HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2009-06-02Prepared: May 26, 2009
Revised:
AGENDA
ESTES VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
9:00 a.m. - Board Room, Town Hall
1. PUBLIC COMMENT
2. CONSENT
a. Approval of minutes dated April 7, 2009
3. REQUESTS
a. Metes & Bounds parcel in Town of Estes Park Subdivision, located at 205
Virginia Drive
Owner: Trail Inn, LLC c/o Carol Brown
Applicant: Carolyn E. and Ronald L Kilgore, Vega, LLC
Request: Variance from EPMC 17.66.060, Prohibited Signs (12) Roof
Signs, and variance from EPMC 17.66.130 (1)(5)(7)
Nonconforming Signs. Request to allow a prohibited sign
located on a roof more than 45 degrees from vertical
Staff Contact: Bob Joseph
4. REPORTS
5. ADJOURNMENT
Note: The Estes Valley Board of Adjustment reserves the right to consider other
appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was prepared.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment
April 7, 2009, 9:00 a.m.
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Board: Chair Chuck Levine, Members John Lynch, Bob McCreery, Wayne
Newsom, and Al Sager, Alternate Member Bruce Grant
Attending: Members Levine, Lynch, McCreery, Newsom, and Sager
Also Attending: Director Joseph, Planner Shirk, and Recording Secretary Thompson
Absent: None
Chair Levine called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m.
1. PUBLIC COMMENT
None
2. CONSENT AGENDA
a. Approval of minutes dated January 6, 2009
b. Approval of minutes dated March 3, 2009
It was moved and seconded (Newsom/Sager) to approve the minutes as
presented, and the motion passed unanimously.
3. Reappointment of members Levine and Newsom, with terms expiring February 28,
2012.
Chair Levine announced the reappointment of members Wayne Newsom and Chuck
Levine to new three-year terms, expiring February 28, 2012. It was also noted that the
terms of member Lynch and alternate member Grant expire June 30, 2009.
4. LOT 21, Little Valley 2nd Filing, 4068 Little Valley Drive, Owner: Gregory E. Otis,
Applicant: Paul Brown — Request for variance from Estes Valley Development Code
Section 4.3, Table 4-2, to allow construction of a proposed detached garage within
the required 50-foot front setback in the RE zoning district
Staff Report:
Planner Shirk stated the applicant wishes to build a detached two -car garage at 4068
Little Valley Drive twenty-five feet from the front property line where the development
code requires a 50-foot setback. In this instance, the first 25 feet of the lot is platted as
access easement. Furthermore, the development code requires building setbacks be
measured from the edge of a road easement, which this lot has. These two factors
combine to create a front yard setback requirement of 75-feet.
Planner Shirk explained the purpose of measuring the setback from the edge of an
easement is to treat access easements in the same fashion as rights -of -way to ensure
that if roads are moved or widened in the future, adequate setbacks will be maintained.
This easement serves as an active access. It is unlikely that Little Valley Road will be
widened, as it does not lead to land that has any further subdivision potential, thus it
serves only the Little Valley Subdivision. It should be noted that Little Valley has a
General Improvement District that oversees the maintenance of the road system. This
GID has been notified of this request, and "approved because the topography does not
allow" the required setback.
Planner Shirk stated the lot size is approximately 1.5 acres. The applicant proposes to
locate the garage in the most accessible area that would minimize the amount of overall
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment
April 7, 2009
2
site disturbance. Locating the garage in the proposed location would allow the applicant to
use the existing driveway cut, and eliminate the need of additional site disturbance and
associated cut/fill slopes.
Planner Shirk stated there are special circumstances that exist. The lot is sub -sized for
the "RE" Rural Estate district, which has a minimum lot size of 2.5-acres, for which the 50-
foot setbacks were created. The lot is also steeply sloped, as is common in the Little
Valley area. When the house was built in 2003, it was located in this area at the top of
the lot because it minimized the amount of site disturbance. The proposed garage would
not be detrimental to the neighborhood. The Little Valley Home Owner's Association has
written a letter in support of the project. The current owners purchased the property in
September 2008, with the current regulations in place. In order to comply with setback
requirements, the garage would either have to be built down the hill to the north of the
existing dwelling, or east of the dwelling. Both of these locations would result in greater
overall impact than (locating the garage in the proposed location.
Planner Shirk said Larimer County Engineering is aware of the existence of a road
drainage to the east of the proposed garage. Based on this, county engineering has
noted that if grading is proposed in this area, drainage and grading plans will need to be
submitted for review, and that sediment control) measures should be in place prior to
construction. Based on this, Community Development Staff recommends an
erosion/sediment control plan be submitted to Larimer County Engineering for review and
approval prior to issuance of a building permit. The Board should be aware that Larimer
County Engineering can require said pllan at the time of building permit application.
Planner Shirk noted there were two comments from neighboring property owners. One
lives downhill from the Otis, and expressed "no problem with a variance on this residence,
with the assurance that any drainage issues are addressed." The other neighbor voiced
his opinion in opposition to the variance.
Planner Shirk stated the proposed garage is slightly oversized for a two -car garage. It is
approximately four feet longer than the average to allow for a stairway to a loft area above
the garage.
Staff recommends APPROVAL of the requested variance to allow a front yard setback of
25-feet, as measured from the property line, instead of the 50-foot setback required to be
measured from the edge of the access easement, with conditions.
Board and Public Comment:
Member Newsom understands the owner's desire to have a garage, and believes he
proposed the best location possible on the sloping lot. He does not foresee any adverse
affect on neighbors, as the garage will be mostly obscured from the road by trees.
Applicant Paul Brown noted it is a very difficult site to build on. The owner is aware of past
drainage problems and installed a new culvert. A previous plan for a garage in a different
location was abandoned due to these drainage issues, and Mr. Brown believes this
current proposal plans for the most reasonable location. He stated the existing culvert has
created what he believes is an unnatural drainage across the lot. Planner Shirk added
that according to Rodney Ault, who does most of the road work for the Little Valley GID,
most of the drainage on this lot is from road runoff from Little Valley Drive.
Member Lynch asked if the proposed garage will present a problem for well access. Mr.
Brown replied that the builder, Bob Taylor, and the owner have discussed the issue, and
are aware that a crane would be needed to lift the pump from the well.
It was moved and seconded (Lynch/McCreery) to APPROVE the Request for
variance from Estes Valley Development Code Section 4.3, Table 4-2, to allow
construction of a proposed detached garage within the required 50-foot front
setback In the RE zoning district with the following conditions. The motion
passed unanimously.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment
April 7, 2009
3
CONDITIONS:
a. Full compliance to the applicable building codes;
b. The applicant shall include an erosion control plan with building permit
submittal, and shall coordinate said plan with Latimer County Engineering
(Marc Lyons, Access Control).
c. Compliance with approved site and building plan;
d. Submittal of a setback certificate prepared by a registered land surveyor.
This certificate shall be submitted to the building official at the foundation
inspection, and shall verify the garage location complies with the approved
site plan.
5. LOT 4, BLOCK 1, COUNTRY CLUB ESTATES, 1111 COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE, Owner:
Kerry and Joie Willuwelt, Applicant: Zack Fonseca, Genesis Energy, Inc. — Request
for variance from Estes Valley Development Code Section 4.3, Table 4-2, to allow
construction of a proposed wind turbine approximately 9.5 feet above the 30-foot
height restriction in the E-1 Estate Zoning District
Staff Report:
Planner Chilcott stated this application was withdrawn by Staff.
6. REPORTS
Director Joseph reported that Staff processed a minor variance for the corner of a deck
that encroached outside the platted building envelope. The amount was less than one
square foot and the building envelope was adjacent to an open space. Staff felt it was
appropriate to grant the variance at staff level.
There being no further business, Chair Levine adjoumed the meeting at 9:35 a.m.
Chuck Levine, Vice -Chair
Karen Thompson, Recording Secretary
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Planning Commission
April 21, 2009, 1:30 p.m.
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Commission: Chair Doug Klink; Commissioners Wendell Amos, Alan Fraundorf, John
Tucker, Betty Hull, Steve Lane, and Ron Norris
Attending: Vice -Chair John Tucker; Commissioners Alan Fraundorf, Betty Hull,
Steve Lane, and Ron Norris
Also Attending: Director Joseph, Town Attorney White, Planner Shirk, Town Board
Liaison Homeier, and Recording Secretary Thompson
Absent: Commissioner Klink, Commissioner Amos, Planner Chilcott
The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological
sequence.
Vice -Chair Tucker called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m.
1. PUBLIC COMMENT
None.
2. CONSENT AGENDA
Estes Valley Planning Commission minutes dated March 17, 2009.
It was moved and seconded (Hull/Fraundorf) that the Consent Agenda be accepted as
amended, and the motion passed unanimously with two absent.
3. STAFF REPORT — Accessory Dwelling Unit timeline for approval
Planner Shirk notified the Commission that the first reading of the Accessory Dwelling Unit
Code revisions by the Town Board will be April 28t, and will allow public comment. The
Town Board public hearing is tentatively scheduled for Tuesday, May 26th, 2009, and the
public hearing date before the Larimer County Commissioners has not been set.
