HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008 Ordinance No. 072•
•
•
OR DINANCE NO .~
SERIES OF 2008
BY A THOR ITY
COUNC fL BIL L NO . 69
I TRODUCE D BY COUNC IL
ME MBE R WILSON
AN ORDINANCE AMEND ING T HE ENG LEWOOD MUN ICIPAL CO DE 2000 BY
AMEN DI NG TITL E 16-6-13, SIGNS NOT SUB JECrTO PERMIT S, TO ALLO W DI SPLAY
OF A FL AG USED EXCLUS IVE LY BY THE SOUTH BRO AD WAY ENGLEWOO D
BUSINE SS !MPR OVE MENT DISTRI CT MEM BERS.
WH EREAS, th e South Broa dway Englewood Bus iness lmprove ,n ent Dist ric t (B ID ) is
see king to di spl ay a fl og to be designed and used ex clu sive ly by BID members; and
WH EREAS , Englewoo d Muni cipal Code all ows th e dis pla y of fl ags of na tio ns, state 1r
cities onl y; and
WH EREAS , Pl anning and Zonin g Co mmiss ion discussed th e des ire of South Broa dway
Englewood Business Imp rovement Di strict to have it s own fl ag and the Co mmi ss ion's
recomm enda tion was to amend the Sign Code to address onl y th e South Broa dw ay Englewood
Busin ess Imp rovement Distri ct or any future Cit y approved bu siness impro vem ent distri ct fl ag;
and
WH ERE AS , the Cit y beli ev es it is des irabl e and benefi cia l 10 the Cit y and South
Broadway Englew ood Bu si ness Imp rov ement Di stri ct to di spl ay such fl ags.
NOW, TH EREFORE , BE IT ORDAI NE D BY THE CITY COUNC IL OF TH E CITY
OF ENG LEWOO D, COLO RAD O, AS FOL LOWS:
Sc'Cti on I. Ti tle 16-6-13. Signs. Englewood Muni cipa l Code, is hereby amend ed to rea d
as fo ll ows :
16-6-13 : Signs.
[Edi tor's note : I 6-6-13 A 1hr0ugh D rema in unchanged and arc th erefore not inc lud ed in thi s
Ordin ance .]
E. Signs No t Subjec t to Pe rmits . The fo ll ow ing signs, di spl ayed fo r
non-co mm ercia l purposes, may be erected and main ta in ed in all zo ne di stricts without n
sign pe rmit as oth erw ise req uired by Section 16-6 -1 3. D. EMC, "Penni ts," above. Such
signs shall be in additi on to all otllcr signs pennitt cd in nny zone distri ct, provi ding such
signs do not require direc t electrica l wirin g, and confo nn to setb ac ks and olh cr ph ysica l
characteri stic requirements of th e des igna ted zo ne di st ri cts. Even th ough penn its arc not
req ui red fo r th e fo ll owing signs, wall signs shull be loca ted onl y in th e sig nab lc urea , and
window signs shall be counted towa rd th e twent y-fi ve perce nt (25%) maximum cov erage .
This restrict ion shall not ap pl y to holiday decorations , or to shon-tenn ndvcn isi ng ns
provided in subsectio n 16-6 -13.J .5.fEMC.
11 bi
No pcnnit shall be required to carry out maintenance to a co nform .II~ i~•.1 ifno structural
changes arc 1nudc.
I. Bulletin Boards. Bulletin boa rds for publi c, cha ritable , or religious
ins tituti ons, whi ch are not over twelve (12) square feet in area and whi ch
are located on th e premi ses of sa id in stitutions.
2. Electi on Sign s. Election l'igns shall not be posted more than fony-five
(45) ca lendar day s prior to the election to which the sign relnles and shall be
removed within fifteen ( 15) ca lendar days following th e electio n to which th e
sign rel ates. Such signs are limited to wall, window, and ground signs; and shall
not be a banner of paper or cloth. Each election sign shall not exceed twelve (12)
square feet of total sign area .
3. Flags .
.il· Flags of nations or an organiza tion of nation s, states, n11d cities ,
provided such flag does n< t exceed thiny-fi vc (35) square feet in area .
~. Flags of Ci tv-a2nroved bu siness im2rovemqnt districts nrovided the
flags dis2lav onlv the name emb lem and/or loso of the or&anization
and the tent1 "sa le todav" but no individual business names Such flegs are
limited to three feet '3 'l bv four feet f4 ') but the emblem and/or loh·~
tosfax" tew are oerm itted on both sides of the flag Such flag s max onlv be
fl own on the last Satw;da , of the month or on such oth er davs as authndwl bv
the Citv Manaser or des igp ee
(Editor 's note : 16-3-13E(4) through 16-3-l 3E(l 7) remain unchanged and arc therefore not
included in thi s Ordinance.)
Section 2. Safety Clauses. The City Counci l hereby finds , detennincs, and declares th at this
Ordinance is promulgated under the general police power of the City of Englewood, that it is
promulgated for the health , safety, and · d farc of the public, and that thi s Ordina nce is nece ssary
for the pre servati on of health and safety and for the protecti on of public convenience and welfare .
The Ci ty Co un cil funher determines that the Ordinance bear.; a rational relation lo the proper
legi slative object sought to be obtained .
Sec ti on 3. Severability . If any clau se, sentence , paragraph , or pun of thi s Ordir.unce or the
applicatio n thereof to any perso n or ci rcumstances shall for any rea so n be adjudged by a coun of
co mpetent juri sdi ct ion invalid , such judgment shall not affec t, impai r or invalidate the remainder
of thi s Ordinance or its app lica ti on to other perso ns or circumstances .
Section 4. In consistent Ordin ances. All other Ordinances or porti ons thereo f incons istent or
co nfli cting wi th thi s Ordi nan ce or any ponion hereof are hereb y repealed lo th e extent of such
inconsistency or co nflic 1.
Section 5. Effect of repeal or modification . 11,c repea l or modifi cation of11ny prov ision of th e
Code of the City of Englewood by thi s Ordinance shall not rel ease, extinguish , alter, modify, or
change in whole or in part any penalty, forfeiture , or liabilit y, either civil or crimina l. which shall
have been incurred under such pro visio n, and each provision shall be treated and he ld us still
remaining in force for 1h e purposes of susta ini ng any and all proper acti ons. suit s, proceedi ngs,
2
•
•
•
•
•
•
and prosec ution s fo r the enforceme nt of th e pen alt y. fo rfeit ure. or liabi lit y, as well ns for the
purp ose of sustaini ng any j udgment . decree, or order whic h ca n or may be rend ered , ent ered, or
made in such acti o11s. suit s, proceedin gs, or prosecuti ons.
Sect ion 6. Penalt y. The Penalt y Provision of Section 1-4 -1 EM C shall appl y to each and
every violati on of th is Ordinan ce.
Int roduced, read in full, and passed on firs t readin g on th e 20th day of Oc«iber, 2008.
Publi shed as a Bill for an Ordinance in th e City 's official newspaper on th e 25'" day of
Octobe r, 2008.
