HomeMy WebLinkAbout1.0 Application, Staff Report & Exhibits•
TIME:
PLACE:
DATE:
GARFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
MEETING
AGENDA
3:30 p.m.
Garfield County Courthouse, Suite 301
October 21, 1993
l)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
Call meeting to order
Roll Call
Approval of Minutes
April 22, 1993 Meeting #170
May 2, 1993 Meeting #170 (Continued)
PubHc Hearing for Variances from Section 5.07.09(1) Maximum
Sign Area, Section 5.07.07(9) Number of Signs per Lot, and
5.07.07(7) OIT-Site Sign Limitations (STAFF REPORT
PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED, PLEASE BRING WITH
YOU)
Applicant: Burning Mountain RV Park (Rippy RV Associates)_,/
PubHc Hearing for a Variance from Section 3.02.06 -Minimum /
Setback NR/RD Zone District
Applicant: Philip and Lanea Orgill
Adjournment
.,
H
I'
j\
11.
! I
I
l'l'
I,
IL
1:
I
I
I!
' '
I,
I,
I,
I
i
$ ;t.5'tJ. OO 92L_No. 1). 'f-Cf
CE l'\~J) OJ<" /}µRAJ/Al&, /4r;J · /! Y ~~
fet:> 1-/UA/~tJ ;:::;J:r,Y l 1'/H-DOLLARS
oP~ oF 4/J.7Us7 .1.-te/U/ II jf:A/-JAJb ---,&££
• p 240 882 77~
Receipt for
Certified Mail -
No Insurance Coverage Provided
Do not use for International Mail
(See Reverse)
P 0 . St.11<' ·""' /If' ( o<k
Glenwood Sorin2s. CO
0) Rctwn RL"C!''i'I S•,0•~'"!J
O> 10 Wtion' & l\11<" [i,-.1,,.,.,.,d
Cl> Rt.ehirn f!Ht·ii'I S~><lW1nq to W<1orn
§ Dal». cirid Add"·''"'''' l\dt1"'"
-, TOT 1\1 Pu'id']•
~ ::,'.~'"' rn [)"'
§ 10-27-93
"-
['
$.29
1.00
1.00
~.29
816< 2
"' "'
~ c , ...,
0
0 co
M
E
0
U-
ii' I
p 240 882 773
Receipt for
Certified Mail •
No Insurance Coverage Provided
Do not use for International Mail
!See Reverse)
Sent tv
,. 11 f:. ....,__ -•o
Strt>et arod No
1270 Countv Road 240
P 0 , St,1te and ?If' Cod»
Glenwood Surin<s, co Slf)
Po~t~fl'! $ .29
Certofocd frP 1.00
Spec>al Dt•hvery Fee
Rcstr1cl<Jr1 Delive1y Fee
Retu<n ReCE'•P1 Showing
to Whom & Dale [leiovered
Relurn Recf:1pl Showing to Whom, 1.00 Date, and Addressef''S Add<ess
TOT /\l Postag<' $2.29 & Fees
Postmark or Date
10-27-93
1
p 240 882 775
Receipt for
Certified Mail • ~ -U>llllOSlAllS
PO$T4LSlllVIC<
No Insurance Coverage Provided
Do not use for International Mail
(See Reverse)
Sent to
n-• -ra~o Dent-of Transnor
Sirc"t ""'1 N,,
p n n---~•n7
PO St.1to· ,rnlJ ?If' Coch·
Grand Junction co 81502
f'ostag• $ nn
Certof1ed f e<
1.00
Spec1,1' Oe11;erv ft'•'
Res!rtcled Del1w1y Fe»
Retu:ri fipre1r1 Sho'1>1ng
1o Whom & Datt• fld1vererJ
Return At·ct'1pt Showing IO Whorn,
Date, and Add•eSSP<>·s l\dd1t'S' 1 no
TOTAl Postag» $2.29 & Fees
Postmark or Date
10-27-93
I
"' "' • c
0 --,
0
0
Cl)
M
E
0
~
v;
"-
P, 2 4 D 882 774
Receipt for
Certified Mail •
No Insurance Coverage Provided
Do not use for International Mail
(See Reverse)
Senl to
Colorado & Utah Land Co.
'.:>11<·•·1 «"<IN,-,
P.O. Box 316
!'() St.ii•' and /If' ( nrk
Pueblo-co 81002
Pci•.ld(jt' $ on
((•ri.lwd fh 1.00
Sp,·( 1al rk:1very I'"
Re'> Im \(•r\ [Jc-l1v<·r 1 fee
Rr!<•''' Ht>lP•flT S•1ow 0 nq
10 W~1rnr1 & 0«1'' lJ1•: v• rf'tl
Rt'turn fh, t'1PI Stic1w1n\I IO 1Nhorn 1.00 Dare, and A<irlri ',~ee·~ Ar1r1""''
TOTAL Po'1dgi' $ 2.29 & f<'W>
Postrnilrk (H DJ le
10-27-93
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --.-~--"-'"' -,,_. __ - - - - - - -------------------------• •
PUBLIC NOTICE
TAKE NOTICE that Lanea J. and Philip J. Orgill have applied to the Zoning Board of Adjustment, Garfield
County, State of Colorado, to grant a Variance in connection with the following described properties situated
in the County of Garfield, State of Colorado; to-wit:
Legal Description: A tract of land situated in a portion of Section 25, T5S, R91W of the 6th P.M. Lot 9,
Block 3, Unit One of the Elk Creek Subdivision.
Practical Description: Located at 0144 Navajo Road, Elk Creek Development, 1/2 mile north of New Castle.
The Orgill Variance application is to allow a reduction in the required rear setback area on the above-
described property.
TAKE NOTICE that Rippy RV Associates have applied to the Zoning Board of Adjustment, Garfield
County, State of Colorado, to grant Variances in connection with the following described properties situated
in the County of Garfield, State of Colorado; to-wit:
Practical Description: Located at 7051 County Road 335, 1/2 mile east of the New Castle I-70 exit on County
Road 335 and located approximately two (2) miles West of New Castle off ofthe South 1-70 Frontage Road.
Legal Description -Rippy RV Associates -See Exhibit A
The Rippy Variance application is to allow signs in excess of the 90 square foot maximum up to 150 square
feet; to allow more than one sign on a lot and to allow for an off-site sign on property not associated with the
activity.
All persons affected by the proposed Variance applications are invited to appear and state their views, protests
or objections. If you can not appear personally al such hearings, then you are urged to state your views by
letter, particularly if you have objections to either Variance application request, as the Zoning Board of
Adjustment will give consideration to the comments of surrounding property owners and others affected in
deciding whether to grant or deny the requests for tl1e Variance. These Variance applications may be reviewed
at the office of the Planning Department located at 109 8th Street, Suite 303, Garfield County Courthouse,
Glenwood Springs, Colorado between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday.
·11iat public hearings on these applications has been set for the l6tl1 day of November, 1993, at the hour of
7:00 p.m., at the office of the Zoning Board of Adjustment, Garfield County Courthouse, Suite 301, 109 8th
Street, Glenwood Springs, Colorado.
Planning Department
Garfield County
i
I
I
I
I ,,
,, .• 1-,,,!' ~ht< ~(-_\'' '.
A l'"lrcr~l of hind sHnat:ed jn I.oto 3 and 4 of Section l, and jn Lot 1 of SecUon
2, Tr•l'/11shlp 6 South, futnae 91 West, and jn the SE!(SE!( and SWJ(SE.'.( of SecUon 32, ·
Tnwnshlp !i South, H<111ae 90 Hest of the Sbtth Pr.1ndpal Morldlan, C(11.mty of
C'~:1rflelr1, St<tl·.e of C:olor<1r.1o: said parcel Jylna Northerly of the Northerly r.lght-
of-w1y of County Hoad No. 335 and Eaoterly of the E<isterly rlaht-of-way of
County Hoad Ho. 335 /\ccoss 1:0 Insterl:a1:e lllghw<iy I-70, and Southerly of the .
r.:entr.•rlJm: of the Go.lorado Hlver belna more partlcularly described as foll01-is:
Gononenr::lna at: the South•~ast Corner of Section 32, 1'ownship 5 South, llBnge 90
Hesl of 1.ho Shtth Prlnclp."I] MerJdlan; thence N.09°01 '15"11. ·2715,54 feet alona
th(1 Soul.herly l lne of sald SocUon 32 to the South Quarter Co1'ner of sald
Sect:lon :i2, the '.fr•.\!L!~2.!ll~ of B8!1!!.l!l!lliJ; thence N.09"01 1 15"E. 270.00 feet: to a
pr:i.lnt: .In t:he cente1.·l ln" of t:h•~ Color<i.do River; thence r.:r:int:Jnnlna alona said
cent:ed.lne the foll011in!J ten (lO) co•.1rses:
l) N.63"07'41''E. 452.51 feet;
?.) N.!ll"33'30"E. ClM.02 feet;
:J) N. IH • 20' 30"E, 230, 013 feet:;
4) S.50"40'49''E. 230.56 feet;
5) S.47"37'35"E. 396.67 feel:;
6) S.fi4"02'09''E. 531.00 feet;
7) s.52°52 1 18 11 E. 3·12.69 feet;
0) S.6(i 0 42 140"E. 141.04 feet;
9) S.63'06'02"E. 146.11.l feP.t; .
10) S.74"3fi'33"E. 304.30 feet; thence leaving said centerline s.00•03 1 25"E.
14'.1.9li feet to a point on the Norl11erly rlght-of-·way of County Hoad llo., 335 as
coJK<l:rucled and jn placl'l; thence conUrn1ina along said Norlherly rjght-of-way
tlm fol.lowing oleven courses:
1) a.long the arc of a curve to the rlght having a radius of 6341.05 feet,
a central anu.le of 04"37'07", a cl1stance of 511.22 .feet (chord
bears N. 73"16' 34"H. 511 1 00 feet) i
2) aloha l:he 1u·c of a c,,1rve to t:he left h<i.ving a racll.•.is of 5210.99 feet
a central <male of 03"50'34", a cllstance of 31)0.03 feet (chord bears
N.72"53'17''W. 349.97 feet);
:J) N. 74"40'34"W. 59n.69 feet
4) nlon!J the arc of a curve to the left having a radius of 1902.60 feet,
a centrHl angle of 11"34 143", a dlGtance of 400.67 feet (chord bears
H.Cl0°35 1 56"H. 398.99 feet);
5) N.86"23'17"W. 030.17 feet: to a po.Int on the Hmiterly-llne of sa.ld
Ser.:t:l.on 1, also being a point on lhe Fn.sterly line of said $ecl:ion 2;
6) N.06"04'M"~I. 30.63 feet;
'I) ll.05"41 '52"H. 143.50 feet:;
I.I) alona tl1e <ire of a curve to the right having a radius of 3570.00 feet,
a central anale of 03°59 1 00", a distance o'f 240.20 feet (chord bears
N.03'42 1 22"H. 240.15 feet);
9) ll.81"42'53"H. 196.92 feel:;
lO) N.'10°53 1 23"H. 204.96 feet;
11) along the m·c:: of a curve to the r.laht: havina a radht"> of 1930.00 feet,
a cent:ral angle of 07°52'32", a distance of 265.20 feet: (chord bears
N.74"57'07"~1. 265:07 1 ) to a point; on the &lsterly r.lght-of-w.O\y of
Go1.mt:y noad No. 335 /\ccer>'l t:o Inb~rstate 111alwiay I-70; t:hl'JnGe N.13°48'42"E.
191.61 feet: a1ona said Ea9t;e1·Jy right-of-way t:o point: on t:h'3 H01·t:he1·ly line of
sald $ect:lon 2, also l:>el11g a point: on t:he $outherly line of. <>aid SecUon 32;
thence N.FJ9"01'15"1L along sald Jlorlher.ly ll11e 3T/.64 feet to the Tn10 l'olrJl' of
Oec1.!i111lr!!'1' said par•;el r.:011t:a1nlna· 30.335 acres, more or less.
I
.1
A Tract of land located in 'l'ownahlp 6 South,
Jtange 91 Weat1 Section 5. Deacribed ae Lot 5
(Net 20.01 Jlcreo) exceptliig out 2.00 Acres
deocribed bi Dook 691, Paga 66 of recorded
4 document in the Garfield County Clerk Office.
Aleo a tract of land co11talnJ.11g .00 acrca
beginning at a point "hence the SI~ corner of
Section 4 Ueara south oo• 50' East 1501. 0',
thence !lorth 00°50' Heat 514.0' thence llorth
77°00'30" Eaat 10.22', thence South 00°50'
Eaut 190.13', thence South 89°10' Wcet 5 .. 0',
thence south 00 50' East 313.00', thonco south
44°37'10" Heat 7.02' to the Point of lleginnJng.
Total lB.09 llcreo.
,._ E :
-I • Complete Items 1 2 tor addltionel 1ervlcee. 'I • Complete items 3, end 4a & b.
I • Print your name and addre11 on the revertt of this form so thet we can
return this card to you.
• Attach this form to the front of the mallplece, or on the beck if apace
does not permit.
I • Write ''Return Receipt Requested" on the menptece below the erticle number
'Cl • The Return Receipt wlll show to whom the article was deHvered eNt the dete I delivered. I :e::::dAd~:e•::::Y i P,0, Box 427 § Glenwood Springs, co 81602
I al.ish to receive the
follow ervlces (for an extra fae):
1. D Addressee's Address
2. 0 Restricted Dellverv
"'"m mm ""e ~""" , ~ -,~ Jl-::liH:lt--~1F'rvQ. 11~ o :2J' · · ,., Official Business \:;-1~gj .. ,
· .. NO~t: 1993
••
GARFIELD COUNlY
Print your name, address and ZIP Code here
• Garfield County Building & Planning
109 8th Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
"" R: .I • Complete Items 1 and/or 2 for additional aervicea. 'I • Comphne Items 3, and 4a & b.
I • Print your name and address on the reverse of thls form so that we can
return this card to you,
' Attach this form to the front of the meilplece, or on the back If apace
does not permit.
I also wish to receive the
following services (for an extra j"
fee):
1. 0 Addressee's Address
• • Write "Return Receipt Requested'' on the mallplece below the article number.
'e • The Return Receipt wlll show to whom the article w111 delivered and the date 2. D Restricted Delivery
Consult ostmaster for fee. i delivered.
4e. Article Number J
I 3 J:::'• :d:~:·;: •:cKennis f-,-4!'-b.~s"'er'"'v""ic-'e"!T~v"p-e.l..!,,.,._----=--,,--J
0 Registered
[X Certified
6.
1270 County Road 240
Glenwood Springs, CO 31601
0 Express Meil
7.
ETURN RECEIPT
UNITED STATES POSTAL s1"·~9i~;...1~>-a~:'.~1 I ~
Olflclal BuslnaH 1r!!J1\!).----.:--::--:::-:=.f".fl'~·A~m ~ _ _. t:1I
GARF"IEL.D COUNl¥1!(r8f~:~~.M~ liiil
Print your name, address and ZIP Code here
• • Garfield County Building & Planning
109 8th Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
• •
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
• •
BEFORE THE GARFIELD COUNTY
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
* * * * *
TRANSCRIPT REGARDING VARIANCES FROM SECTION 5.07.09--
MAXIMUM SIGN HEIGHT; SECTION 5.07.07(9)--
NUMBER OF SIGNS PER LOT; SECTION 5.07.06--
SIGNS OVER GASPUMP; AND SECTION 5.07.09--
MAXIMUM SIGN AREA.
APPLICANT: BURNING MOUNTAIN RV PARK
(RIPPY RV ASSOCIATES)
* * * * *
March 25, 1993
'J1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
COUNTY OF GAR"ELD, STATE OF COLORADO
TRANSCRIPT OF RECORD: MEETING #169
DATE: MARCH 25, 1993
•
THOSE PRESENT: Kathy Barto, Regular Member, Board of Adjustment
Leo Jammaron, Chairman, Board of Adjustment
Harold Raymond, Assoc. Member, Board of Adjustment
Peter Cabrinha, Assoc., Board of Adjustment
Steve Zwick, Assistant County Attorney
Dave Michaelson, County, Planner
Stella Archuleta, Minutes
11 PERTAINING TO: Variances from Section 5.07.09--Maximum Sign Heighti
12 Section 5.07.07(9)--Number of Signs Per Loti Section 5.07.06--Signs
13 Over Gaspumpi and Section 5.07.09--Maximum Sign Areai Applicant -
14 Burning Mountain RV Park (Rippy RV Associates)
15
16 WHEREUPON, the following proceedings before the Board of Adjustment was
17 had and entered of record to wit:
18 (I certify that the following is true and accurate to the best of my
19 ability.)
