HomeMy WebLinkAboutVARIANCE Sign 1700 Big Thompson Ave 2012-07-03
Estes Park Resort Off-Premise Sign Variance (Big Thompson
Avenue)
Estes Park Community Development Department, Planning Division
Room 230, Town Hall, 170 MacGregor Avenue
PO Box 1200, Estes Park, CO 80517
Phone: 970-577-3721 Fax: 970-586-0249 www.estes.org
E STES V ALLEY B OARD OF A DJUSTMENT
MEETING DATE: July 3, 2012
REQUEST: Variances from Larimer County sign code standards regarding off-
premise signs, sign location, and sign size.
LOCATION: 1770 Big Thompson Avenue
APPLICANT: Rocky Mountain Hotel Properties I, LLC
OWNER:
Sign: Rocky Mountain Hotel Properties I, LLC;
Land is owned by the US Department of Interior;
Land is managed by the Estes Valley Recreation and Park District.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND: This is a request by the Estes Park
Resort to remove and replace an existing off-premise sign. Specifically, the application
includes the following variance requests to the Larimer County Land Use Cod:
1) Off-premise sign (Section 10.5.E);
2) Sign in access easement (10.2.B); and,
3) Maximum size (10.11.B.2).
The purpose of the variance request is to allow removal and replacement of an existing
off-premise sign.
Surveyor:Van Horn Engineering
Parcel Number: 2529200920 Development Area:18.6 acre (Lodge
property)
Existing Land Use: Lake Estes Marina and Proposed Land Use: Same
access drive to Estes Park Resort
ZoningDesignation: CO Commercial
Outlying
Adjacent Zoning:
East: CO Commercial Outlying North: CO Commercial Outlying
West: CO Commercial Outlying South: N/A
Adjacent Land Uses:
East: Lake Estes Marina North: Commercial
West: Restaurant/Office South: Lake Estes
Services:
Water: N/A Sewer: N/A
DISCUSSION:
History. The Estes Park Resort, formerly Lakeshore Lodge, was built in 1999, and
annexed into the Town of Estes Park in July 2001.
The Estes Valley Board of Adjustment (BOA) approved a variance for the existing sign in
April 2000. Minutes from the meeting are attached.
From the minutes: “The sign was designed to keep in character and scale to the
EVRPDs marina sign.” A condition was that the sign could not exceed the allowable
limit set by the Larimer County Sign Code.
A second variance was approved in February 2003; this second approval was to allow
the addition of the “Silverado Restaurant” sign.
Minutes from the meeting are attached; note that the variance was twice continued
because the sign had minor non-conformities (once for an “AAA” sign, and once for
having a string of lights). The existing sign is currently non-conforming because it has
been altered without a sign permit or approval from the BOA. The restaurant name has
been changed and a new sign installed, which is in violation of the 2003 variance.
Design. The existing sign incorporates design elements of the marina sign, as was
required by the Estes Valley Recreation District and the BOA. The new owner of the
lodge desires to change the design scheme.
The new design would include log support posts mounted on stone pedestals, design
elements found with the lodge structure. The new sign would also include landscape
elements around the pedestal base, and would be internally illuminated.
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment, July 3, 2012 Page 2 of 5
Estes Park Resort Sign Variance Request
The sign will also include more open area than the existing ‘monolith’ sign. These
openings will help increase visibility between trail users and vehicles exiting the marina
and lodge.
The new design will also differentiate the lodge sign from the marina sign, which will
increase the visibility and identify the site for customers.
Sight Visibility. The sign will not be in the sight visibility triangle. This means the
variance request, as advertised, is moot.
Easement. The Larimer County sign code prohibits signs from being located within
access easements. However, this is the only location the Bureau of Reclamation will
allow the sign. Relocation outside of the easement would have no discernible impact.
Off-Premise. Staff suggests that because the sign would be located at the entrance to
the property, the sign is not ‘off-premise.’ However, the sign code specifies that signs
must be located on the same lot as the business. Because the sign would be located on
the adjacent property, the sign is considered off-premise by the sign code.