Publi shed as a Bill fo r an Crdinance on th e Cit y's officia l website be ginnin g on th e 22nd da y
ofOctober, 2008 , fo r thirty (30) days.
A Pub lic Hearing was held Nove mber 3, 2008.
Rea d by titl e, amend ed and pass ed as amended on th e 17"' day of Novembe r, 2008.
Publi shed as amended in th e Ci ty's offi cia l newspa per on the 28" da y of November, 2008 .
Publi shed as amended on the Cit y's officia l websit e beginni ng on the 19" day of November ,
2008 , fo r thirt y (3 0) days .
Read by titl e, and passed as amended on fin al rea ding on the I" day of December , 200S.
Published by titl e in the Cit y's officia l newspa per as Ordinance No. 2._,l,-series of 2008, on
th e s" day of December, 2008 .
I, Loucri shia A. Elli s, Cit y Clerk of th e Cit y of Englewood, Colorado , hereby certi fy that the
above and foregoi~ tru e co py of the Ordin ance pa ssed on fim ending and published by titl e
"""'""d. '"" """"' ~ I~
Loucri shi a A. Elli s
•
•
•
COUNC IL COMMUN ICATIO N
Date: Age nd a It em: Sub jecl:
O ct0be r 20, 2008 11 a ii A Bil l fo r an O rd inance Amen ding
Sec tion 16-6-13 E of the Un ified D eve lopm ent
Code Pe rtai ning l o Fl ags
Init ia ted By: St aff So urce:
Com m unity D eve lop me nt Department Alan W h ite, Community Developmen t Di rec to r
COUNCIL GOAL AND PRE VIOU S CO UNCIL ACTION
Th e South Br oa dway En glewood Busi ness Improvem ent D istric t i5 see kin g to dis play a "sale day"
logo fla g. Thi s proposa l was prese nt ed to Council as a sc h edole d publi c comment item on M ay 5.
2008. Thi s item was al so disc usse d as a Counci l M ember's Ch oice at a study sess ion this summer.
Council direc ted st aff to proceed w ith p repa ring 1he :'ecessar, am endments to th e Unifi ed
D eve hpment Code w ithout holding a study sess ion.
REC QMMENDED ACTION
Reco mmendation fr om l h e Commun ity D eve lopm ent D epar l menl to approve a bill for an
ord ina nce amendin g Sec ti on 16-6-13 E of th e U nifi ed D evelop ment Code p ert ai nin g to flags . Staff
also req ues ts th at Counci l set a p ublic h ea ring fo r Novem ber 3, 2008 to conside r pu b lic tes tim ony
on this iss ue.
BA CKGROUND , ANALYSIS, AND ALTERNATIVES IDENTIFIED
The South Broadway Englewood Business Improvem ent District is se eking to disp lay a fl ag to be
use d excl usive ly by BID me mbers. The fl ags w ill co ntai n o nl y the BID logo and lett er in g and w ill not
adve rtise speci fi c busin esses.
Flags ar e addressed un der the sign code section of th e UDC, Se tio n 16-6-E-3 . The code all ows tlie
display oi fl ags of na ti ons, stal es, or ci ties only. Th e size is limited to 35 square fee t. Th e UDC as
c urrentl y w ritt en does not allow 1h e display of this type o f flag. W hen rev iewed at study sess io n, the
Plan nin g and Zonin g Commiss ion felt that the code am en dment sho uld ad dress th e req ues t of lh e
ex b l ing BID ,1s well as pol enli al ful ure reques l s by BIDs o r merchanl assoc iali o ns 110 1 ye \ form ed.
The pro p ose d lan guage auth orizes the display of fl ags by Ci ty approved b usiness im provem en l
distri c ts. Cit y approva l is requ ired for Bu siness Im p rove m en t Distr ict fo rm ati o n. No City ap prova l or
oversight is requ i red to fo rm a merchant assoc iali o n. The propose d amendm ent rlQfil not i ncl ud e
merc hant associa tions as en ti l ies ab l e to dis pla y flags.
As w ilh o lh er fl ags, no p ermi t or rev iew by th e City is re 4 uired. The flags w ill be limited to 15
sq uare fee l in size.
Th is Item was presented to Planning and Zoning Commission at a stud y session on August 5, 2008. •
Th e Commission co ns ensus was to move fo rward wi th an amend,n ent to auth oriz e th e disp lay of
flags by th e BID.
Th e Planning and Zoning Commission co ndu cted a public hearing on th e p ropose d code
,,mendment o n Sep tember 16, 2008. Staff rec ommended deleting lan guage auth orizing merchant
associations to display flags as th ere is no City co ntrol over th e forma ti on of such associ ati ons. Th e
Co mmissio n forwarded to Counci l a recommendation for approva l wi th th e fo ll owin g amendmen t:
• The fi rst se ntence of 16-6-1 3 E 3(b) shall read : Flags of City approved business
districts, provided the flags display onl y th e name emblem, i!.!!l!lor logo of the
organ izat ion and no indi vidu al business names.
The attached bill for an ordinance co ntains th e amended text.
Attached is an image of th e propos ed fl ag received by the Departm ent on October 8, 2008 . An
image was reques ted severa l weeks ago w hen th r, ori gi nal language of th e code amendment was
being drafted for Planning and Zonin g Comr,,is,ion conside ration. The sa le day fla gs were
des c rih ed as "BID log o flags" on at least three occasions at ACE meetings and at City Counci l on
May 5, 2008. It was w ith thi s information that the ordinance v.,,s drafted .
As approved by the Pl ann in g an d Zoning Commission th e code amendm en t would not all ow the
inclusi on of th e words "Sa le Today." Inclusion of these words on the flag would require anoth er
h ea rin g on a revised ordinance b y th e Plannin g and Zonin g Commi ss ion.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
Th ere is no financia l impact to th e City.
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS
Im age of Proposed Flag
Planning and Zonin g Commission Staff Report -Sep tember 16, 2008
Plan nin g and Zoning Commission Minutes
Planning and Zoning Commissio n Findings of Fac t
Bill for an Ordinae ~e
•
•
NO T PERMIT'l 'ED • 24"
36"
•
•
•
•
•
TO :
FROM :
DATE:
RE:
M E M O R A N D u
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Pl annin g and Zoning Commis5ion
Alan White, Community D eve lopment Direc tor
Septe mber 16, 2008
Case No. 2008-12
Sign Code Amendment -BID "Sa le Day" Flags
RECOMMENDATION
M
St aff req ues ts that th e Planning and Zonin g Commission rev iew, take publi c tes tim o11y, and
forward to City Coun ci l a recomm endati on for adoption of proposed am endments to n tle 16:
U nified Development Code (UDC) all owi ng the display of flags connected to activi ti es of a
busin ess distri c t or mercha nt associa ti on .
BACKGROUND
Th e BID is seeking to displa y a fl ag to b e des igned and used exclusi ve ly by BID m embers. Our
curren t unders tanding is that th e fla gs will con tain onl y th e BID logo and m aybe som e
letterin g, but will not adver ti se specific businesses .
