HomeMy WebLinkAboutVAIL DAS SCHONE FILING 3 LOT 2B MCDONALDS SIGN 1986 VARIANCE LEGALTO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUEJECT:
MEMORANDUM
Town Counci'l
Cormunity Devel opment Department
July 15, 1986
Sign Variance Request for McDonaldss Restaurant
App'licant: McVail, Ltd.
BACKGROUND:
McDonalds is requesting variances from the fo1 lowing sections of the Townof Vail Sign Code for the cormercial core III.
76.22.155 B, Maximum area of 20 s.f.
16.22.155 D, One Sign.
76.22.155 E, Location, para11el to
street whjch the build'ing abuts.
the exterior wall adjacent to the
The specific request is for two 35 s.f. signs, one to be located on theeast e'levation mansard roof, the other to be 'located on the west elevation
mansard roof. The signage design is a McDonald,s Golden Arclr logo thatwil'l stand alone without a background against this mansard-'roof. It
should be noted that in the accompanying memo from the Community
Development Dept. to Design Review Board there is also a request for
variance from Section 16.22.155 C, No part of this sign shal'l extend
above... or the plate line of the building. The applicant revised his
submittal Just prior to the Design Review Board meeting to eliminate the
need for variance from this section of the code. The entire proposed
si gnage i s now bel ow the p'late I i ne of the bui'ldi ng.
The Design Review Board fai'l ed to pass a motion for approval for the sign
variance request by a vote of 2-3. Fai'l ure to uphold a motion for
approval constitutes a recommendation of denial on th'is proposal from the
Design Review Board. lrlembers of the board votjng against the motjon
expressed concern over the degree of special circumstance involved, and
one board member expressed concern over the proposed design. Staff
recommendation for the proposa1 is for approva'|.
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Des'ign Review Board
Cormuni ty Devel opment Department
July 2, 1986
Sign variance request for McDonald's RestaurantApplicant: McVail, Ltd.
I. REQUEST
McDona'ld's is requesting variances from the following sections of the
Town of Vail sign code for Commercial Core III:
16.22.'l 558, Maximum area of 20 square feet;
!9.22.155p, f'lo pqt of the sign shal1 extend above .... or the plateIine of the building;
16.22.155D,One sign;
16.22.1 55E, Location, paralle'l to the exterior wall adjacent to thestreet which the bui lding abuts.
The specific request is for two 34 square foot signs, one to be locatedon the east e'l evation mansard roof, the other to be iocated on the westelevation mansard roof. The signage design is the McDonald,s golden
arches logo that will stand alone without a background against this
mansard roof. The logo will extend one to two feet above the roof lineof the building.
McDonald's Restaurant, as a single business usequalifies for a wa'l 1 sign, sing'l e busjness use
16.22. '155 of the Town of Vajl sign code.
II. BACKGROUND
At the time of the original annexation of West Vail, the Town recognizedthat the l,Jest Vail commercial area varied s'ignificantly from the CCI and
Lionshead commercial areas. The Commercial Core III zone district wascreated to facilitate development of community based, automobile
ori ented, commercial , retail and office centei with iupport uses. The
Town of Vail sign code was anended to jnclude provisjons for the CCIIIarea w'ith this development phi'losophy in mind. The sign code for ccIII
was written in an attempt to provide adequate signage ior businesses,while taking into account the signage that was ajlowed under EagleCoylty regulations and also the basic guide'l ines of the existing Town ofVail sign code.
At the time McDonald's was annexed into the Town of Vail, their signage
consisted of approximately 86 square feet mounted on the mansard roof-facing south. That sign was subsequently moved to face east in itspresent position. After discussion with the community Development
Department, the logo portion of the sign was removed and replaced with a
in Commercial Core III,
as defined in Section
white "M." This reduc-ed the_sign to approximately 39 square feet as itpresently exists. 0n March 29, lgg5, McDonald,s iubmitted anapplication for variance for a free standing sign of 55 square feet.Following a Design Review Board recommendation of denial ,'ihe applicantwithdrew the request. concerns of the Design Review Board at that timerelated to the impact of such a large sign on pedestrians and vehiculartraffic along the North Frontage Road.
III.
Before the board acts.on a variance application, the applicant mustprove physical hardship and the board must find that:
A.There are eci a] ci rc tance i ti ons app'lvi n to e
structure or othermatters o tr -wa
wou sta nuestl0n: prov at c tan orcondi t'ions are un I oue ar sl ness r enter rise tocn tne can at on and onota
E0a us't ness r ente
c.That the grantjng of the varjance will be in general ha n.y wi th
et,r I mentato the ersons res nq or worK t n nt
ropert to the ne 0rno c we I tare ingenera | .