20
21
22
23
I '
Transcriptionist
At the request of County Clerk &
Recorder Mildred Alsdorf
( LEO JAMMARON:~ •• to order. Ah, the meet"g today is a request for
2 variances from Section 5.07.09, Maximum Sign Height; Section 5.07.079,
3 Number of Signs Per Lot; 5.0706, Signs Over Gas Pump; and Section
4 507 ••. 5.07.09, Maximum Sign Area. Applicant is Burning Mountain RV
5 Park.
6 STEVE ZWICK: I guess the first thing ..• do we have the proper
7 notification?
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
DAVE MICHAELSON: Actually, we need the roll call real quick.
STEVE ZWICK: Yeah, Ok, roll call. Who's here?
STELLA ARCHULETA: Leo Jammaron?
LEO JAMMARON: Here.
STELLA ARCHULETA: Katherine Barto?
KATHERINE BARTO: Here.
STELLA ARCHULETA: Stephanie Lavorini?
: (silence)
STELLA ARCHULETA: Harold Raymond?
HAROLD RAYMOND: Here.
STELLA ARCHULETA: Peter Cabrinha?
PETER CABRINHA: Here.
STEVE ZWICK: Ahh ••• Mr. Chairman, I would say ••• umm .•. if you need
21 the Public Notice and the Proof of Publication, and they do appear to
22 be in order, indicating that notice of this Public Hearing was
23 published in the Glenwood Post on March the 3rd of this year, which was
24 more than 15 days prior to this hearing, so the Public Notice appears
25 to be in order. I would ... note that the applic ••. the Public Notice
26 states that the application is for a variance to allow for a sign in
27 excess of 30-foot height limitation, a variance to locate a sign with
28 the required 25-foot setback on County Road 335, and a variance to
29 allow more than one sign on the property on the above-described
Page 3
'1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
------------
\ property ••• then c~es the legal description wtpch is, basically,
substantially, as you said, it's on County Road 335. Ahm ••• the issue
of the maximum sign area was not requested by the applicant and was not
noticed, although Staff does note it in their Staff Report. We also
have Notice to Adjacent Property Owners. The list indicates that there
are four property owners who qualify for notice. They were all sent
notice on or about the 2nd of March, and that requirement has also been
met, so it does appear that notice is legally sufficient for you to
proceed with the Public Hearing.
DAVE MICHAELSON: Mr. Chairman, I need to enter the following
exhibits into the record: Exhibit "A" is the Staff Report. Exhibit
"B" is the Application. Exhibit "C" is the Proof of Publication.
Exhibit "D" is the Proof of Mailing. Exhibit "E" is the Resolution
92056 which was the Burning Mountain RV Park PUD, which I included in
the packet in front of you. Exhibit "F" are the PUD Zone District
Regulations; I also included that in the packet. Exhibit "G"
are ••• ahh .•• sign code Excerpts that ... ahh ... I took out of the sign code
which are pertinent to this application. Exhibit "H" is a 3/25/93
letter from Stephanie Lavorini; she was unable to attend. Umm ••• Her
letter is also in that packet. Exhibit "I" is a Vicinity Map that I'll
just pass around. I think most of us are familiar with where the site
is. And Exhibit "I" is the Vicinity Map that includes ..• ahh •.. topo
lines from ••• ahh ••• the floodplain studies that we had done for the
24 Colorado ... so, it would be Exhibit "A" through "I". Do we need a
25 motion to put those into the record?
26 STEVE ZWICK: Ahh .•. Yes, that would be appropriate.
27 LEO JAMMARON1 I think we could have a motion to ••. to enter
28 the ••• ahh .•• the Notification of the Adjocen ... of Adjacent Property
29 Owners and •••
Page 4
"1 \
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
KATHY BARTO: ~ move.
HAROLD RAYMOND: I second it.
•
LEO JAMMARON: Ok. It's been moved and seconded that the
Notification of Adjacent Property Owners and Publication are in order.
We accept ... ahh ••• what is it?
DAVE MICHAELSON: Exhibits "A" through "I".
STEVE ZWICK: "A" through "I".
LEO JAMMARON: Exhibits?
DAVE MICHAELSON: That's right.
LEO JAMMARON: All in favor? You ... Do you vote this time?
KATHY BARTO: Aye.
HAROLD RAYMOND: Aye.
PETER CABRINHA: Aye.
LEO JAMMARON: Opposed? Same sign? Motion carried.
DAVE MICHAELSON: Mr. Chairman, and .•• ahh ••. members of the Board,
I'd like to just ••• clarify some things that ••• ahh ••. Steve mentioned
concerning what's actually being requested here. Umm .•• There are
essentially two variances being requested in the application that were
noticed ••• umm ... in the ..• in the ... proof of publication. The first is a
variance from Section 5.0709, which is maximum sign height. And,
secondly, is ... ahh ... Section ••• ahh ... 50 ••• oops, 'scuse me •.. ahh •••
STEVE ZWICK: 5.0706
DAVE MICHAELSON: 5.0706, which is number of signs per lot.
Umm ..• The maximum sign area •.• what is being proposed, does, if fact,
exceed our Code. Umm ... The problem is that, in the original
application, what was noticed in the Proof of Publication doesn't cite
that. So, essentially, what ••• what you have before you is just ..• those
two variances regarding the heighth of the sign and the number of signs
on the site. Umm ••• what that means to the applicant is
Page 5
\1 \ that ..• wnm ••• what fe.s ..• what is proposed rig' now would have to fit
2 our Code, in terms of maximum sign area, which for the zone district
3 that this property is in, ••• wnm ..• is essentially 90 square feet. If
4 the applicants do still intend on requesting ..• wnm ••• a sign area in
5 excess of that, they would have to, essentially, request an additional
6 variance, and would come back to you in front of the Board in that
7 form. Umm •.. That was my mistake and .•• and I apologize for this ••• this
8 is kind of my first foray into our sign code. Umm ••. It's one I won't
9 forget. Umm ..• There•s a reference to signs over gaspumps.
10 Umm ..• They ••• they, essentially, do not have to conform to that. What
11 the Code says is that .•• wnm ... it, essentially, excludes signs over
12 gaspumps from being included into the maximum number of signs per lot.
13 Umm ••• What they've requested is an addit ••• is a sign off the gaspumps
14 and separate, which is, I think, cited as Sign 2 in your Code.
15 Umm ..• I'll briefly go through the Staff Report and some of the salient
16 issues that are included in the additional exhibits. Umm ••• As most of
17 us realize, •.• ahm ••• this property is located •.• ahh ••• east of the Town
18 of New Castle .•. wnm ••• on the south side of the river .•• wnm ••• east
19 of ••• ahh ... directly east of the New Castle I-70 exit, which located
20 between the Colorado River and County Road 335. On ..• In July of
21 192 ... 1992 the applicant was granted a PUD, which allowed for 16 acre
22 of RV spaces, 5 acres of commercial use, 5 acres of open space. The
23 commercial use was approximately 24-thou ••• 2,400 square feet, and
24 included a convenience store, an RV Park offices and restroom
25 facilities, in addition to gasoline pumps. Umm ••• I've included the
26 Resolution, which is 92056 ... ahm ••• that, essentially, established the
27 zone districts within the PUD ..• wnm ••. and I'll talk about one condition
28 in there that I think ••• is important to consider. And I've also
29 included a Site Plan. Again, there are, essentially, two variances
Page 6
'1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
o being requested. te first is from 50709 to l1ow for a free-standing
sign in excess of the 20-foot maximum in the A/R/RD zone district. The
reason we fall back on the A/R .•. A/R/RD zone district sign code
guidelines is that, even this project was established within the PUD
process, there was no sign code written into that, Ok?
Umm ••• That •.. was, essentially, ... umm ••. an error on a ••• on a ••• on a part
of staff at the time the PUD was approved. Our Code is pretty
specific, in that it requires a PUD to include some sign code language
in it. Because it didn't, it falls back on the underlying zoning which
is A/R/RD. Umm ... One of the exhibits I gave you was a description
of •.. of what that sign code is. Essentially, what it is for a
free-standing sign is 20-feet maximum heighth, and 90 square feet
maximum face ••• for the sign. The second variance, the Section
50 ..• 507099, which allows only one permitted sign per
lot ••. umm ••• again, the applicants are proposing a total of two signs,
counting the price sign. umm ••• The applicants had originally requested
a variance to allow for a sign 10 feet within the 25-foot setback.
Umm .•. Section 507092 of our se ... of our ••. sign code requires that a
sign shall maintain a minimum setback of 10 feet for the street
right-of-way line, as opposed ta conforming to our normal setbacks.
Umm ••• Eh •.. From what the ... the ••. the ... umm ••• applicants have proposed
in the application, they fit that ... that requirement, and, therefore,
no variance is needed ••• for the sign placement. I've included a copy
of the applicants' cover letter. Umm ... On page 7 in the Staff Report,
and a portrayal of both the placement and the design of both the signs
in question. In terms of standards fo ..• of review for the Board of
Adjustment ••. umm ... Section 50702 allows the Bo •.• the County Board of
Adjustment to grant a variance to the sign code based on the following
guidelines. The first guideline is that it is the policy of the County
Page 7
·'l
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
,; to encourage aest~ically-pleasing signs witltut substantial
interference with the business to which the sign relates.
Unun ••• Standard Two, project ••• projected signs should not substantially
obscure any part of another sign related to another use. Three,
excessively large or tall signs should be avoided to prevent visual
obstruction of the natural scenery within the County. Four, variances
shou ••. should not be granted which would allow any business to use an
unfair advantage over another. And finally, Five, if it's necessary or
reasonably to grant a variance to the strict regulations of this
chapter of cited code, the sign shall be limited in size, height,
11 location ••• unun ••• in conformance with the proposed sign. Again, the
12 first variance is a heighth variance. The applicants are proposing a
13 40-foot, primary sign to be located at the southwest corner of the
14 property near the intersection of the County Road and the I-70 ramp.
15 Unun ••• The site is ••• unun ••• partially obscured b ••• from the ••. from the
16 adjacent I-70 ramp, particularly ... unun ••• if you're eastbound. And the
17 difference in grade, the reason I brought this elevation survey, is
18 that it indicates the ... unun ••• the surface elevation of I-70, and the
19 surface elevation of the site itself. unun ••• These are control points
20 on the lanes. Unun ••• The elevation changes .•. ahh .•• somewhere in the
21 neighborhood of 20 feet, particularly as you're going over the ramp.
22 Unun ••• That's partially the reason why the applicants are requesting the
23 heighth variances. They're suggesting that ••• ahh .•. there is a physical
24 constraint, in terms of the visibility of the sign itself. Unun ••• in
25 Staff's opinion, ••• unun ••• I .•• I personally don't have that much of a
26 problem with a 40-foot sign. Unun ••• For a point of reference, I'll give
27 you a ••. a •.• couple ••. ahh •.. signs in Glenwood. Unun ••• The Factory
28 Surplus sign, which sits on two .•• ahm ••• steel pillars, that's a 40-foot
29 sign. unun ••• The Gart Brothers sign, which is in front of .•• ahh .•• the
Page 8
2
3
4
5
6
•entrance to ••• ahh~the .•• what's in there tha~everyone shops at?
WallyWorld ••• ?
LEO JAMMARON1 Roaring Fork Marketplace?
DAVE MICHAELSON1 Right.
LEO JAMMARON1 Wal-Mart.
DAVE MICHAELSON: Umm •.. That's a 30-foot sign. umm .•• In terms of
7 face size, the Gart Brothers sign is approximately 90 square feet
8 of ••• uhh ••• of face area. umm ••• The Factory Surplus sign is about 40.
9 umm ..• That just gives you a point of reference. Umm .•• I
10 included ••• umm ••• it was a little difficult to tell from what was
11 submitted, it was very conceptual, in terms of the locations. One of
12 the conditions the applicants will have to comply, assuming the
13 Board ••• umm ••• agrees with the heighth variance, is that, ••. ahh ..• there
14 shall be no free-standing signs placed at the intersection of two
15 streets within a triangular area defined by a line extending from a
16 point 30 feet from the intersection of curb lines along one street, to
17 a point 30 feet from the intersection along the other curb line.
18 Umm ..• The applicants have not requested a variance to that standard,
19 and ... at the time of building permit, at the time th .•• this is granted,
20 they would have to conform to that placement, or request another
21 variance. They are also req ••. requesting a variance to allow for more
22 than one sign. Umm .•. The applicants state that, due to changes in the
23 design criteria used by Phillip's Petroleum, ••• umm ••. a free-standing
24 sign is proposed instead of the signs placed above each pump. Umm ... in
25 Staff's opinion, this request does not violate the intent of the sign
26 code, and, in my opinion, should be granted. The design of that sign
27 is, in fact, ••• umm ••• in your staff packet. In terms of the sign area,
28 again, ••. umm .•• the the applicants are are requesting a sign that
29 is ••. ahh ••• 252 square feet of primary face area. umm ••• Our code only
Page 9
·• allows the 90 squa~ feet. Again, this reque~was not included in the
2 application and not included in the legal notice, so ..• the size of the
3 sign is not a really salient point right now. They would either have
4 to conform to 90 square feet, or apply for an additional variance, and
5 that would come before you for review. umm .•. Ext ••• The additional
6 exhibits, and I'll just walk you through some of the more important
7 points. In terms of the Resolution, ••• umm ••• and this is up for a a
8 little bit of interpretation, and I'll leave it to the Board~ you have
9 authority to interpret this ..• umm ••• how you see fit. Condition 4, the
10 Resolution will require that all site lighting shall be adequately
11 shielded and shall not extend beyond the property lot limits or above
12 the horizontal plane. Umm ••• One issue is horizontal plane assumes a
13 elevation which isn't defined in the Resolution. Secondly, it .•• it
14 requires that all area lighting, which I would I would suggest would
15 include this sign ..• ahm ... shall be of high-pressure or low-pressure
16 sodium variety. The idea is that at the time this Resolution was
17 passed, in my review of the Minutes, indicated that there was great
18 concern of ••. ahm .•. regarding ••• ahh ... it's called light bleed, the
19 amount of light that's gonna leave the site •.• umm .•• in terms of impact
20 from a visual perspective. In terms of the lighting of the sign
21 itself ••• umm ••• I'll kind of leave it to the Board in terms of how you
22 want to interpret that. I would interpret that as .•• as a restricting
23 the amount of light you could place on that sign, consistent with the
24 Resolution. The second ••• umm ... handout I gave you is, essentially, the
25 PUD zone regulations for the site. Umm ••• I would direct your attention
26 to "B", the highlighted area in terms of conflict. It reads, "Where
27 the provisions of the Burning Mountain RV Park PUD zone regulations do
28 not address a specific subject, the provisions of the Garfield County
29 zoning resolution, or any other ordinance of the resolutions or
Page 10
"1 • regulations of Gar,eld County shall prevail"~ Umm ••• That's why we
2 appeal back to the underlying zoning ••• umm ••• for the definition of the
3 sign code requirements on the property, because it wasn't defined
4 within the PUD. There has also been some discussion, and I'm not
5 really sure ••• well, I'll tell you how I think it
6 relates ••• umm .•• there's been ••• I've had several phone calls
7 regarding ••. umm ... assertions that what's really going on out there is a
8 truck stop. umm ..• What they're implying, or has been suggested, is
9 that, by advertising diesel on the sign, which is is the lower face
10 plate of one of the signs, that you're ••. umm ••• creating a situation
11 which implies a truck stop. Umm .•• I don't agree with that, only
12 because I'll give you a real-world example. You can go through any gas
13 station in in Glenwood Springs, for example, and see that those people
14 are, in fact, selling diesel gasoline. umm ••• In my opinion, and I know
15 some people disagree with me, it's a leap in logic to say that if
16 someone's selling diesel, that that, by default, you've just created a
17 truck stop. I I don't think that's an issue here, but I I
18 would ... umm ••• just for clarification I've indicated the uses by right
19 that were granted in the PUD zoning. Umm ... In the commerical district,
20 it includes a convenience store, gasoline outlet, laundry facilities,
21 restaurant, diner, cafe, or car wash, idea being that, if they came in
22 for a truck wash, that would be a violation of zoning. Umm •.• They
23 would have to either amend the PUD text to do that or it wouldn't be
24 permitted. In addition, it it includes buildings associated with the
25 RV Park, service business, including store, gasoline storage, pump
26 dispenser, shower rooms, laundry facilities, etcetera. I think that
27 offers some protection from ••• umm ... the fear of a truck stop.