Flags are addresse d und er th e sign code sec ti on of th e UDC, Secti o n 16-6-E-3 . Th e code
all ows th e display of fl ags of nati ons, states, or citi es only. The size is limited to 35 square feet.
This topi c was discu sse d with Planning and Zoning Commissio n at a stu dy session on August
5, 2008 . Th e consensus of th e Commission was to ame nd th e sign code · J address o nl y th e
BID flags . Corporate and oth er flags should b e add resse d when the entire sign code is
amended .
ANALYSIS ---.--
Th e UDC as curre ntly written does not all ow the disp lay of this type of flag . W h e" '\.>iewed at
study sessio n, the Commissio n felt th at th e amendmen t sh ould add ress th e ex istin i,; .-~quest as
well as potential fu ture requests by BIDs or merchant associa ti o ns not ye t formed . 1he display
of such fl ags would not require a permit, but would req uire a licens e as discussed b elow .
The proposed language ind icates th e BID mu st b e City approved. Thi s is required fo r its
fo rm ation . N o City approva l o r oversight is requ ired to form a merchant associa ti on. Two
adjacent busin esse s cou ld decide to form an as socia tion and st ~rt displaying flags . Thi s is not
intended to b e permi tt ed by th e ame ndment. Th is unintended cons equence cou ld be dea lt
with by dele tin g th e refe rence to me rchant asso ci ations . The prop ose d amendment do es not •
includ e merc han t assoc iati ons as ent iti es abl e to di sp lay nags. As with oth er nags, no permit or
rev iew by th e City is requi red.
PROPOSED AMENDMENT
16-6-13: Signs .
E. Signs Not Subject to Permi ts . The following signs, displayed for non-c ommercial purposes,
may be erected and maint ained in all zone districts without a sign permit as oth erwise
req uired by Section 16-6-13 .D EMC, 'Permits," above . Su ch signs shall be in addition to all
other signs permitted in an y zone district, provi ding such signs do not require dire ct
electrical wiring, and conform to setbacks and other physical characteristic requirements of
the designated zone distri cts . Even though permits are not required for the following sign s,
wall signs shall be lo ca ted only in th e signable area, and window signs shall be counted
to wa rd the twenty-fi ve per ce nt (25%) maximum co vera ge. This restri cti on sha ll not apply
to holiday dec orations, or to short-term advertising as provided in subsection 16-6-13 .J.5.f
EMC. No permit shall be req uired to carry out ma intenance to a conforming sign if 110
structural changes are made .
1. Bulletin Bo a rds. Bull etin boards for public, charitable, or religious in stitutions , which are •
not ove r twelve (12) squ are fe et in area , and whi ch are located on the premises of said
institutions.
2. Election Si gns . Election signs shall not be posted more th an forty -fiv e ( 45) cale nd ar days
prior to th e election to whi ch the sign relat es, and shall be remo ve d within fift ee n (15)
calendar days following the election to which the sign relat es. Such signs are limit ed to
wall, window, and ground signs ; and shall not be a banner of paper or cloth. Each
election sign shall not excee d twelve ( 12) square fe et of total sign area .
3. Fla gs. Fla gs of Aati oA, or aA org aA i~atio A of Aat ioAs, ,late,, aAd eities, pro,•id ed ,ueA
Aag a oes AOl eMeeed tAirty fl,·e (35j s~uare feet iA area .
a. Elass of nations or an orsaoizatioo cf nations states and ci ti es orovided
such Oas does not excee d tbirtv-five (3 51 sauare fee t in area
b. Elass of.Dtv aooroved business imwoveme ot distr ic ts omxided the fl ags
disolav on lv the emb lem or lo&S2..Q.Ltbe orsaoization and no indi vidual
business names Such flags are limit ed to fi[teeo (J 51 sauare feet in area
•
•
•
•
Pl:mnmg :ind Zoning Commm,on
Public Hc:inng
Ca5es lt200S -1 I and Cue ;,:!008-12
September 16, 200S
Page I of 12
CITY OF ENGLE WOOD PL ANN ING AN D ZO NING COMM ISSI ON
Septe mb er 16, 20 08
I. CALL TO ORDER
~
The regu lar mee tin g of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at
7:03 p.m. in the Counci l Ch ambers of the Engl ewood Civic Center, Vice Chair K11oth
presiding.
Pr esent:
Absent:
Staff:
Roth , King, Welker, Calender, Krieger, Knoth , Fish, Bri ck
Ble ile
Alan White, Com mun ity De ve lopment Dir ec tor
Nancy Reid , Assistant City Attorney
Mike Flahe rty, Deputy City Manage r
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Se ptemb er 3, 2008
Fish move d:
Roth seco nded: TO APPROVE THE SEPTEMBER 3, 2008 MINU TES
Vice Chair Knoth a;ked if there we re an y modifications or co,rec ·''-'n;.
There we re none .
AY ES:
AYS :
A BST AIN :
ABSENT :
Roth , Cale nder, Kno th, King, Brick
None
Krieger, We lker, Fish
Bleile
Motion carr ied.
Ill. PUBLIC HEARINGS
~
CASE #2008-11
Amendments to Title 16 Related to Hard Surface and Commer ci al Ve hicl e We ight
Bri ck moved :
Krieger seco nd ed: THE PUBLIC HE ARI NG ON CASE #2008-1 1 BE OPENED
Plan ni ng o.nd Zon mg Commirnon
Public Hearing
Cases ,112 008-11 :tnd Ca se rt2.00S -12
Sep1cmber 16, 2008
Po.g e 2 oi 12
AY ES :
NAYS:
A BST AIN:
ABSENT:
Bri ck, Knoth, Roth, We lk er, King, Cal onde r, Fish, Krie ge r
None
one
Bleile
Motio n carried.
M r. White, Community De velop ment Director, w as sw orn in. He stated for the
Commission's conside rat ion tonight is case #2008-1 1, Amendment s to the Unified
Deve lopment Code (UDC) of the Englew ood Municipal Code rel ated to hard surfa ce and
comme rcial vehicle we ight. He sta ted he had already submitted for the record pr oof of
publication of which th e notice was published in th e Engle woo d Herald on August 29, 2008
as we ll as the Staff report. The request tonigh t is that the Commission re view, take public
testimony and forward to City Council a recommendation fo r approval of the proposed
amendment.
The Planning and Zon in g Commission is authorized by the UDC to review and make
recommendations to City Counci l reg arding updates to the UDC. The amendments are
in tended to coordinate UDC terms and definitions with o the r Titl es of th e Engl ewood
Municipal Code . Pl ease note that recent "housekee ping" amendments revie wed by
Plann in g and Zoning Commission are not included in the text of the proposed amendments
as adoption of proposed "housekeeping" Ordinance is not comp lete at this time.
Two topics are addressed in th is UDC amendment proposal: (1 ) maximum weigh t of a
co mm ercial ve hicle allowed to be parke-J on residential property and (2) hard su rface
driveway and par ki ng pad stand ards.
