working wJ-tn-tbe neighbors' Unfortunately, not all
people can be plea-ed with a proJect of this eize. Dalton felt
Lhe-venting was a great irnproven-nt. He suggested investigating
an acoustii nateriit to be used lf the vents were noisy. He
suggested that the restriction on the doors be expanded so that
they were reguired to stay open' weather pernitting' year-round
so is to offJet the closing of then during inclenent weather
during the surnmer. As far-as closing the doors at night for
securlty reasons, he recalled that in nany cases during the
sumner tne neA Lion had typically closed as early as 8:00 or 9:OO
p.n. Dalton did not vish-to see the doors closed any earlier
Lhan XO:30 or 1l:OO p.m. and would like to see them opened during
the norning. Dalton uas not in favor of the 9r deck enclosure.
He felt th;t 1tith the Rekord doors in place with the current
structure, the 9r area would be opened up.
Ludwlg Kurz felt that most of hls feellngs had been reflected.by
ttre rest of the board. In general , some-inconvenience lraa- golng
to happen and he slmpathized with the ltullalys. Holtever, he felt
that Lire developerSTowners had shown eensitivity and restraint.
L7
He aEreed wlth Kathy t{arren that the brick wall needed to be
repaired by at least one of the applicants. Xf the Raysr did notfollou up with the conmercial Lnproveroents the Tangs ehould be
responsible. Indwlg did not feel there uas any appreclable
infrLngenent Lnto the Vierr Corrldor. lte felt the applicants
needed to be conplinented.
Diana Donovan also wistred to conpllnent the appllcants and felt
the inpaet on the Rucksack building vas unfortunate. ahe feltthat nost of the requests vere sl,mple technicallties. llowever,
the View Corrldor anendnent did concern her. She rould leave the
deeision to the staff as to how to handle the amendment, whetherto Dove the line or change the picture under the line. the souldprefer not to eee the llne redriwn. Bechnlcally she agreed with
the restaurant owners regarding the 9r deck enclosure. She askedin return tlre Tonn receive eome benefits to ptrblicly used areas.
She suggested that the applicant change the approach to the
stream tract on the east In order to nake it nore inviting to thepubllc. As it presently looked, she felt it seemed too private.
She sould also like to see the appllcant spruce up the plaza area
by the private condominium entrance and tlre Sczechwan restaurant
by addinq a bench, more landscaping and reconfigurlnE the
newspaper boxes. Jay responded that he felt the appllcants sould
be willing to work in that area.
Diana liked the o1d brick valI as long as lt was repaired. She
felt the restrictions on the nindows needed to be contLnued to
the Rekord doors. She felt a statenent of inclenent weather was
too nuch a natter of interpretation and felt that the Btaff was
reasonable and tould not cite the applicant if they closed the
doors during a thunderstorn. All windows located in etucco areas
Ehould be recessed 3rrs. The vents should be state of the art.
she appreciated tlre consideration given to the Rucksack views and
felt the roof fotms were nuch better. She felt it was inperativethat the public area in the rear of the building look public.
sbe sugge-ted stepping stones be used to offset the hard etraight
walk presently there. She also liked the restriction the Tangs
were ii1ling to Lnpose on the GRFA. In general Diana ras in
favor of the requests with the following conditLons:
1. DRB require recessed windows2. Red L,ion Logo reapplied to the new building.3. The appllcants work with the Town to help flnd a
solution to traffic problem in the Parking and
Transportation Study.4. Any trees killed be replaced.5. The applicants work with ttinston and Associates sith
inprovenents in the plaza area by the Rucksack
J.ncluding a currred wall, bench on planter wall ,
nesspaPer box irnprovements, condo entrance, and
landscaping.
18
o
6. Ahe atrean tract lmprovenents be redesigned to
encourage public access and strean bank etabilization
on both sides of ltill Creek.7. llhe entry to the Bridge St. Condo ehould not be visiblefron Bridge Street.
ilay uanted the board to know that the fangs would nake allexterior alterations except the two decks,/enclosures. Ahe brickuall and plaza would be redone. The only iten that would not becompleted based on the approval of the 9t deck enclosure rould bethe Rekord doors on the front and rear of the building.