28 Again, ••• umm .•• if they did ••• umm •.. suggest that, they would have to
29 amend the text of this. In addition, I've highlighted
Page 11
· • some ••• ahh •.. some tints on the very back. I'8ays, "The principal
business of the RV Park shall be to provide parking spaces for
3 park-model RV's, travel trailers, camper vehicles and/or tents. On
4 "G", "The principal business of the convenience store shall be to
5 provide service to the RV Park, interstate travelers, and tourists.
6 Alun ••• Some have implied that, by allowing interstate travelers, you're
7 allowing trucks in there. Umm ••• I think that has to do more with the
8 physical constraint of the design if trucks can even get in there, and
9 I don't know the answer to that question. I've also
10 included ••• umm ••• the sign code itself. Again, it requires a 20-foot
11 maximum heighth, and a 90 square foot face plate. And, I've also
12 included Stephanie Lavorini's letter. Umm •.. Stephanie did, in fact,
13 have a problem with the heighth of the sign. Umm ••• Stephanie suggested
14 that a 30-foot sign, and instead of a 40-foot sign, would be acceptable
15 to her. Umm ••. I did receive a a phone call from the applicant,
16 although I haven't gotten anything in writing to this effect, that they
17 thought that a 30-foot sign may, in fact, be more practical from a
18 engineering perspective, a structural perspective on the sign. Again,
19 that was only verbal, and I'll let the applicant address that.
20 Umm .•• In addition, ... umm ••• Stephanie had some problems with the
21 Phillips' sign itself. Umm ••. Here•s the argument and I'm not sure a
22 sign code really gives us the ability to do this, but that, ..• umm ••• the
23 sign, the proposed 40-foot sign, is clearly ••• ahm ••. oriented towards
24 the sale sale of gasoline as the primary communication of the sign, as
25 opposed to ••• ahm ••• simply addressing an RV Park. Umm ••• I'm not sure,
26 I'll leave it to the Board of Adjustment how you wanna •.. want to deal
27 with that. Stephanie's suggestion was that, ..• umm ••• the principal
28 purpose of the sign would have to be the RV Park, as opposed to the gas
29 station. Umm ... I don't have a lot in the code to appeal to in that
Page 12
• respect. umm ••• w1' that I. •• I'll turn it ovf to any questions from
2 the Board, or allow the applicant to respond to any of my comments.
3 (Inaudible) ••• the applicants.
4 APPLICANT1 Well, Ok, first of all I I have to agree that short of
5 the word "diesel" being (inaudible) RV Park indicates that, would
6 indicate to me that ... ahh ••• perhaps RV parks are secondary. I would
7 have to agree with Stephanie in that ••• in that regard. Ahh .•• I would
8 think that ••• ahh •.• Rippy and Associates, being primarily interested in
9 the RV Park would ••• would want to make certain that"RV" would
10 be ... ahh ••• closer to the top and ••. umm .•• will, in fact, if the
11 clearances are, indeed, as you say, the words "RV Park and Store" would
12 not even be visible in the eastbound traffic, and ••• ahh ••• and,
13 therefore, there would be no advantage for that high, or, you know, to
14 the RV people traveling eastward, and it would lend itself more
15 to ••. ahh ••• a truck stop type siteage. Ahh ... I wonder if that ••. I mean,
16 that's just my personal ... ahh ••• (inaudible) see it right now.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
?: May I address that?
LEO JAMMARON: You have the opportunity to respond.
?1 Pardon?
LEO JAMMARON: You have an opportunity to respond.
?1 Oh.
?1 Do you have anything you want ... ?
? : At the moment, no.
?1 Ok, if you want to go ahead and ...
?1 Ahh ... I think .•.
DAVE MICHAELSON1 If you could just identify yourself, sir, for the
27 record. We would ask everyone who speaks to •••
28 GARY SWALLOW: I'm Gary Swallow with Swallow Oil Company and we're
29 the ones providing the ... ahh ••• the tanks. And we sell all sorts of
Page 13
" 1 • (inaudible) ... Phil~ps' sign. Ahm ••• When thi~was
2 drawn ... umm ... "Diesel/RV Park Store" was just put in there and I don't
3 think there's ... there's in any necessarily in any particular order. So
4 that ... ahh ... "Diesel" doesn't have to be on top. It can be on the
5 bottom, and "RV Park" can be ... (inaudible). The reason the shield's on
6 top is that ... is that what Phillip's, basically, requires. They want
7 the sign, and then whatever we would ... whatever they would allow us to
8 put underneath there, is what would go under there.
9 ?: (Inaudible) ... what's you're saying. If
10 the ... ahh ... ahh •.. ahh ... consortium had any input, I would think that
11 they would want to ... ahh ... a little more ... ahh ... visibility ... umm ... for
12 the RV Park ... ahm ... according to the sign.
13 GARY SWALLOW: My son drew this up while I was on
14 vacation ... so ... and he's not around right now, but ... ahh ... the RV
15 Park ... (inaudible)
16 ? : (Inaudible)
17 GARY SWALLOW: If that's a problem, it (inaudible) a problem to
18 me. Dow ... ahh ...
19 (FEMALE, UNIDENTIFIED): (Inaudible) ... on the bottom two
20 lines ... (inaudible) ... visible from a distance coming ... coming toward
21 the east?
22 GARY SWALLOW: That is correct.
23 (FEMALE, UNIDENTIFIED): I mean, basically, you want them
24 to ... (inaudible) ... higher-up if you do it that way.
25 GARY SWALLOW: That's right.
26 (Someone is whispering near the microphone; next speaker is
27 inaudible due to the whispering).
28 (MALE, UNIDENTIFIED): Is the Phillips' 66 a square sign?
29 (MALE VOICE: (Inaudible).
Page 14
•1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
• (MALE, UNIDENT,IED): That's what I .•. wh,,I thought.
(MALE, UNIDENTIFIED): The old-style signs are not. They're ••• the
shield •••
(MALE, UNIDENTIFIED): . .. stickin' out ...
(MALE, UNIDENTIFIED): .•• without any .•. ahh ••• (inaudible) •.. frame
around.
LEO JAMMARON: Ok, does anyone else have anything to say?
GREG MCKENNIS: Yeah, I'd like to make a few comments, if I could.
9 I'd just like to look at that map first, if I could. My name is Greg
10 McKinnis. This is a ••• this is gonna' be what the ••• ahh ••• (inaudible).
11 DAVE MICHAELSON: Umm ... Actually, I have no idea what that ••• that
12 came from the original PUD map. It appeared to be •.••
GREG MCKENNIS: Ok, it may be the vicinity, or something?
DAVE MICHAELSON: Uh-hum.
13
14
15
16
LEO JAMMARON: I'm sure it the vicinity •••
GREG MCKENNIS: Ok. So what have you ••• did you have some
17 elevations ••• so we're saying ...
18 DAVE MICHAELSON: You can follow ••• ahh ... the top of the ramp,
19 there's a control point ••.• 5584 ••• down ... (inaudible) ••• 34 feet from
20 the absolute lowest portion of the property to the control point on the
21 ramp
22
23
24
25
26
GREG MCKENNIS: Is what ... how much?
DAVE MICHAELSON: 34.2 feet.
GREG MCKENNIS: The control point on the ramp is on the ramp?
DAVE MICHAELSON: Correct.
GREG MCKENNIS: So, this thing is how much higher than the •.• than
27 the ..• well that's actually the bridge. Do you know how ••.
28
29
DAVE MICHAELSON: That's correct.
GREG MCKENNIS: Do you know how much above the bridge it's gonna •••
Page 15
• DAVE MICHAELSO" That's the bridge and tlPlowest point on the
2 corner of that property is 5550, the difference between those two
3 points.
4 GREG MCKENNIS: Ok. Well, I guess my comments would
5 be ••• ahm ..• we're adjacent landowners to this proposal, 1200 acres, more
6 or less ••. umm .•• the original PUD we supported it .•• umm ..• our fair
7 recollection of the representation were, as I think Dave has described,
8 that it (inaudible) primarily an RV Park, and it is an RV Park, that's
9 what it's fo ••. that's what it is, an RV Park. Umm •.. I think a
10 concern ••• the lighting was an issue that we were very concerned about,
11 as adjacent property owners, we have a lot of property directly across
12 the river adjacent to this property. Umm •.• It's on the same level and
13 then's quite a bit more slightly higher and then ••• the lighting was
14 very important. Umm ... And we were pleased that the applicant, at that
15 time, as were the Board, sensitive to that issue. The lighting would
16 be directed to the site. So, getting to the issue of this height of
17 this thing, ••• ahh ... a 40-foot sign, lit, you know, that's going to be a
18 beacon. And •.• ahh ... you know, things change and then the world
19 progresses in terms of more things come along, but, and we recognize
20 that .•• umm ••• but, it seems to me, to stick somethin' 40-foot up in the
21 air, lit like that, it really goes against the intent of what the, I
22 thought we'd all had agreed to up front several years ago, as far as
23 trying to minimize the offsite light impacts. Umm .•• This property's
24 been owned by Leonard Rippy for a very long time. And, I
25 know •.• umm •.. that Dow ... ahh .•• being a relation of his, is certainly
26 been familiar with this property for a very long time. And, I
27 personally, have a problem with the applicant coming in now, making the
28 case that, all of a sudden, they ••• were ... think they need a 40-foot
29 sign. When they designed this park, and came in front of the County,
Page 16
• and came to the ne'thborhood, there was never~y indication that they
2 would have to exceed the zoning, as it was at that time,
3 and •.. ahh ••• I'm not sure that I agree with Dave's interpretation,
4 because I know Dave was not at the hearing, was working for the County
5 at that time. I don't necessarily agree that the County was in error
6 when it didn't specify that this PUD has specific sign code language
7 because, as I recollect, there was never anything even mentioned about
B signs. It was never a concern. And and, certainly, those of us that
9 were concerned with this never were confronted with the idea that we
10 may end up with a 40-foot sign out there. And so I ... ahh •.• even, you
11 know, Dave, that maybe your zoning resolution says that, but,
12 certainly, that you want these applicants to have their own PUD zoning,
13 vis-a-vis, signage, but, certainly, everybody was comfortable with the
14 way it shook out. Its ••• it seemed that way, and I think the the
15 Minutes of that meeting would so prove. Ahm ••• You know, what ••• who
16 doesn't have a hardship? Who doesn't need a 40-foot sign? Who doesn't
17 need an BO-foot sign? I mean, everybody wants a bigger sign. And,
18 quite frankly, I think they've proven in Aspen that people begin to
19 look at a smaller sign. If you don't have big signs, they look at the
20 smaller signs. I don't think it's a proven given that just because you
21 have a higher sign, a bigger sign, a ..• a more bright sign, you
22 necessarily get any more business. Ahm ... There's ..• there are no signs
23 out there, or virtually none. Ahm ••. When we rezoned and sold the
24 drydock business down at Canyon Creek, they've ... done very well.
25 Ahm ... The West Canyon Tree Farm is a highly-visible sign from the
26 highway. Umm ••• There are numbers ••• you go up and down the County
27 corridor and I don't know that there are many signs that are so huge
28 and so tall and so everything else. It's a little bit discomforting
29 being here and not knowing that we may well be here again, in a month
Page 17
• or two, because • it kinda' puts the onus on us~hat, you know, we're
2 concerned about the sign, but we don't really even know what it is they
3 wanna do. Because I'd like to know, are they gonna come back in and
4 ask for a 250 some odd foot sign? Are they willing to go with the
5 verbal conversations of the 30-foot sign? I'd like to hear where
6 they're coming from on that. But ••. ahh ... from our perspective, they
7 knew going in that this property had constraints, and, if you're gonna
8 give them 40 foot, I can guarantee you that anybody up and down the
9 I-70 corridor is gonna have the same reason to have a 40-foot sign.
10 There always will be, if it isn't a bridge, it's a tree, or somethin'
11 sticks out, or another building, or who knows what, and we've got, you
12 know, three and a half miles of I-70 frontage from Canyon Creek to New
13 Castle. I'm sure we could find many places to (inaudible) that we
14 needed 40-foot signs. And I ••. I don't think that we want to go that
15 way. But I, you know, I would like to hear the applicant, you know,
16 address that. Do they want a bigger sign than the 90 feet, and would
17 they go with the 30 feet? Because that might let me say something
18 different here.
19 DAVE MICHAELSON: Could I just address a couple of quick .•• Greg's
20 points real quick? Do you mind, just real quick? Umm .•• Greg's
21 point ••• umm .•• regarding the ultimate sign height of the sign is
22 correct, in that, the variance, assuming it's approved, let's assume
23 it's approved, would have to be specific regarding the size of that
24 sign, be it 30, 35, or 40 feet, so Greg, his interpretation is correct
25 in that they would have to define that. In terms of the sign face, as
26 of right now, unless another variance is requested, that's a nice,
27 square-foot sign, for a face. Alright? Period. And if they request
28 another variance, it would, you know, they would have to go through
29 noticing and Greg would, in fact, have ... crack at it, but just
Page 18
:. kind of ••• • •
GREG MCKENNIS1 Well, I guess for the point I'm making, is it would
3 be nice just to know, really, what is it they want to do.
4 DAVE MICHAELSON: Yeah, well they'll have to tell the Board ••.
5 GREG MCKENNIS: And ••• and .•• and ••. and .•. and I'd like to hear about
6 the type of lighting that's going to be installed inside this sign, and
7 what's it gonna do? You know, the white envelope (inaudible due to a
8 cough) ••• PUD's pretty specific about trying to keep that on on-site
9 impact, so I, those are just some things, and maybe ••• (
10 (END OF SIDE ONE OF TAPE]
11 DOW RIPPY: ••• and set his sign up, and then got his opinion of where
12 we should set the sign and how big a sign so that interstate traffic, I
13 mean, it's, we're not dealing with downtown Aspen, we're dealing with
14 interstate traffic. And this was his recommendation. And that's we're
15 trying to do. We are .•• it isn't just an RV Park. It is a convenience
16 store, and commerical business, and we are going ••• we're in there to
17 help serve the interstate traffic, and that was brought out at the PUD
18 meeting, too. So, you know, we want to help people visually see our
19 place enough in time to make a decision to get off or on. And, Gary
20 knows more about the signs than I do, but ! ... that was the
21 recommendation the sign people (inaudible).
22 KATHY BARTO: Can you stay within the code and keep a 90 foot sign?
23 DOW RIPPY1 Gary was just telling me the next sign is a 7 by 7,
24 which is 49, and if we move the "Diesel RV Park Store" sign down to two
25 foot, we could be within ••. we'd be 91 square feet. And, I guess we
26 could live with that. I just ••• get a little technic ••• I mean, I hate
27 ta .•. this is ...
28 KATHY BARTO: (Inaudible).
29 LEO JAMMARON1 We're not addressing that now.
Page 19
'1 •' • DAVE MICHAELSON! Yeah. Well, one, you'~not addressing it now
2 and, technically, you have meet the code unless you're coming with
3 another variance, and, unfortunately, ••• umm ••• 91 square feet of sign
4 would require a variance.
5
6
7
LEO JAMMARON: We could probably squeeze that foot off •••
DAVE MICHAELSON: Yeah •••• (Laughter)
DAVE MICHAELSON: What about your 30 foot, is that a realistic
8 thing that you can live with?
9
10
MALE, UNIDENTIFIED: Gary thinks it probably is.
LEO JAMMARON: If you don't have a 12 by 12 sign. The problem is,
11 if we don't have a 12 by 12 sign, it's not much need of stickin' it up
12 there anyway because the people are only gonna be able to see it from a
13 certain distance.
