HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Board of Adjustment 1987-06-24••
BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Board of Adjustment
June 24, 1987
Board:
Also Attending:
Absent:
Chairman Brown, Members Dickinson,
Habecker, Lamson, Sager
Town Planner Stamey, Building Inspector
Allman, Town Attorney White, Secretary
Jones
Member Dickinson
1. ODD LYNGHOLM, AMERICAN WILDERNESS LODGE, 481 W.
Elkhorn, Appeal of Decision of Building Inspector and
Request for Variance to Sign Code.
Attorney Rod Hallberg represented the petitioner. Mr.
Hallberg stated the petition was to appeal the decision of
the Building Inspector regarding violation of the sign code
and, in the alternate, if the decision is upheld, request a
variance from the sign code.
APPEAL
Member Sager moved that the Board of Adjustment make a
determination on the appeal of the Building Inspector's
decision regarding the six items specified in petitioner's
Exhibit A. Member Habecker seconded the motion and it
passed unanimously. Attorney Hallberg stated item No. 5 of
the appeal would be withdrawn. Items considered were as follows:
1,
2,
5
6
Exhibit A
The sign is a legal non-conforming use. (Use changed to
sign).
The sign was legally erected under a permit issued by
the Town.
The permit application showed the exact location of the sign.
Petitioner was under the belief that the public right-
of way line was 8 feet or more from that location.
The sign is not in the public right-of-way.(Withdrawn)
The use of lights in the sign does not violate the Town code.
Hallberg and Mr. Lyngholm provided background
information of the property. Petitioner submitted the
following exhibits:
o Survey map provided by Van Horn Engineering showing
location of a disturbed property pin approximately 9
feet south of sign post.
o Exhibit 1 - Picture postcard of property - 1976.
o Exhibit 2 - Picture postcard of property - 1979.
o Exhibit 3 - Photo of property - 1982.
o Exhibit 4 - Photo of existing sign, looking west,
o Exhibit 5 - Photo of existing sign, looking east.
A
BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Board of Adjustment - June 24, 1987 - Page two
o Exhibit 6 - Close up photo of lighted sign.
o Exhibit 7 - Close up photo of sign.
o Exhibit 8 - Close up photo of lighted sign.
Petitioner stated he believed the disturbed property pin was
actual representation of property line. Mr. Van Horn stated
that a survey made in 1987, which showed the sign encroach
ment, correctly identifies the property line and sign
location.
The Board of Adjustment discussed items 1 through 4 in
detail. Member Sager moved that the Building Inspector's
determination was correct, that the sign is not a legal non-
conforming use, that it does not meet the 8 ft. setback
requirement, and that the Building Inspector was obligated
to advise the applicant of said violation. Member Habecker
seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.
Regarding item No. 6, Illumination, Attorney Hallberg
referred to Section 17.66.220 of the sign code which
Identifies lighting standards, and Section 17.66.090 of the
sign code which contains definitions of direct, indirect
and internal illumination. Section 17.66.190, C 16"
pr?h^?its sign? having direct illumination. It was pointed
the incandescent lights are recessed in the sign
R?ownheiLt-o^rPSJe+.1S4-v,t0 illuminate the eagle. Chairman rown stated that the Board needed to determine if the
^ire°t illumination is acceptable. Mr. Lyngholm
stated that at some angles the bulbs were directly visible.
1- Urt^?r <^iacussi°nf Member Habecker moved that the lighting of this_ sign is either internal or indirect
illumination. Chairman Brown seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.
VARIANCE
sevenBobnt-oQar^-F HOr^, representing the petitioner, submitted
of variol:ls slgns within the Town demonstrating propmity of these signs to the travelled way. An eiahth
in0f?oit1St?hted utilities within the right-of-wayfront of the subject property. Mr. Van Horn stated:
° J^his property was unique in terms of the relation of
the curve of the right-of-way to the property.
This is an area where people speed up travelling west.
The sign doesn't interfere with the view of other signs•
o The sign doesn't interfere with traffic.
Chairman Brown requested an opinion from Town Attorney White
as to wheter or not the Town had the authority to grant a
variance for a sign that encroached into the highway right-
?f^iaJco Whlte stai^ed if the Board determines9the
are met' lt: could allow a sign to overhang the public right-of-way. Further, that the Colorado
Saf^owf.n^. Hi?hway?/agulates highway encroachments and that Town approval would not tie the hands of CDOH.
Mr. Lyngholm stated that if the Board were to grant a
w°uld stipulate that if it is ever necessary to
he would do9s beCaUSe of sidewalk or highway improvements.
o
o
BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Board of Adjustment - June 24, 2987 - Page three
Member Sager commented that he had evaluated sight distance
of the sign and if it were set back 8 feet, it could be
seen, travelling west, from 238 feet away, and travelling
east, from 294 feet away.
Planner Stamey acknowledged receipt of a letter from the
Elkhorn Lodge, adjacent property owner, in support of the
variance request.
Member Sager moved to deny the variance request. Member
Lamson seconded the motion. Discussion followed regarding
sign code variance criteria in relation to the subject
property. After further discussion (with concurrence from
Member Lamson) Member Sager withdrew his motion.
Member Sager moved to allow the sign to remain in its
present location, provided it is rotated 180 degrees in a
permanent manner (major portion of sign overhang would be to
tne north of the sign post), and provided that if it is
necessary to move the sign because of sidewalk or right-of-
lmProvenients, it would be done at the owner's expense.
Member^Lamson seconded the motion and it passed by the
following vote: Those voting "Yes", Members Brown, Lamson,
Sager. Those voting "No", Member Habecker.
CarolyniyJo^s, Secretary