Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.boa.19860417 CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 17, 1986 City Council Chambers 4:00 P.M. A G E N D A I. MINUTES March 20, 1986 March 27 , 1986 II. OLD BUSINESS Case #86-7 / Brunkan, Whiting III. NEW BUSINESS Case #86-6 / Aspen Club Lodge (sign) IV. ADJOURNMENT RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 27, 1986 Chairman Remo Lavagnino called the meeting to order at 4: 02 P.M. with members Rick Head, Josephine Mann, Anne Austin, Ron Erickson, and Charlie Paterson present. MINUTES Narch 20, 1986: Paterson corrected the spelling of the applicant ' s name on page 5 to read Gassman. Mann moved to approve the minutes of March 20 , 1986 as corrected; Paterson seconded. All in favor; motion carried. Narch 27, 1986: Paterson corrected the spelling of Kienast on page 4 . Paterson moved to approve the minutes of March 27 , 1986 as corrected; Mann seconded. All in favor; motion carried. OLD BUSINESS CASE #86-7 / BRUNRAN. WHITING Lavagnino read the variance request: "Non-conforming structure request for variance to extend existing carport to 0 lot line. The owner of the property would like to upgrade the dwelling by providing an adequate garage, namely an enclosed two car garage . Due to the location of trees on the property and required set backs, a garage of standard size will not fit between the existing structure and the set backs. The logical location for the garage is to extend the already non-conforming carport, approximately 4 ' 9" , to the property line. The design solution minimizes the square footage needed to construct a garage beyond the existing building envelope. Property is located in the R-6 zoning category. Front yard set back is 10 feet. Section 24-3 .4 area and bulk requirements . Applicant appears to be asking for a 0 lot line variance to enlarge an already encroaching garage. The additional front yard encroachment could be for 4 '9" . " 1 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 27, 1986 Mr. Brunkan, applicant , ask for a continuance of this hearing because of a change in ruling on the notification of property owners. Mr. Brunkan said he had only notified adjoining property owners and the requirement was now for owners within 300 feet. Lavagnino commented there was a case already scheduled for a May 8 hearing and questioned if that would be a possible date to table this hearing to. Mr. Brunkan had no problems with the date of May 8 , 1986. Notion: Head moved to table Case #86-7 until May 8 , 1986 ; Paterson seconded. All in favor; motion carried. NEW BUSINESS CASE #86-8 / ASPEN CLUB LODGE (sigma Lavagnino read the variance request: "Property is located in the L-2 zoning category. Section 24-5 .3 no lettering on any sign, including cut out letter signs, shall exceed (12) twelve inches in height except for the initial letter in each word which may be (18) eighteen inches in height. Section 24-5 .10 (C) wall sign shall not exceed (10) ten square feet on any one building wall , exclusive of cut out letters. Applicant appears to be requesting a letter size and sign size variance of undetermined amount. ' Jim Colombo, representing applicant, said the variance was being requested on the basis that there is a unique situation in this particular application in that the size of the building as well as the logo of the applicant would dictate a larger size letter in order for the smaller size letters to be legible. The largest letters in the logo sign being proposed are approximately 19 inches high. With the cursory style of lettering on this sign the smaller letters are 5 inches in height. Mr. Colombo said if the applicant were to reduce the height of the initial letter to 18 inches then the cursory style of lettering could not be applied, it would reduce the height of the smaller letters to approximately 2 inches. Mr. Colombo said he thought the intent of the sign code was to not make something obtrusive, in bad taste, or overwhelming and he did not think any of those were being done in this case. He felt the applicants sign was following 2 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ADJOSTMENT APRIL 27. 