VE HI CLE WE IGHT
The proposed am en dment to 16-5-4.D2c( 1) modifies the maximum weigh t of a commercial
ve hicle stored on p rop erty in any residential zone district from 6,000 pounds 10 7,000
pounds . Mr. White sa id the only pla ce in the Engle wood Municipal Code where · .nicle
w eigh t limits are re stricted to 6,000 pounds is in Title 16 . Else w here in the Code and tr affic
signs use the vehicle weigh t limi t of 7,000 pounds. In addition, th e City utilizes a 7,000
pound weigh t lim it whe n res tricting truck traffic in certain areas.
HARD SURFACE
Three proposed amendments relating to hard surface dri veway and pa rk ing p ad standa rds
are part of a set of amendments to Titl es 11 , 15 and 16 designed to use the same terms
throughou t the Engl ewood Municipal Code . Hard surface, as re lated to d riveways and
parking pads, wi ll mean "a durable surface of concre te, aspha lt, brick pavers, o r simi lar
•
•
alternate materia ls approved by the City." •
•
•
Pl:mnm g :ind Zoning Comrrumon
Pub lic He:mng
C:lSes lf200 -11 and C .se F~OOS-12
Sep tember 16, WOS
P3gc l of 12
Mr. Whi te oifered to ans\\ er any questions the Commiss io n migh t have.
Mr. Welker said th e on ly cl arifica ti o n he had was tha t the Comm issio n is talking about
comm ercia l ve hicles onl y, not per so nal recrea tional veh icles , mo tor homes , buses , etc. that
mi gh t we igh in excess of 7,000 pounds.
Mr. White stated that was cor rec t.
M r. King asked wha t det er mi nes a commercia l veh icl e. Ms. Kri ege r said they are used
co mmercially and Mr. Br ick sai d he th ought the y we re licensed commerci all y thr ough the
D epar tment of Motor Vehicles.
Ms. Reid said, in her pe rsona l opinion, commercia l veh icles are lic ensed as such and that is
usuall y wha t the police departm en t goes wi th if they ha ve a question abou t whether a
veh icl e is or is not comme rcia l. Even if a va n was licens ed comme rcia ll y, it probably does
not weigh ove r 7,000 pounds. A lar ge moving van , even if it wasn't li censed co mmerciall y,
the police departmen t ,vou ld consider it comme rcia l fo r purposes of enfo rcemen t.
M r. Kin g said ge tt ing ba ck to the issue of parking co mm erci al vehicles th e amendment says
they cannot ex ceed 7,000 po un ds and in even t shall more than one com m ercia l vehicle be
st o red o n a property. If yo u had two co mm ercia l vehicles stored on a p rope rty because
they had a plu mbing company sign on the sid e how does tha t fi t into this. Ms . Reid said all
she can talk to is th e enforceme nt of the co mm ercial. Ms . Kri ege r sai d she also wondered
how tha t would work, although that is no t really w hat we dea lin g wi th to night. Techni ca ll y,
we are on ly dea ling with the change to 7,000 pounds .
Mr. Welke r said he un derstan ds th at, but fee ls it is som eth ing th?t should be looked at. The
defi nition of co mm ercia l veh icle is vag ue. Ms. Krie ge r said she ,1d not disag ree. H e said if
he wer v d 1 ,iu mber and had a ve hicle loaded full of pipe it would defin ite ly be ove r 7,000
pounds . It may no t ha ve a sig n o n it and may not ev en be a large truck. Th ere are
disc repancies that are not enforceab le by our term s.
1'\s . Krie ,,er sa id she al so wond ered wha t sto ring it on the stree t mea ns .... parking it on the
st reet , par:in g overn igh t on the str ee t .... wha t is stori ng it on publi c proper ty o r publi c right -
of-wal 1
M r. We:lk er said he was dis tur bed by the sec tio n tha t states tha t an ove r th e road trac tor
traile r wasn 't cons ide red a commercia l ve hicle . Ms . Kri ege r sa id th ey are not all owed. Mr.
Welker said he understa nds that.
M r. \ hite read the de fini tion fo r co mme1cial veh icle fr om th e Code book. It reads: Any
ve hicle designed, maintained or us ed prima rily fo r the transp ort atio n of prope rty. H e said
• tha t definition is fairly broad.
Pl:in nm g lnd Zoning Comrruss1o n
?ubhc Hcln ng
Clscs •WOS-11 :ind Clsc d'.!,QOS-1 '.!.
September 16. '.!.00
P:igc J of I'.!.
M r. Welker said the prob lem with this part of the Code is that it is so vague. Why make on e
sma ll change in the Code l o t ry to make it cleare r and lea, e huge gaps in wha t we are
allowi ng to be parked? Mr. Fi sh said ar e you ask ing Staff if they ar · prepareJ t o , eview and
discus s that tonigh t. Mr. We lker sa id he doesn't believe we are ready to have ?. public
hear ing if you can 't answe r simple queHions abou t wha t's a commercial vehicle. Ms .
Kr iege r sa id M r. White rea d the defini ti on, bu t it is ju st extremely vague . M r. Br ick sai d
base d o n the definiti on M r. W hite read, wo uld the Comm issio n be wi ll ing to move from
6,000 to 7,000 pound s? He said he also believe s the definition needs to be changed, but
would we be comfortab le mak ing the cha nge to 7,000 pound s. Mr. We lk er said if he were
d ri ving around the City tr ying to enforce this parti cular pr ov ision , 7,0 00 poun ds is pretty
hard to fig ure ou t if the ve hicle weighs tha t wi th out a scale . Ms . Kriege r said yes, bu t can
see w hy it needs to be cha nged to 7,000 pounds . M r. Wel ke r said we are trying to clarify
some th ing, but are onl y doing pa rt of the job tha t ne eds to be done . As Zoning
Commi ssio n t his is one of the issu es tha t we ne ed to con sider ... what veh icl es are bein g
parked around our City. Mr. Brick asked if the Commi ssion could proce ed by making an
amendment to th e propose d language . M r. King said he does n't see where it sa ys th at no
vehicle can weigh ove r 7,000 pou nds ; it sa ys no com merc ial vehi cle ca ,, we igh ove r 7,000
pounds . Mr. Welker saici tha t's why I asked the first question about whe th er this pertai ns to
o nl y com merc ia l ve hicles because I also kn ow that motor ho mes ca n easil y w ei gh ove r
7,000 po unds. M r. King said th at's not a commercia l vehicle even tho ug h it w eighs over
7,000 poun ds . Ms. Krieger said you co uld park it on you r prop ert y. Mr. King sa id it's an
in terpr etation of w hat a commercia l veh icle is. Mr. Fish asked if the on ly issue is that
commercia l ve hicle is poo rl y defined or are th ere other is sue;, M r. King said his p oin t was
that thi s am endm en t is to try to limit th e we ight of veh icles, but it rea ll y o nly speaks to
co mm erc ial vehicles ye t co mme rcial vehicles aren 't reall y de fi ned. If ther e bec omes an
iss ue th e pers on wi ll just say it's not a commercia l ve hicle an d it wi ll be up to en forcemen t
to pro ve it is .