4. DEVELOPMENT PLAN 09-02 — SUNFIELD ESTATES — Metes and Bounds located
directly southwest of 1095 Moraine Avenue, Estes Park; Owner/Applicant —
Stonewood Properties, c/o Mark Hollenbeck; Request to construct a 3-unit
development
Staff Report: Planner Shirk stated this is a request for development plan approval to build
three detached residential dwelling units on property zoned A —Accommodations, which is an
allowed use in that zone district. This property has been approved for a development plan of
seven units called Rippling River. If this Sunfield Estates plan is approved, the Rippling River
Development Plan would be null and void. This proposal meets the required density
standards, impervious coverage requirement, and complies with setback requirements,
including the 50-foot river corridor setback.
The current proposal would bring in fill in order to move the flood plain back towards the river.
A retaining wall will be built, and will be designed to allow maintenance vehicle access to the
river. Changes in limits of disturbance between the two development plans includes "pulling
in" the proposed retaining wall between the units, minimizing utility cuts, and adding more
protection to the slope between the units and the highway. Landscaping for Sunfield Estates
exceeds the minimum requirements in terms of volume.
The developer plans to subdivide the lots for single-family dwellings at some point, and all
lots will maintain the minimum size and required setbacks for the zoning district. Staff
recommends approval after compliance with the conditions listed below.
RECORD OF P CC EDI GS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
April 21, 2009
Public Comment:
2
Mark Hollenbeck/Stonewood Properties, DJ Chasen/Stonewood Properties, Bryce Brady and
Rod Harr/Landmark Engineering were in attendance to explain the project and answer
questions.
Mr. Hollenbeck expressed genuine concern about building a quality development and wants
their first major project to be high quality. He hopes to have all site work completed this
summer. The proposed three units will average 3500 square feet„ with a mountain style
architectural theme using native building materials.
Commissioner Lane questioned the decision to create a devellopment plan prior to
subdividing the lots. Hollenbeck replied the group of developers decided to wait until this
proposed concept was approved before moving forward with subdividing the lots. Director
Joseph interjected that although rezoning is an option, single-family use is permitted in the A -
Accommodations district. Agreements will need to be reached between the owners for shared
access, maintenance, etc.
It was moved and seconded (Norris/Hull) to APPROVE Development Plan 09-02,
SUNFIELD ESTATES, with the following conditions recommended by Staff, and the
motion passed unanimously with two absent.
Conditions:
1. Compliance with approved development plan. Approval of Development Plan 08-
05 shall become null and void upon final approval of Development Plan 09-02
"Sunfield Estates".
2. Prior to Issuance of any grading/building permits, the applicant shall:
a. Submit final construction plans (including drainage/erosion control) for
review and approval of utility providers and Larimer County Engineering;
b. Obtain a Development Construction Permit from the Larimer County
Engineering Department:
c. Updated Conditional Letter of Map Revisions -Fill shall be provided to Larimer
County Engineering for review and approval if necessary, and a copy
submitted to Community Development;
d. Fence Limits of Disturbance, as required by Section 7.2.D5 of the Estes
Valley Development Code;
e. Provide Restoration Landscaping Guarantee letter;
f. Provide lighting cut sheet to ensure compliance with Section 7.9;
g. Provide development agreement and letter of credit.
3. Prior to Issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall;
a. Dedicate proposed easements and right-of-way;
b. Provide engineer certificate's verifying grading and drainage complies with
approved plans;
c. Provide as -built plans for review and approval of utility providers and Larimer
County Engineering;
d. Letter of Map Revisions -Fill shall be provided to Larimer County Engineering,
and a copy submitted to Community Development.
4. Compliance with the following:
a. Letter from Community Development to Stonewood Properties dated April 8,
2009;
b. Memo from Estes Park Public Works and Utilities to Dave Shirk, Bob
Goehring, and Scott Zurn dated March 25, 2009 (except Note 9 regarding
street lights);
c. Letter from Upper Thompson Sanitation District to Dave Shirk dated March
19, 2009 (this will require minor changes to the development plan to ensure
accessibility to the sewer main).
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
April 21, 2009
. AMENDED PLAT — ABUNDANT PROPERTIES OF THE ROCKIES, LLC — Lots 1 & 2,
Block 4 2nd Amended Plat, Town of Estes Park, and Metes and Bounds Parcel
located at 240 E. Elkhorn Avenue, 230, 234, and 240 E. Elkhorn; Owner/Applicant
Abundant Properties of the Rockies, LLC, c/o Kevin Schwery; Request to combine two
existing lots into one tot and reduce the utility and access easement
Staff Report:
Director Joseph stated this is a request to adjust the property line between Lots 1 and 2 of
Block 4 of the Second Amended Plat of the Town of Estes Park; vacate the property line
between Lot 1 and the metes -and -bounds parcel; and reduce the width of a public utility and
access easement on the metes -and -bounds parcel from nineteen feet to ten feet wide.
The proposed property line vacation eliminates a lot line, which runs through a building and is
not centered on a common wall The lot line adjustment of .033 feet will center the lot line on
the common wall between Kirk's Flyshop and the Shirt Shack. Additionally, the property
owner wants to narrow the public easement down the alleyway on the east side of the
property. This easement is currently used for access to a parking area behind building as well
as utility access.
Staff does not recommend vacating nine feet of the nineteen -foot wide public access and
utility easement on the metes -and -bounds parcel due to the responses received from the
Public Works and Utilities departments. Estes Light and Power and the Fire Department also
recommended against the vacation.
Director Joseph stated the location of this easement is valuable to the Town due to the
existing limitations. If this easement is reduced, emergency vehicles will not be able to get to
the riverwaik.
Public Comment:
Kevin Schwery, Owner/Applicant stated the reason behind the easement reduction was to
develop behind the building, but he understands the reasoning against the reduction.
It was moved and seconded (Fraundorf/Norris) to APPROVE the Amended Plat of
Lots 1 & 2, 2"d Amended Plat, Town of Estes Park, and Metes -and -Bounds Parcel
located at 240 E. Elkhorn Avenue with conditions recommended by Staff. The
motion passed unanimously with two absent.
Conditions:
1. Denial of the requested reduction in the width of a nineteen -foot wide public
access and utility easement and removal of the language vacating nine feet of
thls easement from the plat.
2. All signs on the property shall be properly permitted prior to plat recordation.
3. Prior to plat recordation, the dumpster on the Abundant Properties, LLC
property should be animal proof and screened as described in the Estes Valley
Development Code. The proposed dumpster location and screening design
should be reviewed and approved by Staff.
4. The existing size for Lot 2 shall be provided on the plat.
5. The vicinity map shall be to scale with the scale noted.
6. Font sizes for the existing lot sizes shall be Increased so as to be legible.
7. The dedication statement shall be revised to dedicate any new easement
proposed with this plat, and only those easements.
8. Kirk's Flyshop, LLC shall be added to the dedication statement and signature
blocks for Kirk's Flyshop shall be added.
9. The reception number or book and page shall be provided for the nineteen -foot
wide public access and utility easement.
10.The month shall be added to the Board of Trustee's Certificate.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
April 21, 2009
6. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE, BLOCK
12
a, SHORT-TERM RENTALS — revisions to vacation home regulations, including
revisions to the definition of accommodation use, guest room, guest quarter, household
living, and nightly rental in the Estes Valley Development Code Chapter 13, and
revisions to distinguish between Bed & Breakfasts and vacation home uses and the
districts in which these uses are permitted.
Staff Report:
Director Joseph stated Planner Chilcott has prepared Code revisions to address concerns
expressed by residents about the impacts of short-term rentals, such as vacation homes and
bed and breakfast inns, in residential neighborhoods. Staff did not want short-term rentals to
be more restrictive, but rather desired to tighten the language as to what constitutes a
business -related activity and what does not. It is important to clarify if you are using your
home as a short-term rental, you are not allowed to have a home occupation at the same
residence. It was also clarified in this proposal that B&Bs will be allowed only in RM, R-2
(multi -family residential) districts and in A and A-1 (commercial accommodations) districts.
The Town Board issued a directive that these zones were most appropriate for this use.
This proposed Code revision brings the Municipal Code into alignment with the current Land
Use Code. With this revision short-term rentals are elevated to a permitted principal use by
right in all residential zoning districts.
Commissioner and Staff Comments:
Commissioner Hull thinks the requirements of B&Bs being owner -occupied full time and
vacation homes requiring a local manager who is available 24/7 are positive code changes.
Commissioner Lane believes the maximum occupancy of eight is unrealistic and would like to
see it increased to 10. He also would like Staff to rethink how this proposed code relates to
nightly rentals in the commercial districts.
Commissioner Tucker agrees with the concept and thinks the proposed controls address
most issues. He believes that vacation homes should pay commercial water and electricity
rates.
Town Attorney White explained the current code limits on occupancy and the reasoning
behind limiting occupancy of vacation homes to eight individuals.
Public Comment:
Frank Theis/Town Resident — Questioned grandfathering of current B&Bs in residential
areas. Director Joseph indicated the grandfathering would stay in place only if the structure
was to remain a B&B and not a vacation home. Larimer County officials state that short-term
rentals in the county have never been an explicitly permitted principal use; therefore,
grandfathering of vacation homes does not come into play. Mr. Theis also suggested either
using the same language concerning occupancy as is in the current code, or changing the
language to eight adults instead of eight people, with a limit of four vehicles.
Jim Tawney/Town Resident — As a lodge owner, he does not agree with permitting short-term
rentals in residential zoning districts, due to the inequality of the playing field where property
taxes are concemed.