A potlon for approval of the SITE COVERAGE VARIANCE per thestaff meno was made by Kathv l{arren and eeconded by DaltonWilllans.
VOTE: 6 - 1 WTTH CONNIE KNTGHT OPPOSED
A notion for approval of the STRENI SETBACK VARIN{CE per thestaff nemo was made by Kathv Warren and seconded by Dalton
Wi1]ians.
VOTE: 6 -1 WTTH CONNTE XNIGI{T OPPOSED
Shearer.
VOTE: 7-OINFAVOR
As a part of this redeveloonent, the applicants aoreeto point and repair the brick rtall alono Bridqe Street
and ln the area of the snall olaza at the northwest
corner of the site. rnprovements to this olaza shall
also include upgradinq existinq benclres, planters.
newspaper box and trash recentacle locations and
landscapinq.
The streetscape irnprovements ehown alono Hanson Ranch
Road are considered conceptual . and the applicantsshall acrree to vork sl.th the staff and l{inston
AssocLiates in retining €tris aesicrn retative to ttre vall
Villaoe Streetscape Plan. This condition shall also
applv to the plaza area referenced in condition No. 1
1.
2.
19
and the landscane inprovepents proposed adiacent totriill Creek.
3,
4.
the eite.
5.
6.
7.
8.
location.
Ehe Rekord doors (or other tvoe of window svsterninstalled) to the Red Lion Restaurant along Brldoe
Street sha1l renal-n totall-v ooen during businesE hours
between June 15 and Septenber X5 of each vear. These
windows mav be onened at any other tine durinq the vear
at the discretion of the restaurant rnanaqenent.
VOTE: 5 - 2 WITH CONNIE XNIGHT AND KATHY WARREN OPPOSED
9.
10.
20
a
A notion for the reconnendation of approval to the Town
and eeconded by Kathv l{arren.
VOTE: 6 - 1 WITH CONNIE KNIGTTT OPPOSED
Item No. 9: l{WCCoG l,ltg. - t{ilderness Legislatlon; april 12.
1990 form 9:oo a.n. - 3:00 p.n. (silver creek)
Kristan explained that the Federal l{ilderness I€gislatlon neeting
uould be held at the above uentioned tiue and place. The roeeting
was interesting though attendees where not allowed to
participate.
Diana e:<plained that there uas a charge and the Torn was expected
to cover the cost.
That the ohoto deoictinq Vles Corridor No. 1 be
nodified to reflect the new Red Llon Buildinq at a time
vhen the expansl.on is conpleted. The Connission
1.
2.
Item No. 10:
Diana statedto note the
Reschedule PEC meetinq of ltay 28 (Uenorial Davl to
June 4th.
that tlris change was apParent
change.
asked the nenbers
The neeting was adjourned at 10!oo p.D.
and
2L
Teleohone: 303/476-5626
t
drof
mshammer, lnc.
9as
$rt
Pepi Gramshammer
Sheika Gramshammer
231 East Gore Creek Drive
vail, Colorado 81657
Dear Meubers of the Plannlng f,erm{ssl6a3
val1 has becoue a very successful sk1 resort. wetre constaotly rorklngto i'prove our t orrn and Dountalu, aad lt ie a wonderful place. Nor' 1sa crltlcaL tl-me for us, and we Dust take the rlght steps to DaiDtalnthe unlque qualittes of our tol'n and control the growtir of the villagethat everyone loves.
Aprtl 9, 1990
Plannlng Co"r"'isslon
Town of Vall
75 S. Froutage Road
Va11, Colorado 8f557
I urge you to conslder all
request carefully, so thatproperly.
Slucerely,
of the 1up11cat1ocs of tbe Red LLoors
our town can gron graeefully aod function
As ntany older bulldlngs in Vail Vlllage are reuodeled, ve nust becareful to roalntaln the scale on whlch the village vas origlnallydesigned. The lssue verre tal-kiag about today concerns tht Red Llon'srequest for varlances to add two stories to thelr existlug buLliting,ublch rould alnost double theLr square footage. rf thls is allowed to takep1ace, the precedent vilr be set for the expanslon of other buildings,rvhlch nould add many, 'nany square feet to the Village core. Wheredoes lt stop when Bo Eany variances are granted upon request?
