Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.boa.19850523 CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MAY 23, 1985 CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 4:00 p.m. AGE I. MINUTES II. NEW BUSINESS Case 85-9 / Playhouse Theater III. ADJOURNMENT RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MAY 23, 1985 Chairman Remo Lavagnino called the meeting to order at 4: 03 pm with members Francis Whitaker, Anne Austin, Josephine Mann, and Charlie Paterson present. MINUTES May 2, 1985: Whitaker corrected the spelling of Bill Drueding' s name on page 2, line 5. Motion: Whitaker moved to approve the minutes of May 2 , 1985 , as corrected; seconded by Paterson. All in favor ; motion carried. CASE 185-9 / PLAYHOUSE THEATER Lavagnino read the variance requested: "One free-standing sign to be placed on the Entry Canopy is proposed to identify the building and business, and this sign will conform to Sign Code requirements (21- 9" X 3 ' - 6" _ 9 .625 square feet) . However , because of the nature of the theater business, which is not adequately addressed by the sign code, the marquis which are required to advertise the films currently playing exceed 20 square feet. Three standard single sheet marquis are proposed in the location of the existing marquis, for a total marquis area of 32 .66 square feet for which we request a variance. It should be noted that the two existing marquis are oversized and constitute an area of 26 square feet and therefore the new marquis represent only a modest increase. 24-5.10 (2) limits all signage for a property to 20 square feet. " There was a letter submitted for the record from James A. Ryffel , owner of 629 E. Main St. , voicing objection to the proposed variance. His reasons for not supporting the variance were : Obstruction of his view from his neighboring roof- deck , the appearance of the proposed wall sign on the building, and how the projecting sign will appear on the building. David Gibson, architect for the applicant, outlined the applicants request on the plans. He explained that the 2 existing marquis are about 26 square feet. He also stated that the nature of the sign code is intended to identify businesses but does not address 1 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MAY 23. 1985 things such as sales, etc. The applicant has that kind of situation in advertising the movies currently playing. We propose, instead of the two existing marquis for one theater, three marquis for three theaters. In addition to the marquis, the applicant would still like to identify their theater. They would like to do that within the sign code of a smaller than 10 square foot free-standing sign to be put on top of the canopy. • Mr. Gibson explained that there had been a change in design for the free-standing sign since the packet was given to the Board. He distributed a new plan to the Board and asked that the alternate design be considered. The new proposal is also a free-standing sign of less than ten square feet. Lavagnino asked if the applicant was asking for a variance for the free-standing sign. Mr. Gibson replied the variance requested was for total signage which, as determined by the building department, is the marquis plus the sign that identifies the business. Lavagnino asked if the sign that identifies the business would meet the current code requirements. Mr. Gibson replied that it alone would be about half of the allowed maximum. Mr. Gibson added that it is the total signage package that they are asking for permission to do. Mr. Gibson asked the Board to consider the fact that Bill Drueding feels that the sign code is written such that signs can not be above the eave of a roofline. For a flat roof building that would be the parapet line, for a pitched roof the eave is what hangs over the side line . He stated that the eave of the building could be construed to be in an area which would place the sign less than eight feet above the sidewalk. We would like to have the sign in an area (outlined on plans ) that is above the eave but below the parapet. Mr. Gibson stated that Bill Drueding said he would like to have this area approved as well as the total signage. Paterson said the roof of the building could be construed as a flat roof. Mr. Gibson said he felt the intent of the eave provision of the sign code was so signs don' t stick up in the air like billboards. As you can see, we have about a ten foot mansard roof against which the sign will almost always be seen so that it will not appear to be part of the roofline. We feel the sign would be unobtrusive and would appear below the parapet line of the mansard roof. Whitaker asked if the sign would be double faced to which Mr. Gibson replied yes. 2 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MAY 23, 1985 Whitaker asked if the display ads for the movies were considered actual signs, like advertising a business, under the code. Barry Edwards, city attorney, replied that dU signs are supposed to be measured for signage. Edwards asked if the Board has granted variances for , requested, or made a hearing, when it is not set forth in the application. If not, then whether or not this needs a variance must be addressed. Austin asked where the original "Playhouse" sign was. The applicant replied on both sides the facia. Lavagnino asked if the posters for the movies are 218" by 312" why you need 4 '1 1/2". Gibson replied he thought he had made a mistake and that the boards they are requesting are actually about 3 ' 6". Lavagnino said that is important because we only want to give the minimum variance to allow you to use the standard circulated posters. Gibson said the 49 1/2" requested was the minimum needed. He added that there is a 2 inch frame on the marquis, and the one they have requested is the smallest commerc- ially available display type marquis. We will be decreasing the size of what is there currently. Lavagnino commented that the signs at the Isis Theater are larger than those