Closed public comment.
Commissioner Lane thinks the language in section 1.d should be revised to say "except in the
CD district". Commissioners Norris and Tucker agreed.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
April 21, 2009
5
It was moved and seconded (Norris/Fraundorf) to CONTINUE the proposed Block 12
Amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code regarding Short -Term Rentals
to the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting. It was requested
this item be the first on the agenda. The motion passed unanimously with two
absent.
b. WILDLIFE HABITAT PROTECTION — proposed changes to §7.8 Wildlife Habitat
Protection, to provide review standards for land identified as critical wildlife habitat,
require preparation of a wildlife habitat conservation plan for land identified as critical
wildlife habitat, and provide for Planning Commission review of said conservation plan.
Staff Report:
Director Joseph gave a brief history of the code revision background. In today's proposed
Code revision, Staff has removed any references to setbacks from riparian vegetation and
kept language concerning setbacks from aquatic habitat, i.e. wetlands, streams, rivers, and
standing bodies of water, including seasonal.
Staff is proposing a 50-foot setback from the annual high water mark (not from riparian
vegetation) for undeveloped Tots and a 30-foot setback for developed lots which were
developed prior to 2000. Different standards apply to downtown areas and also for parking
lots as opposed to buildings. The current Code operates as a two -tiered system, and today's
proposal abandons one of the tiers; the current 30-foot setback for smaller drainages would
be removed and all areas containing aquatic habitat would have a 50-foot setback. Wetlands
area setbacks are currently 50 feet and no changes are proposed. Studies show a
proportionate relationship between the amount of water flowing through a drainage and its
value as habitat. The current proposal works with a "one size fits all" concept.
If the proposed setbacks are adopted, the number of non -conforming properties will
approximately double, creating a lot of discussion and concern. In response, Staff has written
into the code whereas existing non -conforming developed properties that are set back at least
30-feet would be allowed to expand vertically and be exempt from the 50-foot setback. Any
horizontal expansion of these new non -conforming structures would be subject to the 50-foot
setback regulations.
Staff and Commission Discussion:
Director Joseph commented that a suggestion was made to add mitigation recommendations
following the habitat assessment. Also, the right to deny a development plan that does not
comply with the Code is clearly stated; however, Planning Commission will have the authority
to continue an agenda item if the development plan does not comply with the Code to allow
the developer time to make necessary modifications. Director Joseph clarified that in
urbanized areas, the value of the habitat has already been compromised and, therefore, those
areas will not be designated as severe winter range for deer and elk.
Commissioner Norris would like a better understanding of property owner's rights and
guidance as to how to judge the setbacks.
Public Comment:
Rick Spowart/Colorado Division of Wildlife (DOW) thinks the change in the Code language
helps the DOW act as an advisor rather than a decision -making body. DOW will become an
affected agency that will be allowed to comment on proposed developments. It is DOW's
opinion that aquatic areas are the most important to protect, with raptor nesting areas and
bighorn sheep habitat also having major significance. Mr. Spowart believes smaller setbacks
can create loss of wildlife populations and species for those animals that are not very mobile.
Several species, like elk, are very adaptable and in some ways actually benefit from
development. He noted that various maps and other information is available on the Division of
Wildlife website.
Cheri PettyjohnlTown Resident believes all affected property owners should be notified by
personal letter. She is against changing the setback from 30 to 50 feet. Ms. Pettyjohn also
RECORD or PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 6
April 21, 2009
recommended an evening Planning Commission meeting in order to accommodate members
of the public that are unable to attend the afternoon meetings. Director Joseph noted that from
a legal standpoint, newspapers are adequate notification. While Staff is always striving to
improve the accessibilty to the public, a mass mailing such as this will lengthen the process as
well as be very time-consuming and costly. It is very difficult to determine how specific to
make your notification list.
Frank Theis/County Resident hikes the two -tiered system that is currently in place, and worries
about unintended consequences. From a design standpoint, he is unsure about the allowance
to expand vertically and the potential for bureaucratic problems where building permits are
involved.
Rick Spowart/DOW responded to a question by Dave Albee/Town Resident and stated that if
the town were able to purchase land for open space, he would consider bighorn sheep habitat
to be important. Conservation easements and the Estes Valley Land Trust would also be good
options to acquire additional open space.
Eric Waples/Town Resident encouraged the Commissioners to keep the future in mind when
making decisions. His goal for Estes Park would be a more pedestrian -friendly community. He
believes significant adverse impact is usually cumulative.
Sandy Osterman/Town Resident has continuing concerns about how decisions will be made
in determining "maximum extent feasible" and "significant adverse impact'.
Mark Elrod/Town Resident reminded Commissioners that abuse of the Code rather Than the
exercise of using the Code is where problems will lie. He is having difficulty with acceptable
definitions for "aquatic habitat' and "qualified biologist". Also, he does not see language
allowing for changes in errors on adopted maps.
Sandy Lindquist/Town Resident thinks the Town should move quickly on establishing an open
space plan to incorporate into the Estes Valley Development Code.
Closed to public comment and called recess at 4:15 p.m. Meeting reconvened at 4:25.
Commissioners Norris and Hull supports the suggested addition to the code about the option
to expand vertically if the structure is non -conforming in the setback.
Commissioner Lane wants to understand the in's and out's of the proposed code before
approval. He is supportive of moving forward with the issues that are not controversial. To this
point, he hasn't heard of any specific quantitative benefits that would come with increasing the
setbacks. He believes the multi -level tier approach makes more sense than a one -tier
approach.
Commissioner Tucker would like to see a calendar that lists when the map will be updated. He
does not support the proposed 50-foot setback.
Commissioner Fraundorf thinks the two -tiered system seems very appropriate. He believes
the Commission could go ahead and approve the proposal and make modifications as they
come up through the Board of Adjustments. He supports the 30-foot setback on developed
lots.
After discussion about pulling the setback portion of the proposed code out for further review,
Director Joseph stated it is easier to defend broad legislative guidelines than specific ones. All
of the proposed wildlife habitat code revisions to date have created the expectation that
property adjacent to areas containing aquatic habitat is going to be held to a higher standard
of development. When setbacks are not changed, developments will possibly be subject to a
wildlife habitat assessment and it will be this Commission's duty, on a case -by -base basis, to
determine if the minimum setback standard is adequate. After more discussion among the
Commissioners, it was determined that Staff should revise the code to a level of completeness
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
April 21, 2009
7
in order for them to vote on the revisions without addressing the setack issues. This setback
issue will be addressed separately.
It was moved and seconded (Hull/Lane) to CONTINUE the proposed Block 12
Amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code regarding Wildlife Habitat
Protection to the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting, and the
motion passed unanimously with two absent.
7. ADOPTION OF THE 2008 ESTES VALLEY HABITAT
It was moved and seconded (Hull /Lane) to CONTINUE the proposed 2008 Estes
Valley Habitat Assessment to the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission
meeting. The motion passed unanimously with two absent.
8. REPORTS
a. Burr Minor Special Review — Planner Shirk noted the Larimer County
Commissioners are hearing a minor special review for a detached Accessory
Dwelling Unit, located at 2978 Lory Lane, which is just outside of the Estes Valley
Zoning District towards Glen Haven.
b. Pre -Application Meetings that Staff has received this past month include one for an
amended plat, another for an amended Development Plan for Mary's Meadow, a
Development Plant for the Black Canyon Inn Condominiums, and one application
for a minor subdivision.
c. Town Board and County Commission decisions on applications reviewed by
Planning Commission include a Supplemental Map on the Stanley Avenue
Condominiums and the Final Plat for the Deer Ridge Subdivision.
d. The Board of Adjustment heard a variance request for a setback variance in the
Little Valley area.
Director Joseph noted a joint meeting with the Board of County Commissioners, Town Board
and Planning Commission is tentatively scheduled for June 4, 2009 at 9:00 a.m.
Commissioner Tucker suggested commissioners attend the Town Board meeting on April 28,
2009 to hear the first reading and comments concerning the code revisions for Accessory
Dwelling Units.
Director Joseph announced a public forum to discuss regulations on wind turbines in
residential areas. This meeting will be held Thursday, April 30, 2009 in the Town Board Room.
This meeting is strictly to obtain public input before regulations are drafted by Staff. Staff will
be in attendance to facilitate discussion.
Finally, Directly Joseph stated he has received direction from the Community Development
Committee to organize a task force to take a critical look at the current sign code. The
objective of this task force will be to critique the sign code. There will be seven (7) citizens on
this task force, with Staff available to facilitate discussion.
There being no further business, Vice -Chair Tucker adjourned the meeting at 5:35 p.m.
John Tucker, Vice -Chair
Karen Thompson, Recording Secretary
plill 205 Virginia Drive — Vega LLC
_ Sign Variance Request
Estes Park Community Development Department
Town Hall, 170 MacGregor Avenue
PO Box 1200
lialimmlial
limmmiumill Estes Park, CO 80517
Phone: 970-577-3721 Fax: 970-586-0249 www.estesnet.com
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/BACKGROUND
DATE OF BOA MEETING: June 2, 2009
LOCATION: The Vega restaurant is located downtown in the Courtyard
Shops at 205 Virginia Drive, within the Town of Estes Park.
