The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutDRB080385Design Review Board ACTIN FORM Department of Community Development. TOWN OF L ` 75 South Frontage Road, Vail, Colorado 81657 tel: 970.479.2139 fax: 970.479.2452 COhMUNITYDEVELOPMENT web`:.. www.vailgov.com: Project Name: SONNENALP SIGNS DRB Number: DRB080385 Project Description: RELOCATE WEST SIGN TO MEADOW DRIVE, NEW BANNERS, NEW FREESTANDING SIGN Participants: OWNER SONNENALP PROPERTIES INC 08/25/2008 20 VAIL RD VAIL CO 81657 APPLICANT GPSL ARCHITECTS 08/25/2008 SIDNEY SCHULTZ 1000 S FRONTAGE RD W SUITE 102 VAIL CO 81657 Project Address: 20 VAIL RD VAIL Location: Legal Description: Lot: 1 Block: 5E Subdivision: SONNENALP Parcel Number: 2101 - 082 - 8000 -1 Comments: BOARD /STAFF ACTION Motion By: DUBOIS Action: APPROVED Second By: PLANTE Vote: 4 -0 -0 Date of Approval: 09/17/2008 Conditions: Cond: 8 (PLAN): No changes to these plans may be made without the written consent of Town of Vail staff and /or the appropriate review committee(s). Cond:201 (PLAN): DRB approval shall not become valid for 20 days following the date of approval, pursuant to the Vail Town Code, Chapter 12 -3 -3: APPEALS. Cond: 202 (PLAN): Approval of this project shall lapse and become void one (1) year following the date of final approval, unless a building permit is issued and construction is commenced and is diligently pursued toward completion. Planner: Bill Gibson DRB Fee Paid: $50.00 I Development Review Coordinator 5,(i Community Development Department C outh Frontage Road, Vail, Colorado 81657 tel: 970.479.2128 fax: 970.479.2452 $ webs www.vailgov.com )wN Gr p. .N Sign Application for Design Review General Information: This application is required for any sign that is located within the Town of Vail. All signs require design review approval. Applicable Vail Town Code sections can be reviewed on -line at www.vailciov.com under Vail Information — Town Code On- line (Title 11 Signs). An application for Design Review cannot be accepted until all required information is received by the Community Development Department. Design review approval lapses unless sign is installed within one year of the approval. Fee: $50 PLUS $1.00 per square foot of total sign are t- ✓ ` � t l� 9 � Business/ Building Name: `� ONN�ba_r QCS� V k - Number of proposed signs: 1 + � Wft - s El humber of existing signs: 3 S0 ON V L' RO AD Length of business frontage 225 0 N 6.61&A vW 10K Height of sign(s) from grade: Type of sign (check all apply): ❑ Freestanding Sign ❑ Business Sign • Menu /Display Box • Sign Program ❑ Other • Window Sign ❑ Wall Sign • Subdivision Entrance ❑ Joint Directory Sign ❑ Open /Closed Sign ❑ Sale Sign ❑ Temporary Site Development Sign Square Footage of Si n: Iv� J I &N ' -9. C�i �n t4er row Z 14 q 9 9 Location of the Proposal: 1 L ot: I Block: 66 Subdivision: kL � Physical Address: 2 / 0 V A( L- Tom �j AV Parcel No.: 21010 8 2 & 0 1 (Contact Eagle Co. Assessor at 970 - 328 -8640 for parcel no.) Zoning: Name(s) of Owner(s): Mailing Address: Co Owner(s) Signature(s): Name of Applicant: �- 5105 Mailing Address: 1 000 S "WOrW 1`�' �' S! to 2— �1. W 8 t (0 Phone b 1 LI 7 E -mail Address: I a � �Fs L ", - COA Fax: 6 � For Office Use n j(%V�,VL,QXI au Fee Paid: Check No.: �( � By: � V2_11 Meeting Date: _ DRB No.: I /1/y �� ' t Planner: 66 Project No.: [IT Hanging / Projecting Sign GR"Building Identification ❑ Business Operation Sign ❑ Gas Filled /Fiber Optic L iL 4 t , �� • 07 TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO Statement Statement Number: R080001468 Amount: $59.00 08/25/200810:44 AM Payment Method: Check Init: JLE Notation: 1069349 SONNENALP ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Permit No: DRB080385 Type: DRB - Sign Application Parcel No: 2101 - 082 - 8000 -1 Site Address: 20 VAIL RD VAIL Location: Total Fees: $59.00 This Payment: $59.00 Total ALL Pmts: $59.00 Balance: $0.00 ACCOUNT ITEM LIST: Account Code Description Current Pmts -------------- - - - - -- ------------------------ - - - - -- ------ - - - - -- DR 00100003112200 DESIGN REVIEW FEES 50.00 SP 00100003124000 SIGN FEES 9.00 r I� L I O I U O z I� I < w -- - -- I j � - - - � � w I I O I 11 a wD LH LL -- LH I I �— ` i 0 0 cn 11) 0 ENTRANCE. BOULDER TO MATCH EXI5TING 5TONE EXI5TING 57REET 51GNAGE 5PECIFICATION5: BRUSHED ALUMINUM LETTERS AND LOGO