requested by the applicant. He questioned if their marquis were considered signs. The Isis is only one business with one movie showing while the applicant is only one business but with three movies showing. To what extent can we accommodate the applicant because they now have three movies. The nature of this particular business is unique, in that they only show movies, one product. Gibson told the commission that if they wanted to advertise their movies in the same way as the Isis they would have 6 marquis, one for each "now showing" and one for each "coming attraction". Ms. Mann asked if the advertisements for the films came in only one size, to which Gibson replied yes. Therefore, it would be a problem to cut them down or reorganize them. Lavagnino added that the applicant had also said that the frames they are requesting are also standard and the smallest size available. Ms. Mann said it seems that one of the hardships of this case is the size that the marquis frames have to be. Lavagnino said another problem is that the code does not address this particular type of problem. Whitaker said the first request for the sign above the canopy was only 512" from the roof to the top but the revised request is nearly 71 . Lavagnino said first it must be determined whether the applicant needs a variance on that particular sign. Lavagnino 3 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MAY 23. 1985 asked Edwards if there was concern since the applicant had not addressed the request for that particular variance in the notice whether the Board should consider the request. Edwards replied yes , the concern being that the public has not been notified. He didn't think this particular variance was within the notification that was posted. Austin asked if that was because of the change in the signage measurements. Lavagnino replied no, because they have not officially requested a variance for that particular problem. He is now requesting a variance, for that particular sign , because Bill Drueding questioned whether a determination was made that this is a flat roof or a mansard type roof. Gibson said he would like to rephrase his request, and ask that the Board interpret the ordinance. Austin asked if the applicant were just asking for the 3 marquis would they be alright. Lavagnino replied no, they would be alright, as far as the Stage 3 sign, if the Board determines that the Building Inspector is wrong in his determination that this is a sign above the eave of the building. Mann said she had in mind that the signage total. for that property is 20 square feet, when you add the requested 32 square feet plus the 9 square feet of the "Stage 3" sign that gives a total of approximately 40 square feet. Therefore the applicant is asking for double their alloted square footage. Whitaker asked Edwards if this would be considered one single business, even though there are 3 separate movies. Edwards replied he would consider it one business, with one owner which is the applicant. He added that the sign code does not address businesses, it talks about frontage. Lavagnino asked if the type of business could be considered. Edwards answered that the type of business should be considered. Mann said that the variance requested states "for one free-standing sign to be placed on the entry canopy", it seems that it is in our variance request, for the Stage 3 sign. It appears that we can consider the whole request. Lavagnino replied no, it is above-- the eave and the Board has to determine whether signs are permitted above the eave which has not been mentioned in the request as a variance. If the Board makes the determination that the building department is correct, and the sign is above the eave, then we really can ' t hear this case because the public has not been properly notified. Edwards commented that the notice is there, the Board can determine if the request needs a variance or not, the notice does cover the matter. Patsy Newberry, building depart- ment, said that Drueding had just wanted the Board to decide whether the area was actually an eave or just a facade. 4 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT NAY 23, 1985 Whitaker asked if it wouldn't be more in keeping with Aspen signs and what has been done previously on the building if the "Stage 3" sign was put on either end of the marquis so it could be seen from both directions, instead of the 7 foot high free-standing double faced sign. Gibson replied then they would have to ask for a total of 50 square feet instead of 40 square feet. In addition, the owner plans to put small lights around the edge of the marquis, therefore, this method would change the design. Mann commented that people have stopped her on the street asking if- ther-e was- another theater- in - tow=n ,- or where is the Playhouse. Paterson added that the Isis has a big sign going up. Lavagnino asked how the code addressed lights. Edwards answered, indirect. Lavagnino then asked what the small lights referenced would be interpreted as. Edwards responded they would not be considered signage, they could be lighting a sign. Lavagnino said the Board seems to be directing the applicant to put his Stage 3 sign where the old Playhouse sign was, if he put the lights around that, isn ' t that in effect lighting the sign. We don ' t want to create a problem for the applicant, for him to have to come back to the Board because we directed him to put his Stage 3 sign in a particular place and now there are lights there. Edwards responded that the only requirement is that the lighting has to be indirect, neon lighting is not acceptable unless it is covered. Gibson added that there was no provision in the code for lighting except that it can't be hazardous to passing motorist. Edwards asked Lavagnino to ask for any public comment, which he did. There was none. The public portion of the meeting was closed. Whitaker said he thought the Board needed to go back to the guidel- ines, he saw no unnecessary hardship or practical difficulty because the sign identifying the building was previously on the face of the building and not above it. I feel there is a reasonable alternative to putting the sign on top of the canopy. He did not believe, however, that the display case is part of the signage identifying the business on the location. I would be inclined not to grant the variance for the sign above the parapet and to suggest another location , and to grant the variance for the 3 movie displays. The display cases could be limited to be used only for displaying movie posters. Lavagnino said that in this manner the applicant has not been allowed to identify their business, are you going to allow them to identify their business? Are you suggesting that the Board 5 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS REGULAR IKEETING BQARD OF ADJUSTMENT IKAY 23. 