APPLICANT: Vega, LLC (Ronald L. and Carolyn E. Kilgore)
PROPERTY OWNER: Trail Inn, LLC (Dennis and Carol Brown)
CONSULTANT/ENGINEER: None
STAFF CONTACT: Bob Joseph, Community Development Director
APPLICABLE CODES: Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) and
Estes Park Municipal Code (EPMC)
REQUEST:
Vega, LLC wishes to change the lettering on the sign face of an existing
roof sign at the Courtyard Shops to advertize the Vega restaurant. The sign
currently advertizes the old Smiling Elk Restaurant.
Below are pictures of the existing and proposed signs.
:\%
§ C *
\. j
& r4.
\
� yF,,, 3A
T pas Grill Bar
\\/ \\�\\\\
Page #2 -205 Virginia Dri_ (Vega, LLC) Sign Variance Request
The approximate sign location is shown on the aerial photo below.
A 0 roximate Location of Pro ' osed Si, n
1 111111,HI iiw1� p i v^' �i ii, �Y III
ro
a
111010111000000i000n0,1101010
Proximate Lo io
g Elk Rc a
001,
Specifically, the applicant requests variances from the sections of the Estes
Park Municipal Code described below.
1. Section 17.66.060(12).
This section states that roof signs, except as specifically permitted in
Section 17.66.110, are prohibited.
2. Section 17.66.130 Nonconforming Signs.
This section is provided below. The specific subsections to which a
variance is requested are underlined and in bold.
17.66.130 Nonconforming signs.
(a) A nonconforming sign may be continued but it shall not be:
(1) Changed to another nonconforming sign.
(2) Structurally altered.
(3) Altered so as to increase the degree of nonconformity of the sign.
(4) Enlarged or expanded.
(5) Continued in use after cessation or change of the business or
activity to which the sign pertains.
(6) Repaired after the sign is damaged or destroyed if the estimated
cost of repair or reconstruction exceeds fifty percent (50%) of
Page #3 ,,,-205 Virginia Drive (Vega, LLC) Sign Variance Request
the appraised replacement cost (as determined by the building
inspector).
(7) Altered to change the text thereof, except such signs, which
have been designed specifically to permit changes of the text.
(8) Continued to be used after two (2) years from the sale of the real
property upon which the sign is located, but in no event, more
than six (6) years, six (6) months from the date the sign become
nonconforming.
(9) Continued to be used after two (2) years from the sale of the
business which the sign advertises, but in no event more than six
(6) years, six (6) months from the date the sign became
nonconforming. Sale of the business shall include, but not be
limited to, the sale of substantially all of the assets of a business.
(b) A nonconforming sign shall be brought into conformance or
removed within thirty (30) days of the occurrence of any of the
events set forth in Subsection (a) above.
Per the applicant's statement of intent, this property, including all the signs
on the property, is owned by Trail Inn, LLC. The property is zoned CD -
Commercial Downtown, is approximately 0.67 acres in size according to the
Tax Assessor records, and is a mixed use property containing restaurant,
retail, artist studio, and residential uses, and other uses typical to the
downtown area.
II. DATA TABLES AND MAPS
PID
35251-10-016
Legal Description
Metes and Bounds
Address
According the Tax Assessor records,
addresses to the Courtyard Shops building.
Restaurant is located at 205 Virginia
multiple
The Vega
Drive
0.67
Parcel Size (Per
Tax Assessor
Records)
Acres
Square Feet
29,150
Existing Land Use
Mixed Uses including
Restaurant
Retail
Artist Studio
Residential
Proposed Land
Use
Same
Zoning
CD -Downtown Commercial
Page #4 -205 Virginia Drive (Vega, LLC) Sign Variance Request
SERVICES
Water
Sewer
Fire Protection
Electric
Telephone
Town of Estes Park
Estes Park Sanitation District
Town of Estes Park
Town of Estes Park
Qwest
Location Ma • Ad acent Land Uses and Zonin
1!1.1
,,,,..iiiiiiitir
,!!"..14111,11":1'1'1'1111,j1)1I)oit114.1.1.11??DiilyiyiliciS(1:1#1,N",v;III'"
1111! „,„1111111,111•1111,1,11,1,1,100•1111111111111111111111111111111111I11II
On„Do
i
'ark,
ercial Do
Page #5 —205 Virginia Drive (Vega, LLC) Sign Variance Request
III. REVIEW CRITERIA
All variance applications shall demonstrate compliance with the standards
and criteria set forth in Chapter 3.6.0 and all other applicable provisions of
the Estes Valley Development Code. All applications for variances from
Chapter 17.66 Signs shall also demonstrate compliance with Section
17.66.160 of the Municipal Code.
This variance request does not fall within the parameters of staff -level
review and will be reviewed by the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment.
IV. REFERRAL COMMENTS
This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff and
neighboring property owners for consideration and comment. No reviewing
agency staff and/or adjacent property owners have submitted comments.
V. STAFF FINDINGS
Staff finds:
1. Reviewing Agencies. No comments were submitted by reviewing
agencies.
2. Section 17.66.160(3) of the Municipal Code states, in every case in
which a request for a variance from the requirements of this Chapter
[17.66 Signs] has been filed, the Board shall not grant a variance unless
it specifically finds each and every one of the following conditions to
exist.
a. There are special circumstances or conditions, such as the
existence of buildings, topography, vegetation, sign structures or
other matters on adjacent lots or within the adjacent public
right-of-way, which would substantially restrict the effectiveness
of the sign in question; provided, however, that such special
circumstances or conditions must be particular to the particular
business or enterprise to which the applicant desires to draw
attention and to not apply generally to all businesses or
enterprises.
Staff Finding: The applicant's statement of intent describes the
special circumstances.
Page #6 -205 Virginia Drive (Vega, LLC) Sign Variance Request
b. The variance would be in general harmony with the purposes of
this Chapter, and specifically would not be injurious to the
neighborhood in which the business or enterprise to which the
applicant desires to draw attention is located.
Staff Finding: The Board should use their best judgment to
determine if this variance would be in general harmony with the
purposes of Chapter 17.66 Signs.
Neighbors have not submitted written comments in support or
opposition to the proposed sign.
c. The variance is the minimum one necessary to permit the
applicant to reasonably draw attention to this business or
enterprise.
Staff Finding: The Board should use their best judgment to
determine if these are the minimum variances necessary.
3. Section 17.66.160(d) No variance for maximum sign area on a lot or
building states, other provisions of this section to the contrary
notwithstanding, the Board shall not have any jurisdiction to hear, nor
the authority to grant, any variance from any section of this Chapter
which limits the maximum permitted sign area on a single lot or
building.
Staff Finding: This section is not applicable to the submitted variance
application.
4. Section 17.66.160(e) states, the Board may grant a variance subject to
any conditions, which it deems necessary or desirable to make the
device which is permitted by the variance compatible with the purposes
of this Chapter.
Staff Finding: If the Board chooses to approve this variance, staff has
recommended a number of conditions of approval.
Page #7 -205 Virginia Drive (Vega, LLC) Sign Variance Request
5. In addition to the review standards in Section 17.66.160 of the
Municipal Code, the following review standards from the Estes Valley
Development Code Section 3.6.C. apply.
a. Whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without
the variance.
Staff Finding: The property can continue to be used without the
roof sign.
b. Whether the variance is substantial.
Staff Finding: The Board should use their best judgment to
determine if these are the minimum variances necessary.
c. Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be
substantially altered or whether adjoining properties would
suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance.
Staff Finding: See Staff Report Section V.2.b on Page 7.
d. Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of
public services such as water and sewer.
Staff Finding: This application was routed to providers of public
services, such as water and sewer, and no concerns were expressed
about adverse impacts to the delivery of public services.
e. Whether the Applicant purchased the property with knowledge
of the requirement.
Staff Finding: Per Vega, LLC's statement of intent, they were
unaware of the status of non -conforming status of the "Smiling Elk
Restaurant" roof sign at the time they entered into a lease with Trail
Inn, LLC.
Carolyn McEndaffer approved sign permit #S06-023 for the
"Smiling Elk Restaurant" sign on March 22, 2006 after determining
that a wall sign, rather than a roof sign was proposed. This
determination was based on an incorrect interpretation of EPMC
Section 17.66.110(7)c.3.
On August 16, 2006 in response to another sign permit application,
Bob Joseph, Will Birchfield, and Carolyn McEndaffer discussed
Page #8 -205 Virginia Drive (Vega, LLC) Sign Variance Request
roof and wall signs and clarified that in order to qualify as a wall,
rather than a roof sign, the slope of the roof must have an angle of
45° or less from vertical. The interpretation prior to this date had
been that in order to qualify as a wall sign the angle between the roof
and sign needed to be 45° or less from vertical.
Prior Interpretation Highlighted in Yellow
Any sign erected upon the side of a roof having an angle of forty-five
degrees (45°) or Tess from vertical shall be considered a wall sign, and
shall be subject to the size and height limitations noted under this
Subsection.
toot
Current Interpretation Highlighted in Yellow
Any sign erected upon the side of a roof having an angle of forty-five
degrees (45°) or less from vertical shall be considered a wall sign, and
shall be subject to the size and height limitations noted under this
Subsection.
f. Whether the Applicant's predicament can be mitigated through
some method other than a variance.
Staff Finding: On March 31, 2008 Carolyn Kilgore met with
Carolyn McEndaffer about signage. Carolyn McEndaffer explained
that the existing "Smiling Elk Restaurant" roof sign was a legal non
conforming sign and described the following options.
