Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Sign Committee 1965-03-19n RECORD CF PROCEEDINGS Sign Committee Meeting March 19,1965 Committee:C.M.Hunter,Chairman;Trustees Dannels and Tregent; Dave Hart,Ted Matthews,N.T.Petrocine,Richard Pohly, Lee Byerly,Dallas Tanton,Verne Fanton,Jim Knox, Phil Martin,E.R.Anderson and Building Inspector, W.Ted Hackett. Attending:C.M.Hunter,Chairman;Trustees Dannels and Tregent; Richard Pohly,N.T.Petrocine,Lee Byerly,Jim Knox,D.Tanton, E.R.Anderson,and Building Inspector W.Ted Hackett Absent:Dave Hart,Ted Matthews,Verne Fanton,Phil Martin The meeting was called to order by Chairman Hunter. The minutes of the last meeting were not read and approved. There were 26 members of the public also attending the meeting. The Chairman outlined the work of the Committee to date and gave each member of the visiting public a copy of the proposed recounnendations of the Committee. A question was posed from the audience why the increase in free-standing sign size.Answer by Chairman Hunter.The Committee felt that where free-standing signs could be allowed that the increase in size would not detract. Question:(Herzog)What is the valuation of the signs that would have to be removed to comply with the recommended ordinance?No one could answer this question as to the valuation. Chairman Hunter asked Committeeman Petrocine to outline the history of sign ordinances in the Town of Estes Park to date,why this Committee was created,and what prompted their proposals. Chairman Hunter outlined to the audience the findings of obvious unpopularity of the now existing ordinance and the administrative problems that it has created.Mr.Herzog questions the legality of sign ordinance enforcement and was informed by Chairman Hunter that the City Attorney led the Committee to believe that any Sign Ordinance could be enforced if a reasonable time was given to conform.Mr.E.R.Smith stated that he believed signing and advertising should be left up to the discretion of the local businessman and not be controlled by Town ordinance. Chairman Hunter referred to the Sign Connnitteets proposals and asked that the discussion first be limited to that of the removal or the continuance of projecting signs along Elkhorn Avenue.After lengthy comments from numerous individuals in the audience as to the necessity of projecting signs,the need and visability of signs in general,Chairman Hunter endeavored to poll the members of the audience as to keeping or removing of projecting signs. As near as could be ascertained,there were three individuals of the audience for the removal of projecting signs,and 11 individuals of the audience that were against the removal of projecting signs. Chairman Hunter then moved the discussion to the consideration of business directional signs as proposed by the Committee.After lengthy discussion,clarification,and explanation of what was meant by these proposals,there was what seemed to be a majority of the audience in favor of this general proposal.However,it was suggested that qualifica tions for these business directional signs should be more specifically defined. 00 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Sign Committee Meeting (Continued) March 19,1965 Chairman Hunter then moved the discussion to the area of putting a limita tion for conformity rider onto the present or future ordinance.It was difficult to ascertain that there was any majority feeling in this matter. As near as could be from the remarks from the audience,the following was compiled:2 were for no limitations;3 were for a definite time limitation; 1 was for the 5 year limitation;2 were for the 2 year limitation;and 3 did not know. A brief discussion was held on the merits of Town condemnation and reini bursement of nonconforming signs.Trustee Martin made the statement that he believed that the signing problem was being taken too seriously. Chairman Hunter called for the next meeting of this committee to be Friday,March 26,at 7:30 p.m. Meeting adjourned.