14 DOW RIPPY: Well, I could live with a 30 foot. I ... I ••• I'm not,
15 like you say, I appreciate the effort, you know, several years ago,
16 that you made to address the thing that really was of concern to me,
17 which was the lighting, and I wanna reciprocate, you know, I supported
18 you then, and I want to sup ••• support you now, and, you know, a 30
19 foot, and the square foot thing, you know, that .•• that's •.. that's
20 sounds like a fair way to help the neighborhood, and maybe to get you
21 where you want to be.
22
23
24
25
DAVE MICHAELSON: Yeah. Could you kind of confirm ..•
GARY SWALLOW: Yes.
DAVE MICHAELSON: I'm assuming it's a back-lit ...
GARY SWALLOW: Let me address a few things. Ahh ..• what we've
26 submitted was a 12 by 12 and 40 foot. Ahh ... and, at that time, we did
27 not know there was any constraints on the size. (Inaudible) must have
28 called you
29 DAVE MICHAELSON: Yes.
Page 20
~1 N
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
• GARY SWALLOW: ... was the first. •
DAVE MICHAELSON: (Inaudible).
GARY SWALLOW: So, that's why these are drawn to that size.
Ahh ... if we'd a known ••. realized that previously, we'd of, I suppose,
asked for a variance on the size as well. But that, that particular
problem ••. umm ••• cannot be addressed here.
LEO JAMMARON: That is correct.
GARY SWALLOW: Umm ••• The 40 foot .•• umm ••• height ••. ahh ••. would would
have been necessary ••• necessary to to to get the traveler off the
highway so that he can see see the sign ahead of time, especially
coming from the west where you do have the elevation of the interchange
that ••• ahh ••• you won't, you cannot see what's over there. Coming from
the east it's no problem. Ahm ••• You can see the building over there,
and can figure out, probably, what is over there, and if you wanted to
get off the highway then you could. Umm ••• I don't agree with Mr.
McKinnis on the ••. that everyone would .•• (inaudible) a 40 foot sign,
because of the drydock was basically a locally-known place and doesn't
need to pull people off, or that sort of thing, or does the West Canyon
Tree Farm. It a ... locally ••• ahh •.. locally-owned, and people around it
are the ones that need that that service that they provide, but what
Dow has over here and what we're involved with is RV people. They're
goin' down the highway and need to see something ahead of time so that
they can turn off when they're going 50 to 60 miles an hour, and very
little time to make that call whether to get off on that interchange.
It's not like you're in town, or, you do not need that sign, you don't
need a large sign, nor do you need the height. I don't know, I doubt
if we need 40 feet, with a 7 by 7 sign. Ahh ••• I would look, probably,
kinda strange sitting up there that high and only 7 foot wide plus 7
foot high. Just to give you an idea, we have one 12 by 12 sign and
Page 21
• • it• s in Rifle at a service • station down as you come into town on the
2 interstate. It sits on a 40 foot pylon, and 12 foot above that.
3 And ••• ahh .•• when you get something 40 foot or 50 foot in the air, 12 by
4 12 really doesn't look that large. And .•. ahh ... so ! ... (inaudible).
5 Height-wise, we can probably live with the •.• with the 30 feet. The
6 sign is ••• the Phillips' sign is internally lit by fluorescent tubes so
7 that the back's lit both ways, and actually probably does not project a
8 lot of light out it just projects from within so that the face is
9 visible at night. The same way would be true of the "RV Diesel Store"
10 signs, would be internally lit, and would not ... ahh ••• project .•• ahh ••• I
11 don't think it would project the light and wouldn't be adversely. The
12 same way with the the shield that we're requesting, 5 by 5 shield with
13 a ••• with a price sign, (inaudible) with a canopy, the same type of
14 light. So, the canopy lighting would be the high-pressure sodium, I
15 think, which is addressed to be (inaudible) like to have. Ahh ..• at
16 this point I'd say we can live with the 30 feet, or would request 30
17 feet, if you so grant.
18 LEO JAMMARON: (Inaudible). Just ••• maybe what I should do is
19 briefly review this ••• ahh ••• basically, we're ha ••• we•re down to two
20 things here, how high the sign is, and how many signs they can put on
21 the property. Is that correct?
22
23
24
(SEVERAL VOICES): That's correct. That's my understanding.
LEO JAMMARON: Ok.
PETER CABRINHA: How far is the ••• what is the ••• the straight line,
25 crow flying, distance from where the west ..• eastbound exit ramp comes
26 up to the overpass ... where it ••• where it ...
27 DOW RIPPY: We was guessin' it's probably about 1500 feet.
28 PETER CABRINHA: To the closest point on the RV ••• proposed RV Park
29 area, about 1500? Umm ... my faulty memory says that there is ..• there
Page 22
'l ' •
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
are warning sign !Pready ... umm ... on the eastb~nd lane, saying, you
know, "New Castle, One Mile", "Food", "Gas", "Lodging", what have you
that kind of thing. Would it ••• umm ... if the .•. you know, when the
RV ••. when the RV Park goes in, won't that also be added to that,
wouldn't that also be added to that sign?
KATHY BARTO: To get out into those interstate signs, you do have
to pay a fee.
PETER CABRINHA: I didn't.
KATHY BARTO: When ... ahh ••• when the Shalar (?)and when Bill
Pickett went to have his signs put in in Rifle, to get them on those
signs, he had to pay $16,000.
PETER CABRINHA: Well, that is •.• that is if the specific
bus ••• ahh .•• business is named.
KATHY BARTO: That's possible. That's possible.
PETER CABRINHA: Ahh ... yeah •.. that's ... so, if (inaudible) big
(inaudible) or something like that, yeah. But if it's a generic sort
of thing that's that only identifies the services available ••• ! am not
very clear on what that takes to do that. At any rate, the point of
the exercise being, that, for the people who are looking for these
services, they would get off at the ramp anyway, and then they go
looking for, you know, "Where the hell is New Castle?", that kind of
thing, and probably, they would see New castle as easily as they would
see your sign, make it quite visible.
KATHY BARTO: If they get off the ramp, they can't miss the sign.
(Laughter). That is true.
PETER CABRINHA: The blue attention-getting things, yeah ••.
(UNIDENTIFIED MALE): And I don't know how those come about if they
have to •••
PETER CABRINHA: Oh, I don't know either •.• not a clue.
Page 23
• DAVE MICHAELSON: The State .•• the State • Department of
2 Transportation .•• there's a procedure for doing it, and I'm trying to
3 remember how this works, because the way you folks apply for it ••. I
4 think you're right, as long as it's generic, I don't know if they have
5 to pay anything towards it or not.
6 PETER CABRINHA: Yeah ... it's generic, as you pointed out, it's only
7 if you name the specific retail business, you have to pay for it ••• I
8 may be wrong .... that's something we've been supporting, 'cause ••• do
9 they have those signs now out there for New Castle, are they ..• say
10 "Gas" or anything?
11
12
(UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE): I don't remember seeing any.
PETER CABRINHA: It might be worth somebody's while, your while, to
13 contact the Department of Transportation and see if •.. those guide signs
14 for gas station and RV Park •••
15
16
(UNIDENTIFIED MALE): Gas station, RV Park, Lodging ..• ahh ..• Gas
PETER CABRINHA: Especially if you don't have to pay for it .•• I
17 mean .•.
18 (UNIDENTIFIED MALE): Yeah, I should think the town of New Castle
19 would have been on that by this time.
20 DAVE MICHAELSON: 'Cause a lot of times people do have those up by
21 the exit signs, and, you're right, I don't remember one for New
22 Castle. You're right, I don't think it is on the New Castle exit sign,
23 is it?
24
25
26
KATHY BARTO: Got the police signs, right?
DAVE MICHAELSON: Right, the blue ones.
(UNIDENTIFIED MALE): See ... they're just ••• New Castle really
27 doesn't have a whole lot to offer yet.
28
29
PETER CABRINHA: But there is "GAS", "FOOD", "LODGING".
(UNIDENTIFIED MALE): That's right, there is.
Page 24
'l 11 J
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
• • DAVE MICHAELSON: I think ••. if it's out in the County ••. my
recoll ••• I may be wrong .•• the Commissioners have to sign off on that,
too, I think it comes in front of the ••• you •.. you have to (inaudible)
the Department of Transportation since it goes on their signs, it's in
the interstate right-of-way, but I think the County also has to sign
off on that. Cause that would ... as far as getting attention from
people traveling, I think that's a great way to do it. At least it
gets them on the interstate and on to the off ramp.
PETER CABRINHA: I know that we cert ••• you know, when we travel, we
certainly pay attention to those things.
(UNIDENTIFIED MALE): Yeah.
LEO JAMMARON: Sometimes you have to be within a certain distance
of the interchange, probably, to qualify for some of those ..•
DAVE MICHAELSON: I think you ••• you're about as close as anybody •..
LEO JAMMARON: I'm not so sure, like if .•• ahh ••• the KOA, let's say,
maybe wouldn't qualify to have one of those signs ••• since you gotta go
clear back up ••• about three miles.
PETER CABRINHA: It is a little distance, yeah.
LEO JAMMARON: I'm not sure about that.
PETER CABRINHA: I'm not either. I'm really unclear about a lot of
this ••.
LEO JAMMARON: But that's a good point, on the camping sign •••
PETER CABRINHA: So ••. (Laughter) ••• coming back, having been all
around the bush, what we're coming back to then is, really, you know,
as a sign no larger than ••• ahh •.. than is ••• ahh ••• proposed, being a 90
foot maximum ... 90 square foot maximum, more than sufficient from that
distance.
KATHY BARTO: And I'd like a clarification on that sign. That goes
from top to bottom. Ahh ••• the one, doesn't it, from top to bottom?
Page 25
-'l ,, .r
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
• • DAVE MICHAELSON: It excludes airspace.
KATHY BARTO: It does exclude airspace?
DAVE MICHAELSON: Does exclude airspace.
(UNIDENTIFIED MALE): That's (inaudible).
KATHY BARTO: Ok.
DOW RIPPY: Yeah, I had originally argued that I thought it should
be the entire geometric area, topside, bottomside, but I lost that
battle.
KATHY BARTO: Huh. So, if they have gasoline you don't have •••
(MANY VOICES): (Inaudible).
KATHY BARTO: Interesting.
PETER CABRINHA: It's only the actual square footage of the sign.
KATHY BARTO: Ok. 'Cause r .•. if it was me, I would have assumed it
meant from top to bottom.
DAVE MICHAELSON: You're not alone.
KATHY BARTO: Ok. Well, that clarifies that.
DAVE MICHAELSON: The other thing, I guess, should be brought up is
that, the way we traditionally, ... umm ... define that 90 square feet is
per face, alright, so 90 and 90, so, technically, you're dealing, I
try to ••• I would suggest what that really says is 180 square feet if
they're side by side. What Mark told me is that if its a ••• ahm ••• like
a turned sign, as opposed to a perpindicular ••• ahh ••• that the 90 would
encompass both those bases, but since it's back to back ..•
(UNIDENTIFIED MALE): A single plane .•• a single plane.
(MANY VOICES): (Inaudible). Right.
KATHY BARTH: Hmm.
(UNIDENTIFIED MALE): Lost that one, too.
KATHY BARTO: I would have, too.
LEO JAMMARON: Ok. Does anyone have anything else they want to
Page 26
------------------------------------------------------------• • '1 :1 J contribute?
2
3
GARY SWALLOW: I don't think so ..• (inaudible).
LEO JAMMARON: I guess we'll entertain a motion of the
4 Board ••. (inaudible) aware that ... we're normally •••
5 KATHY BARTO: We're looking at 30 feet now, instead of 40? And we
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
co •.. and two signs on the lot?
PETER CABRINHA: Right. Ok. 30 foot, and the other one that
advertises the prices ••. gas ••. be by the station.
KATHY BARTO: Yea.
PETER CABRINHA: Which is going to be by the station.
DAVE MICHAELSON: That's correct. It sits right in (inaudible).
KATHY BARTO: Ahh ..• I would like to ask Mr. McKinnis if what is now
proposed is more in mind with what .••
GREG MCKENNIS: Yeah, I think that .•• Dow has been from the
beginning, wanting to work with the neighborhood, and I think that's
sounds really good.
KATHY BARTO: So, you're in you're in agreement at this time?
GREG MCKENNIS: Yeah, I'm not clear of the •.. ahh ••• the one out in
front of the gas station, how tall is that one?
LEO JAMMARON: 17.
GREG MCKENNIS: No, I'm, I think that sounds good ••.
KATHY BARTO: 17 total?
LEO JAMMARON: 17 is ...
24 (MANY VOICES): (Inaudible).
25 KATHY BARTO: It probably shouldn't be visible because of the
26 building •.• the building (inaudible). (Laughter).
27 GARY SWALLOW: (Inaudible) probably would not be visible from the
28 highway, from either direction, I don't think. I would like to
29 add ••. ahh ••• I'm sure Mr. McKinnis probably would be curious, but I ••• at
Page 27
• • ~1'' > this point, I would not want to come back to the variance board ... or
2 Adjustment Board and ask for 272 square feet. I think,
3 ahh ••• (inaudible) I know Mr. McKinnis is opposed to that,
4 and ••• ahh ... the lady that is not here is opposed to it, and •.. ahh ••• the
5 feeling is ..• it probably wouldn't be granted, so ..• we would not come
6 back with that kind of request.
7 KATHY BARTO: I just have one other comment and that's in regard to
8 this becoming a truck stop. I don't think that so many people
9 that ... really a lot of people don't realize how popular diesel vehicles
10 are. I work at a Lube Center in Rifle and we ••• at 25 ... I would say, 20
11 to 25% of the cars that ... and trucks that we do are diesel. And with
12 the Federal Government offering ••• umm ... what do you call it, a
13 deduction, cash back, or whatever, for people who get a diesel vehicle,
14 it's only made them more popular. It's mostly related to ranch work,
15 but if you can support the usage you can take the deduction, and there
16 are quite a bit of ••• they're very popular. And that can be anything
17 from a small pickup to the large (inaudible) 350's ••• the Dodge Rams •••
18 you know, and a lot of those are going to be pulling motor homes, or
19 campers, trailer, whatever you want to call them ••• So I think the semi
20 is no really going to be a problem.
21 LEO JAMMARON1 Well, if you stop to think how much (inaudible) it
22 takes to turn a semi, it's .••
23
24
25
KATHY BARTO: The space is there, I think, they would want to •••
PETER CABRINHA: Word will get ... word would get around quickly.
KATHY BARTO: Yes, they talk a lot ... "don•t go there". Out here I
26 still hear about that road in my home area that they won't go near.
27 (Laughter)
28 LEO JAMMARON: Ahh ••• may I add? On the diesel, there will be a
29 separate, small island, with one pump for the diesel away from the
Page 28
• • rill I (inaudible) and the building. So, if some stray trucker does get over
2 there, at least there's room and ...
3 KATHY BARTO: You might get the occasional one, but I don't think
4 you're going to have to worry about it becoming a truck stop, it's not
5 the kind of place they're going to be attracted to ••• I really don't
6 think you'll have a problem ... ! could turn out to be wrong, I've been
7 wrong before, but I just don't think it will be, and you have to be
8 able to provide the commercial, or the diesel gas anyway because there
9 are so many other smaller vehicles that do take that gas. (Inaudible)
10 you did •••
11 KATHY BARTO: I move that we allow a 30 foot sign and allow two on
12 the property.
13 LEO JAMMARON: It has been moved that we allow a 30 foot sign and
14 ahh ••• a second sign on the property.
15
16
17
18
19
PETER CABRINHA: Not to exceed the .•. ahh ...
KATHY BARTO: Not to exceed the 90 foot ...
PETER CABRINHA: What we see here.
(UNIDENTIFIED MALE): Not to exceed what's been proposed.
PETER CABRINHA: What has been proposed for the site ••• the size of
20 the second sign. Yup.
21 LEO JAMMARON: Is there a second on that?
22
23
PETER CABRINHA: I'll be glad to second that.
LEO JAMMARON: Ok. It's been moved and seconded. All in favor use
24 the usual voting sign.
25
26
(MANY VOICES): Aye.
PETER CABRINHA: Would you like ••• do you want a person by person
27 poll? Is that necessary.
28
29
LEO JAMMARON: I think it is.
(UNIDENTIFIED MALE): I'm sorry, I'm sorry.