1985 modify the request? Whitaker responded that he thought it was up to the applicant to come up with a reasonable alternative that would serve the same purpose. I would suggest that the applicant place the Stage 3 signs on either end of the marquis, where the Playhouse signs were before. In this way I would be willing to grant the variance because the signs were already there and have been for years. Mann said she would be in favor of granting this variance which would be for a total of 20 extra square feet of signage. I think the main hardship is the size of the movie posters which makes it impractical for the Board to try to reduce that measurement, which is about 30 square feet. I also think there is a need to identify the business and it does not irritate me to have a sign standing below the parapet. Paterson said he would like to grant this variance as requested. I think that the mansard should be considered as a sloping side and that the eave would be considered the top of the flat mansard roof. I don' t really think it is a mansard roof because mansard roofs are usually more angled than this is, I think it is a sloping side with shingles on it. I have no objection to identifying the business in a way where our visitors can see it. If this were a small town with limited visitors I would feel different about it, but in Aspen we need to identify a place like this very clearly. Austin said she did not have any problems with the size of the marquis because I see that as a necessary tool for the business. I do not, however, like the sign proposed above the canopy. I think they can go back to the way the Playhouse had their sign. I see the free-standing sign as being a problem with other businesses in _town. I think this sign stands out more than any other businesses sign and think we will get complaints on why they were allowed to have it. Lavagnio asked if it was the addition, not the graphics, that she objected to, which she replied yes. Lavagnino agreed with Austin, I think the request for the variance is reasonable to the extent that in looking at the Isis theater they are enjoying that aspect of the movie theater business in allowing them to have 2 marquis much greater in length and height than the 3 , being requested, together. I think it is a property right the Isis is enjoying that we would be denying this applica- nt. Because we have allowed the applicant much more signage, and in an area that the code really doesn't address, I still feel I don ' t like the idea of adding another piece of bulk. They have another solution available to them, to obtain that solution on the facia of the building where it was before when it was called 6 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MAY 23. 1985 the Playhouse. I would be in favor of modifying either the granting of the variance to exclude the top portion or direct the applicant as to where the Board would like to see the Stage 3 sign. Austin said she would like to direct the applicant on where to put the sign. If this is not acceptable to them, they can come back with another proposal . Whitaker said it was a good point that the proposed sign is adding surface, where the sign on the marquis is on an already existing surface. Lavagnino added that the Board might have to consider that if we want the applicant to put the sign on the facade we will also be increasing the non-conformity. Now there would have to be a sign to allow the applicant to identify his business from both east and west. Whitaker said that would depend on how much actual space the signs on the marquis took. Lavagnino reopened the public hearing. Whitaker asked the applicant what the square footage of the Playhouse signs that were taken down was . Gibson replied that the letters were 12 inches high. Newberry added that letters applied to the side of a building can not exceed 12 inches in height, with the exception of the first letter which can be 18 inches. Gibson noted that this would not decrease the total area, by putting the sign on the facia. Whitaker said he would have no objection to granting a variance for a "Stage 3" sign on either side of the marquis, along with the 3 display marquis. Mann asked how much total square footage that would be. Whitaker replied it would be approximately 47 square feet. He added that this way does not add more bulk or space to the building. Lavagnino closed the public hearing. Notion: Whitaker moved to grant the variance for the 32.66 square feet for the 3 display marquis, to display only posters of what is now showing at the theater, and that a variance be granted not to exceed 14 total square feet, for "Stage 3" signs on either end of the marquis, where the Playhouse signs were originally; Austin seconded. All in favor ; motion carried. Lavagnino asked that an "affidavit of posting" be required from the applicant before any work can begin and that it be turned in 7 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MY 23. 1985 to the Deputy City Clerk. Motion: Whitaker moved to adjourn the meeting at 4: 50 p.m. ; Paterson seconded. All in favor motion carried. 0"� t Rim Wilhoit, Deputy City Clerk 8