Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-05-10 (Special) Meeting MinutesSPECIAL MEETING: COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO May 10, 1982 The City Council of the City of Englewood, Arapahoe County, Colorado, met in sp~cial session on May 10, 1982, at 7:30 p.m. Mayor Otis, presiding, called the meeting to order, The invocation was given by Council Member Thomas Fitzpatrick. The pledge o f allegiance was led by Mayor Otis. Mayor Otis asked for roll call. Upon a call of the roll, the following were present: Council Members Higday, Neal, Fitzpatrick, Weist, Bradshaw, Otis. Absent: Council Member Bilo. The Mayor declared a quorum present, • Also present were: City Manager Mccown * Assistant City Manager Vargas City Attorney DeWitt Assistant City Attorney Holland Director of Community Development Powers Assistant Director of Community Development-Planning Romans Deputy City Cler k Watkins * COUNCIL MEMBER BRADSHAW MOVED TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARIN G TO CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE ON FINAL READING AMENDING THE COMPREHEN- SIVE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD BY REPEALING AND REENACTING SECTION 22.7 THEREOF TO REVISE THE SIGN CODE CONTAINED THEREIN . Council Member Fitzpatrick seconded the motion. Upon a call of the roll, the vote resulted as follows: Ayes: Nays: Council Members Higday, Neal, Fitzpatrick, We i st, Bradshaw, Ot i s. None. Mfty 10, 1982 Page 2 Absent: Coun~ll Member Bile. The Mayor declared the motion carried. Mayor Otis stated the purpose of this meeting was to seek comments on the proposed sign code. The Mayor stated there have been a number of changes within the City since the existitng code was adopted in 1974; and the Downtown Business Association and Englewood Downtown Development Authority requested the City to con- sider revisions to the e~isting code. Therefore, the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City staff have been working with busi- nessmen over the P.lght or nine months In order to develop a code that would be f~lr and equiLable to the businessmen and still have a positive effect on the existing and future signage. There have been several public hearings in an effort to get input. Mayor Otis stated the proposed sign code has been endorsed by the Board of Di- rectors of the Centennial Chamber of Commerce. All the reports and transcripts of these meetings and hearings have been made available to Council. Mayor Otis asked for the staff presentation. Susan Powers, Director of Community Development, appeared before Council and presented the proposal. Ms. Powers asked for consideration of the amendments to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordi- nance that aie being recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commis-( slon. Ms, Powers submitted an information packet inclusive of agendas, minutes, letters of communication and staff reports for the record. Ms. Powers submitted the publishers affidavit to show the hearing had been properly noticed, Ms. Powers read into the record a Jetter from the Centennial Chamber of Commerce supporting the proposed sign code; a letter from Johns. Roberts of Ralph Schomp Oldsmobile supporting the concept but asking for special ,onsideration since they recently put up a sign and reconstruction of a new sign would be expensive; and a letter from Plan West supporting the sign code. Ms. Powers passed out information to clarify some terminology in the code. Ms. Powers presented slides to summarize the code and show examples of proper signs and improper signs, Following Ms. Powers presentation, Mayor Otis asked for comments from the audience. Richard Home, attorney with the firm Davis, Graham, Stubbs, representing Ganet Outdoor Advertising of Colorado, appeared before Council. Mr. Home directed his discussion to outdoor advertising, billboards. Mr. Home stated he did not get a chance to comment on this sign code until now. Mr. Home stated he met with Assistant City Attorney Tom Holland a few days ago to tell him briefly of Ganet's concerns. Mr. Home elaborated on the legal questions that are raised in enforcing the proposed sign code. Mr. Homes presented a zoning map of the City identifying all of the billboards owned by Ganet. Mr. Home sta t ed the reason s why the code cannot succeed we re: 1) federal law; and 2) non-commercial May 10, 1982 Page 3 speech. Under the Highway Beautification Act of 1965, federal law p 10 v ldes that any billboard located within 660 feet of a federal l n 1c rst bt e or primary highway, and by virtue of Colorado State law , an y r oard located within 660 feet of primary or secondary highways cannot be removed by anyone unless compensation ls paid for that billboard. Council Member Neal asked the City Attorney If whether or not :ouncll had to hear legal arguments from Mr. Home when the purpo s e of the meeting was to hear whether people were in favor or against the proposed code. City Attorney DeWitt stated Council could hear the argu- ments or ask Mr. Home to make a summary of it. Mr. DeWitt stated Mr. Home was making a point that was actually off the point, speci- flclally, federal aid on federal systems. Mr. DeWitt stated Coun- cil was not proposing to use the ordinance for or against federal aid on a highway project. Mr. DeWitt asked Mr. Home to keep his comments to the point. Mr . Home apologized. He stated he was not arguing whether or not it was legal but meant to suggest that the practical impact of the proposed code coupled with the federal laws were such that the code would not be successful. City Attorney DeWitt asked