Page 29
~·(,
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
• • STELLA ARCHULETA: Leo?
LEO JAMMARON: Yes.
STELLA ARCHULETA: Katherine?
KATHY BARTO: Yes.
STELLA ARCHULETA: Harold?
HAROLD RAYMOND: Yes.
STELLA ARCHULETA: Peter?
PETER CABRINHA: Yes.
(UNIDENTIFIED MALE): You got four votes on this.
PETER CABRINHA: Yes. Only four to be had. Thank you.
(UNIDENTIFIED MALE): Thank you.
KATHY BARTO: And thank you, Mr. McKennis.
Page 30
•
September 23, 1993
Rippy RV Associates
43923 Highway 6 & 24
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
RE: Variance Request
Dear Mr. Rippy:
GARFIELD COUNTY
BUILDING AND PLANNING
•
Your application for several Variances regarding the siz.e, placement of an off site sign and the
number of signs within the Rippy RV Park PUD has been scheduled for a public hearing before
the Zoning Board of Adjustment on October 21, 1993, at 3:30 p.m., in Suite 301, Garfield
County Courthouse, 109 8th Street, Glenwood Springs, Colorado. It is suggested you or your
authoriz.ed representative be in attendance.
A copy of the enclosed public notice must be submitted to the Glenwood Post or other
newspaper of general circulation for publication one time, at least, 15 days prior to the hearing.
You should contact the paper directly regarding obtaining the proof of publication and billing.
In addition, copies of the public notice form must be mailed by certified return-receipt to all
property owners within 200 feet of your property no less than 5 days prior to the hearing. All
mailings must be completed no later than October 15, 1993, to ensure compliance. The proof
of publication from the newspaper, certificates of mailing and return-receipts from the mailing
must be submitted to staff, prior to the public hearing.
Please contact this office if you have further questions regarding your application or public
hearing.
Mark L. Bean, Director
Building & Planning
MLB/sa
Attachments
1096TH STREET, SUITE 303 • 945-8212/625-5571/285-7972 • GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601
• •
PUBLIC NOTICE
TAKE NOTICE that Rippy RV Associates has applied to the Zoning Board of Adjustment,
Garfield County, State of Colorado, to grant a Variance in connection with the following
described property situated in the County of Garfield, State of Colorado; to-wit:
Legal Description: See Exhibit A
Practical Description: Located at 7051 County Road 335, 112 east of the New Castle I-70 exit
on County Road 335 and located approximately two (2) miles West of New Castle off of the
South I-70 Frontage Road.
Said Variance application is to allow signs in excess of the 90 square foot maximum up to 150
square foot; a Variance to locate a sign off of the site and a Variance to allow more than one
sign on the property; and a variance to allow for an off-site sign on property not associated
with the activity.
on the above-described property.
All persons affected by the proposed Variance application are invited to appear and state their
views, protests or objections. If you can not appear personally at such hearing, then you are
urged to state your views by letter, particularly if you have objections to such Variance
application request, as the Zoning Board of Adjustment will give consideration to the
comments of surrounding property owners and others affected in deciding whether to grant or
deny the request for the Variance. This Variance application may be reviewed at the office of
the Planning Department located at 109 8th Street, Suite 303, Garfield County Courthouse,
Glenwood Springs, Colorado between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through
Friday.
That public hearing on the application has been set for the 21st day of October, 1993, at the
hour of 3:30 p.m., at the office of the Zoning Board of Adjustment, Garfield County
Courthouse, Suite 302, 109 8th Street, Glenwood Springs, Colorado
Planning Department
Garfield County
(/;;,.
•.,;: :,:'
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
A parcel of ]and situated in I.ots 3 and 4 of Section 1, and in Lot 1 of Section
2, Tnwnshlp 6 South, Range 91 West, and in the SE~El( and SWJ.(SEI( of Section 32,,
Township t\ South, R<mge 90 west or the Sixth Principal Meridian, County of
Garf1e]d, State of Colorado; said parcel lying Northerly of the Northerly right-
of-way of County Road No. 335 and F..asterly of the F.asterly right-of-way of
Coun1-y Road No. 335 Access to Jnstertate Hlghway I-70, and Southerly of the
cente1•line of the Colorado River being more particularly described as follows:
Commencing at the Southeast Corner of Section 32, Townshlp 5 South, Range 90
W€!$t of the Sixth Principal Meridian; thence N.89°01'15"W. 2715.54 feet along
the Southerly line of said Section 32 to the South Quarter Corner of said
Sect.Ion ='12, the True Point of Beginning; thence N.89°01 1 15"E. 270.00 feet to a
pnlnt ln the center.l.lne of the Colorado River; thence continuing along said
center.line the following ten (10) courses:
1) N.63°07'41"E. 452.51 feet;
2) N.Rl 0 33 1 30"E. 664.82 feet;
3) N.81°20'38"E. 280.88 feet;
4) S.5B 0 40'49"E. 238.56 feet;
5) S.47°37'35"E. 396.67 feet;
6) S.n4°02'09"E. 531.08 feet;
7) S.52°52'1B"E. 342.69 feet;
8) S.65°42'40"E. 141.04 feet;
9) S.63°06'02''E. 146.18 feet;
JO) S.74°35'33"E. 304.30 feet; thence leaving said centerline s.00•03 1 25"E.
143.95 feet to a point on the Northerly right-of-way of County Road No,.335 as
conc•trncted and in place; thence continuing along sald Northerly right-of-way
the fo]]owing eleven courses:
l) along the arc of a curve to the right having a radius of 6341.85 feet,
a central angle of 04°37'07", a distance of 511.22 feet (chord
bears N. 73°l6'34"W. 511,08 feet);
2) alohg the arc of a curve to the left having a radius of 5218,99 feet
a central angle of 03°50'34", a distance of 350.03 feet (chord bears
N.72°53' 17"W. 349.97 feet);
3) N.74°48'34"W. 599.69 feet
4) along the arc of a curve to the left having a radius of 1982.68 feet,
a central angle of 11°34 1 43'.', a distance of 400.67 feet (chord bears
N. 00°35' 56"W. 399. 99 feet);
5) N.86°23'17"W. 830.17 feet to a point on the Westerly line of said
Section 1, also being a point on the Easterly line of said Section 2;
6) N.86°04'59"W. 38.63 feet;
7) N.65°41'52"W. 143.50 feet;
8) along the arc of a curve to the right having a radius of 3570.00 feet,
a central angle of 03°59'00", a distance of 248.20 feet (chord bears
N.83°42'22"W. 248.15 feet);
9) N.61°42'53"W. 196.92 feei:;
JO) N.78°53'23"W. 284.96 feet;
11) along the arc of a co.rve to the right having a radhis of 1930,00 feet,
a central angle of 07°52'32", a distance of 265.28 feet (chord bears
N.74°57'07"W. 265.07') t:o a point on the Easterly right-of-way of.
Co1.mty Road No. 335 Access to Interstate Highway I-70; thence N.13°46'42"E.
191.61 feet along said Easterly right-of-way to point on the Northerly line of
said Section 2, al6o being a point on the Southerly line of said Section 32;
thence N.69°0J 1 l5"E. along sa:ld Northerly line 377.64 feet to the True Point of
Beginning; said parcel containing· 38.335 acres, more or less.
'!
• · II •' "' c
!. '
'
A Tract of land located in Township 6 South,
Range 91 Weet1 Section 5. Described as Lot 5
(Net 20.Bl Acree) excepting out 2.00 Acree
described in Book 691, Page 66 of recorded
• document in the Garfield County Clerk Office.
Aleo a tract of land containing .OB acres
beginning at a point whence the SW corner of
Section 4 Beare south 00°50' East 1581.0',
thence North 00°50' West 514.0' thence North
77°08'30" East 10.22', thence South 00°50'
East 198.13', thence South 89°10' West 5.0',
thence south 00 50' East 313.0B•, thence South
44°37'18" West 7.02' to the Point of Beginning.
Total 18.89 Acree.
..
TIME:
PLACE:
DATE:
•
-
GARFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
MEETING
AGENDA
3:30p.m.
Garfield County Courthouse, Suite 301
September 23, 1993
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
Call meeting to order
Roll Call
Approval of Minutes
April 22, 1993 Meeting #170
May 2, 1993 Meeting #170 (Continued)
Public Hearini for Variances from Section 5.07.09(1) Maximwn
Sign Area, Section 5.07.07(9) Number of Signs per Lot, and
5.07.07(7) Off-Site Sign Limitations
Applicant: Burning Mountain RV Park (Rippy RV Associates)
Adjournment
.. • •
GARFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
MEMBERS PRESENT
Leo Jammaron
Harold Raymond
Pete Cabrinha
Stephanie Lavorini
MINUTES
April 22, 1993
Meeting #170
STAFF PRESENT
Mark Bean, Director
Dave Michaelson, Planner
Steve Zwick, Assistant
County Attorney
Meeting was called to order. Roll call taken with Kathy Barto absent.
Approval ofrnjnutes -October 22, 1992 and March 25, 1993. Harold Raymond moved that
the minutes of October 22, 1992 and March 25, 1993 be approved as presented. Stephanie
Lavorini seconded. All in favor.
Public Hearing for a variance from Section 3.07.06(1), Minimum Front Yard Setback in the
C/L Zone District. Applicant: Slattery Investments. The chairman swore in citizens in the
audience and Dave Michaelson, Planner. Mr. Michaelson presented thefollowingexhibitsinto
the record:
a. Application
b. Return receipts
c. Proof of publication
d. Staff report
e. Vicinity map
f. Site plan
g. Signed statement from John Kemp's secretary as to mailings
h. Photographs
h.l
h.2
h.3
Steve Zwick reviewed the mailings and proof of publication. John Kemp, representative for
the applicant said all the mailings had been returned except for Franklin's. Steve Zwick,
Assistant County Attorney determined that the public notice and mailings were adequate and
the Board could proceed with the public hearing. Mr. Michaelson summarized the staff report,
noting that the parcel is 514' long along the 154 frontage and approximately 316' at the rear.
The maximum width of the parcel is approximately 69'. The western portion of the parcel is
unusually narrow and considered unusable both by staff and the applicant. Slattery
Investments were granted approval by the Board to rezone the property from
Residential/General/Suburban Density to Commercial General. Slattery Investments
volunteerly downzoned the property to Commercial Limited. In 1985, two variances were
granted on the property. The first was a rear setback variance from 25' to 4', and the second
variance allowed for the placement oflSDS on a lot less than two acres in size. The applicants
are requesting a variance from the required 50' front yard setback on the south side of the
• • •
property fronting CR 154. All the lots that have developed on this side of CR 154 bear the
same physical constraints. Variances have been granted for each of the commercial buildings
on this side of the County right-of-way. The actual building would be no closer than 9 feet
from the lot line, but due to the roof overhang which is 6 feet, which creates the 3 foot
requested setback. The typical right-of-way for a County road is 60 feet. The reason there is
80 feet is that it was a part of the vacation of the former state 82 right-of-way. Staff
recommends approval of the variance consistent with Section 9.05 of the Garfield County
Zoning Regulations.
John Kemp, attorney for Bill Slattery, General Partner of Slattery Investments submitted
exhibit h (1-3), photographs to the Board. Photographs included what the building will look
like from the rear, the building will look exactly like the one next door. Mr. Kemp summarized
the history of the parcel and the area surrounding it.
Mr. Dave Franklin lives at the Iron Mountain Condos told the Board that the postman had
left his certified return receipt letter and did not take the green card to verify it had been
delivered. He presented it to Steve Zwick, Assistant County Attorney. He noted that he did
not have any opposition to the request for variance.
The Chairman closed the public hearing.
Stephanie Lavorini moved to grant the front yard setback variance as requested. Harold
Raymond seconded. All in favor.
Public Hearing for an Appeal of administrative interpretation of "Uses by right", Section
3.07.01 of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution that allows Personal Service Establishments
including a go-cart track. Applicant: Mitch Heuer. Mr. Mark Bean informed the Board that
there is no identified process for ahearing of an appeal of administrative interpretation, but the
process is available to a citizen or individual who is aggrieved by a decision or interpretation
by the administrative official. Garfield County Planning Department did publish a notice of
the public hearing in the Glenwood Post last Monday and sent notices to Mr. Heuer, Mr. Carl
Midland and Mr. Bill Crymble. The request for appeal was received within the guidelines
specified in Garfield County's Zoning Resolution, which is seven days after the date in which
the appellant is made aware of the action they are aggrieved by. The regulations call for a
written appeal or request for interpretation by the Board of Adjustments within seven days in
which the interpretation was made. The interpretation did occur before this, but it was not
public until the public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners, which requested
a Special Use Permit for activities within the floodplain. Based on the review of that action by
the County Attorney, Mr. Crymble was advised that he met the requirements of that, because
his first notice of the interpretation was at the public hearing. Mr. Bean explained to the Board
that Ms. Barto was unable to attend and that Harold Raymond has a conflict and will not be
able to stay past 5:00 p.m .. Based on that, Staff has informed the applicant and the appellant
that we would not be able to complete this hearing in a timely manner. He suggested and
strongly recommended that the Board continue this public hearing to another date certain,
May 3, 1993 6:30 p.m. so that the entire hearing can be heard at that time. Additional evidence
will probably be submitted at the continued hearing, either in writing or verbal. Mr. Bean
recommended to the Board that if there are no conflicts for that day, continue this public
hearing to May 3, 1993 at 6:30 p.m. in Room 301. Steve Zwick, Assistant County Attorney
informed the Board that the Board of County Commissioners will hold a public hearing on this
proposal on May 17th, 1993, so they need to act on it before then. This appeal stayed any
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners on the issue until the Board of
Adjustments make their determination, and if necessary additional appeals occur. Steve Zwick
explained that Mr. Crymble is challenging Mr. Bean's interpretation that the applicant's
proposed use of the property is a use by right. The regulations are drafted and State Law
• •
written, the procedure is that the Board of Adjustments is the final authority at the County
level as far as what the zoning resolution actually means. The Board of Adjustments, under
State Law, is charged with actually interpreting, make formal official interpretations, of the
zoning resolution. An appeal of the Board of Adjustments is possible, but that appeal goes to
District Court.
Leo Jammaron asked William Crymble and Mitch Heuer if this recommendation of continuing
until May 3, 1993 at 6:30 p.m. met with their approval.
Both agreed.
Peter Cabrinha moved that the public hearing for an appeal of administrative interpretation
of "uses by right", Section 3.07.01 of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution that allows
Personal Service Establishments including a go-earl track to May 3, 1993 at 6:30 p.m.
Appellant: Bill Crymble, Harold Raymond seconded and passed unanimously.
ADJOURNMENT
• •
GARFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
MEMBERS PRESENT
Leo Jammaron
Harold Raymond
Pete Cabrinha
Stephanie Lavorini
Kathy Barto
MINUTES
MAY 3, 1993
Continued Meeting #170
STAFF PRESENT
Mark Bean, Director
Steve Zwick, Assistant
County Attorney
Meeting was called to order. Roll call taken with all members present.
Continued PubHc Hearing for an appeal of administrative interpretation of "uses by right",
Section 3.07.01 of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution that allows Personal Service
Establishments including a go-cart track. Appellant: Bill Crymble.
Mark Bean explained to the Board that they have the authority to override or change his
interpretation. To do that, there has to be 4 out of 5 votes by the Board to override the
interpretation. The Board's decision is only appealable to District Court. The Board of
County Commissioners cannot overturn the decision. Mr. Bean noted that there are a lot of
people in the audience, and for their benefit, he explained that the only issue here is the appeal
of the interpretation. A member of the audience asked if they could comment on anything like
wildlife, traffic, etc. Steve Zwick said that the only issue before the Board is whether Mr.
Bean's interpretation allows a use by right. The member of the audience told Mr. Zwick that
all the people there were there to present the reasons why they did not want commercial
property there. Mr. Zwick explained that the issue of the property is not the issue before the
Board. Ifhe disagrees with the decision made about a year ago to rezone the property. He
requested the members of the audience meet with Bill Crymble, since they were under the
impression they could state their opinions. Mr. Bean explained that Mr. Midland had applied
to the Board of County Commissioners, as an owner of property, to request rezoning from
NR/RD to C/L. That went through a hearing with the Planning Commission and a public
hearing with the Board of County Commissioners in which notice was put in the newspapers
and notice was sent to the adjacent property owners. The only people eligible to request the
change back to what the zoning was are the Planning Commission, the Board of Adjustment
or the property owner afTected. Five minute recess was taken so that members of the audience
could meet with Bill Crymble.
