HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Building Code Committee 1964-08-19RECDRD OF PROCEEDINGS
Building Code Committee
August 19,1964
Committee:Chairman C.N.Hunter;Trustees Harry Tregent and Henry Dannels
Attending:Chairman C.N.Hunter;Trustee Harry Tregent
Also Attending;Building Inspector Ted Hackett and Town Clerk Dale Hill
Absent:Trustee Henry Dannels
This Committee meeting was held to conduct a public hearing on the Municipal
Sign Code now in effect and to discuss some of the problems in relation to this
Code.Building Inspector Hackett read the Sign Code in full.The Clerk read
a telegram from Dr.Eric Oldberg,Moraine Route,as follows:“Inforce all
city and county provisions regulations signs and lighting eliminate all flash
ing lights of the mars light variety and neon signs.”
Chairman C.N.Hunter briefly reviewed some of the problems and itemized them
as follows:
1.Setback and clearance.
2.Signs placed on property other than that where the
advertised business is conducted.
3.Total square feet of area.
4.Making non-conforming signs conform.
5.Aesthetic value of signs.
Mr.J.R.Kinder,Fish Creek area,spoke in opposition to all signs and urged
a more restrictive sign ordinance be placed in effect and enforced.
Mr.C.P.Menard,representing The Concern for Estes Park Sub-Committee on
Signs and Sign Boards in and Adjacent to Estes,submitted the following
recommendations:1.Remove neon overhanging and offensive business signs
within the city.2.Remove offensive sign boards on all highways leading
into Estes Park.3.Replace signs within the city by signs which will con
form to a formula prescribed by a planning board experienced in such matters.
Mr.Verne Fanton,Lewiston Cottages,suggested the hearing be conducted on
the five points of interest--one at a time.Chairman Hunter agreed to this
suggestion and began with item No.1—-Setback and clearance.
Tom Keffeler--Retail Merchant:Enact a more strict Sign Code and remove all
projecting signs.
Ted Matthews--Retail Merchant:He suggests a Sign Code with similar provisions
as Central City that there shall be no signs projecting over the sidewalk
or street.
Joel Bacon--Retail Merchant:He suggests signs on the face or wall of the
building and not projecting over the sidewalk or street.Mr.Bacon
expressed a concern for the merchant who has a large financial invest
ment in his existing sign and suggests adequate time be allowed to
conform.
C.F.Menard--:He suggests all projecting signs be removed within the shortest
possible time.
No.2--Signs placed on property other than that where the advertised business
is conducted.
Mr.Koenig--Dickerson’s Cottages:He informed the Committee his location
required directional signs so that prospective customers could locate
his cottage camp.Mr.Koenig suggests some type of directional signs
be errected in key intersections.
Co
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Continued
Mrs.Schlingman--Redtop Cottages:She suggests adequate directional igns
be placed at convenient locations so that off-the-main-street business
locations can be located.
Mr.Knox--Lake Vue Cottages:He suggests cooperative directional signs be
placed at convenient locations.
Mr.Fanton--Lewiston Cottages:He suggests a very restrictive directional
sign such as a three-inch letter on a routed wooden board be placed at
locations within the street right-of-way as determined by the Town of
Estes Park.Mr.Fanton expressed the opinion all directional signs
should be of a similar size,design and type and that they be restricted
as to location and number.
Mr.Gaylord--Kinnikinnik Motel:He suggests the Town of Estes Park adopt a
similar code as now in effect on the Monterey Penninsula in California.
Mr.Giord will have the necessary information mailed to the Chairman
of the Building Code Committee.
Mr.Linegar--Estes Park Chamber of Commerce:He suggests residential
identification signs should also be controlled.
No.3--Total square feet of area.
Chairman Hunter suggest there could be an inequity in requiring a business with
1,000 feet of frontage to be restricted to the same sign area as a business
with 20 feet of highway frontage.
No.4--Making non-conforming signs conform.
Chairman Hunter explained that the Town of Estes Park does have the
authority to require non-conforming signs to conform.
Joel Bacon suggests the Town ask all businessmen if they will voluntarilly
take down non-conforming signs.
Lou Canaiy--Acconmiodations:He said he would oppose any change in ordinance
or the enforcement of any existing ordinance that would require him to
alter the sign.
Jim Knox--Accommodations:He suggest the Town require all non-conforming signs
to conform within a reasonable time.
Lou Canaiy--Accommodation:He suggests the Town send an inquiry to all persons
with non-conforming signs,asking their opinion of this problem.
Joel Bacon--Retail Merchant:He suggests the Town require the C-l Zoning
District to conform first and then proceed to make other districts conform.
No.5--Aesthetic value of signs.
Chairman Hunter stated the Building Code Committee has received many sample
ordinances from all over the U.S.and that some communities have planning
commissions that approve or reject the proposed sign,according to aesthetic
value to the community.
Lady from Dallas--She suggests the Town establish some type of sign commission
to review signs as to their aesthetic value or quality.
Of the 28 people present at the hearing,they represented the following groups:
17 Outside the corporate limits
11 Inside the corporate limits
(8 accomodations &3 retail)
Meeting adjourned.
1
Dale G.Hill,Town Clerk