Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.boa.19840726 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Special Meeting Board of Adjustment July 26, 1984. Chairman Remo Lavagnino called the meeting to order at 4 : 05 p. m. with members Charlie Paterson , Josephine rrann , Francis Whitaker, and Anne Austin present. CASE #84-11. MILL STREET PLAZA, continued hear'ng The owners are Anthony Mazza and Frank Woods. Lavagnino read the building inspector ' s statement : "The applicant placed the signs without a building department permit. The signs exceed the allowable signage by an unde- termined amount in the cc zone. Section 24-5.10 (a) (2) : business and advertising or identification signs. The aggregate sign area permitted along one street shall not exceed one square foot of signage for each three feet of lot line frontage by or projected from the building within which the principal use is conducted. The applicant appears to be requesting an undetermined amount of excess signage as well to allow stores without the required lot line frontage right to street level signs. " (Paterson arrives in the chambers.) Lavagnino read into the record the applicant ' s justification for the proposed exception: "The description of proposed exception is to permit signs in excess of one square foot for three lineal feet of lot line . It is also to permit signs to be displayed for shops and/or restaurants which are not on street level ; mainly nine shops and restaurants in the plaza level with three more contemplated; and a gym and a restaurant on the upstairs level of the Mill Street Plaza. This application further requests that the plaza level and the upstairs level of the Mill Street Plaza be computed in terms of the permissible square footage of signage on the Mill Street Plaza building. It is requested that the applicant be permitted to keep the signs at Mill Street as they presently exist. " Lavagnino asked if the complaint is against all the signs in the Mill Street Plaza or some specific signs . Bill Drueding, building department , responded there are four specific signs: one on the alley, two signs on the building itself, and a fourth sign, a registry on Hopkins. All are wall signs. The largest wall sign can only be ten square feet. The sign on Hopkins was put up when the building was completed. The other three were put up approximately six months ago. Tony Mazza, applicant, reported what transpired in a meeting with Drueding and Gaard Moses which occurred two hours ago. The four signs were measured. The sign in the alley is 31 .33 feet; the two signs at the entry way into the mall are 14 . 48 feet each; and the sign on Hopkins Street is 10 feet. These are measure- ments made by Drueding. Those signs total 74 square feet of RECORD OF PROCEEDING Special Meeting Board of Adjustment July 26, 1984 signage. Based on the 1 : 3 ratio he is permitted 93 square feet. liazza and Drueding discussed the request that Mazza be allowed more signage because the upper floor and the subgrade floor are not computed in the 1 : 3 ratio. Mazza reported that Gaard Hoses, chairman of the sign committee , informed him that it is probable that the sign code amendments will not be acted on for approximately six months. Mazza proposed to voluntarily amend his application to take down the 31 .33 foot alley sign and leave the other three signs up. He still would not be in compliance with the minimum ten foot requirement. However , the total signage would be 47 feet . Presently, the permitted sign footage is 93 feet. 1-lazza requested that he be given a variance for the signs based on a hardship. There are approximately thirty uses for the entire mall. He was advised by the sign people that the signs be visible for more than three feet away; the purpose of the directory is to be visible. If the signs were any smaller people would not be able to see them. In terms of reasonable visibility he cannot get thirty uses onto the signs as designed. That is the hardship. He requested a variance for the signs entering into the mall and on Hopkins Street because of this hardship. If the sign committee ever comes forward and says more signage would be allowed, namely considering the top story and the lower level of the mall , then Mazza will come back before the Board and request a reconsideration for more signs. He requested a straw vote on this compromise. He did not think Drueding had a problem with this compromise. Lavagnino asked if the signs , like the Peaches ' En Regalia signage, are counted in the square footage computation. Even though the complaint is not against other signs those signs have to come into the equation in order to determine whether Mazza has utilized his allowed 93 square feet. The directory signs are generic. Shops also have their own signs. How is the sign square footage being computed? Does Drueding agree with the figures? Drueding answered he did not agree with the figures. Drueding clarified that he informed Mazza that it was up to the Board to decide the amount of signage and that Drueding would not oppose that. Lavagnino noted that Mazza' s figures are based just on the four signs , not on the total equation of one foot for three lineal feet. Drueding clarified the total allowed signage for the building is 33 . 