M r. Bri ck said instead of trying to dec ide this tonight the Commiss io n migh t think about
tabling this parti cul ar is sue for further di sc ussio n at a stud y session.
Vice Chai r Knoth asked Mr. Whi te if he wan ted th e Com missi on to discu;s ju st th e change
from 6,000 to 7,000 po und s and come back to the oth er issues th at have be en brough t up
at a later tim e.
M r. Whi te said he believed some o f th e iss ues brough t up were add ressed in o the r parts of
the Code, but he said he o nly had Title 16 w ith hi m. Wha t w e are ta lking about is parking
of co mm erci al veh icl es on private propert y. In answer to M r. King 's question regarding
having tw o comme rcia l ve hicles parked on yo ur prope rt y, M r. Whi te sa ia the Cod e states
"in no eve nt sha ll mo re tha n on e ( 1) co mm ercia l ve hicle be stored o n property in any
residentia l zone district, whether in a pr iva te ga ra ge or carp or t, in an off-st ree t parking
space, o r in an o pen-space are a" even if t'iey ar e le ss th an 7,000 poun ds. You ca n have
zero if mo re th an 7,000 pou,,ds an d one if less than 7,000 pounds. He ~aid he did not
be lie ve the ame ndment was mean t to address me.to r ho mes, RV's, tra ilers , etc.
•
•
Pl::mmng and Zonin g Commm 1o n
Publ1c Hcmn g
C:isc s ,r,:?QQS-11 iin d C.:isc •QOOS-1 2
September 16. :!00 8
P;igc 5 of 12
M r. Welke r sa id on a pers onal basis , he has a neighbo r across the alle y fron him parking a
flat bed tr uck that is sometimes loaded, a wood chippe r and a tr en chi ,,g machine; all
park ed on private residential property. The City has been citing anotl·e r nei khbo r for
park ing landscap ing equipme,it on public roads . Wi thout being able to def'ne that these are
comme rcia l vehi cles parked on priva te properties we have severa l vio latio,is and he doesn "t
believe we ha ve clea r definitions of w hat they are in th e City's Cod e. H e believes they need
to be add ressed. If the Commission makes the one little change tonight we may never see
th is issue back again in my lifetime. Ms. Krieger said that also concerns he r and she is also
conce rned that the Code is tell ing you w hat yo u can park in you r ga ra ge and doesn 't
believe what is in someone's garage is anybody's busine ss. She sai ci she fee ls that if a
resident has a ve hicle identifi ed as fo r business and is parked in the garage she does n't feel
that is impacting an yo ne in the nei ghbo rhood, but we don 't v.an t numerous large
commercial vehicles park ed o n the st re et either. Mr. We lker said th at is what he basi ca ll y
has going o n in his neighborhood. Mr. Welker said we need to define what is going on
here, because as a zonin g issue it's a little differe nt than simply the weight. Mr. Fish asked
Mr. Welker if he was prepared to put forth an amendment. Mr. Welker said he is no t; he
w ants Staff to look in to the issue fur the r before th ey present it to the Commissio P as a
simple amendment so tht Commission can deal wi th the issue of parking corr ~rcia l
ve hicl es in our neighborhoods . Ms . Krieger said w e need a definition at the ve ry le"-'·
• Mr. Fis h said we don't ha ve a solution so all w e can do is reje ct it or pass it. Mr. Welker said
w heth er we table the ame ndmen t for a future time or deny it, by bringin g it u p now it is
going to go back and be di scusse d.
•
Ms. Krieger asked Ms. Reid what the Commission's opti o ns are.
M s. Reid said yo u co uld tab le th is motion as it is and ask Staff to lo ok at it aga in or you can
make a motion to reject the am endment based on th e fact that this is not su fii ci ~n t and the
whole issu e as yo u ha ve discus~ed tonigh t ne eds to be addressed.
Ms. Krie ge r asked M r. White if th ere w as an y p,. ·s ing re ason this amendment should go
forward tonight. Mr. White said none othe r than fo r making th e job of code enfo rce m ent
officers eas ier . M r. White said there w ill always be instances where yo u will have to do
interp reta tions of whe ther a vehicle is co mm ercial or not.
Mr. Welker said he feels this amend•nent ,s no t addre ssing the real problem w ithin the
zoning ordin ance about wha t we can hav e around our City. H e doesn ·t believe i t is a
w eigh t issue b ec ause yo u ca n't ve rify the weight of most vehicles . r,, his opinion the w eigh t
is not the re al problem in En glewood to the zoning ordin anc e ;ie said if he doesn't stand in
the w ay o f it right now and try to ge t at th e point of wha•. we ha ve as an issue w ithin th e
City the n he's not doing a good job for the Ci ty .
Planning :ind Zoning Comm1 rno n
Public Heanng
C:ises i.200S -I I a?ld Case #2 008-1 :2:
September 16. 200S
Page 6of 12
Mr. Fi sh sa id toni gh t's am endmen t wa s mean t to be ju st fo r house keep:11 g; vha t yo u ar e
raising is a much larg er issue that we ha ve not bee n br iefed 011 or disc ussed . He said h~
feels Mr . Welk er is rig ht in that there are many proble ms in t~e Code , bu t didn 't f,,el
mak in g the cha nge to 7,00 0 pounds is a probl em.
Ms. Kr iege r said ther e isn 't an y reason no t to fix all of it while the iss ue is bef,,r: ~s . Mr. Fish
sa id we wo uld need Staff and we wo uld need to loo k at othe r pa rts of the '. .ode an d we
,ave n't done th at ye t. Ms. Kr ie ger said th at is why v,e wan t to t.!ble the issue. The
Com mission as ked Mr . Whit e what is on tc,e Comm issi on's schedul e for the .<t month to
six we ek s. He stated ther e is a Stud y Sess ion sc heduled fo r O ctol,e, 7'· 1d a Pu bli c
Hear ing on O ctober 2 1". He said this iss ue co ul d be includ ed in t, ~ ·tJ -:iy Sessio n on
Octobe r 7'" an d th e Publi c Hearing could cont in ue 011 the 21 ". Ms , ri eg<:r asked if tha t
was en ough time for Staff to prepa re. Mr. White said that was e nough tim e to at leas t
pr ovide th e information fr om the other sec ti ons in th e Code and see if that add re sses your
con cerns or no t.
Ms. Rei d explained if the Commi ssion continu es the hea rin g once it ha s been o pe ned it ha1
alre ady been pub lish ed, it 's already been notic ed and therefo re it doe s no t nee d to b,
republi shed. If anyo ne is inte rested in the issue an d are here tonig ht they ha ve be e
info rmed th at it will be con tinu ed.