Chairman swore in all people that would testify.
Mr. Zwick told the Board that he needed to enter the exhibits into the record.
a. Notice of Publication
b. StalT report
c. Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended, in its entirety
d. Mr. Crymble's letters of appeal (2 letters dated 4/9/93 and 4/14/93)
. . • • •
e. Mitch Heuer's comments and information of 4/29/93
f. Larry & Bernice Kindall's Jetter
g. Mr. & Mrs. Neil Pollack's Jetter
Kathy Barto made a motion to accept all exhibits into the record. Harold Raymond seconded.
All in favor.
Mr. Robert Chaffin, representing Mitch Heuer and Glenwood Funland, said that there should
be a determination by the Board as to what evidence is going to be heard.
Mr. Zwick said that he thought that it was best for the Board to decide as people spoke, as no
one knows what is going to be said. If at the time the person is speaking, the Board decides
they don't want to take comment on that, they can inform the person.
Mr. Bean explained that there are two interpretations, one is the use by right of a go-cart track
and included in that is the request for an interpretation whether a flea market is allowed under
C/L zoning also. Appeals to the Board of Adjustment have to be taken by a person aggrieved
by the decision of an administrative officer or agency based upon or made in the course of
administration or enforcement of the provisions of the resolution. The appeal is based on Mr.
Bean's interpretation of Section 3.07.01 of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution which
identified the uses by right in the Commercial/Limited zone district. A use by right is allowed
provided it meets certain basic standards in terms of setbacks, building heights, lot coverage,
etc.. In addition to that, commercial establishments are allowed within the uses by right,
provided the following requirements are observed:
1. All fabrication, service and repair operations are conducted within the building;
2. All storage of materials shall be within a building or obscured by a fence;
3. All loading and unloading of vehicles is conducted on private property;
4. No dust, noise, glare or vibration is projected beyond the lot.
The specific interpretation that was made was that the language of the Zoning Resolution in
which they define the uses allowed, personal service establishments. The word including has
been the basis for the interpretation. The word including has been interpreted to mean by
example, not exclusion. Included in the personal service establishment, has been interpreted
as an area that someone may receive goods or services from somebody in exchange for
compensation. Go-cart tracks fall into the general category of personal service establishments.
The language in Commercial Limited is a permissive zone that allows a wide range of uses by
right. When the Board of County Commissioners approves Commercial zoning, they approve
the use of that land for all of the uses identified in the zone district text, as it allows. If the
Board of Adjustment disagrees with the interpretation and uphold the appeal, that would
preclude Mr. Heuer from creating the go-cart track and associated uses, it would not eliminate
the commercial zoning on the property.
Mr. Bill Crymble presented his interpretation of uses by right. He stated that development
must be in the interest of the public, must provide for total health, total safety and total welfare
of the public. He discussed compatibility with the surrounding area, wildlife, traffic, water
supply and sanitation.
Bob Chaffin, representative for Mitch Heuer, stated that the issue is whether the proposed use
of the go-cart track fits within the uses by right within the zoning resolution. He presented an
exhibit h, a video showing a go-cart track and the cars. The video was shown, with Mr. Heuer
explaining the noise level, carts, track, etc.
Additional discussion and manymembersoftheaudiencecommenting on the issues continued.
The issues included noise, <lust, traffic, lighting, sewer services, wildlife, measurement of noise
levels, hours of operation, and other associated uses.
• •
Kathy Barto moved to uphold the administrative interpretation of "uses by right", Section
3.07.01 of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution that allows personal service establishments
including a go-cart track made by Mark Bean. Harold Raymond seconded. Motion passed
unanimously.
ADJOURNMENT.
• •
BOA 9/23/93
PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS
REQUEST:
APPLICANT:
LOCATION:
SITBDATA:
WATER/SEWER:
ACCESS:
WNJNG:
I. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL
Variance from Section 5.07.09(1)
Maximum Sign Area, Section
5.07.07(9) Number of Signs per Lot,
5.07.07(7) Off-Site Sign Limitations
Burning Mountain RV Park (Rippy
RV Associates
A tract of land located in the
SE1/4SE1/4 of Section 32, T5S,
R90W of the 6th P.M.; located at
7051 County Road 335, 1/2 mile east
of the New Castle I-70 exit on
County Road 335 and a tract of
land located in Lot 5, Section 5,
T6S, R91W; located approximately
two (2) miles west of New Castle off
of the South I-70 frontage road.
The RV Park/Gas Station/
Convenience Store site consists of
38.335 acres, the off-site sign site is
18. 89 acres.
Well/ISDS
County Road 335
PUD/andC/G
A. Application: The parcel is located between the Colorado River and County
Road 335. In July of 1992, the applicant was granted a PUD which allowed for
16 acres of RV spaces, 5 acres of commercial use, and 5 acres of open space.
Specific commercial uses consist of2,400 square feet of commercial space which
will house a convenience store, R. V. park offices and restroom facilities.
Included in the commercial improvements are gasoline pumps. The RV park
will consist of 59 spaces, each space with water, sewer, and electric hookups. A
vicinity map is attached on page -S -, and a site plan for the project is
attached on page -0 ~ . The off site sign is located on the Rippy
Construction yard, west of New Castle.
-I-
• •
On March 25, 1993, the Board of Adjustment approved several sign code
variances:
Variance from Section 5.07.06(12) to allow for a free standing price sign,
as opposed to a sign placed over the gas pump;
Variance from Section 5.07.09(9) which only allows one (1) permitted
sign per lot. The applicants are proposing a total of two (2) signs,
counting the price sign.
Based on their experience with the approved signs and verbal citations of
violation for additional signs and an off-site sign, the applicants are requesting
the following variances:
Variance from Section 5.07.09(1), limiting signs in the AIR/RD zone
district to a maximum of 90 sq. ft .. The request is for 150 sq. ft. per
allowed sign.
Variance from Section 5.07.07(9), limiting a property to no more than
one sign. They are requesting a sign for the gas station, convenience
store and RV park.
Variance from Section 5.07.07(7), limiting signs to the property on which
the activity being identified is located. The request is for a sign on the
side of a truck located on property approximately 2 miles west of the
business site.
A copy of the applicant's cover letter is attached on page.I 1V-R, and a graphic
portrayal of the placement and design of the signs submitted by the applicant are
attached on pages 9 -11
II. MAJQR ISSUES AND CONCERNS
1. STANPAR DS FOR REYIEW. Section 5.07 .12 states that a variance from the
strict application of the provisions of the sign code may be granted by the
County Board of Adjustment, in accordance with the following guidelines:
1) It is the policy of the County to encourage aesthetically pleasing signs
without substantial interference with the business to which the sign
relates.
2) Projected signs should not substantially obscure any part of another sign
related to another use.
3) Excessively large or tall signs should be avoided to prevent visual
obstruction of the natural scenery within the County.
4) Variances should not be granted which would allow any business use an
unfair advantage over any other business use.
5) !fit is necessary or reasonable to grant a variance to the strict regulations
of this chapter, the sign should be limited in size, height and location in
conformance with the purpose of the sign.
-c?-
• •
2. SIZE VARIANCE. The applicant is proposing to increase the size of sign #1,
the free standing "Phillips 66" sign from 7'x7' (49 sq. ft.) to 12'xl2' (144 sq. ft.).
The three smaller signs would remain the same size, 5. 7 5'x7' ( 40.25 sq. ft.) for a
total of 120.75 sq. ft.for the three signs. The request is also to allow sign faces
of 150 sq. ft. for the roof signs. the existing "RV Park sign is 6'x30' (180 sq. ft.)
and the "Open" sign is 6'x20' (120 sq. ft).
Commercial zones allow signs up to 150 sq. ft. in size. Because this property was
processed as a Planned Unit Development (PUD) and there was no sign code
included in the PUD, it is subject to the AIR/RD standard of 90 sq. ft.
maximum. Given that other commercial zones in the area are allowed 150 sq.
ft. of sign area and the Board of Adjustment approved a 256 sq. ft. sign for
Talbott Enterprises in 1986 (See minutes pages 1-2-lf ). The applicants are
requesting an increase in size of their signs due to visibility limitations from the
Interstate corridor.
The proposed free standing sign will not exceed the 150 sq. ft. maximum for a
commercial zone and the cumulative total of the free standing signs is 264.75.
sq.ft.. The roof sign for the "RV Park" is 180 sq. ft. on the borders, the lettering
is 5'x24' or 120 sq. ft.. Staff agrees that the applicant should be allowed 150 sq.
ft. for business signs. the smaller signs below the free standing sign will not serve
much purpose, but were a part of the previously approved sign. The larger
12'xl2' sign is within the 150 sq. ft. maximum. The "RV Park" sign is literally
180 sq. ft. on the outlines, but the lettering is 5'x24' or 120 sq. ft .. To cut the sign
face down, seems unnecessary.
3. NUMBER OF SIGNS VARIANCE. The applicant is proposing to have one
additional sign, in addition to the previously approved free standing sign(# 1 on
diagram) and the gas pump signs (#2 on diagram). The additional sign (#3 on
diagram) is a roof sign stating "RV Park" and "Open" that are approximately
3'xl2' and 3'x20'. The RV park is a separate business and was permitted
separately. Staff feels that the separate "RV Park" sign is a reasonable request,
the "Open" sign being less necessary.
4. OFF-SITE SIGN VARIANCE. Section 5.07.07 states the following:
"Signs shall identify or advertise only interests conducted on the lot of the
sign location unless the Board of Adjustment, upon request, determines
that an off-site sign conforming to the district regulation in which the
sign is located is necessary to promote the interests of the use to which it
relates".
The proposed off-site sign would be located on the Rippy Construction yard
approximately 2 miles west of the New Castle I-70 interchange. The proposed
sign is on the side ofa tractor trailer and is approximately 10'x30' (300 sq. ft.)
in size (See page -/ S · ). The property is adjacent to the south frontage
road and the I-70 right-of-way.
In its present location, the sign is illegal based on County Zoning and State
Highway Department sign code regulations. Garfield County has given notice
of violation to the property owner, which is why this request for a variance has
been submitted. The State of Colorado has not cited the property owner, but a
spokesperson for the Department did say the sign is illegal. The State does not
allow "mobile" signs in any form, which is what it would be considered, since it
-3-
• •
is on the side of the tractor trailer. Without seeing the site, the State
spokesperson was not sure it could be permitted at that site, regardless of
whether or not the sign is "mobile". The State sign code only allows "billboard"
signs in certain areas, generally limited to areas zoned commercially before
January 1970. This site was zoned commercially in August of 1992.
Given the violation of the State Highway sign code and the excessive size of the
proposed sign, staff cannot support the approval of the sign proposal. The State
has indicated that the applicant may be better off getting a "logo" sign approved
to be placed in the I-70 right-of-way. The cost would be fairly close to any
permanent sign that might be approved by the State.
111. SUC'.GESTED FINDINGS
I. That the application for the requested Variances were found to be consistent
with the requirements and standards of Section 5.07.12 (Variance) of the
Garfield County Sign Code of 1978, as amended.
2. That proper publication and public notice was provided as required for the
public hearing before the Zoning Board of Adjustment.
3. That the public hearing before the Zoning Board of Adjustment was extensive
and complete, that all facts, matters and issues were submitted and that all
interested parties were heard at the meeting.
IV. RECOMMENPATION
APPROVAL of the following requested variances:
I. The increase in the size of sign # 1, the free standing sign, as proposed.
2. The approval of the roof sign stating "RV Park", as proposed
DENIAL of the requests for:
I. The additional roof sign stating "Open".
2. The requested off-site sign.
llVlll
1
'.)
,,,
/,, ,,
!" .i// /11
///
ii/
ff
I " ,,
i/t ,,,
/11
. " . " .,, .,, ,, .,
. ")
1.:-:i
··:(
n::
0
__J
0
(_)
•
-1-1
(.,) If c ... ~
Cl;)
OJ
'-0
C'<-)
C'>J
' I
' I
' I
' I
' I
' //! 1';•/ I ' ' ·i;JJ
f
·'j'l -~ ~
fJ ~ YJ
~ '
I
' I
I
I
'
/
I
0
I
' I
'
I
'
/
/ ;·
•.
~ a~st1 t f'~••· ::!:~!i"
I I I ' •
<JQ:1-JCi
• •
(!. c /,jk_ t'c-.·1 e 7(; 7c.:<t 7(' ..-;:,;( --:~< .., ~.~ <,,. ' /
(~)r:_
I i1r.·1,<J,.J('e_ hA ;ie. Au:,,;, --j-· Y.77/:I /~)-/·' /:i,~)( .1,,vD
1i<1.sT. t,,;t S'.O?. (!'i ( / \ , /. {:
,, t1£1 tJ It 1-<'e. 7< /,. <. .y /;::,,I ( j /.5{!
7tir 1.> ~t',{,1Je/ ., I (".~"'J ')-lJ {/~(/""} .
'1~l -1 { ;;,",~ j ()A-'t .
"'11..::. (. . 1 (;;,_ ,J /$(' . J
/I·-,·•,',<" 5 I / ' SJI· · ,;, ' · If»· « C: . •J,<.t I? )'t. ~ ,·" rf
f..'llkd /,y ,7 .; ,.:, ,) :o?.c· , ( 9<11t/<'!,,,ve_r. !,!/.;cf.. ., ti"'' < ·1
CA'f S19."
,~'c9,rfr17/;: ,s,
J,,, S1,-'<1'5.
1··)(,, /.. T ;9-o-J'i .1 './(• '1y. /7: \·;;-,' .-/
~ ,, 7 (' 7 /'?) .
:Z::..l/~s 7?! 7F s / 9 ,,.; '" /, ". /,
a,,,;c \)n-..<'1tr .::"!'" l.~r;;.,,,'
{.'< ,J/ -~,_,', ,) < l·y ;/,(
'r 1l· /,~.<fu·f;( /(:,. '/
(~tit
IJ d;"-r-/Iese 517 . .-5 1r / s 1 X'/'•"·~,j/c ·1:
47f,(..1c1 //,~· lv1s1"us 1'Ac»1 ..T'-7(). /J.:· f.,,·,i15
.1..vD 71-:."1<'<(,.-"'S
·rl,.J J(. (,1
"/ ' /.,t· . .:..\·1,. ,-~,,,,,'\'(
'"~1.~; ,,.; Ji, <r5<' o~ ,A J.it.$1 .. 10.>
A Cf l.c~r;,, htC'/•t.S< f ,,,.;. '//,c c:',J.~T /va..,ri ,T/.•F/:I, ·
ll.J·ti1<1T :-~· ('( '15 t-~11/I 71,.y
--7-
•
7k _I", Ti..::SJ.-J/( Sty'
/T 1$ 70 _<:; "1-1-11 /(:~ /;:,
/.}c )...,, ·t ~ ... '~'.!.-7·,·~·,,<'1c-(.1
7/._ A:~.r c>r' .r.4e
~-,·y .)d! ,-;-r
C1-v>;,,_; r' ;;.,t' /!
.~ ' 1.--11.-.1~ -15 A S/y.-i!,
.S/'"/.C. c·.
/h<: e
11-fi~;,,/~
•
C+• «'T /,~ '.) ( (' L /)( (' "'jtJ5<
7/<,'.;/FIC 70 See.
/e .. ~y:v<-'JA!' -'>)7. ,1.5 (.)rl«._ ,1,,.,_J
(~·~·1.-'t:'
rll'/.
s .. 7;;:.. y
' ,~1.J Tl1e_
('~,,.:..
/~t~t.'
c.1cl~ .:•/ ,.,,
;: .; ;;,_!,· __ <;!,<.,,~/(~/
. ':>/y ,/_5'.
/"'. • 1·r· .\~~.,,~, '
"' // ,/ · ,' , r-r '7tf~~ .... ct I>( ~,:./ ,.
4. Ji . JI]~(' {, Q )") )~)) 7J( t./ 7;:-1 d·,, ., · . /•"/•"-/
.51y. .. ~. 4)(._ tJ1!!. /LQ/
(' /l..c>(T/4! ."1, el <'ye :Sl1At.:.~s·.