33 square feet along the 100 feet of Mill Street frontage, and 60 square feet along the 180 feet of Hopkins Street frontage . The total allowed signage is is 93 square feet. The four signs discussed total 78 square feet. Many of the signs on the building do not have permits. Drueding did not calculate every sign on the building. He simply calculated the signs in question. He agreed with the square footage on the four signs in question. He did not compute the other existing signage 1% RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Special Meeting Board of Adjustment July 26. 1984 at street level. The signage is probably twice as much. Lavagnino asked where is the hardship. Is there a hardship because people are not directed to the inner court by a directory? Mazza responded. A building ' s entitlement to a directory was never addressed by the people who wrote the sign code. It seems appropriate that the city allow a directory for a building. Other towns and cities allow directories. Mazza is asking for a directory on Hopkins Street and on Mill Street . The stores downstairs do not have any visible signage from the street except with a directory. He was cited for the four signs. He did not permit, even though he is the landlord, any other signs to be installed on the building. If the building department has a problem with those signs the problem then is with the tenants . Mazza did not allow them to put the signs up. Lavagnino reasoned that Piazza has taken it upon himself to be a spokesman for his tenants by advertising their businesses with signs. Why would Mazza not take into account that the tenants put up their own signs. Mazza responded that he had a potential tenant revolt it he did not put up the directories. May be he should have the twenty-three demanding tenants be present. The tenants believe the signage is necessary for the success of their businesses . The tax revenues of the city may be affected. hitaker hoped that Mazza was coming in at this meeting with the total square footage of the building. Mazza said he does not have the total square footage. Whitaker asked how many signs are larger than ten feet square . Mazza answered four signs, the largest one located on the alley he will take down. Whitaker asked if the remaining three directories are greater than ten square feet each. Mazza replied yes . Lavagnino noted the problem is that those four signs are the only signs the complaint is against. Ihitaker admitted this is probably the largest building with the largest number of shops in town. Once the Board sent a recom- mendation to the city that the city redraft an ordinance rather than the Board having to repeatedly listen to people requesting variances for garbage storage. The city is in the process of redrafting the ordinance. He does not see that Mazza has a hardship, Mazza put up the signs without a building permit. Anyone who puts up something without a building permit or variance, and comes in requesting a variance after the fact is in a different position from someone who comes in with a hardship and asks to put something up. Piazza acknowledged he made a mistake. That is why he is here. He requested his case be tabled because of that issue. He was forced to come here for a variance. Now the Board is saying the statutes will be changed. Should he take the signs down during the interim or wait until the statutes are changed. 11hitaker is reluctant to have the Board put itself in the position of granting a variance when the Council may revise the ordinance. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Special Meeting Board of Adjustment July 26, 1984, Directories are necessary and are not objectionable . He would consider allowing the directories because of the problems and hardships but only on a temporary basis. Fie would not consider making the variance permanent. Council may decide that directory signs for buildings with an excess of so many square feet may be so large or may determine a ratio between size of the floor area and the size of the directory. But, he does not want the Board to grant something that Council would not approve. Mazza suggested, if the rest of the Board agrees with Whitaker, that Mazza take down the alley sign and table the case until such time the Council makes a decision. Setting a precedent would not be a concern then and Mazza would get his directories. Whitaker asked if there is a way to approve the directories until a new sign code is adopted. If the signs are in excess of what the Council approves then can the signs be reduced to meet the new ordinance. He would rather not table the case. He wants to approve the directories until the Council revises the sign code . The applicant may meet the city ' s revisions and may not need a variance. But if the applicant is in excess of what the city approves then the applicant has to take the signs down. Lavagnino remarked that the variance can be approved temporarily and until such time that Council adopts new codes. Lavagnino is not bothered by the directory signs. He is concerned with how much over the allowed square footage each sign is. 14azza responded two signs are 4 .4 feet over , and another is 8 feet over . Lavagnino said it is one thing to leave a sign up, but it is another thing to leave a sign up that is in excess of what it should be even if the sign is allowed. He asked the Board to consider whether or not to leave the signs in excess. Gaard Moses, sign painter, remarked that a building with many tenants needs a directory. The wording in the sign code refers to per usage . Every use is allowed so much square footage for signs. In the code there are different references to per individual use. Drueding said it is very clear in the code as to what is allowed in the commercial core. The wording varies for the different zones. Office