1986 the intent of the code but because of their particular style of their logo, which has been used for several years, it dictates a larger sign. Mr. Colombo added that they would not be asking for more square footage for the signage, it would still be within 10 square feet. Lavagnino commented that the notice indicates the applicant is requesting a variance for both the size of letters and overall sign size. Bill Drueding, Building Inspector, replied that was true, by his interpretation. Mr. Drueding said the largest wall sign could be 10 square feet. If cut out letters are put against a brick wall , as they will be in this case , that allows 20 sq. ft. of signage. This applicant ' s signs are not used in that way, the letters of the sign are cut out letters but they are placed against a border. Mr. Colombo disagreed. Mr. Drueding responded that the only plans he had seen show the cut out letters placed on a board. The plans were discussed. Mr. Colombo said they had frontage for 3 signs, totaling 60 sq. ft. , on three frontages. Mr. Colombo said they were proposing to remove the backing from the signs. Mr. Drueding said they would be allowed 20 sq. ft. for the sign. Lavagnino asked how that would be measured. Drueding said a border would be drawn around the letters and then measured. Lavagnino asked Mr. Colombo if the signs that were on the building now were going to be the same signs used, with the backing removed. Mr. Colombo replied yes. Lavagnino asked if the color of the signs would be changed. Mr. Colombo replied that it may be considered for the sign against the rock wall. Lavagnino said he did not agree with the applicant 's argument about the size of the building and the proportions. If that argument and its logic were followed the World Trade Center would have a sign so enormous that it would blot out many windows on the building itself. Lavagnino said signs were to tell people where a building is located. Signs are not really an advertisement but more an information communication. Lavagnino did agree that the form of typestyle lettering presented here was light enough to appear within the realm of the applicant 's argument. Paterson asked to review pictures brought in by the applicant showing the signs on the building. The pictures were reviewed by 3 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 27. 1986 the Board members. Doug Carlson, representing applicant, submitted the affidavit of sign posting to the Board. Mann asked if the figures given in the applicant ' s request application were sti11- what the applicant was requesting. The reply was yes. Mann asked Mr. Drueding if the backing were taken off of the sign would it meet the requirements of the sign code. Mr. Drueding said it appeared if the signs were put on a legitimate wall they would be less than 20 sq.f t. which would not require a sign size variance on 2 of the exterior building walls. Mr. Drueding said there was a difference of opinion on the third sign, on Dean St. . The sign is proposed to be placed on the facia of a balcony and Mr. Drueding said he did not consider that a wall sign, the facia would become a border. Lavagnino asked if the facia was existing there for its own purpose as a balcony railing etc. rather than a board there for a sign. Mr. Drueding replied it was part of the balcony but the code says "cut out letters shall project no more than 6 inches from the building wall " . The Board again reviewed the plans and pictures of the proposal. Lavagnino asked if anything had been done on the new city sign code. Mr. Drueding said a report would be presented to the Planning Department on May 1 , from there it will go on to City Council for approval. Lavagnino then asked if there was anything presented in this case that might be a consideration for the applicant to consider if/when the sign code is revised . Mr . Drueding said in the report the interpretation of a "wall sign" is requested. Lavagnino said his question was whether this type of stylized, informal letter with no correlation between all lower case letters being the same size and all upper case letters being the same size was addressed in the report. Mr. Drueding replied there was not enough of this type of lettering to address it in the code and it should- still be addressed- by the Board of Adjustment. Mr . Colombo said it had not been a precedent in the past to interpret a structure, which Mr. Drueding calls a facia, as a facia. It has been in the past interpreted as a wall . Mr. Colombo also commented that other awning and canopy type lettering had been approved on the basis that when the specific application of a new sign code was adopted then the applicant would have to abide by that new code and change locations of the signs. Mr. Drueding said awnings with signs on them were relatively new and not 4 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 27. 