Staff Response:
The sign code for CCIII was developed in an attempt to a1 1owsignage for a community based, automobile oriented commencialfacility. The sign code does not allow a single business use thesame amount of signage recognition a multi business complex isallowed- lle feel that the current design is sympathetit to thedouble sided single plane.concept allowtd ana lnirt the applicanthas made a serious attempt to maintain the integrity and intent ofthe sign code.
B. That such gpecial circumstances wefe not created by the applicant
Staff Response:
As McDonalds was deve'loped in Eagle county the applicant did notcreate any special circumstances with regard to the Town of vai'lSign Code.
Staff response:
As this application responds to the Design Review Board concernsof the previous submittal , we feel that lhe detriment to the
ne'i ghborhood and adjacent propertjes have been minimized as
compared. to the previous submittal . The size of the requestedsignage has been reduced and the re] ocation of the requested signnegates.the impact of the previous request upon the Frontage Roidarea.and_the adjacent properties. The staff found the preiioussubmittal to be in serious conflict with this particular finding.lJe now feel that the redesign of the request aiong with theprevious philosophica] discussions of the commercial core III signcode.between staff, Des.i gn Review Board and Council, mitigaie ourprevious concerns,
0.The variance appljed for does tde art from the rovi s'i ons ofs title an.y more than ul r to ident
DUS t ness or use .
Staff Response:
As previous'ly stated, the intent of the sign code is to facilitateadequate signage for community based, auto oriented commercialfacilities. The staff does not believe that this variance departsradically from the intent of the sign code.
E.Such other facto d cri ria as the n Revi rdd
aD le r0Dos varl ance.
IV.
The connunity Development Department staff feels that this request meetsthe basic intent of the ccIII sign code. lr|e would recommend approval ofthe proposed variance w'i th the request that the logo be mounted'on themansard roof in such a way that the'l ogo not extend above the roof lineof the building.
The intent of the sign code, as well as the deveiopment philosophy ofthe Town of vail is to encourage community based conrmercial and'sirvice
development which serves our residents and guests alike. lle feel thai-this variance request meets that intent and does not compromise ourDesign Review guidelines on sign code.
sestlons of the Vall Sfgnno
I
lle are requestlng varlances from the fol lowl
Code for Commerclal Core lll:
16.22.155 ?, fiaximurn area of 20 square feet....
16.22.155 C No part of the slgn shall extend abovei..or the
plate llne of the bulldtng....
16.22.155 D One sign.
16.22.155 E Locatlon, parallel to the exterlor wall adJacent
to the street which the bulldlng abuts.
Hugh Schmidt, the owner-operator, opened the Vall HcDonaldrs In Septenber of
1977 ln what was then the unlncorporated area of Eagle County. At that tlne lt
haC a sl_on of approximately 85 sq.ft. nounted on the mansard rcof facing south.
That slgn was subsequently roved to face east ln lts present posltlon. After
the area was annexeC into the Tovln of Vall tn August l!82, the Conmunity
Developnrent Department forced removal of the logo portlon of the sign which was
replaceC wlth a r^,hite rrHtr. This reduced the slgn to approximately l8 sq.ft.
as it presently exists. At that tlne, the Communlty Developrnent DeFartment
also denied Mr. SchmiCtrs request to change to yel low letters. The whlte, of
course, ls vlrtually useless durlng those nonths when there is s now on the roof
and not too much better against the I Lght grey background of the roof.
An appllcatlon for variance was subhitteC for a free-standlng slgn of 55 sq.ft.
on Harch 29, 1985. In that submlttal, the fol lowin-o items wcre estat,l lshed
(back-up data shoulC be on ffle with the Town of Vail):
l. The economic profile of Hr. Schmidtrs business is quite
different then most restaurants in the Tovrn, In that his
high periods are in the summer tlme.
2, lten f2 comes.,e s^^no surprlse when you cons lder that ncre
touri sts vlslfliii the sunirer then any other season, and
that an overwhelrning majority of thls group travels by
prlvate autonobile.
3. lfp to 548 of l1r. Schr,rldt rs surnmer buslness used to come
fron thc interstate travel lers that were passing through
on Interstate 7A, anC rnoulC not have otherwi se stopped In
Vail. This figure reduced to ebout 33t during the winter
rrcnths.