zone is allowed one square foot of sign per office. But the code states no more than twenty square feet per use. Moses contended there are two uses for each store. For example, Peaches ' En Regalia is a clothing shop. It is also part of the entire building and is its own use. No building in town with a registry is in compliance. Every building has a registry in addition to the individual business ' sign . When a building has numerous uses then it needs a directory. If the directory does not exceed the allowed square footage on the building then it should be allowed. The building itself is a use as well as the shops within the building. There is a great discrepancy in this town between what people feel and what the code allows. Every building with a few uses has a directory. The code does RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS SRecial Meeting Board of Adiustment July 26. 1984 address this by the fact that the building is a use and the store Within the building is a use. The code states per use. Drueding clarified that the code only states that the maximum square footage per use can be twenty square feet and states only one square foot of sign is allowed for three lineal feet of lot line frontage. If a building is 60 feet, it is still only allowed a maximum of 20 square feet of sign even if there is one use in the building. Hoses asked how the city can allow a landlord to put up a directory that is effectively in excess of what the present code allows . In the office zone one square foot is allowed per office. In rewriting the code use wording similarly used for the Mill Street Plaza. Lavagnino agreed but that does not address the problem at hand. Whitaker asked how large each directory sign is. Moses answered 15 feet by 4. 5 feet with three inch and an inch and a half let- tering. Whitaker said the Board might suggest to Council that directory signs be limited in size but not be included in the square footage calculations . The Council and the sign committee may welcome recommendations from various sources. Mazza said he cannot fit all the names of the uses with the proposed height of the letters within the allowed sign size. Lavagnino asked if sixty uses should be allowed in twenty square feet. Piazza said that is not a fair argument. There are other overriding rules and regulations in the city including a zoning code. Fie does not foresee, since the commercial core is already built, any building with sixty uses . The reality is that the Board is addressing the largest commercial building in town now. The Board will not be opening up a Pandora ' s box to a sign with sixty uses. There is no building that can accommodate sixty uses . Mill Street Plaza is the largest commercial building. Look at the available lots, there are not many lots remaining that can accommodate a building with sixty uses._ In the cc zone a building ratio of 1 .5:1 is allowed. Lavagnino said a space could be broken up to accommodate sixty uses, a bigger building is not required. Piazza will remove a major sign. He is asking that the directories be allowed even though the signs are in excess of ten square feet. The hardship is the size which is not onerous or out of scale with that which is necessary to be visible. Austin supported i-7hitaker ' s solution . She suggested taking a vote. Paterson asked Whitaker if he wants to retain the status quo . Whitaker said no , the big alley sign should come down and the other three directories should remain until the city revises the sign code. Ken Williams, owner of Crystal Bay Fudge located in Mill Street Plaza, said he has a sign problem. Consider what it takes for a RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Special Meeting Board of Adjustment July 26. 1984 business to be successful. Lavagnino suggested Williams present this to Gaard Moses , the chairman of the sign committee, for consideration. Williams supported the directories for the businesses inside the mall . Those businesses need exposure from the street. The code does not address this. Drueding pointed out the problem with approving this variance. The allowed signage along Mill Street is 33 square feet. What if Williams wants an additional sign and requests a variance. Only four square feet of sign remains on that side of the building if the present variance is granted. Drueding will not allow any more signs because the directory is using up a portion of the allowed signage on the Mill Street side. Lavagnino is concerned about setting a precedent. Austin did not support reviewing each business individually for signs . She preferred to look at the entire building as a whole rather than looking at the individual businesses. If the first building who comes in uses all the allowable signage then other businesses do not have a chance . The signage should be divided evenly. The sign code should address signage in terms of the entire building not in terms of individual use. Whitaker noted he helped write the earlier sign ordinance when he was on the Council. The purpose of the sign ordinance was not to have too many signs visible from the public view. The signs at garden level are not visible from the street. Perhaps signs could be permitted in excess of the frontage if the signs are not visible from the public street or public right-of-way. Drueding explained those signs at garden level are exempt already by the definition of a sign. A sign visible from the public right-of-way requires a permit. A sign not visible from the public-right-way does not require a permit. But the problem is