1986 previously addressed by the sign code. They are a different matter than a cut out letter wall sign, with different interpret- ations. Mann read a letter from Munroe Spivock, a neighboring property owner, voicing objection to the proposed variance because of other similar variance requests it may inspire. Colombo said if these signs proposed should be approved he would like to have the ability to change the color of the sign to be placed against the rock wall . Lavagnino remarked that the applicant makes the argument if a sign is too small it won' t be seen from the street and yet with the diminished color of the proposed signs the applicant has diminished the size of the sign. Lavagnino said he applauded that aspect but it is contrary to the argument that it won' t be seen from the street because the size has been reduced with color. Mr. Colombo responded that the applicant ' s intent was to keep things as subtle, pleasing to the eye, and non-obtrusive as possible. The applicant could stay within the code requirements and paint the sign a day glow pink but Mr. Colombo did not think the effect on town or the community would be a beneficial one. Lavagnino agreed but said he would like to make it a part of approval that when ownership changes a sign would have to again be reviewed. Head asked how that kind of approval would be policed. Mr. Drueding replied a tickler file was kept at the building department on all Board of Adjustment cases. Austin suggested a condition of approval be that no day glow colors could be used. Lavagnino closed the public hearing. Erickson said he would be in favor of granting the variance for the 3 signs because he thought this was a unique situation. He would also hold with Mr . Drueding ' s interpretation of the code, that an eave or structural member is not a wall and that sign should be moved. However , if City Council adopts a new sign code and redefines that area then the applicant could change it at that time. Erickson said he would also be in favor of allowing the applicant to change the color of the sign to be placed on the brick wall so that it is unobtrusive with more contrast against the stone wall. Mr. Drueding said he did not have a problem with this applicant being granted a variance allowing the sign on Dean St. to be on 5 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 27. 1986 the facia of the building. He just wanted his interpretation upheld and a variance granted allowing it to be there. Erickson agreed with Mr. Drueding' s interpretation. Austin said she was in favor of granting the variance on the size of the signs, allowing a change in color of the sign on the stone wall in a non day glow color, and no problem with the sign being on the facia. Austin added that she did not see a facia as a sign but rather a part of the structural wall. Paterson said he thought the size of the letters as presented were alright. He would be in favor of granting a variance for all 3 signs, including the sign on the facia as long as it is placed on the facia. Mann agreed with Paterson. She felt there was a hardship because the sign code figures and measurements are for block type lettering and not this type of lettering. Mann said she would be in favor of granting a variance on the letter size and the sign being placed on the facia of the building. Head agreed with the comments made by the other members. He did not have a problem with granting this variance. Lavagnino asked Drueding how the 3 words included in these signs were measured. Drueding replied the code says they should be measured by "the smallest geometric figure". It was measured as one unit, encompassing all 3 words. Different methods of measuring signs were discussed. Notion: Paterson moved to grant the variance as requested with the condition that the backboards be removed from the lettering and that no day glow colors be used; Head seconded. Lavagnino asked for a roll call vote : Paterson aye Austin aye Mann aye Head aye Lavagnino aye All in favor; motion carried. 6 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 27, 1986 Mr. Drueding told the members of the Board that in October 1985 a new Ordinance #85-52 was passed changing the noticing requirements. A new requirement was placed on the applicant to provide self addressed envelopes for the noticing of their case. Mr. Drueding said prior to the Ordinance adoption it was required, for a use variance, a noticing of 300 feet and for variances not relating to use only adjacent property owners. Mr. Drueding said unbeknownst to him that requirement was changed, with the adoption of Ordinance #85-52 , to noticing property owners within 300 feet. Head and Austin asked if that was a mistake, expressing that was a very strenuous requirement. Mr. Drueding said he doubted the Board would have any more sign variances with that requirement . Mr . Drueding added he had scheduled a meeting with the City Attorney to discuss the matter and see if the requirement could be reverted back to the original requirement of noticing adjacent property owners. Lavagnino commented that the new requirement might be appropriate in the residential zones but not in the Commercial Core area. The general opinion of the Board was that the new requirement might be appropriate for use variances but other types of variances should revert back to the original requirement of noticing adjacent property owners. Mr. Drueding said he would discuss the matter with the City Attorney. Motion: Erickson moved to adjourn the meeting at 5: 04 P.M. ; Paterson seconded. All in favor; motion carried. OY�C� Rim Wilhoit, Deputy City Clerk 7