Mr. Hom e If he had a brief on the subject. Mr. Home stated he had given it to Mr. Holland last week. City Attorney DeWitt stated he would look at it and pre- sent a copy of it to Council. Further, he would advise Council of his legal position for each one of the points. Mr. Home was agreeable to that approach. Mr. Home stated his second topic was to briefly outline the history of billboard codes in the area. Mr. Hom e discussed Denver prohibited billboards and after lengthly litigation dropped its amortization legislatively because Denver discovered it simply I would not work. L~kewood has been in litig a tion s i n c e 1974. San Diego undertook a full prohibition of billboards In 1971. The city got into litigation in the United States Supreme Court and lost. Ten years later, the case is still In the _o urts. Mr. Home stated lit i gation is expensive and In all of th~ aforementioned cases, ex- penses could have been cut if efforts had been made to sit down and negotiate the code in advance. Mr. Home praposed a compromise that wo uld permit bill- boards to be reasonably regulated as to size t o have a place In the City but a place restricted .o c e rta i n bu s in e s s a nd ind u s t rial a r e as. Ma y 10, 1982 Page 4 Mr. Home concluded there were two possible ftlternatlves other than litigation that could be taken which would be: 1) pay for all of the 25 existing billboards; or 2) sit down and discuss som~ form of reasonable regulation. Council Member Bradshaw asked Mr. Home who was Ganet's parent company. Mr. Home stated the parent company was Combined Communi- cation Corporation, Council Member Fitzpatrick asked If the company was depen- dent on o utdoor advertising. Mr. Home stated the parent company was not. Council Member Neal asked how old the billboards were In Englewoad , Mr. Home stated they all predated 1974. Council Member Neal asked if Mr. Home was aware of the billboards and their condition. Mr. Home stated many were not nearly as good as those In ( Denver, The on~s In Englewood have not been touched since the pro- hibition in 1971., Mr. Home stated painting gets done but In terms of rebuilding them, it cannot be done under the existing code, Council Member Bradshaw asked Mr, Home how many other com- munities he had appeared at on behalf of Ganet. Mr. Home stated he was involved In a case In the State of Maine which was dismissed by the first circuit of appeals, Mr. Home stated most of them were in the Denver metro area within the last ten years. There were no further comments from Mr. Home. Mayor Otis askad for the next speaker, Walt Stoel, 2921 South Downing, business address of 4285 South Broadway. Mr. Stoel was in favor of the proposed code and urged strong consideration for the sake of the new development area. There were no further comments from Mr. Stoel. Mayor Otis asked for the next speaker. Tom Hudgens, 43 Sunset Drive, owner of BelJAlre Sign Com- pany, appeared before Council . Mr . Hudgens sta r r d his comp dny Hay lU, 1982 Page 5 dealt with speciality signs consisting of leasing 4 x 8 portable signs, Hr, Hudgens requested Council not to put his company out of business by the prohibition of portable signs. Council Member Bradshaw asked how long had Hr. Hudgens been In business in Englewood. Hr, Hudgens stated he started about April of last year. Hr, Hudgens stated most of his signs have been placed in the last four months. Co uncil Member Higday asked how many signs had been placed in Englewood. Mr, Hudgens stated he had 10 total. Seven Englewood busi- neses had signs, one of which had two, Council Member Neal asked if Mr, Hudgens lived in Engle- wood, Hr. Hudgens stated his residence was in Cherry Hills with an Englewood ~ailing address. Council Member Neal asked if Cherry Hills allowed portable signs. Mr, Hudgens stated there were no areas in Cherry Hills where these signs or any other signs can be used commercially. Mr, Hudgens stated he would like to see the code changed to allow portable signs. Mr, Hudgens stated there has been national litigation over prohibition of signs, He had given the Assistant City Attorney information about a case that occurred in Georgia. Mr, Hadgens summarized the case where a federal judge ruled there could not be a total prohibition of portable signs just because they were port,ble, Mr. Hudgens srowed a photograph of one of h '.s signs but it was not made part of the record. There were no further comments from Mr. Hudgens. Mayor Otis asked for the next speaker. Jerry Feather, 3467 South Broadway, appeared before Council, Mr. Feather discussed a newspaper article concerning the announcement of business failure In the United States because it was so expensive to operate. Mr, Feather as,ed Council not to add another financial burden by causing businesses to change their signs, Ma y 10, 1982 Page 6 There were no further comments fr oP Mr. ~eather. Mayor Otis asked for the next speaker. Art Swords, 12 South Quebec Way, appeared before Council. Mr. Swords stated he worked with the Town of Avon, Colorado, in developing their sign code and organizing their general planning principles. Mr. Swords supported the proposed sign code. Mr. Swords stated slgnage created the biggest single impact on a human being. Mr. Swords stated cities have allowed themselves to become a hodge podge of visual pollution. Mr. Swords stated regulation of signs can help the environment and quality of life without hurting marketability of businesses. Mr. Swords discussed his observations of slgnage during his tour of South America and how signage has been influenced by America and Europe. There were no further comments from Mr. Swords. Mayor