Mr. Kn oth ask ed if the Commission want ed to dis cuss the issu e of har d surfa ce tonigh t or
continu e that part of th e amendm ent al so . Th e Commi ssio n st ated the y want e d to con tinu e
the am endm e nt in its entir ety as it is all one case .
We lker moved:
Krie ger seconded: THE PUBLIC HEARI NG ON CASE #2008-11 BE CONTI NUED
TO OCTOBER 21, 20 08
AY ES :
NAY S:
ABSTAIN:
ABSE NT:
Bri ck, Ro th , We lk er, Kin g, Krieg er
Fi sh, Calen de r
Kn oth
Bl eile
Mr. Fish voted 110 bec au se he sair' he didn 't feel the Commis si on need s to hold St aff
hos ta ge in this way . He said he fe t th e Comm issio n could pa ss this am endm ent an d deal
wit h th e othe r iss ues sepa rat ely.
Mr. Bri ck vot e ye s beca use he fee ls a month 's wa it is not tha t cruc ial.
Mr. Wel ker said yes as he bel ieve , the re some iss ues to con side r tha t the re ar en't an swe rs
to ton igh t.
Mr. Kri ege r vo tes yes an d ag rees with Mr. We lker.
•
•
•
•
•
•
Pl:mn1'n g and Zomr.g Commm1o n
P bhc Hc:mng
C:is es ii2008 • l I anC C:m RJOO -12
September 16. 100 6
Pn ge 7 or 12
M r. Ro th vo t ed ye s as he fee ls there are oth er issues th at need to be discusse d. H e's not
even sure weigh t is rea ll y the real iss ue as it's something tha t can't be measured bv an
enforcemen t officer; yo u sho ul d be deal ing wi th heigh t a,1 d weigh t.
Mr. Kin g voted yes and sa itl he doesn 't fee l the Commi ssio n is holding Staff .,.,-.ta~e ; we 're
jllst tr yi.1 g to ge t some clar ifi cati o n.
Motio n ca rr ied .
~
CASE #2 008-12
Amendments to Title 16 Related to the Sign Code and Fla gs
Kriege r moved :
Fish second ed: TH E PUB LI C H EAR IN G ON CASE 112008-12 BE OPE N ED
AY ES :
NAYS :
Bri ck, Knoth , Roth , We lk er, King, Cal ende r, Fi sh , Krieger
None
ABSTA IN: None
A BSE NT: Bl eil e
Motion carried .
Mr. Wh ite, Community D eve lopment D irector, was ~wo rn in . He stated for th e
Commis sion's co nsid erat ion tonight is casz #2008-1 2, Ame ndm en ts to ti:? Unified
Deve lopment Co de (U DC ) of the Englewood Municipal Cod e allowing th e di splay of fla gs
con nected to ac tivities of a business distr ic t o r merchant asso ciati o n. H e stated he had
alr eady submitted fo r the rncord proof of publi cation of wh ic h the no tice wa s pt:l)lish ed in
the Engl ewoo d Hera ld 011 A ugust 29, 2008 as well as the Staff rep o rt. The req ues t to nigh t is
that the Co mmi ss ion re view, ta ke public tes timony and forward tc City Counc il a
recomm endatio n fo r approval of the pr o posed amendment.
The Plan ning and Zoning Commi ss ion is authori zed by the UDC to revie ·.v and make
recom mendations to City Co un cil regard in g upda tes to the UDC.
This topic was dis cussed w ith the Planning and Zoning Comm iss ion at a study sessio n 011
A ugu st 5, 2008 . Th ere was some discussi on about including m erchan t associati o ns, but
u pon fu rth er refle ction by Staff they fel t that shou ld no t be incl uded in the Ordina nce as
there is reall y no control of merchan t's associati o ns by the Ci ty .
The Bu siness Improve men t Di strict wan ts to di spl ay "Sa1~ Day" fl ags one da y pe r mon th
w ithin the Business Distr ict. Cu rr en tl y, the Code does no t all ow the di sp lay of fl ags for
Planm ng :md Zomr:g Cornnuss 1.:;,
PJb hc He:mng
Cises il:?008 · 11 3.nC C:m: 11:?00S-12
September 16 . 2008
Pig;e 8 of 12
any thing other than cities, states or nat ions. Th is Code am endme nt woul d ex ten d th e ability
to displa y fl ags to city app roved business imp rovemen t districts .
Flag s of ci ties , states or na tion s are limited to 35 square feet in ar ea and are not sub jec r •,:,
an y permitting pro cess. Staff sugges ts the BID "Sa le D2y" flags not be subject 10 ,y
pe rm itt ing proc ess as we ll , but Staff did sugges t the size ue limited to 1 5 square feet. Th ev
w ill be disp layed from flag holders tha t will suspend the fla3s ove r the pub lic sidewalk.
M r. White offered to ans wer an y questi ons th e Commis sio n might have.
M r. Kin g said in an effo rt to make it easie r on Code Enforc emen t, since it see ms tha t the
con ventions in this par ticular ele cti on cycle ar e appro xi mately 60 days fr om the ele ct1un
day, the Code says el ect io ns signs shall not be pos ted more than forty-fi ve (45 ) cal enda r
day s prior to the election date, w oul d it make se nse to extend tha t date out to 60 days.
M r. Brick said he als o saw that and it is a violation and code enforcement shoul d go aro und
and co ll ect t he signs. M r. Welke r said the re probab ly ha ve bee n sig ns up continu ous ly fo r
thr ee month s or more already this ye ar.
M r. White sa id it has be en discus sed at stud y se ssion that th e w hol e sign co de needs to be
•
updated . Th e Commission deci de d to leave corpo rate flags and other sign iss ues for when •
th e entire sign co d? is di scu sse d. He said h~ would be happ y to take a recommendati on
bac k to St aff rega rding the elec ti on signs , but tonigh t's discussion is in regards to the "Sale
Day " fl ags .
M r. Welke r su ggest ed in 16,6-13 E3 (b) th e nam e specifi ca ll y of the busin ess impro ve ment
di,trict or to requir e the m to ha ve a logo th at has their name in it be included .
Mr. Kn oth asked if the fla gs were limited to 15 square fee t per side . Mr. Whi te said that was
co rr ec t.
Krieger mo ve d:
Ki ng seco nd ed: THE PUBLIC HE AR IN G O CASE #20 08-1 2 BE CLO SED
AY ES :
N AYS:
Bri ck, Kno th, Roth, We lk er, King, Cal en der, Fi sh, Krieger
None
ABST AIN : None
ABSE NT: Bl ei le
Sill Motion carried.
Kr iege r mo ved :
Welker seconded: CASE #2008 -12, AME DME NTS TO TITLE 16 UN IFIED
DE VtLOP M E T CODE RELATED TO TH E SIG CODE A, D •
•
•
•
Phuming nnd Zomng Commm1on
Pub hc He aring
C11Ses #2008-11 and Case #2 00 -I:!