Staff supports the idea of an off-premise identification sign designed to help customers
know where to turn, but does not support the idea of an off-premise sign designed to
advertise the site or attract undue attention.
Size. The applicant requests a variance to allow a sign that is 53 square feet where the
sign code allows 33 square feet. It is staff’s opinion there is no justification to grant a
variance to the maximum size, and this aspect of the variance request should be denied
because it does not provide the least amount of variation that would allow relief. A
suggested condition of approval is to reduce the sign size to 33 square feet, which would
comply with standards in the county sign code.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Chapter Six of the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan
includes several community wide policies, including policies addressing Community
Design and Scenic and Environmental Qualities. Examples include:
2.9 Monument signs, constructed of stone or wood and incorporated into the
landscaping, are preferred over freestanding pole mounted signs.
6.2 Protect the scenic character and visual quality of the open space and gateway
experience to the Valley and Rocky Mountain National Park.
6.3 Protect and enhance Lake Estes as an entry to the Town of Estes Park.
6.5 Improve the overall image and character of developed areas within the Valley
that detract from the visual quality of the Valley.
6.6 Ensure that new development minimizes the impacts to visual and environmental
quality within the Valley.
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment, July 3, 2012 Page 3 of 5
Estes Park Resort Sign Variance Request
Because of the prominent location and request to place a sign that is typically not
allowed at a size not typically allowed, the Board should consider these community-wide
policies in evaluation of this sign variance.
REVIEW CRITERIA:In accordance with Section 3.6 C. “Standards for Review” of the
EVDC, all applications for variances shall demonstrate compliance with the applicable
standards and criteria contained therein. These standards are included in the Board
notebooks, and staff has provided comments in the Findings section below.
REFFERAL COMMENTS AND OTHER ISSUES: This request has been submitted to
all applicable reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment. At the time of this
report, no significant issues or concerns were expressed by reviewing staff relative to
code compliance or the provision of public services.
Estes Park Public Works Department provided review of this proposal even though it is
located outside Town limits. The Public Works Department recommended that if the
sign is located within the site visibility triangle, a Manual of Uniform Traffic Control
Devices (MUTCD) approved ‘pedestrian crossing’ signs should be installed.
Larimer County Building Department noted a sign permit and building permit will be
required.
FINDINGS:
1. Special circumstances exist and practical difficulty may result from strict
compliance with Code standards. The affected property does not have direct
highway frontage.
2. The variance is substantial because of the request to allow a sign that exceeds the
maximum allowed size.
3. The essential character of the neighborhood would not be substantially altered.
4. The variance would not adversely affect the delivery of public services.
5. The variance does not represent the least deviation from the regulations that will
afford relief. Specifically, the sign could be designed to comply with maximum size
limits.
6. This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for
consideration and comment. CDOT noted that if the sign presents sight visibility
problems they may require relocation or removal of the sign.
7. The submitted conditions or circumstances affecting the property (regarding the
off-premise sign request) are not of so general or recurrent a nature as to make
reasonably practicable the formulation of a general regulation for such conditions
or situations.
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment, July 3, 2012 Page 4 of 5
Estes Park Resort Sign Variance Request
8.The submitted conditions or circumstances affecting the property (regarding the
increase to sign size request) are of so general or recurrent a nature as to make
reasonably practicable the formulation of a general regulation for such conditions
or situations.
9. Failure 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.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval, with the following conditions:
1) Compliance with approved site and sign plans, except for revisions required below.
2) Sign shall not exceed 33 square feet in size.
3) A MUTCD ‘pedestrian crossing’ sign shall be installed at the applicant’s expense
prior to issuance of a sign permit.
4) A surveyor shall provide a surveyors certificate to document location of sign.
5) Landscaping as shown on plan, or alternative approved by staff, shall be installed
immediately upon completion of the sign, and shall be maintained in accordance with
Section 7.5.J Maintenance Requirements of the Estes Valley Development Code.
SUGGESTED MOTION: I move APPROVAL (or disapproval) of the requested variance
with the findings and conditions recommended by staff.
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment, July 3, 2012 Page 5 of 5
Estes Park Resort Sign Variance Request