1. Keep the Smiling Elk name for the restaurant and use the
existing sign.
2. Relocate the sign to the fence enclosing the restaurant patio.
Page #9 —205 Virginia Drive (Vega, LLC) Sign Variance Request
The existing signs shown below can also be used. Sign permits are
neecfed for these signs.
int Idetine do Si
n at Lower Virginia Drive Entrance
B/EM114 `
Wall Sign above Resmur £■■,:wa°Do Door
\:� t
9 # 7
}
\
/\f
1010,
Page #10GmVirginia Drive99%LLQSi Variance Request
g•
Sus , ended Si
No variance shall be granted if the submitted conditions or
circumstances affecting the Applicant's property are of so
general or recurrent a nature as to make reasonably practicable
the formulation of a general regulation for such conditions or
situations.
Staff Finding: Staff does not find that a regulation should be
adopted to address this situation.
h. No variance shall be granted reducing the size of lots contained
in an existing or proposed subdivision if it will result in an
increase in the number of lots beyond the number otherwise
permitted for the total subdivision, pursuant to the applicable
zone district regulations.
Staff Finding: The variance, if granted, will not reduce the size of
the lot.
i. If authorized, a variance shall represent the least deviation from
the regulations that will afford relief.
J.
Staff Finding: The Board should use their best judgment to
determine if the variance represents the least deviation from the
regulations that will afford relief.
Under no circumstances shall the Board of Adjustment grant a
variance to allow a use not permitted, or a use expressly or by
implication prohibited under the terms of this Code for the zone
district containing the property for which the variance is sought.
Page #11 -205 Virginia Drive (Vega, LLC) Sign Variance Request
Staff Finding: Carolyn McEndaffer reviews sign pet °mit
applications and is the staff person most familiar with the sign code,
she has not stated that this is a concern.
k. Per EVDC §3.6.D, failure of an Applicant to apply for a building
permit and commence construction or action with regard to the
variance approval within one (1) year of receiving approval of
the variance shall automatically render the decision of the Board
of Adjustment null and void.
VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends APPROVAL of the requested variances
CONDITIONAL TO:
1. Compliance with the submitted application. Change of copy will be
permitted as part of the variance without further review by the Board of
Adjustment provided it does not result in a new violation of the effective
sign code at the time of the change.
2. At, or prior to, the time of issuance of a sign permit for the roof sign the
applicant shall obtain permits for any Vega signs on the Courtyard Shop
property that require a permit.
Page #l2 —205 Virginia Drive (Vega, LLC) Sign Variance Request
Ronald L. Kilgore & Carolyn E. Kilgore
Vega, LLC
P.O. Box 4485
Estes Park, CO 80517
(970) 586-9165 (H)
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment
Town of Estes Park
P.O. Box 1200
Estes Park, CO 80517
April 21, 2009
RE: Statement Of Intent by Vega, LLC - Request for Sign Variance
Dear Estes Valley Board of Adjustment:
We respectfully submit this Statement of Intent with full consideration of the Standards
for Review set forth in the Code for variances. I will lead with some background
information; then I will address the specific factors that determine practical difficulty.
Background Information
First of all we would like to clarify that Trail Inn, LLC owns all existing signs located at
the Courtyard Shops. As a tenant of theirs, part of our Lease grants us permission to
utilize the sign for displaying our business name and logo. As the tenant, Vega, LLC is
requesting the sign variance.
In March 2006, Trail Inn had the existing "Smiling Elk Restaurant" sign permitted by
Will Birchfield and Carolyn McEndaffer. There were no variances granted for this sign,
it was a prescribed sign, following the code in every aspect. The existing sign was
originally deemed a wall sign by the Town because they felt it did meet the criteria under
(17.66.110 Subsection 7c3) and therefore didn't need a variance. It should be noted that
since then, in an attempt to cooperate with the Town, no alterations of any kind have been
made to this sign.
Shortly after purchasing some of the restaurant equipment assets of Trail Inn, and PRIOR
to commencing our new restaurant business, I went in to the Town Department of
Building Safety and spoke with Carolyn McEndaffer about applying for a permit to
change the lettered face on the existing sign. She told me that the sign was out of
compliance and had to be removed. When I asked where it could go, she made the
recommendation of moving the sign to the railing that surrounds the patio. She could tell
I was in utter disbelief about this revelation and she continued to say that the Town knew
it was out of compliance shortly after it was permitted. I asked her specifically if the
Town had notified Trail Inn of this non-compliance and she acted nervous and did not
commit to an answer either way. I didn't question whether or not she was correct.
Honestly, I was shocked and very concerned for the success of our first summer with a
sign for a different business. At this point, Vega was headed into the busy season so we
decided to pursue signage issue resolution after that had passed.
This spring we received a certified letter from the Town requesting Vega to come in and
speak with the Department of Building Safety regarding the sign. We did as requested
and spoke directly and indirectly with different members of this department. We had
hoped that we would be able come up with a quick and easy solution that satisfied both
the Town and our needs for viable signage. It became clear that again this was not going
to happen.
Currently the sign is non -conforming because the name and logo on the sign do not
match the business that is being conducted here. We are requesting to leave the sign
structure where it is currently installed and change the lettering on the sign face. It
should be noted that the existing illuminated light box sign IS specifically designed to
allow one to easily remove the sign face, scrape off the old lettering, and put on a new
name and logo. This solution would allow both the Town and us to resolve this issue in a
way that is both environmentally and financially responsible.
In a recent meeting we had with Bob Joseph, he asserted that the Town misinterpreted a
section code and mistakenly permitted the sign. He heard our arguments and believed we
should apply for a variance. He stated that the specific variance desired is: 17.66.060
Prohibited Signs, (12) Roof Signs; request to allow a prohibited sign location on a roof
more than 45 degrees from vertical.
Discussion of factors determining "practical difficulty"
1. Special circumstances or conditions exist that are not common to other areas
or buildings similarly situated and practical difficulty may result from strict
compliance with this Code's standards.
We rent the space in the Courtyard shops that is at the very top. We do not have any
ground level space and no right to use any other tenant's street level space. When you
are on the street or some distance from it, all you can see is our patio railing or our
rooftop. I do believe this is why the Town recommended moving the sign to our railing.
The move to the railing option is completely NON -viable for the following important
reasons:
a. The railing is not a load bearing structure. It was not intended to reliably
hold the great weight of a 22' metal structure.
b. If the sign and/or railing were to fail and fall, the damage would be
significant. There is a sidewalk and parking located directly below our
patio. There are dwelling units inside the Courtyard Shops, so people are
around the property at any given time. Both the loss of life and/or
significant property damages would be certain if this sign fell and that risk
is unacceptable.
c. Vega is family restaurant and we have a lot of families with children
dining up there daily. This sign is an electrically luminated sign. If the
2
sign were attached to the railing, children would have access to these
components and could risk electrocution. That is an unacceptable risk for
any business.
d. We experience very high winds up on our rooftop patio. Currently, the
railing is specifically designed to allow these wind gusts to pass through
so as not to put excessive force on the railing structure. If the sign were
attached to this railing, it would then be a solid wall that must withstand
excessive force from our high-speed seasonal winds. This increases the
risk of the sign and railing falling.
e. Aside from our great food, one of the main reasons that guests dine at
Vega is to sit on the rooftop patio to take in the unique and phenomenal
views of the town and the mountains from this location. If there is a 22'
long sign attached to our railing, this view is completely blocked by an
ugly, humming sign. Please keep in mind that guests are seated while
dining and cannot see over the railing. If the sign is put onto the railing,
our space is not longer viable as a rooftop view restaurant.
2. In determining "practical difficulty" the BOA considers the following factors:
a. Whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the
variance.
As was discussed in reason "e" above, the property is not useful as
a restaurant anymore. That is what this space as been designed and
used for since it was built many decades ago. We signed a multi-
year lease and purchased all the restaurant equipment located here.
It is not viable to consider using the property for another purpose.
b. Whether the variance is substantial;
No, the variance is not substantial in terms of what is being
granted. Vega would use the existing installation of the light box
sign, this allows for the same sign placement, structure, materials,
and overall appearance. We just want to change the lettering on
the sign face to our name and logo so that it can become
conforming.
c. Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be
substantially altered or whether adjoining properties would suffer a
substantial detriment as a result of the variance;
The essential character of our neighborhood is downtown
commercial/retail shopping and dining. All businesses in our
district are allowed signage to inform the public as to what goods
or services can be found in their space. The sign does not detract
from any other businesses' signage. Our sign is actually smaller
than the maximum amount allowed for our location. The proposed
change of lettering to our name and logo is tasteful, not a garish
representation. Our name and logo is respectable and not ethically
or morally questionable in any way. Please consider that our sign
is really not visible to any of our neighbors within the 500' circle
3
of properties that are believed to be those potentially concerned.
The sign's visibility is directed to guests on Elkhorn Avenue.