GUT -OUT WHITE LED "HALO" LIGHTING BEHIND EACH LETTER AND LOGO SIGN DETAIL I 1 -1 I/4" = I' -O" 0 4' 1 4 ��_ a k s ,f S Y fi i a k s ,f S 0 +. The sixth type is horizontal flags, striped white over blue, with arms. The above example shows the greater arm_ s without supporters (unofficial middle arms). You can find these flags frequently in flagshops. It is not as popular as the lozen flag w ith arms Marcus Schmoger, 2 February 2001 Horizontal Lozengy Flags with Coat -of -Arms Actually only state authorities of higher and middle rank are entitled to use the gr eater arms However, in the last years more and more people think it is appropriate to use flags showing the Bavarian lozenges and on them the greater arms. There are many variants of this (decidedly unofficial) flag — some of them even have the text Freistaat Bayern under the arms, some show the arms on an oval disk, some show the arms directly on the lozenges. Actually state authorities obviously do not interfere in using these types of flags. Marcus Schmoger, 14 August 2000 The seventh type is horizontal flags, lozengy of white and blue, with arms. Variants of this flag are the most frequently used ones by Bavarian citizens, although they are strictly speaking illegal. One can consider this flag the de facto civil flag of Bavaria. . This is the lozengy flag with the greater arms without supporters (unofficial middle arms): 3:5 W This is the lozengy flag with the whole gr eater arm s. A variant of this even shows the inscription Freistaat Bayern beneath the arms: by Marcus Schmoger LIN There are certainly many other variants of this type. I will send images of some of them soon. The angle of the lines forming the lozenges is not prescribed. Marcus Schmoger, 28 January 2001 I seem to recall that any variation is allowed provided that (a) no less than 21 lozenges or fraction thereof are shown and (b) the topmost hoist lozenge is white. The second image above (de- by2b.gif) appears not to follow this second rule. The picture from the Bavarian website appears to show about 42 lozenges or fractions of them. The topmost hoist lozenge appears to be white but only 'touches' the corner, rather than being 'cut' by the corner's edges. Santiago Dotor, 30 January 2001 Regarding the second image ( de-by2b.gif ) which Marcus Schmoger seems to imply is the 'most popular' design, it does not 'start' with a white lozenge. Is the 'white lozenge first' rule generally ignored? Is it unknown to the general public? Zeljko Heimer, 31 January 2001 That is right, the regulations of 1 (and before of 1953) say, "the upper right corner of the flag cloth is reserved for a cut white lozenge". However no one really cares if there is a white or blue, whole or cut lozenge in the upper hoist corner. The rule of 'white lozenge first' is not only unknown to the general public — I would even bet that more than 90% of higher officials, state secretaries and ministers do not know the rule. There is such a variety of Bavarian flags (part of which I show in this page) with vertical and horizontal flags, with or without arms etc. This the renowned Liberalitas Bavariae! Marcus Schmoger, 2 February 2001 Vertical lozengy flags The fifth type is vertical flags, lozengy of white and blue, without arms: This variant used in great numbers during the Oktoberfest 2000. The center of Munich (e.g. Marienplatz) was full of these flags. There were always groups of these flags together with Munich flags of the same design (lozengy of black and yellow): 3:1 M Vertical Lozengy Flags with Coat -of -Arms 14:5 IM by Marcus Schmoger The tenth type is vertical flags, lozengy of white and blue, with arms. The above variant shows the rg eater arms without supporters (unofficial middle arms). For vertical lozengy flags this middle arms are more popular than the greater arms, as these are much wider than high, thus either taking too much width on a vertical flag or being displayed too tinily. Marcus Schmoger, 27 February 2001 Marcus Schmoger, 27 February 2001 Horizontal Striped Flags with Coat -of -Arms IM r by Marcus Schmoger 7� 7� fcal on IKW AN VAIL ROAD (50' RON Z7 L ---------- is .. . ...... ...... 3� .. . . . ... ...... . 4 -"V. Z, P o Cif ID Flow 0 3 CM a o U) <> o i' a � � R Ul 'I O O ---------- is .. . ...... ...... 3� .. . . . ... ...... . 