IJith lncreased density will. cooe Eany negatlve lupacts, 1o teros ofdel1ver1es, parklng and trash removar. ihese wili be long tera, rottemporary, probleos. For so Dany years, the Village has teen aconstructlon zooe In the su@er. Just ehen ue thought all of theconstructlon ras conpleted, werre starting againt And, let uaoot forget that enornous lacleases in property taxes for all vatlVlllage buslness orrners lrill result fron such expansioo.
rf the Red Llon constructlon proJect - stth 4 storLes - Ls approved,other buildlngs will fo11os sult, and grldge Street w111 be like ashaft of hlgh rlses, wlth only a aarros nallray for foot trafflc.wlth lacreased dellveries, etc., lf therers one car parked on BrldgeStreet aud aoother atteupts to pass, there s1ll be ao roou forpedestrlans.
Pepl Gransha-.er
:-
4lp4avt A. ts"rlkAgi 0. !Bo.rzso
cVaI, Qoln ol" &Act
Aprll 9. 1990
To: Tbe P!lnntng, CoDlsllon
TorD of vrilVall, O0
Froo: tlerge lurdlckl.O- lor 1268UalI, @ 8I65E
I !! srltLng coDcrrElng tbe propo3cd addltlon to:
?hc Rld LloD lan Aplit!€at
304 Bridge Strcct, V!ll, CO E1657Itar. Oacar TrDt, dDerllortlr Archltccta, trchltGct
lhe blucprrrti rnd loiteJ. yare JuBt .bol! to re rort I gartold th-e GnFA of tbc proporcd ratdtt to! !.9,327 S.F., rclluDder tbG rlloecd 11,166.32 S.F. Tbc .aasLo8 tr rttrrc-tlvely done end haa r grrccful flor to ,.t, ihere erethr€e unlt3 propoaed Lo llgr of elght ualts ellored.
Frankie- Taag hec rho$n her u:ual, good ta6te tn de3ign,Dhlch plcesed De. lty dcep tntereit tn thls project .taafroD the fact that hlry Burdlch end I bullt the Red LlonInn ln 1962, tDd thlt apariDent ear Ey hooe.
Th16 p13n brtnga I proud l.gad of r butliltng bact to l1fe.The plrleat om:r of the lpartnrot rnd tbe llaaees of thetestaurrnt reeo to be rork!.ag uell rlth one another LD thecorporate plan of the ftont of the tcataurent rnd lhe nero(panalon of the tpartuent,
It ras brought to Dy rttaDtt-on that a oall .lount ol
.pace on the front, nortbeest 3lde of the bulldtrg ic
allaqo'.* 5. ts"rlt"l
Q: O. tsox r25o
ryd, CoLvlo 865s'
a.eiled to be tncludcd tD the covcrcd Petlo' t u[der3!t!'l
that Deeil ead bope yor wlll be rblc to r11or tt' The
leaaeeE s1ll havc i rhott the to l.couP th! 1o!s ol
f uuda crpailed f or tbe bPrott.tetrts' due to tbe- r'ErlnLlt
tt'D€ |.D ih.tr l"are. It 1r c.tr.adible to rG th't thct
are ulllLug to rrko to 8r4t r coatrlbulloD ro tbtu Pll!'
Erldqc Str.et rr. V.llrr flt3t rtr!.t ' our f''rtt blocl'
lbe icif Llon IBa 'ls th! flret Prle.tclt o'hcil tertrtr|nt
rnd rklcrr frrn Vrll .td tbc Frld rrt thra'' lt tt Prrt
of Vrll'r bl3tory rod dld Bot dGtrrn. tb2 'h'bby ttcrt-
rcnt lt brr rcc lanrd 3L!er betDS aolat' lloe' thl! PtoPotcd
glan drould btt!8 irld8e Strclt tbc !t!tl' lt rrred- to heve
Ita U f.t t ecclptrbi to tou, Ir tor oD!, uill br f lllcd
vlth Srrtltude.
Slacctcly.
lcoquilu"dr.r.
llergrret S. turillct