Lastly, from a safety standpoint, the sign is currently protected
from high winds due to its placement on the roof situated below
the direct force of the wind gusts.
d. Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of public
services such as water and sewer;
If the board grants this variance, no, it will not adversely affect the
delivery of these services. I will add though, that by NOT having
accurate, visible signage for Vega, we have had trouble directing
anyone, including emergency services to our space in a reasonable
amount of time.
e. Whether the Applicant purchased the property with the knowledge of
the requirement;
We purchased a small portion of Trail Inn, LLC's restaurant
equipment assets in early 2008. We do not own the building or
land property; we are tenants. At the time we executed our Asset
Purchase Agreement, it was believed by all parties that all aspects
of the property were to Code and compliant in every way. It
wasn't until I went in and spoke to Carolyn MacEndaffer a very
short time later that she informed me of the sign's supposed non-
compliance.
f. Whether the Applicant's predicament can be mitigated through some
method other than a variance.
With all due respect, I genuinely believe that Vega is asking for the
easiest and most prudent resolution to this signage issue. The
option of attaching the sign to railing was given by the Town for
remedy of this non-compliance. I firmly believe that we have
already argued that the proposed move to the railing is not a viable
option.
I want to thank each of you for reading my Statement of Intent. The lack of signage for
our business has caused Vega considerable financial harm. I look forward to discussing
and resolving this issue on June 3, 2009 at the Board of Adjustment hearing.
Sincerely,
Carolyn E. Kilgore
4
La.
0,1nHJ
11! V
,t.,,,,,0,1".710„911,1u14.1y141.440.4 NOE,
j1:1--6‘11/ L4 C-691,44---
EX.-D,5-/ 7
IS
fflflIIIIIIIIIIIFI
411
II
111;11,11,11
4111111111rI
111 11111111111111111 '1111
011,0 0111,111,
11111,1111111,1111,111111
1,,,ON1,111111111i,
,„11,1111*WE
111,11
1111,1111111
11111111111111111111 111
11111111111
, "1""11"111 11,1,1
"11' 11'1
4111 11,
111'1"' '111111111111111111111111111
'R111111111111111)11
„,,,, (11 11,11111111,1111,
1111111111111r
11111
000010
0 II
,6 111111
(0
Ca
•
ESTES VALLEY
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
APPLICATION
Submittal Date: /�'i(
king
Re • I O' -r(s)
Street Address of Lot: 20 1 4-
Legal Description Lot: Block:
Subdivision: . "'.e��P'9�:.}
Parcel ID # S — (O-- d l L+ Section 2, m " Townshi • n:Ran sie
i Site information
:IR 2 1 2009
77g-31O/
Tract:
Lot Size `0. (c'1 . H ,;,3 pe.r—}-t y Zoning >r
Existing Land Use fidd r, �,;r� I �, ��^ �^a r
Proposed Land Use L�
Existing Water Service 1 Town r Well II"""" Other (Specify)
Proposed Water Service RTown r Well ("m"' Other (Specify)
Existing Sanitary Sewer Service R EPSD "°°` UTSD r Septic
Proposed Sanitary Sewer Service " EPSD 1""' UTSD r Septic
Existing Gas Service Xcel r Other U""""' None
Site Access (if not on public street)
m o04-CC44
Are there wetlands on the site? r Yes
Na°'A ft r r; c. il ' 'p'' �,, t;I:
Specific variance desired (state development code section # :
Primary Contact information
Name of Primary Contact Person Z.
Mailin. Address
v.—Application fee (see attached fee schedule) G• t0' b Cam. PEU.
I' Statement of intent (must comply with standards set forth in Section 3.6.0 of the Estes Valley Development Code)
✓ 1 copy (folded) of site plan (drawn at a scale of 1" = 20') **
✓ 1 reduced copy of the site plan (11" X 17")
✓ Names & mailing addresses of neighboring property owners (see attached handout)
** The site plan shall include information in Estes Valley Development Code Appendix B.VII.5 (attached).
The applicant will be required to provide additional copies of the site plan after staff review
(see the attached Board of Adjustment variance application schedule). Copies must be folded.
Town of Estes Park .a P.O. Box 1200 -as 170 MacGregor Avenue -aa Estes Park, CO 80517
Community Development Department Phone: (970) 577 3721 Fax: (970) 586-0249 -a www.estesnetcom/ComDev
Primary Contact Person is I*°" Owner ix Applicant
Record Owner(s)
Mailing Address
Phone
Cell Phone
Fax
/9 y'-,- _ /i✓,
its
Consultant/Engineer
1 aNi t,r � � M .✓6'rRh
q QALg/
Email .PCC �- igci1'14-. 6orn
Applicant
Mailing Address
Phone
Cell Phone
Fax
Email
Consultant/Engineer
Mailing Address
Phone
Cell Phone
Fax
Email
rp0. t WWX V9
12 c fV 4 t g•-.7:4-epOree
P/ ?t44, / / 05 /7
6 E7` e t/ 6»14779
.N /.4
APPLICATION FEES,
For variance application$ within the Estes Valley. Plannirtg Area, both inside -and outside Town limits
See the fee schedule included in your application packet or view the fee schedule online
at www.estesnet.com/ComDev/Schedules&Fees/PlanningApplicationFeeSchedule.pdf.
All requests for refunds must be made in writing. All fees are due at the time of submittal.
APPLICANT CERTIFICATION
10, I hereby certify that the information and exhibits herewith submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge
and that in filing the application I am acting with the knowledge and consent of the owners of the property.
► In submitting the application materials and signing this application agreement, I acknowledge and agree that the
application is subject to the applicable processing and public hearing requirements set forth in the Estes Valley
Development Code (EVDC).
I acknowledge that I have obtained or have access to the EVDC, and that, prior to filing this application, I have had the
opportunity to consult the relevant provisions governing the processing of and decision on the application.
(The Estes Valley Development Code is available online at www.estesnet.com/ComDev/DevCode.)
P. I understand that acceptance of this application by the Town of Estes Park for filing and receipt of the application fee by
the Town does not necessarily mean that the application is complete under the applicable requirements of the EVDC.
► I understand that this variance request may be delayed in processing by a month or more if the information provided is
incomplete, inaccurate, or submitted after the deadline date.
► I understand that a resubmittal fee will be charged if my application is incomplete.
► The Community Development Department will notify the applicant in writing of the date on which the application is
determined to be complete.
► I grant permission for Town of Estes Park Employees and Members of the Board of Adjustment with proper
identification access to my property during the review of this application.
► I acknowledge that I have received the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment Variance Application Schedule and that
failure to meet the deadlines shown on said schedule shall result in my application or the approval of my application
becoming NULL and VOID. I understand that full fees will be charged for the resubmittal of an application that has
become null and void.
► I understand that I am required to obtain a "Variance Notice" sign from the Community Development Department and
that this sign must be posted on my property where it is clearly visible from the road. I understand that the corners of
my property and the proposed building/structure comers must be field staked. I understand that the sign must be
posted and the staking completed no later than ten (10) business days prior to the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment
hearing.
► I understand that if the Board of Adjustment approves my request, "Failure of an applicant to apply for a building
permit and commence construction or action with regard to the variance approval within one (1) year of
receiving approval of the variance shall automatically render the decision of the BOA null and void." (Estes
Valley Development Code Section 3.6.D)
Names:
Record Owner PLEASE PRINT: G C&.C> L 60/i1/
Applicant PLEASE PRINT: /2O4 t ? )' 6,QNc
Signatures:
Record Owner
Applicant
44 4 too
Date
Date
Li/give?
Revised 10/13/06
Zoning
(17) Signs commonly associated with,
and limited to information and directions
related to the permitted use on the lot on
which the sign is located, provided that each
such sign does not exceed one hundred fifty
(150) square inches in total area. (This cate-
gory shall be interpreted to include such
signs as "no smoking," "rest room," "no
solicitors," "self-service" and similar
informational signs.)
(18) Signs which identify items such as
credit cards, menus or prices; limited to one
(1) such sign for each use, not to exceed four
(4) square feet per face or eight (8) square
feet in total area. Such signs may be attached
to the building, as projecting or wall signs, or
included as an integral part of a freestanding
sign.
(19) Regulatory signs erected on private
property, such as "no trespassing" signs,
which do not exceed two (2) square feet per
face or four (4) square feet in total surface
area, limited to four (4) such signs per use or
per building.
(20) Text or copy changes on signs
specifically designed to permit changes of the
text or copy thereof;
(21) A sign, which does not exceed six
(6) square feet per face or twelve (12) square
feet in total surface area; limited to six (6)
feet in height and limited to one (1) such sign
per lot and which does not propose, concern,
reflect or promote a commercial purpose.
(22) Vending machine signs, provided
that such signs are limited to the product
being vended. (Ord. 11-76 §2(part), 1976;
Ord. 36-76 §1, 1976; Ord. 17-80 §1, 1980;
Ord. 21-82 §1(A), (B) and (C), 1982; Ord. 1-
87 §1, 1987; Ord. 6-87 §1, 1987; Ord. 15-97,
1997; Ord. 17-02 §1(part), 2002; Ord. 17-07
§1, 2007)
Supp. 17
Section 17.66.050
17.66.060 Prohibited signs.
The following signs shall not be permitted,
erected or maintained in the Town:
17-29
(1) Signs with visible moving, revolving
or rotating parts or visible mechanical
movement of any description or other appar-
ent visible movement achieved by electrical,
electronic or mechanical means, except for
time -temperature -date signs, traditional bar-
ber poles, and gauges and dials which may be
animated to the extent necessary to display
correct measurement;
(2) Signs with optical illusion of move-
ment by means of a design which presents a
pattern capable of reversible perspective, giv-
ing the illusion of motion or changing of
copy;
(3) Signs with lights or illuminations
which flash, move, rotate, scintillate, blink,
flicker, vary in intensity, vary in color or use
intermittent electrical pulsations;
(4) Strings of light bulbs used in
connection with commercial premises for
commercial purposes, other than traditional
holiday decorations except as provided in
Subsection 17.66.050(9);
(5) Wind signs and banners;
(6) Signs which incorporate projected
images, emit any sound which is intended to
attract attention or involve the use of live
animals;
(7) Any sign which is installed or erected
in or projects into or over any public right-of-
way, except in the case of a sign for which a
permit has been issued in conformance with
the requirements of this Chapter;
Zoning Section 17.66.060
(8) Signs not permanently affixed or
attached to the ground or to a permanent
structure, (for example, banners, sandwich
boards and handheld signs). Temporary real
estate signs attached to posts driven into the
ground and temporary safety barriers are
excepted.