It. The custcrner transection count dropped significantly (up to
20t pe r rnonth) vrhen the Tor,n forced renrova I of the logo
portion of the sign. The claln was that the County had
never apDroveC the sign. l.le have not been able to f inC a
copy of the original approval; however, we do have a recorded
approval of the chanoe of locetion of the origlnal slgn dated
0ctober 18, 1979 noted by the approvina authority as rrminor
change.tl
l{hen lt becane apparent that our request for a free-standlng double-faceC slgn
ltas to be denled, the application vras withCratrn. The Toyrn Council subsequently
Cirected staff to restudy the problerns of Vest Vall in reqards to slgns and
' s"u tr there were .oru tu"ote solutlons for ourinurr"lhat havehistorically deoendeC on lnterstate 70 traffic. Shortly thereafter, the
Courts declared the l.je s t Val I annexat lon was not le-oal and Hr. Schmidt reverteCto County jurlsClctlon. The County lmmedlately placed s rpratorlum on slgn
changes In the West Vail area. ln 1986 thls portlon of Uest Vail was agaln
annexed lnto Vall. Because of other more presslng prlorltles, the.staff has
made llttle progress ln the slgn study, therefore this resubmlsslon for a
slgn varlance over a year later.
Throu.ohout our study and eppl lcation process, Town staff and officials have
malntained that lnterstate /0 passing through the Vail Valley ls not anC shouldnot be part of our marketlng area desplte the fact that over 15,000 vehlcles
per day pass along thls naln east/west artery through Colorado. lJe disagreetl
Ue also have been repeateCly tolC that theslgn code for Commerclal Core llt(20 sq.ft. nraxlmun) reflects the difference between autonbbile traffic (local)
and the pedestrlan traffic ln vall Villege and Lionshead (10 sq.ft. maximum) .
lJe again disagree and cite the fol lowlng exarnpl e:
The Baltimore County Study (devoted to street graohics for autornob i le trafflc)
shows that what ls recognizable at 8 sc.ft. at l! mph takes &C sq.ft. at 30 nrph,
an Increase of 5008 fronr lj mph to 30 nph (See Exhibit l). Eut West Vail
(Connmerclal Core l1l) ls allowed 2AOZ fron 5 mph (walking speed) to 35 mph(frontage road speed llmit). Thls shows that inCeeC the signage allowed'forthe nrotorlzed portlons of our Town is lnaCequate without even recognizing theInterstate.
ItStreet Graphics,rr a concept and systerns rnanual concerneC with signage alongstreets and highways (partially:fundeC by the Urban Land lnstitute and the
LanCscape Architecture Foundation), cites the following: "The accepteC rule offor deterrninlng letter slze in one Inch of increased height for every 50 feetof dlstence..., 0f course thls stanCard assumes readable type-face and gocd
contrast between the letters anC its bacl..oround....'r l.'e analyzeC Hr. Schmidtts
exlstln.o sl-on baseC on thls lnforFatlon (See Exhibit 2) and found that lndeedIt satlsfied the slze requlrements. Vhere it failed ls in gooC contrast
between the letters and the background. AccepteC practice indicates thatlettering should equal lr0? of the total graphic. lf we add that backoroundto the existing sign, we would then have a total sign of 88 sq.ft. Qulte aradlcal departure from the sign code. This was obviously not the approach.
Ho!, to satisfy the intent of the sign code to reduce the area and maintalnvislbility to the potential custoncr was still the problem. Infornat ion
lndicates th6t the l'lcDoneldrs lo.oo is the second rrost recognized synnbol in theworldt Their normal road s igrnagre uses the yel lor., logo wlth the worC rrHcDonaldtstt
either penetrating the logo or written below. In an attempt to reduce thesquare footege requl red, we have el ininated the I'l.,lcDona I d I s" f ron the s ign.
0ur field testing of the sign Indicates that our original 50 sq.ft.t wascorrect. Since that has been once Cenied, with size as an objection, we havegrudgingly made thls snaller to l! sq.ft. This reduction resulteC in theinternally iJluninated portion of the sl-cn changing from the present 20 sq.ft.:to l0 so.ft.:.
-?-
Our submlttal ls for:
Tr+o Internally lllumfnatcd ycllow'rilcDonald'stt logos tO be
placed on thc mansard portlon of thc roof of the cxlstlng
bul ldlrtg. Onc to bc faclng east st thc approxlmete
locatlon of the exlstlng slgn, and one to bc faclng west
on the adJacent corner of the bulldlng.
tt
-3-