IA. +t \;';;, z ~..<1~7id St';<t'tte
.?IS f'i!SJ, f, /,.. / .".if,J) Id t
~ . .,,;.!! 7' <( ~c.
/,.? )o.{ l /.!J-v7
lt.1: ;,"! ""
~,.:.j' ~·) ;.~~<
I
I
,~
I~ ... ~ L"'-. ..,, ,,, '/ ' , ....... -.! • ... ". 1 ...
'
l
~
)
SIG// ,+I
PROPOSED
BUILDING ENVELOPE
.,
. _ CO LO RAJJO
. -.. ---=--~·
38.335 Ac.+
• •
S/C!V tJN 1k tJV1«aMP9"-
14---/21 ----fl
f RV PARK
~ C -5foKE
~ · D!fSfL
-/0-
-------------------------------------• •
ID oLJ oo~
; ~<> '----&. I~-v ,,PA R k'.I 11'
I UJI
-//-
•
MEMBERS PRESENT
Mary Odell, Acting Chairman
Larry Hazelton
Denise Acee
Leo Jammaron
Pete Cabrinha
Richard Moolick
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
MEETING
#146
April 24, 1986
3:30 P.M.
•
COUNTY STAFF PRESENT
Don DeFord, Attorney
Glenn Hartmann, Planner
Eleanor Haring, Recording
Secretary
The meeting was called to order by Mary Odell. John Tripp and Allan
Bowles were absent.
Larry Hazelton made a motion to approve the minutes of October 24th, 1985
with the addition of the word "said" after a statement by Mary Odell on
page 3. Leo Jammaron seconded and the motion carried unanimously.
Pete Cabrinha made a motion to approve the minutes of November 21st as
written. 'Ille motion was seconded by Larry Hazelton and carried
unanimously.
ROSS L. TALBOl'T -REQUEST FOR VARIANCE FROM SECTION 5.07.09, SIZE
LIMITATIONS OF THE SIGN CODE SECTION OF TllE ZONING RESOLUTION.
Don DeFord said he been tendered the proof of
notification to adjacent property owners as
9.05.04 in compliance with our regulations.
proceed.
Glenn Hartmann entered the following as exhibits:
A. Proof of publication
publication and proof of
pursuant to provisions of
He said the meeting could
B. Proof of mailings to adjacent property owners
c. Application
D. Staff Heport
E. Letter from Jim McKinney
F. Photograph of sign
Mary Odell appointed Leo ,Ja11unuron and Pete Cabrinha as voting members.
Mr. Talbott passed around some polaroid photos of the intended sign. lie
noted that approval had been given by State Highway Department and he then
put the sign up but B. J. Thompson of the Garfield county Building
Department advised him that he needed to come before the county. Mr.
Talbott said the sign was then painted over and he made application. 'Ille
extra square footage is being requested because the location is across the
Colorado River. He noted that he was concerned about how much could be
read on the sign from the higliway and if some the wording needed to be
taken off he was agreeable. Mr. Talbott said he would like more than the
150 sq. ft. for his sign because of the Colorado River causing an undue
setback.
Pete Cabrinha mentioned that if the wording wus reduced the sign could be
reduced and be narrower.
Mr. Talbott's son said he felt it should not look like the back of
someone's shed but as a noticeable sign.
;:2 -
• •
Glenn Hartmann then briefly summarized the Staff Report noting that the
site consists of a proposed sign location in Int 280, West Apple Drive,
within the 87 acre Apple Tree Park PUD. Mr. Hartmann said that the
applicant proposes to construct a 256 sq. ft. (32' x 8') joint business
identification sign on property inunediately adjacent to the Colorado
River, for the purpose of identifying the mobile home park and commercial
services available within the P.U.D. to motorists traveling on I-70.
Mr. Hartmann referred to several items in the Staff Report such as the 300
ft. distance from the driving surface and I-70, the sign location being in
the residential portion of the park and the underlying zoning. Mr.
Hartmann referenced graphics code studies {"Street Graphics" by William
EMald 9/77) which indicates that the proposed sign exceeds the maximum
amount of information a driver could absorb from any one street graphic.
Mr. Hartmann also said that a 150' sign is the largest allowable sign in
the county in any zone district.
Mr. Hartmann said that Staff Hecommendation was approval of a variance
from Section 5.07.10 to allow for the placement of a 150 sq. ft. sign,
subject to the suggested findings and determination by the Board of
Adjustment that the criteria for granting a variance had been satisfied.
Denise Acee commented that this sign would establish a precedent and that
others might like a larger sign.
Glenn Iartmann said that they too would need to come before the Board of
Adjustment.
Larry Hazelton said it was necessary to address the distance of the sign
from the road.
Hoss Talbott remarked that the requested sign is smaller than the side of
a semi-truck.
Larry Hazelton again mentioned that anything smaller would be lost at that
distance.
Leo Jammaron said that the sign really did not reach out and grab you. He
was surprised that it was as big as it is.
Pete cabrinha felt that he had no problem with granting a variance as the
situation calls for an extraordinary measure, however, he would like to
grant as small a variance as he could.
Richard Moolick asked if it was the function of the Board· to be concerned
with the readability.
Pete cabrinha replied that it should concern the Board because a person is
driving while reading.
Ross Talbott said he wanted simplicity of the sign to be of importance.
Denise Acee repeated that she felt granting this size of a sign will
establish a precedent and would have a snowball effect in the county.
Ross Talbott again said that a consideration in this case was having the
COlorado River between the highway and the area where the sign would be.
Larry Hazelton made a motion to grant a variance from Section 5.07.10 of
the zoning Resolution with a comment that in the future distance and
visibility should be considered with regard to signs. Leo Jarnmaron
seconded the motion.
-13-
• •
Glenn Hartmann stated that the application requested a variance from
5.07.09 which addresses sign sizes in each one of the County zone
districts and doesn't specifically address sign size in a P.U.D. 'Ihe
Staff recommendation is approval for a variance from 5.07.10 which
addresses signs within a P.U.D. and it should be clear as from which
Section a variance is granted, preferably 5.07.10. Mr. Hartmann asked
that the Suggested Findings be included in the motion.
Larry Hazelton withdrew the motion and Leo Jammaron the second.
Pete cabrinha made a motion to close the public part of the hearing with a
second from Denise Acee. 'il1e motion carried unanimously.
Larry Hazelton made a motion to grant the variance from 5. 07 .10 to allow
the placement of a sign of 256 sq. ft. as described in the request by Mr.
Talbott and with the following Suggested Findings from the Staff Report:
3. fuat the variance granted is the minimum necessary to alleviate
such practical difficulties or undue hardship upon the owner of
said property.
4. lliat such relief may be granted without substantial detriment to
the public good and without substantially impairing the intent of
the Zoning Resolution.
'ilie motion was seconded by Leo Jammaron and the voting was as follows:
Pete cabrinha Yes
Mary Odell Yes
Leo Jammaron Yes
Larry Hazelton Yes
Denise Acee NJ.
fue motion carried.
Meeting adjourned.
Respectfu~y submitted,
,a,Jt~ ()w__
Denise Acee
Secretary
DA/emh
;'!--
• •
--;S--
• •
9 f>ll1Jf1J6t.ti!'t-IS
OP I< I ?PY I
8lf.eJ.'/A/{,, fff'J.l. ~vfalJ{
---------
:fil~-111 .....__ --
.•
_.., --
• jjj~,;,
\i~~
.-, "·
-_.1'ft
~
. .s~<
,_;..~
,;· ./·,..,~· )~~~~-~
-:'':,;~-~-c
·····'-~'12;,..a.""'~;.;..;S:,1,~-.;.-;j·i._~~.i-
----= ·-I.
• . '
,. " """"'#~·
~ . ..:::~
,.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Mary Odell, Acting Chairman
Larry Hazelton
Denise Acee
Leo Jarrunaron
Pete cabrinha
Richard Moolick
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
MEETING
#146
April 24, 1986
3:30 P.M.
COUNTY STAFF PRESENT
Don DeFord, Attorney
Glenn Hartmann, Planner
Eleanor Haring, Recording
Secretary
The meeting was called to order by Mary Odell • John -Tripp and Allan
Bowles were absent.
Larry Hazelton made a motion to approve the minutes of October 24th, 1985
with the addition of the word "said" after a statement by Mary Odell on
page 3. Leo Jarrunaron seconded and the motion carried unanimously.
Pete cabrinha made a motion to approve the minutes of November 21st as
written. 'Ihe motion was seconded by Larry Hazelton and carried
unanimously.
ROSS L. TALBOI'l' -REQUEST FOR VARIANCE FROM SECTION 5.07.09, SIZE
LIMITATIONS OF THE SIGN CODE SECTION OF THE ZONING RESOLUTION.
Don DeFord said he been tendered the proof of publication and proof of
notification to adjacent property owners as pursuant to provisions of
9.05.04 in compliance with our regulations. He said the meeting could
proceed.
Glenn Hartmann entered the following as exhibits:
A. Proof of publication
B. Proof of mailings to adjacent property owners
c. Application
D. Staff Report
E. Letter from Jim McKinney
F. Photograph of sign
Mary Odell appointed Leo Jarnrnaron and Pete Cabrinha as voting members.
Mr. Talbott passed around some polaroid photos of the intended sign. He
noted that approval had been given by State Highway Department and he then
put the sign up but B. J. 'Ihompson of the Garfield County Building
Department advised him that he needed to come before the County. Mr.
Talbott said the sign was then painted over and he made application. 'Ihe
extra square footage is being requested because the location is across the
Colorado River. He noted that he was concerned about how much could be
read on the sign from the highway and if some the wording needed to be
taken off he was agreeable. Mr. Talbott said he would like more than the
150 sq. ft. for his sign because of the Colorado River causing an undue
setback.
Pete Cabrinha mentioned that if the wording was reduced the sign could be
reduced and be narrower.
Mr. Talbott' s son said he felt it should not look like the back of
someone's shed but as a noticeable sign.
_,_
I. ••
Glenn Hartmann then briefly sununarized the Staff Report noting that the
site consists of a proposed sign location in lot 280, West Apple Drive,
within the 87 acre Apple Tree Park PUD. Mr. Hartmann said that the
applicant proposes to construct a 256 sq. ft. (32' x 8') joint business
identification sign on property immediately adjacent to the Colorado
River, for the purpose of identifying the mobile home park and commercial
services available within the P.U.D. to motorists traveling on I-70.
Mr. Hartmann referred to several items in the Staff Report such as the 300
ft. distance from the driving surface and I-70, the sign location being in
the residential portion of the park and the underlying zoning. Mr.
Hartmann referenced graphics code studies ("Street Graphics" by William
Ewald 9/77) which indicates that the proposed sign exceeds the maximum
amount of information a driver could absorb from any one street graphic.
Mr. Hartmann also said that a 150' sign is the largest allowable sign in
the County in any zone district.
Mr. Hartmann said that Staff Recommendation was approval of a variance
from Section 5.07.10 to allow for the placement of a 150 sq. ft. sign,
subject to the suggested findings and determination by the Board of
Adjustment that the criteria for granting a variance had been satisfied.
Denise Acee commented that this sign would establish a precedent and that
others might like a larger sign.
Glenn Hartmann said that they too would need to come before the Board of
Adjustment.
rarry Hazelton said it was necessary to address the distance of the sign
from the road.
Ross Talbott remarked that the requested sign is smaller than the side of
a semi-truck •
Iarry Hazelton again mentioned that anything smaller would be lost at that
distance.
Leo Jarnrnaron said that the sign really did not reach out and grab you. He
was surprised that it was as big as it is.
Pete Gabrinha felt that he had no problem with granting a variance as the
situation calls for an extraordinary measure, however, he would like to
grant as small a variance as he could.
Richard Moolick asked if it was the function of the Board to be concerned
with the readability.
Pete cabrinha replied that it should concern the Board because a person is
driving while reading.
Ross Talbott said he wanted simplicity of the sign to be of importance.
Denise Acee repeated that she felt granting this size of a sign will
establish a precedent and would have a snowball effect in the County.
Ross Talbott again said that a consideration in this case was having the
Colorado River between the highway and the area where the sign would be.
Iarry Hazelton made a motion to grant a variance from Section 5.07.10 of
the Zoning Resolution with a comment that in the future distance and
visibility should be considered with regard to signs. Leo Jammaron
seconded the motion.
Glenn Hartmann stated that the application requested a variance from
5.07.09 which addresses sign sizes in each one of the county zone
districts and doesn't specifically address sign size in a P.U.D. '!he
Staff recommendation is approval for a variance from 5.07.10 which
addresses signs within a P.U.D. and it should be clear as from which
Section a variance is granted, preferably 5.07.10. Mr. Hartmann asked
that the Suggested Findings be included in the motion.
Larry Hazelton withdrew the motion and IEo Jarnrnaron the second.
Pete cabrinha made a motion to close the public part of the hearing with a
second from Denise Acee. '!he motion carried unanimously.
Larry Hazelton made a motion to grant the variance from 5.07.10 to allow
the placement of a sign Of 256 sq. ft. as described in the request by Mr.
Talbott and with the following Suggested Findings from the Staff Report:
3. 'Ihat the variance granted is the minimum necessary to alleviate
such practical difficulties or undue hardship upon the owner of
said property.
4. 'Ihat such relief may be granted without substantial detriment to
the public good and without substantially impairing the intent of
the zoning Resolution.
'Ihe motion was seconded by IEo Jarnrnaron and the voting was as follows:
Pete cabrinha Yes
Mary Odell Yes
IEo Jarnrnaron Yes
Larry Hazelton Yes
Denise Acee N?.
'Ihe motion carried.
Meeting adjourned.
~~ubmitted,
Denise Acee
Secretary
DA/ernh
-3-
(
~ a~;;Jd' ccv.rTY' &d qr Afl~e,;T:S
Je.. ~ C!c->"? e To yo« 70 45/:' ,,,;-,<. /?--s9_,J a,/e
t414'1(!e_ ;:D;< ~ &,,-w,--7 PJW, ,,?-// &.K ~
~,.,.;0~--wce. sJO;<e .
~ST we ~cMess See,?:Q..,; 5-:07.09 (1j. d
t<Jqutd t//.!e_ 70 be /f/4,<t.Je,/ /5C! ..sy. ~ oF s,,7.,J hK-e
7-'r /s "1dwJ h"x ~">'leAe/,,<J·L ::zo,.,;~. otJ l?t!. 6 s
~e. .'1-14wed o,,ve. S;9,.J ~ aq.s;,..Jt:.ss. {/, ...,...,e-"!~I aq,....Jd'
A-A~ ~t.J.,/ I So s7. /T. f)o< .S/f',.,,/. 4-k /1.R.e. j/~e.re,v/'f
~u!uf by /fA~b ~,,;e. 9q1c/efr,-<1e_s. tJ/,,t.A '14w c1,..Jj
ofie s19,,J ~ !or ;9,110 ...f 9o s 7 . rr. -5'/7 ,.J. /l
~/Met, ·'70 +/4.,; c.IS -:0 Afi":fe. by ('-(Y>JY'J~Ct-1t ~Ale
,f~u'9'7/i',,;.s !Jo((!/ 6-e "1 9-<MT /ie.J; /,..,} esr,,,/,4s/,"'!' oq,<1. ,.,-e,J
h4s1,.r-.ss.
S~,,;j tJe. ~~~ .s«:.m,,/ !:' 07, o 7 (9) .
tk t.Joatd 41~ 7ZJ &_ /'f-(i'ot.Jtd ~ ~ ¥ tJrP-s/Te .