(9) Any sign or sign structure which:
a. Is structurally unsafe, or
b. Constitutes a hazard to safety or
health by reason of inadequate mainte-
nance or dilapidation, or
c. Is capable of causing electrical
shocks to persons likely to come in con-
tact with it;
(10) Any sign or sign structure which:
a. Obstructs the view of, may be con-
fused with or purports to be an official
traffic sign, signal or device or any other
official sign, or
b. Creates an unsafe distraction for
motor vehicle operators, or
c. Obstructs the view of motor vehicle
operators entering a public roadway from
any parking area, service drive, private
driveway, alley or other thoroughfare;
(11) Any sign which obstructs free
ingress to or egress from a required door,
window, fire escape or other required exit
way;
siiiimmoolpis (12) Roof signs, except as specifically
permitted by Section 17.66.110;
Supp. 9
(13) Off premises advertising signs.
(14) Signs not pertinent and or not
clearly related to the permitted use on the
property where located, except for temporary
political signs, as permitted and regulated by
Section 17.66.070, and except for signs
permitted under the provisions of Section
17.66.130.
(15) Except as provided in Subsection
17.66.050(8), any sign having direct
illumination, including but not limited to
visible neon tubing. (Ord. 17-02 § 1(part),
2002)
17.66.070 Temporary signs.
Temporary signs in all zoning districts shall
be subject to the following specific require-
ments:
17.30
(1) Construction signs. Signs advertis-
ing subdivision, development, construction
or other improvements of a property shall be
permitted in any zoning district and shall
comply with the following:
a. Such signs shall be limited to free-
standing, wall or window signs, shall not
exceed thirty-six (36) square feet in total
area nor eighteen (18) square feet per
face, and shall not exceed twelve (12) feet
in height. No riders or attachments to
such signs shall be permitted. For
residential developments consisting of
five (5) dwelling units or less, the
maximum area permitted for a
construction sign shall be three (3) square
feet per face for each dwelling unit being
constructed.
Zonlog Section. i7.66.t;`m9
(10) Standard brandd-name signs. Not
more than twenty percent (20%) of the total
allowable sign area for any permitted use
shall be devoted to the advertising of any
standard brand -name commodities or ser-
vices which are not the principal commodity
or service being sold or rendered on the
premises, or area not a part of the name of
the business concern involved.
(11) "Outdoor display of merchandise to
attract business" shall be considered a sign
and shall require a permit to be issued prior
to display. Measurement of the display area
shall be as provided for in Subsection
17.66.080(6) of this Code. The display area
shall be limited by inclusion in the total
allowable signage. The location of the
outdoor display shall conform to Section 7.13
of the Estes Valley Development Code.
Outdoor displays are prohibited in the
Commercial Downtown (CD) Zoning
District. (Ord. 17-02 §1(part), 2002)
17.66.120 Structural requirements.
(a) Construction.
(1) General. Signs and sign structures
shall be securely built, constructed and
erected in conformance with the require-
ments of the Building Code.
(2) Location. Supports for signs or sign
structures shall not be placed in or upon pub-
lic rights -of -way or public easements.
(3) Anchorage. Anchors and supports
shall be guarded and protected when near
driveways, parking lots or similar locations
where they could be damaged by moving
vehicles. Signs attached to masonry, con-
crete or steel shall be safely and securely fas-
tened thereto by means of metal anchors,
bolts or approved expansion screws of suffi-
cient size and anchorage to support safely the
Supp. 9
loads applied. No anchor or support of any
sign, except flat wall signs, shall be con-
nected to or supported by an unbraced para-
pet wall.
(b) Clearance. Signs shall not be located
with less than six (6) feet horizontal clearance,
or twelve (12) feet vertical clearance from over-
head electric conductors which are energized in
excess of seven hundred fifty (750) volts.
(c) Freestanding signs. Where such signs
are located in vehicular parking and circulation
areas, a base or barrier of concrete, steel or other
effective barrier, not less than thirty (30) inches
high, shall be provided to protect the base of the
sign from possible damage by vehicles. Where
any freestanding sign has a clearance of less
than nine (9) feet from the ground, there shall be
provided a barrier or other adequate protection
to prevent hazard to pedestrians and motorists.
(d) Electric signs. Electric signs shall be
constructed and installed in accordance with the
provisions of the National Electrical Code.
(Ord. 11-76 §2 (part), 1976; Ord. 21-82 §1(N),
1982; Ord. 15-97, 1997; Ord. 17-02 §1(part),
2002)
17.66.130 Nonconforming signs.
(a) A nonconforming sign may be contin-
ued but it shall not be:
I7.37
Changed to another nonconforming
sign.
(2) Structurally altered.
(3) Altered so as to increase the degree
of nonconformity of the sign.
(4) Enlarged or expanded.
Continued in use after cessation or
c ' A _e of the business or activity to which
the sign pertains.
,pry icing �.w
^wdu 17.66. t30
(6) Repaired after the sign is damaged
or destroyed if the estimated cost of repair or
reconstruction exceeds fifty percent (50%) of
the appraised replacement cost (as deter-
mined by the building inspector).
Altered to change the text thereof,
eft such signs, which have been designed
specifically to permit changes of the text.
rfiK Continued to be used after two (2)
years from the sale of the real property upon
which the sign is located, but in no event,
more than six (6) years, six (6) months from
the date the sign become nonconforming.
.4 Continued to be used after two (2)
years from the sale of the business which the
sign advertises, but in no event more than six
(6) years, six (6) months from the date the
sign became nonconforming. Sale of the
business shall include, but not be limited to,
the sale of substantially all of the assets of a
business.
(b) A nonconforming sign shall be brought
into conformance or removed within thirty (30)
days of the occurrence of any of the events set
forth in Subsection (a) above. (Ord. 11-76
§2(part), 1976; Ord. 19-80 §1, 1980; Ord. 9-81
§1, 1981; Ord. 15-97, 1997; Ord. 17-02 §1(part),
2002)
17.66.140 Permits.
(a) Sign permit required:
(1) Except as provided in Section
17.66.050, it is unlawful to display, erect,
relocate or alter any sign without first filing
with the building inspector an application in
writing and obtaining a sign permit. When a
sign permit has been issued by the building
inspector, it is unlawful to change, modify,
alter or otherwise deviate from the terms or
conditions of the permit without prior
approval of the building inspector. A written
record of such approval shall be entered upon
the original permit application and main-
tained in the files of the building inspector.
(2) Application for permit. The
application for a sign permit shall be made
by the owner or tenant of the property on
which the sign is to be located, or his or her
authorized agent. Such applications shall be
made in writing on forms furnished by the
building inspector and shall be signed by the
applicant. The building inspector shall,
within seven (7) working days of the date of
the application, either approve or deny the
application or refer the application back to
the applicant in any instance where insuffi-
cient information has been furnished.
(3) Revocation of permits. If the build-
ing inspector finds that work under any per-
mit issued is not in accordance with the
information supplied in the permit applica-
tion and/or is in violation of this Chapter or
any other pertinent ordinance of the Town, or
should he or she find that there has been any
misrepresentation in connection with the
application for the permit, he or she shall
notify the sign owner or erector of such
fmdings and that the violations must be
corrected without delay. If such correction is
not made forthwith, the building inspector
shall revoke the permit and serve written
notice thereof upon the sign owner or erector.
No person shall proceed with any part of
such work after such notice is received. The
owner shall have the right to appeal the
decision of the building inspector in the
manner provided for in Section 17.66.160.
Supp. 9
Zoning
c. Maximum height: Eighteen (18)
feet.
d. Maximum size: Fifteen (15) square
feet per sign face.
e. Maximum projection: Four (4)
feet.
f. Maximum number: One (1) per
building face or per business storefront.
(6) Suspended signs:
a. Maximum area: Five (5) square
feet per face, ten (10) square feet total
surface area.
b. Minimum clearance: Nine (9) feet
from the ground to the bottom edge of the
sign.
c. Minimum horizontal separation:
Fifteen (15) feet between suspended
signs.
d. Projection: Shall not project
beyond the outside limits of the arcade,
canopy or marquee to which they are
attached.
(7) Wall signs:
a. Maximum area: The total area of
all wall signs on any face of a building
shall not exceed one and one-half (1.5)
square feet per lineal foot of building
frontage at ground level, and three-
quarters (0.75) square foot per lineal foot
of second story building frontage.
b. Maximum height: Twenty-five
(25) feet above the ground.
17-.36
Supp. 9
Section 17.66.110
c. Maximum projection:
1. A wall sign may project above
the roofline or parapet wall of a build-
ing no more than twenty-four (24)
inches.
