HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Board of Adjustment 1988-08-12BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Board of Adjustment
August 12, 1988
9:00 A.M.
Board:
Attending:
Also Attending:
Absent:
Chairman Habecker, Members Barker,
Garrett, Lamson, Sager
Chairman Habecker, Members Barker,
Garrett, Sager
Town Attorney White, Town Planner
Stamey, Building Official Allman,
Secretary Jones
Member Lamson
1.
2.
Minutes of the Board of Adjustment meeting held June 17,
1988 were submitted and approved.
Lots 6, 7 and 8, Pine River Subdivision,—Richard & Judij^i
Pomponlo Petitioners; Frank Williams, Owner - Request for
frnm ^pctlon' 17.24.040 of Ern-Or Code C^ncernT^
Minimum Room Size for Resort Cabins^
Mr Paul Kochevar representing Mr. and Mrs. Richard Pomponio
who are purchasing the above property, stated they wished to
develop the site into an accoI™?dat^°n!4°P®Jatofnthe prS?
inits in^total, all with facilities. pBecause^of the
After discussion re5a^ding |de|tttedPaininth2ndcode,dMLber
"cSe?? reedlint? approver th^^Uest Member Barker
seconded the motion and it passed unanimous y.
1AR K. Elkhorn Avenue. RickTnp of the Park Restaurant Si3--. vrrmif?. Hniiser. Petitioners - Appeal of sign perrot_
petitioner's attorney requested this appeal be withdrawn at
this time.
from with
Planner Stamey. summarised the staff report -tatin|dthattthe
signs in question consist when reading these signs one
colored transparent fa‘h stated that signs such as
reads the neon tubing. He fur“® . is inuminated with neon the one at Coast to Coast «hioh is u ht souroe
tubing, illuminate anr,°Pa55® ^rfa=fanner stamey presented
(or neon tubing) is not vijih1 ' n_erning illumination and
the section from the sign =™ceJnte?ntl, and neon li
the definition °^^aJ|ct4he1Board that no sign permit had
b™nn!siSed tfM? G?Seff for the signs in question.
BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Board of Adjustment - August 12, 1988 - Page 2
Mr. Ed Grueff, owner of Ed's Cantina, addressed the Board
stating that the "Cantina" sign in question would be moved.
He further stated that the "open" neon sign was bought from
Brodies when their store closed and at that time he checked
with the building official by phone and was told it would be
an allowable sign. He cited other businesses in town with
neon signs and was advised by Planner Stamey that motels and
accommodation units were exempt from this section of the
sign code. Planner Stamey also advised that the neon drive-
thru sign at Taco Bell had been issued in error and the
owners notified that the sign is now considered a non-
conforming sign.
Building Official Allman addressed the board concerning the
ways direct illumination and shielding of neon signs could
be interpreted. He stated the sign code was vague in this
area which made it difficult to enforce.
Member Sager commented that his interpretation of the code
was that if a sign can be read through glass, whether smoked
or otherwise, the sign was no longer shielded and he felt
the building inspector had not interpreted the code correct
ly in this instance and moved for denial of this variance
request. Member Garret seconded the motion and the vote was
as follows; Those voting for denial - Members Habecker,
Garrett, Sager. Those voting in favor - Member Barker.
Discussion followed regarding problems with interpretation
of this area of the sign code and the difficulty staff has
in enforcing it. Member Barker moved to refer this matter
to the Planning Commission for review. Member Sager
seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:40
a.m.
Carolyn Janes/ Secretary