. :£,.v'J~ .. rv-?·'Te S/9,.J Ct.J~,J tJ.ot.J~ -1-,g, be hy de. c/tl
a;<)-( D,s7'i(ecr ~f!f"47r.....;s ol=" de C¥te41 duA17J s~
. tJ,Je.
tJ ~(('r ~se S/7,.../S /I ;s / ";r1/'0>SIJ4. 70
/f?rMcl lie .bt1.s1,..,Jes_s /71'°0'Y>"l .z--7", 74 fe4~1s73
-1...,;D /10-V(h.s t.J/..o clo ,c(,-vd t:J«,( fa?,ce tJ,.c/e....J ~..,,,.,.w:r,
y/..v.;)2. Cod tJe 570;>,t>e</ h~e/ bctT IVL t-J~wr SC<~e.
tJ~e.,/e;z -rl.1.s 4!1'1S ~ Ao «Se or<. ,+· b((.SµIC.S.$,
t§~se or oe<A ~C,<J-7/Q,.J de ~ bowvc/ ~rJ=JC
~T See c.i.s v,.,/'T// -r/ey Mve.. p~~ US·
' •
7k_ .Z-~'(/{?ST~/e S~,,J C-1A',,.,f:J/ be_ .se~ bc.C-'14.fr
;r 1.s 70 s >">1-11 -4A ~ . 7/h-~F1c__ ~ sec.. ,
/Jc.. kve &,,v~"l& n....-.i,.oo~ P ..5ip...<1s. o,...,_ ,,,J
'. -ft... 4r or' 4 .S'Fl{e..-. C),.ve_ (J,J r-4.. side, ~r ~
5e..-Mt-~Le.12 7'+-r IS />MA'ed 1..-J tftl'/'j' t},.vs7T-«<c7/P.-.!s
y-1Ad. tVe. -7'o"pkr we_ ?.!(fie. ~w~ 7~~r' 51 9.....0,
. l+rr.,< uie ,.c;;q.,vj we ,,.,..,,;e ,.-vo-r: Ou,e.. >~Les ..siowed
~f ,,.,.,,,; /.AICAe;9Se ;fr/e/: S-e,.71/""'1 ;i1e,s-e .S/?;<IS'.
!Je... Me_ /VO/ rt 1"7AST To /flee.cl suet. /7 ;?~qesr.
$f'k. -n'ee · &!! hs -+ s;f'...; <"F ~/'/7.-'fnr'tYJ.+-?ef o'l~Cl sp,/7..
7'e \),~,Y [)d<' /?/ &.Jfe..I 8fee)( IS +/4v.JJ ISO S-1'. /=/..
A,.;D &%,,) CAeeJ! QqJJL1/l.0-Ms ,,j-Se)'Y)/-~1/e,t;,
(h;,.v-,e./ 4-S /I-S1y...-J •
0e__ Me C."?m17Ttd 7<I ~¥1"'f .4e.s?te71cAll'y 174s1"'f'
S!'?AIS· .Ve. ~1/L ,,vn-bC-.b4icl<t-<J> &VY' t1e,ws,, d~
~A.0-lWJ Ml' 4'e sdf<c.S. W'e.. Mue. bt11tr ~ T<htf1ST
~k Q,<t'1!/ed' .Se1<t11ee ~ /wPe. 1<¥1 1r ..-?s ,.viJ'i#I
'4.S tJc5S1b f, 1 ~D tde. f?M ~ CXJA17TrV<J~ c/c1,..y so·
~J! yoq h.e yoq/Z Co...Js1 d~T,;~',,.J.
ou!#M'. -~"'? eA:.
;gc.<~tAI? )'YJ//tl. ...f-t/ /'~J.!
'
' 6 c 7"52'32.
R = 1930.00
T = 132.as:
L = 265.28
51&1'' I
QU ARTER CCR SOUTH
SECTION 32
PROPOSED PE
BUILDING ENVELO
·•
. -... -. ---::=~
-COLORAIJO
452.51'
N6J'01zi.~!'.._t_
----~
/2 I
jiR"PARK,
~,-C-5t6KE
7; ,, ' ; .. ",',, !
l -
DI £5£ L ",'{
'",
I"·' .. •.
• .. __ ------·--·----·····----. ------~ -. -------------· ----~-----------·----· ----------·------------
I ' ' \~I d 0 I>--0 0
; ~()I t
/{R-V _p_A R Ki /1 1
I UJI
l Q PEN 1£'
• •
~
0 u·
!
1
J
({0
"' -
'<I"
M
0
!
•
-::1 ~
ti
~
1l &&.
41
-~
llV.Ln
• • --------
1
'.) ),',' " ._. I
I
;,','
I"
d'// //
I
I
I I
11,','
//
"' !.,, ,,, .,, ,, .,
----··•··· ----·
0
•.
. • '
1
1
. 1 1:.: VARIANCE APPLICATION ·~; ·: '
· · '' GARFIEW COUNTY ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ' '1: ·, ~ ~ ' 1 ' . t. \.
1 I ~· ', ~ \ l ~.' ..• :' j I i . ' PUrsuant to Section 9. 05 of the Garfield county zoning· } i ' , ,
I () ' ' V>r.,-,1 /) ,/ a..,,,1 /) (/ ,..,.-=: U : , '
! : i· ilesolution -/"=f.F-::..:..:.;:...:;=---'~ .,_,r/V•_• -.-:"....:.....''_v __ l'11..:.'"',;_;,"-+---'"'4':..t-.L--<t<;~·--~....,==-.:..'""ce.~==--. \'\ l . I i r ~~quest(s) :p~ar~:~~e0 ~~e~:c~~) Of the Garfield county ~o~~n~
'
',.' .. i ·.Re,solution ---------· 1·' j '1 " ! :·, I ~;: ' ; ; l l ~ : ~~ncerning -==c~;_:02:_e.__,._, __ ,,.,.-V,~q~wi_b~cA ___ o~r ___ to permit __ S_'/_~_-,_,;t}, ___ $_' ------'.j ; '. '
\ : l .r, in theA'1ry ft/ lh&'< f'ub zone dist~,i~t. · I ; :j ----------------------' :i :
! j ,: SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: "'
I A. sketch map: showing all improvements on the site, building sizes, :: ~ ' . ·' locations, setbacks, and access points.
•,, a. Vicinity map: showing general geographic location. I '',
i ii c Legal description of site -Copy of Deed of 01mership.
I •" D
0
Practical description of site -including address.
'\, ·E:· Names and addresses of property owners adjacent to or within 200 ft. of the site
1 1
•' .1 (available through ·the Assessor's office) "
l i . F. Where applicable: descriptions of domestic water source, sewage disposal, and .other
I : ' · utility facilities.
I I 1
: G. Plans and specifications for the proposal.
, ': H. Narrative explainin\j why the variance is being requested.
l · · I. It should be demonstrated by the above information and statements that, • ••• where by
. : .j ' reason of exceptional narrowness, shallowness or ~ of the specific piece of
• 1 property at the time of enactment of this Resolution, --or-by reason of exceptional
I . .. topographic condition of such piece of property, or other extraordinary . and
\
1
; exceptional situa.tion or condition of such piece of property, the strict applrcatlon
i of any regulation enacted under this resolution would result in peculiar, and
' I
I
, , exceptional hardship upon the owner of such property•. (Section 9.05.03)
. 1 J. Subject to the above findings, the Board of Adjustment may authorize a variance
provided: ·
9.05.03 (1): ~hat the variance granted is the minimum necessary to alleviate
such practical difficulties or undue hardships upon the owner of said property1 ','
9.05.03 (2): ~at such relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the
public good and without substantially impairing the intent and purpose of the general
plan or this resolution;
9.05.03 (3): ~at the circumstances found to constitute a hardship were not caused by
the applicant, are not due to or the result of general conditions in the district,
and cannot be practically corrected; ! t' K. A$250 fee nust be submitted with the application. i .
I . PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS:
·. 1. submit applications to the Garfield county Department of Building, Sanitation and
Planning no later than the last Friday of the month in order to be included on the
following month's agenda; Regular meeting of the zoning Board of Adjustment
scheduled on the fourth ~ursday of each month.
2. You will receive, from the Planning Department, a "PUblic Notice Form" indicating the
time and date of your hearing.
3. Notice by publication (of the public notice form) shall be given once in a newspaper
of general circulation in that portion of the county in which the subject property is
located, at least fifteen (15) days prior to the date of the public hearing, and
proof of publication shall be presented at the hearing by the applicant. Section
9.05.04. (1)
4. Notice by mailing (of the public notice form) shall be sent by ·certified
return-receipt mail to all owners of all property within two hundred (200) feet of
the subject property at least five (5) days prior to the hearing, and the return
receipts showing receipt of notice shall be presented at the · hearing ·by the
applicant, unless the applicant is able to otherwise show evidence of adequate notice
to such owners. Section 9.05.04.(2)
'Il1e above and attached information is correct and accurate to the best of my knowledge,
APPLICANT: t?it,oy /(t/
MAILING ADDRESS: L/3 9 .;{3
OONER: S:: /f Y>'1 e_
(if different from above) PllONE_~S~1~m~e~-----
MAILING ADDRESS: __ """'-'//i.L...:..:YIJ.!-'e""-----------------
. --
• •
~ ~~/
-rJi s 1 s ,-,. .Ao"fe ~ s~~, 'J ~ tJ.F7'-
SilC j>tft1~'f /,,./t!dlved. 7't-~1/e,.e. {s1_7.AJ)
tJ1i/, be_ ~1<-eJ' /,,.J :?fe-'1Cl'/J"Y?WT ~ JF
~~117 a,.J~,,J c.. :::Z:-r ~ Mve. --1.-rlf
t)k J<t~"'s rl~c. C<t-IL 9t:f-33/~.
• Adjacent Land Owners, Rippy RV Park PUD.
1. Leonard E. Rippy
p.o. Box 427
Glenwood Spgs. Co· 81601 945-5894
:&lildill8
Pue o, Co. 81003-3032
Colorado Dept. of Hwys.
Box 2107
Grand Jct., Co. 81502
4• Jill & Gregg McKennis
1270 240 Rd·
Glenwood Spgs., Co• 81601
719-561-7300
984-2729
•
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ----------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
c:Sca!ow and <wafke't1 ifnc~
Heg. Land Surveyors and Engineers
811 Colorado Avenue
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
(303) 945-8664
PROPF.RTY DESCRIPTION
A par<:oe] of land sHuated 1n Toots 3 and 4 of Section l, and 1n Lot l of Se<:otion
2, Township 6 South, Range 91 West, and 1n the SEl(SE.1' and SW)(SE1' of Sect1on 32,
Township 5 South, Range 90 West of the S1xth Pr1ncipal MerjcUan, County of
C"YlrfieM, State of Colorado; said parcel Jyjng Northerly of the Northerly right-
of·-\'l'ty of County Road No. 335 and F..asterly of the F.asterly right-of-way of
County Road No. 335 Ac<:oess to Jnstertate Highway I-70, and Southerly of the
<:oi>nti>r]ine of the Colorado River being more particularly descr1bed as follows:
Commen<:oina at thi> Southeast Corner of Section 32, TCMl'.lship 5 South, Range 90
West of the S.ixth Pr.incipal Meridian; thence N.89°01'15"W. 2715.54 feet along
the Southerly line of said Section 32 to the South Qi.tarter Corner of said
SF"<:otlon 32, the True Point of ll'Ninnina; thence N.89°01'15"E. 270.00 feet to a
point in the <:oenter.line of the Colorado River; then<:oe continuing along said
r.enterJine the follcwing ten ( 10) <:oourses:
1) N.63°07'41"E. 452.51 feet;
2) N.R1°33'30"E. 664.82 feet;
3) N.81°20 1 38"E. 280.88 feet;
4) S.58°40'49"E. 238.56 feet;
5) S.47°37'35"E. 396.67 feet;
6) s.54°02'09"E. 531.08 feet;
7) s.52°52'18"E. 342.69 feet;
8) S.65°42 1 40"E. 141.04 feet;
9) S.63°06'02"E. 146.18 feet;
JO) s.74°35'33"E. 304.30 feet; thence leaving said centerline S.00°03'25"E.
143.95 feet to a point on the Northerly right-of-way of County Road No .. 335 as
constructed and in place; thence continuing along said Northerly right-of-way
the fo1lcwing eleven courses:
1) along the arc of a curve to the right having a radius of 6341.85 feet,
a central angle of 04°37'07", a distance of 511.22 feet (chord
bears N. 73°l6'34"W. 511,08 feet);
2) along the arc of a curve to the left having a radiu~ of 5218.99 feet
a central angle of 03°50 1 34", a distance of 350.03 feet (chord bears
N.72°53'17"W. 349.97 feet);
3) N.74°48'34"W. 599.69 feet
4) along the arc of a curve to the left having a radius of 1982.68 feet,
a central angle of 11°34'43", a distance of 400.67 feet (chord bears
N.80°35'56"W. 399.99 feet);
5) N. 86 • 23 ' 17 "W. 830. 17 feet to a point on the Wester 1 y line of said
Section 1, also being a point on the Easterly line of said Section 2;
6) N.86°04'59"W. 38.63 feet;
7) N.85°41 1 52"W. 143.50 feet;
8) along the arc of a curve to the right having a radius of 3570.00 feet,
a central angle of 03°59 1 00", a distance of 248.20 feet (chord bears
N.83°42'22"W. 248.15 feet);
9) N.81°42'53"W. 196.92 feet;
10) N.78°53'23"W. 284.96 feet;
11) along the arc of a curve to the right having a radius of 1930.00 feet,
a central angle of 07°52'32", a distance of 265.28 feet (chord bears
N.74°57'07"W. 265.07') to a point on the F.asterly right-of-way of
C'-01.mty Road No. 335 Access to Interstate Highway I-70; thence N .13°48' 42"E.
191.61 feet along said Easterly right-of-way to point on the Northerly line of
said Section 2, also being a point on the Southerly line of said Section 32;
then<:oe N.89°01'15"E. along said Northerly line 377.64 feet to the True Point of
f\e\]inn.!ng; said parcel containing. 38.335 acres, more or less .
. January 6, 1991
•
September 3, 1993
Rippy RV Associates
43923 Highway 6 & 24
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
RE: Variance Request
Dear Mr. Rippy:
GARFIELD COUNTY
BUILDING AND PLANNING •
Your application for several Variances regarding the height, placement, off site signs and the
number of signs within the Rippy RV Park PUD has been scheduled for a public hearing before
the Zoning Board of Adjustment on September 23, 1993, at 3:30 p.m., in Suite 301, Garfield
County Courthouse, 109 8th Street, Glenwood Springs, Colorado. It is suggested you or your
authorized representative be in attendance.
A copy of the enclosed public notice should be submitted to the Glenwood Post or other
newspaper of general circulation for publication one time, at least, 15 days prior to the hearing.
You should contact the paper directly regarding obtaining the proof of publication and billing.
In addition, copies of the public notice form must be mailed by certified return-receipt to all
property owners within 200 feet of your property no less than 5 days prior to the hearing. All
mailings must be completed no later than September 17, 1993, to ensure compliance. The proof
of publication from the newspaper, certificates of mailing and return-receipts from the mailings
must be submitted to staff, prior to the public hearing.
Please contact this office if you have further questions regarding your application or public
hearing.
Sincerely,
~
Mark L. Bean, Director
Regulatory Offices and Personnel
MLB/sa
1098TH STREET, SUITE 303 • 945-8212/625-5571/285-7972 • GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601
• •
PUBLIC NOTICE
TAKE NOTICE that Rippy RV Associates has applied to the Zoning Board of Adjustment,
Garfield County, State of Colorado, to grant a Variance in connection with the following
described property situated in the County of Garfield, State of Colorado; to-wit:
Legal Description: See Exhibit A
Practical Description: Located at 7051 County Road 335, 1/2 east of the New Castle I-70 exit
on County Road 335.
Said Variance application is to allow for a sign in excess of the 30 foot height limitation; and
signs inexcessofthe90 square foot maximum up to 150 square foot; a Variance to locate a sign
off of the site and a Variance to allow more than one sign on the property.
on the above-described property.
All persons affected by the proposed Variance application are invited to appear and state their
views, protests or objections. If you can not appear personally at such hearing, then you are
urged to state your views by letter, particularly if you have objections to such Variance
application request, as the Zoning Board of Adjustment will give consideration to the
comments of surrounding property owners and others affected in deciding whether to grant or
deny the request for the Variance. This Variance application may be reviewed at the office of
the Planning Department located at 109 8th Street, Suite 303, Garfield County Courthouse,
Glenwood Springs, Colorado between the hours of8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through
Friday.
That public hearing on the application has been set for the 23rd day of September, 1993, at the
hour of 3:30 p.m., at the office of the Zoning Board of Adjustment, Garfield County
Courthouse, Suite 302, 109 8th Street, Glenwood Springs, Colorado
Planning Department
Garfield County
..
I
i
I
I