2. Wall signs may extend a maxi-
mum of twelve (12) inches from the
face of the building.
filiMINIMINIIIIIIMM1101111,
3. Any sign erected upon the side
of a roof having an angle of forty-five
degrees (45°) or less from vertical
shall be considered a wall sign, and
shall be subject to the size and height
limitations noted under this
Subsection.
d. Maximum number: One (1) wall
sign for each face of a business, or
building storefront.
(8) Joint identification signs:
a. Type: May be freestanding,
projecting or wall.
b. Number: Where a freestanding
joint identification sign is used, there shall
be no other freestanding signs permitted
on the premises.
(9) Area of time -temperature -date signs.
Signs which do not exceed ten (10) square
feet per face shall not be included in the
allowable sign area; provided, however, that
any identification or advertising attached to
or incorporated in such signs shall be
included in the total allowable sign area.
1111111,10MMAI
.1,1,,,11111.11111111111111111111111p.
'1111.1111111.P' 11'111
mh,,,,,111111111,„„,
'1111111111111111111„„
'" 1111111.111,1,,„ 1111111111111111,
1,
/4 («fir 1 0
14111
,„0 , ,400. 4'1140404 4,4 p 4104
1110n
111
l'''1'111::''',1'1'1'1'1'1'1'1'111'1111,1,:1,1''1111111111111111111111",
afficmgm
71,1171•Prrifry11111',11q11111111,11
1001 41#10kor1010„Aimuiv600.1„a41111,,!!!,1„,,
k, wii4.440A4144111111011111gigpme
11111111111111111111111111111111110000000000000000000000 11111111111111
vouulooh1111111111pun1111,1Ivlvlvlvouoo
414141,11041441
11111111111 4'111410 14404144044441
11111101111111111111111111111101111111111:111 , loolion11111111111111111 '11111'11011i
'41;404 ,'4,441,111'4110\1444t4t4( 41'1111444444,4
11111[40100v
'11"11111111111;,!011„,!,
III41,1'11411'01441444411j„,41„1411111,4114i,444444444444444444:4 444444441„444!„
1111111111111111111111111?1?1?1?voi
01111111111111,,,11,,Iiii1:1„(1
,1,9111111,0'" ''11111
w um rrnroeaocicvT d'd4: "kaggKiw;uw mk"o AnNm,Am,rwCunnaInu
AMMANAC !CIAMAANY COMNUTMENT NO.ESOO I �•
g
crill" .!,�':.
f
lOT 12
LOT 19
SET ler PEIAA wl
rtwo IC co" uo.$oT00
$ as•'raz- w
cox
4'1
/
ETart1
. 14
SET• 77Nio CAPr mom
221 owl LOT 1)
non t wt ?wren AIME
ASPHALT PAiKtoG
01 a)
OF A PORTION OF LOTS 1S, 16, 18 C 1'% v
OF THE •TOWN OF' ESTES PARK, COUNTY OF L,
A PORTION OF THE NW 1/4 OF THE NE° 1/4 OF SE
E sr
° a ea'avaa'e
ie.19
m liEw7ar
LOT ie .
nsrr+tra etw orw cAL1 LOT le
BLOW caeca
avaisiFm
r==-PERIMETER OF BUILD' 'G ONLY IS SHOWN
INTERIOR COURTYARD OT LOCATED —
NOR HERE MISC. WALK;. LIGHTS, RET.
FS AND OE ORATIVE OVERHANGS.
RAILINGS. PORCHES. TAIRWAV5. PILLARS.
ETC.
fNlI71C CY N0niu.
nip urnccanwe N ae 3`---7'S M
rLAIMME CAP No Sat 25.22
DCApwe s ay.co0- W 0i
raou taA co11RCa
eel 1.101. 11T SET
W lX rN GOet Ye' t1C IL eH
iet le or rAIIX oaAss
CAP et PllLVlous a 7wa .
a I
l� b
a
w I
x
w
..I+o COIL !E[Tccalve° owe
N P7EVloua sumo
rn0 ter Moan we
MASTIC cAP WO. 41.451,
SURVEYORS CERTIFICATE
I hereby certify that on tho date shown a field survey wad conducted
under my supervision, of the above described property. and that all
building improvementa.•easements, rights-Cif•-HaY in evidence or known
to me are correctly shown on the above Plat. I further certify that
there are no enrccroachmonts by and/or on th1g;;+p unless otherwise
noted. p/ . KGT ;. ,` E
A•u-� tt���Q'TCdi��e
coueTYARO
ps0PPWC mama
S 7a'6T E
O RTH Of
omm
r'JlariArT La
e9 A4'52'22 •
120.20
MIAOW
IK4
roan'
rBatt
�
to
7.
3rr lfr 10
PLAticCC,J
fat ne
a WAi!!' r
rAo.m tenc
mull=` 11E61X wf
ir�1CC CM IIp, IS7fo
Ise amea
MOE OVEfiuxC
fee UV Mum we
ticontx raw
K CCIIC CUM
COUNTY SURVEYC
Deposited this ,
of the county survo'
reception number
38-51-102. Colorado
Received By
Tawrh 11.7:4Ste. Pal I'
r•
Peu,:'m:!uift Natal]�;F°
11E"ermrniii ( E r p res
Department of Building Safety 170 MacGregor AVOiltte P.0. Box 1200 1 sires Park, CO 8 15li i
General Info (970) 57772 PAX (970) 58 „
Awl
0 r,t 00, lOM Me MY rM "Sf VaVWUU7l"74;YC'tmJI iflAAU llww, Yor P, wpm 7mooa V'*' ugamiMM Anew k' gum '„, ,yMNUM u lEdn
amm
job Address o 47., A.J , A Parcel #: 3'"w2' ` o 0 i 4
Business Name: h 1 4/ N 4 ez.A--
Town License: lin Phone: Se r 22 7
Sign Application / Permit
Business Owner 7A A' L .3 llW (C C
7ot
Property -Owner Name: 772A14 .Z N N L. LC, Phone: S 7 7 - /3 510
Address: 1 a ax 3222.
Sign Company:
Address:
0
4.Street)
A
(Street
�S 765 PAO •C
(City) ti?,)!- 491u q' ).
Town License #: Phone:
City)
Phone: S % 7 ,,,,w /
New ❑ Addition 0 Alteration 0 Te r ❑ Si ns to be removed:
Provide linear feet of building frontage of business: /2 6 ft. # of stories:
Note: Max total sign area is 1.5 sq. ft. of linear feet of building frontage of business, .75 sq. ft. for 2" floor.
Note: Max 150 sq. ft. of sign area per business.
Provide total square feet of all existing signs for business:
Provide square feet area of proposed sign:
Owner's Permission Slip: ♦ l Yes 0 No
C o e Si
(State) (Zip Code)
Sign T i Wall ❑Free-Standi for business:
Provide new totals uare feet of si
0 Window
Awn
Plot Type:
Required except for Wall and Window Sims. Note:
te Plot plans toy ti include s.
sign.yli 19.4o4 14 011 4 ,( di Q S t property lines, location and setbacks of proposed
li $or Wall and Window Signs provide graphic that shows location of progosed signs on building. tid, i 4f47" h $ 34I* ( EA0E-
Glirovide graphic representation with dimensions and height of proposed sign. 15 2 a ITT.
Note: Height is measured from original grade. Height restrictions vary by zoning & sign type. Max 25'
Note: Utility Locates are prooerty owners res sibilit , call 1-800-922-1987
Electrical Involved: 0 Nol Yes — State & Town License Required. State Permit and Inspection Required.
Is Sign Illuminated?: ❑ No Ir/ Yes - ❑ Indirectly al Internally; Must Comply with EVDC 7.9. Provide Cut sheets for lights.
Note: Illumination restricted to lot. Direct illumination including Neon is prohibited, except for open / vacancy signs not exceeding 2.5
sq. ft.
�w-
444
so. ft.
sq. ft.
zNQ
Code)
Total Valuations (Labor & Materials)
sto
certify this application is true and correct and agree to perform the work described according to plans/specifications submitted, reviewed and approved, and comply withassus
local ordinances, slate and federal laws as well as building codes. I certify that I have the property owner's authority and permission to apply for this permit. Additionally, I
UNDERSTAND THAT I AM RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY FEES OR EXPENSES INCURRED FOR PLAN REVIEW, PERMITS, INSPECTIONS AND OTHER
FEES ASSOCIATED WITH THIS APPLICATION
0 Contractor Owner 0 Tenant
goatute t L:�! tea. Date /S o�
��. Print Name
Si
*** Office Use Only ***
ltnisdiction:Tov314 Applicable Code: �At Zoning: 0 Overlay Zoning: (e.g. FPDP, geo-hazard, historic district,
Total allowable square feet for business: this frontage (max. 150 per business) Sign Type: U� ,'': % . Sign Class:. Go to Matrix
Special Requirements: 0 Engineering / Building Permit Required ❑ Sanitation Required 0 Life Safety
Min. Setback F S R g. Max. Height 15 Temp date:
❑ Conforming 0 Legally Non -Conforming 0 Ill -legally Non -Conforming
❑ Prohibited 0 Exempt 0 Denied tit Permitted
e
w
$ 75.00
11ServeralC omu_Dev1Building1FormslApplications\sign
Page 1
Revised 01-23.06 CM