4 -"V. Z, P o Cif o lip SONNENALF RESORT OF VAIL 51&NA6 AND TRASH SCREENING 20 VAIL ROAD, LOT 1, BLOCK 5E, VAIL VILLAGE FIRST FILM, I ID Flow 0 3 CM a co o lip SONNENALF RESORT OF VAIL 51&NA6 AND TRASH SCREENING 20 VAIL ROAD, LOT 1, BLOCK 5E, VAIL VILLAGE FIRST FILM, I ID Flow 0 3 a pro Led MEMORANDUM �e TO: Town Council FROM: Community Development Department DATE: September 2, 2008 SUBJECT: Request to proceed through the development review process with a proposal to construct private improvements on the Town of Vail owned Vail Road and Meadow Drive right -of -ways, located adjacent to the Sonnenalp Resort at 20 Vail Road. Applicant: Sonnenalp Properties, Inc.; represented by GPSL Architects Planner: Bill Gibson I. SUMMARY The applicant, Sonnenalp Properties Inc., represented by GPSL Architects, is requesting permission to proceed through the development review process with an application that includes private improvements on Town of Vail owned property. As the property owner, the Town Council may approve, approve with conditions, or deny the Applicant's request for property owner authorization to proceed through the Town's development review process. Pursuant to Section III of this memorandum, Staff recommends approval of the applicant's request to proceed with an application for a new sign at the corner of Vail Road and Meadow Drive; however, Staff recommends denial of the applicant's request to erect banners in the Vail Road right -of -way. II. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST The applicant is requesting permission to proceed through the development review process with an application to install a freestanding sign for the Sonnenalp Resort at the southeast corner of Vail Road and Meadow Drive, and to erect multiple banners adjacent to the hotel entrance located at 20 Vail Road. Both the proposed sign and banners will encroach into Town of Vail owned street right -of -ways. Therefore, the applicant must first obtain Town Council (i.e. property owner) approval before proceeding through the Town's development review process. A vicinity map (Attachment A) and the applicant's proposed signage plans (Attachment B)have been attached for reference. III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Sonnenalp Resort is located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Vail Road and Meadow Drive. Due to the presence of a substantial landscape planter between the hotel and the street at this intersection, the Sonnenalp is not readily identifiable to guest traveling south on Vail Road from the main roundabout. Portions of this existing landscape planter are located on both the Sonnenalp's property and the adjacent Town of Vail owned street right -of -ways. To minimize the disturbance to the existing vegetation and to maximize visibility of a sign, the applicant is proposing to install a freestanding building identification sign in the front portion of the existing landscape planter which is located within the street right -of -way. Due to the location of existing .plantings, and the physical separation of the sign from the public streets and' sidewalks, Staff recommends the Town Council approves the applicant's request to proceed through the development review process with a design review application for this new sign. The applicant is also proposing to erect four Bavarian style banners in the Vail Road right - of -way adjacent to the hotel's west entrance. Due to the close proximity of the proposed banners to the adjacent street and sidewalks, Staff is concerned the proposed banners could interfere with winter snow storage and plowing efforts. Staff is also concerned the proposed banners could interfere with the site distances necessary for vehicles to safely exit the hotel property. Therefore, Staff recommends the Town Council denies the applicant's request to proceed through the development review process with a design review application for banners in the Vail Road right -of -way. Please be advised that should the Town Council choose to approve either of these requests, such an approval would not constitute an explicit approval of the proposed improvements. Any approval of either of these requests will only grant the Applicant property owner authorization to proceed through the Town's development review process. IV. ATTACHMENTS A. Vicinity Map B. Proposed signage plans K