nonvisible businesses want to be visible . They are demanding directories. Lavagnino closed the public portion of the meeting. Mann supported Whitaker. She agreed there is a hardship. The code does not specifically address this kind of situation . There is a problem making a directory sign visible within the size limitations of the code. She agrees to a variance that allows three oversized directory signs, the two on Mill Street and the one on Hopkins , until Council revises the sign code. At that time if the applicant is not in compliance then he has to take the signs down. The Board discusses the idea of conditioning the approval with a time limitation. Austin suggested a recommendation to Council to act to revise the sign code. Mann noted that the variance reads temporary not permanent on the public notice. Lavagnino suggested the Board send a letter to Council stating the urgency of the problem and recommending solutions. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Special Meeting Board of Adjustment July 26. 1984 t,Ihitaker moved that the three oversized directory signs on Mill Street Plaza be allowed to remain until City Council has revised the sign ordinance. There is a hardship. The shops without signs visible from the public streets would be denied any signs. The ordinance does not deal directly with directories . The ordinance should. There is sufficient grounds for granting a variance. This is conditioned upon the removal of the alley sign. The motion is seconded by Anne Austin. Discussion. Paterson requested the motion be more specific as to the alley sign, refer to the alley sign as to 31 .33 square feet. Lavagnino suggested the three signs be referred to as the two 14.4 square foot signs and the one 18 foot sign. Whitaker amended his motion to read : "The three oversized signs, the two 14.4 square foot signs and the one 18 square foot sign, on Mill Street Plaza be allowed to remain until City Council has revised the sign ordinance . There is a hardship. The shops without signs visible from the the public streets would be denied any _ __ signs . The ordinance does not deal directly with directories. The ordinance should. There is sufficient grounds for granting a variance. This is conditioned upon the removal of the alley sign, the 31 .33 square foot sign. " The amendment is seconded by Austin. All in favor; motion carried. '"loses asked for Board members comments on sign problems that have come before the Board. Lavagnino said there have been few cases before the Board on signs. The problems were with signs that already existed, with signs people did not want to take down. The signs were not oversized. Recently, the Board has relied on the building depart- ment to cite violations. Because the building department is so burdened with violations, sign violations have proliferated. Dustin commented that courtyards need to be addressed. Buildings should be looked at as a whole not as individual businesses. If there is to be a square footage figure per building then all the shops of a building should get together and determine who gets what. Inside courtyard uses should be limited to square footage also. Inside courtyard uses should not be allowed to put up just anything . They should not be allowed more square feet than street frontage. These .issues should be addressed in the code. The code should be uniform. Whitaker suggested that the inside courtyard uses be exempt from the street frontage calculations but not display signs larger than ten square feet. Williams said there will be problems if the sign amount is definers after the lease agreement . The landlord will have to prorate sign space to the individual locations . Figure the allowed signage based on the square footage at the time of the RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Special Meeting Board of Adjustment July 26. 1984 tenant-landlord negotiations. The tenant might argue that he is spending "x" dollars for "y" square feet and therefore should be entitled to "z " number of square feet of sign in the overall scheme of things. Austin asked who is on the sign committee. She suggested informing businesses about the formation of this committee. Request sugges- tions. Moses said there is a spokesperson from the major interest groups in town : CCLC, lawyer , business group, HPC, zoning enforcement officer , etc. The total is eight members. Austin suggested an article in the Aspen Times announcing the formation of the sign committee and requesting suggestions. riann suggested that each shop within bill Street Plaza display a directory in their windows listing all the businesses in the entire building. It could be a mutual agreement among all tie businesses. Whitaker suggested making a recommendation to City Council . The following points should be addressed : 1 . Directory signs for interior businesses without signs visible from public property. 2. Sign limitations on signs not visible from public property. Note that these points came up in a Board of Adjustment hearing on the Mill Street Plaza which contains about thirty shops. Austin emphasized a directory should be a directory for the whole building, not just for the inner stores. Lavagnino suggested the Board tell Council about the urgency of addressing the sign code only in terms that a case was granted a variance temporarily until Council acts on changing the sign ordinance. Francis Whitaker moved to adjourn the meeting at 5 : 00 p.m. ; seconded by Anne Austin. All in favor ; motion carried. 1%,&rt"/ Barbara Norris, Deputy City Clerk