Se p1emb er 16. 2008
Page 9of 12
FLAG S BE RECOMME OED FOR APPROVAL TO CITY
COU CI L WITH A FAVORABLE RECOM AIENOATION FOR
ADOPTION WITH THE FOLLO W/, G AMENDME NT:
1. THE FI RST SENTENCE OF 16-6-13 E 3/b) SHA LL READ :
FLAGS OF CITY APPROVED BUS INESS IMPROVEM ENT
DISTRICTS, PRO VIDED THE FLAGS DISPLAY ONLY THE NAME .
EMBLEM AND/OR THE LOGO OF THE ORC AN IZA TION AND
NO INDIVIDUAL BUS INESS NAMES.
AY ES:
NAYS:
Bri ck, Knoth, Roth , Welker, King, Calender, Fish, Krieger
None
A BST AIN: one
ABSENT : Bl ei le
M oti on ca rr ied .
IV . CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROIECTS
~ r. White sta ted ther e is a section in the Charter that requires the Plannin g and
Zon in g Commission to sub mit a li st of recommended capi tal projects to the City Manager .
Mr. White introduced M r. Flaher ty, Deputy City Manager.
M r. Fla herty said one of his functions at the City is to provide fo r initi al rev iew of capital
project requests and to make preliminary recommendations that go to City Coun cil. Mr.
Fla he rty re vie wed the two spreadsheets included in the m eeting packet. One is a ve ry
detai led and extensive spreadshe et that lists all capita l proj ec ts on a city-w ide basis,
incl ud ing th ose tha t are proprietary, ente rprise, specia l reven ue and res tricted funds . The
projects for which you ha ve authority to recommend on relate to Funds 30 and 31. Fund
30 is the Pu blic Improvement Fu n j and Fund 3 1 is the Cap ital Proj ec ts Fund . The se cond
spreadsheet identifies all of the projects that were subm itted by departm ent directors for
2009 conside rat ion . The total numbe r of projects submitted has a do llar figure c f nearly
$8 .7 million . Unfortu natel y, the City o nly has about $2 million to spend . Reve nu e
projections fo r 2009 are just sli ghtly ove r $2 million , w hich is conside rab l\ lowe r th an it has
bee n in mo st recent ye ars. Sligh tl y mor e than $4 milli on wa s app roved in 2008 fo r publi c
im p rovemen t capit al proj~cts fund s. The sou rce of funding for capi tal im provement and
public im pro v ement funds come from the PIF o r the use tax fun ds. Reve nu es fo r 2009 we re
presen ted. Tota l projects rec omm ende d at this time amount to $1,998,980. Council ha s not
ac ted o n this ye t and could ve ry well make changes . The re co mmend ed projects we re
revi ewed.
Mr. Fla herty said the Plann ing and Zoning Comm iss ion's recom mendations are ce rtain ly of
va lu e to City Coun cil and to the City Manager's office and we appreciate your tim e. He
offered to answe r an y questions th e Comm issio n mi gh t ha ve.
Planning and Zo:ting Com.mm1on
Pubhc He:inn g
C:ises •1008 -1 1 :md C.:i.se a1QOS-l 2
September 16, 2008
P:ig e \Oo f 12
M r. Knoth as ked if an yon e ha d any questions.
M r. Wel ker said he believes th is is a waste o f ou time. Th e info rma tion we re ce ived and in
the fo rm at it w as in was virtuall y u nreadabi e to rr:e. H e said he spen t about an hou r on it
and dec id ed it was completely a was te. He didn 't know wha t th e codes meant, wha t fu nds
w e were lookin g at th at the Commission '.as any inpu t on , the tim ing sucks and we've had
better information in the pas t.
M r. Brick seconded th at. H e said th e document was poor to rea d. He said if you rea ll y want
my reco mmendation I need to understand the mate ri al. It probably would be better
brough t to a study sessi o n and if w e needed to do so mething offici al we could do it in a
public hearing format.
M r. Fl aherty said he would certainly accep t those critici sms and try to p ro vide better
informat ion in the future .
Mr. White asked the Commis sbn if ti Pre w as something they ha ve received in the past tha t
w as in a better format. Mr. w,1'.1,-e , , .. ~ w hen you look at a sp readsheet th at each page is
two pages horiz on tall y w ith no he .;<:'nJs it is vi rtually a chore to tr y to stra ighten it out. H e
said he would rathe r see it in mi c rop rint and use a mag nifying glass to rea d, plus he said he
did not know wha t th e codes and abbreviations meant. H e said he vi rtually co uld not
prepare for th e meeting w ith w hat was brought to him. He said he came to the m ee tin g
wi t~ onl y th e expectation of info rmat ion on it and basi ca ll y w hat I 3m hearing is we don 't
ha ve any money and we're no t going to do an ything dnyway so it doesn't matt er w hat you
say . That may be th e truth, but it's not what I like to he ar when I'm b ein g ask ed to give my
time to the City for something like this.
Mr. White asked if a summary would ha ve been easier to understand. Mr. Welk er said
something that was decipherabl e, with a leg end so that th e Commissi on couid unde• ,tand ,
and identifi cat ion of w hic h categories we were look ing at.
M r. Flaherty said the inclu sio n of all the City-wide funds probab ly should not have b ee n
incl uded because yo u are not taking action on all of the funds . H e sa id the Com mis sion's
criti cism is well founded and he w ill take it back with him for future referen ce.
M r. Bri ck sa id some o f the columns can be eliminated from th e material presented to the
Commission . Mr. Welk er also ask ed that the sp read she et show how a project mi gh t be
funded over a period of yea rs .
Ms. Kri ege r said she has always felt it is a was te of the Commissio n's time to rev iew the
proj ec ts. She said she does n't fee l as most of w hat we are looking at has anything to do
•
•
w it h the Planning and Zon in g Commission. •
•
•
•
Pl:ir.ning :ind Zoning Commm1o n
Publtc Hc3.Tmg
Cases li200 -11 and Ciac a~OQ • 12
Septemb er 16, 2008
Pilgc 11 of 12
Ir. Cal ond e r asked if the Chart er could be chang ed so thi s issue does 1101 co me befo re th e
Planning and Zoning Commissi o n. M s. Reid said changes to th e Charter require an elec tio n.
M r. Welker said th e id ea of th e Charter is that is has som e public input an d thi s is th e type
of Commission that migh t provide tha t. Ms . Krie 6er said she can understand th at, bu t short
of hours and hours of stu dy we can 't get a11 ythi11g out of this to giv e worthwhile input. Mr.
W elker said in pas t \'P ars we have had belier meetings w h~re we actua ll y made so me
reco'Tl mendati:ins and discussed some projects th at peop 1e r •1 r~d about such as the
ped estri an bridge acr oss Hampden . Th ere we re iss ues tha t ho rj something to do with lan d
use and patterns of use in the City that nobody els e in the City w ·,s looking at.