Otis asked for the next speaker. Ruth Tromley, 3104 South Vine Court, appeared before Council. Mrs. Tromley stated she had served on the 1974 Sign Code Committee and was unhappy to see some of the provisions unenforce- able. Mrs. Tromley stated the new code has provisions that are enforceable and urged passage now that Council has the opportunity. There were no further comments from Mrs. Tromley. Mayor Otis asked for the next speaker. Gordon Close, 3451 South Acoma, appeared before Council. Mr. Close endorsed the code. Mr. Close stated the new sign code was necessary to help the redevelopment of downtown Englewood. In response to Council Member Higday's question, Mr. Close stated he was president of d/b/a Englewood. Council Member Neal asked if Mr. Close knew the feeling of the general downtown area on the subject. Mr. Close stated the businessmen generally felt the problem Is partially the visual impact; and the new code is needed to promote downtown Englewood. There were no further comments from Mr. Close. Mayor Otis asked for the next speaker , Mike Haviland, DI rector of the Englew,,,,i.l Downtown Develop- ment Authority, 3535 South Sherman, appeared bv f ore Council . Mr. Haviland spoke in favor of the proposed sign code. Mr. Haviland stated the code impacts th e downtown area as we ll as the total image of Englewood. Mr. Haviland stated he attended the evolution May 10, 1982 Page 7 steps of the code development and as a result thought it was a good code. There were no further comments from Mr. Haviland. Mayor Otis asked for the next speaker, Judith Henning, 2951 South Franklin, appeared before Council. Mrs. Henning stated she sat through the 1974 revisions of the sign code, Mrs, Henning urged Council to stand firm and keep in mind the need to promote a good community. Mrs. Henning stated the cost was a good reputation not litigation fees, Mrs. Henning stated the existing code is lenient and has not saved the busi- nesses on South Broadway, Mrs. Henning added she was not adverse to compromise. There were no further comments from Mrs. Henning, Mayor Otis asked for the next speaker. Tom McGee, 6631 South Hillway, Littleton, appeared before Council, Mr, McGee stated he operated an outdoor billboard busi- ness since 1955 in the Denver metro area, Up until 1974, he had built billboaids in Englewood. He had none in Englewood now. His billboards promoted other businesses such as United Way. Mr. McGee stated outlawing billboards disallowed his business from operating in Englewood, There were no further comments from Mr. McGee, Mayor Otis asked for the next speaker. Bill Hopping, 4200 South Pearl, appeared before Council, Mr. Hopping stated the signage was disastrous along Hampden and South Boardway , Mr. Hopping stated people will not shop or move into the City because the bad first impression they get mainly from signage, ~r. Hopping urged upgrading the City's image by support- ing the co,e , There were no further comments from Mr. Hopping. Ma y or Otis asked for the next speaker, Marjorie Becker, 644 East Yale Place, Vice Chairman of the Planning and Zoning Commission, appeared before Council. Mrs. Becker gave supporting presentation on behalf of the Planning and Zoning Commission, Mrs. Becker stated she as a citizen would like to see the billboards be torn down even if tax money has to be used to tear them down or even enter into litigation to get them re- moved. Mrs. Becker stated most people know where they are going shopping; and they generally do not need a big sign to attract them to a bu s iness. Mrs. Becker stated six comm i s5i oner s we re in favor May 10, 1982 Page 8 and three against when the vote was taken on the code. There was intense activity to get citizen participation, the code was not just one person's product. Mrs. Becker stated she and Chairman Ed McBrayer urged passage. Council Member Higday asked Ms. Powers if there was record of the compatibility of the proposed downtown redevelopment and the proposed legislation. Ms. Powers stated comments from Don Ensign, Design Work- shop, were recorded in the packet she entered into the record earlier in the meeting. Mr. Ensign stated his image and the City's image of the downtown were consistent. Council Member Neal asked for an explanation of the three to ten year amottization schedule for removing signs. Ms. Powers stated every sign that exists now will be guaran t eed a three year period for amortization if it is a non-con- forming sign. The period of time would increase if the sign were younger than that. The maximum any sign would have would be 10 years. Council Member Higday asked if the proposed code was acceptable to the Burt Chevrolet business. Ms. Powers stated the representatives were happier than what they were with the first draft. Council Member Bradshaw asked if there would be enforce- ment problems. Ms. Powers stated she and her staff were collllllitted to en- forcing the code if passed. Assistant City Attorney Holland stated he attended the Planning and Zoning Commission meetings dealing with the Sign Code, as legal counsel. Mr. Holland stated many people participated in the work and the result, in his opinion, was a good document. There were no other comments. COUNCIL MEMBER FITZPATRICK MOVED TO CLOSE THE HEARING. Council Member Bradshaw seconded the motion. Upon a call of the roll, the vote resulted as follows: Ayes: Nays: Absent: Council Members Higday, Neal, Fitzpatrick, Weist, Bradshaw, Otis. None. Council Member Bilo. ( Hay 10, 1982 Page 9 The Mayor declared the motion carried. COUNCIL MEMBER HIGDAY MOVED TO ADJOURN. Mayor Otis adjourned the meeting without a vote at 9:23 p.m. I