Ms. Flahert y said let me tell yo u wha t I have heard and sec ,; yo u agr ee w ith my
assessm ent:
1. Don 't presen t information that the Commission can no t ;,c t on .
2. Show in fo rmati on in a context that is more th an one year .
3. Pr ese nt in a fo rm the Co mmissi on ca n understand .
4. Pr ese nt informati on in a timelier n·, ,noer.
Mr. Brick said on the 2009 Pr elimina ry Capital Pr ojec ts Re co mm endation Revised c hart is
would be helpful to sort by departm en t as it w ould be easie r to read. Mr. Flah er ty said they
were intend ed to be at leas t marginally pr io ritiz ed, but if you prefer by department we
cou ld certa inly do that. Mr. Brick said since th e pri o rity nu mbe r wa s not included o n the
sp readsh ee t we did not un de rst an d that.
M r. Welke r sa id part of the Commi ssio n's role is to es tab li sh tha t priority so if you give the
li st to us in an o rder we ha ve to lo ok at it in I ha ve a problem wi th th at. He said he would
like to see the list before th e City se ts the priorities. Mr. Flah ert y sai d if th e Commission
wou ld like to see th e items as th ey we re submitted by each department he would be ha ppy
to do that. M r. Br ick said he would like to see it by depa rtm en t and by p ri ority.
M r. Welke r sa id nex t ye ar he does not wan t to see th e same thin g, he would like to ha ve a
chance to loo k at th e things the Commi ssion ma y be ab le 10 ha ve some in tere st in . Mr. Fi sh
,.s ked for a belier descr iption of ite'Tl s. So me on th e curre nt J ocu ment didn 't mean a thing.
M r. Fl aherty thanked th~ Commissi o n. Ms . Krieger thanked M r. Fla herty for his tim e.
M r. Fish asked if th e Commission needs to make any recommendations o n thi s iss ue. Ms .
Reid said the Commission does need to vote. She offered severa l options.
Bri ck m ov~d:
Krieger seconded: THE COMMIS SION RELUCTANTL Y REC OMMEN DS THE
CAPITAL IMPROV EME T PROJE CT S BUDGET AS PRESE NTED
D UE TO THE FACT THERE WAS NOT SU FFIC IE N T TIME OR
Planning 3nd Zonir,g Com mission
Pubhc He:mns
Cases #2008-11 and Co.~e /:!JOO -1::?
September 16, ::?00
Pase 12 oi 12
INFORMATION PROVI DED FOR TH E COMMISSIO
RE VIEW AN D DO AN A DEQ UAT E JOB .
AYE S:
NAYS:
Brick, Kn o th, Roth, Welker, King, Ca le nd er, Fish , Krieger
None
ABST AI N: None
ABSEi T: Bleile
Motion carr ied.
V, PUBLIC FORUM
The re was 110 p ublic present.
VI. DIRECTOR 'S CHOI CE
l!!JI M r. White had noth ing fu rthe r to repo rt.
VII. STAFF 'S CHOICE
l!!JI Staff ha d 11 o thi:1g fu rthe r to report.
VIII , ATTORNEY 'S CHOICE
liJl Ms. Re id had no thing fur ther to report.
IX. COMM ISSI ONER'S CHOICE
~ Mr. Bri ck sa id he would no t be in att endance at t~e October 7'' meeting.
The mee ting adjou rn ed at 8 :25 p .m.
• TO
•
•
• CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PL AN N I NG AND ZON I NG COMM I SSI O
I N THE MATTER OF CASE #2008-12 , )
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS )
AND RECOMME N DATI ONS RELATING )
TO SIGN CODE AND Fl.AG AMENDMENTS )
TO TITLE 16 OF TH E UN IFIED DEVELOPMENT )
CODE )
I N ITI ATED BY :
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
1000 ENGLEWOOD PARKWAY
ENG LE WOOD, CO 80110
)
)
)
)
)
)
FI N D IN GS O F FA CT AND
CONCI 1.15 10 :-.:, O F THE
C ITY PL,\,'IN ING A ND
ZONI G co ~~MISS IO N
Co mmi ss io n M embers Pr ese nt: Kriege r, Ro th , Bri :k, Knoth , Kin g, Ca le nd er, Fis h, Welk er
Co mmi ss io n M embe rs Abse nt: Ble il e
This matte r w as hea rd befo re the Ci ty Pl an ning and Zonin g Co m mi ssion on Sept ember 16,
2008 in th e City Counci l Cham be rs o f the Englewood Ci vic Cent er.
• Testi mony w as rec eive d fr o m staff and th e Co mmiss io n received notice o f Pu bli c H earing,
the Staff Repo rt , an d a copy o f the propose d amendmen ts to Titl e 16 Unified Deve lop ment
Co de w hich w ere in co rpo rated int o anJ mad e a part o f the reco rd of the Pub li c H ea rin g.
•
A fter co nsideri ng the statem ents of Staff and rev iewin g th e per tinent docum ents, th e
m embers o f the City Plannin g and Zonin g Co mmi ss io n made the fo ll owing Fi nd ings and
Co ncl usio ns.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THAT the Pub li c H earing on the Sign Co de and Flag Am endm ents to Tit le 16 o f the
Unifi ed D eve lopment Code was brought before the Plannin g Commissio n by the
D ep artm ent o f Community D eve lopm ent, a depa rtm ent o f the City of Englewood.
2. THAT no ti ce of the Pu blic H ea rin g was publis hed in the En glewood Herald on
August 29 , 20 08.
3. THAT the staff repor t was ma de pa rt of the reco rd.
4. THAT the U nifi ed D eve lopm ent Code was
ma jo r rewri te of the zo nin g and subd ivisio n re
1pted in 200 4 and it wa s the first
Jti ons in 20 yea rs .
5. TH AT t he A mendme nt is des igned : Jro 11d e clarity to existing regu lati ons and
permi t the di spla y of fla gs o f busin ess 1111p ro ve rnenl dis tric ts.
6. THAT the cu rr en t Unified Deve lopm ent Co de only allows the di sp lay of flag s or
nations, states, o r cities in a size limi ted to 35 square fee t
7. THAT th e Br o adwa y Im provemen t Di stri ct is seek ing to displa y a fla g to be desi gned
~nd used excl usive ly by the 3roadw?v improve m ent Di stri ct.
8 . THA th e Co mmi ssio n rec ommended tLat one chan ge b e added as fo ll ows:
THE FIRST SENTENCE OF /r,-,,-13 E J(b) SHALL READ: FLAGS OF CITY
APPROVED BUSI ESS IMPRO VE MEN T DISTRICTS, PROVIDED THE FLAGS
DISPLAY ONLY THE NAM E, /:M BLEM AND/OR THE LOCO OF THE
ORCANIZA TION AN O NO INDIVIDUAL BUSINESS NAMES .
1. THAT the Publ ic H ea rin g on th e Sign Cod e and Flag A m end me nts to Titl e 16 of the
U nifi ed Deve lopment Code was brou ght before th e Pl annin g Co mmiss ion by th e
D epartment of Co mmunity D eve lop ment, a departmen t of th e Ci ty of Eng lewood .
2. THAT notice of th e Publi c Hea ri ng was publi shed in th e Engl ewood Herald on
August 29, 2008.
3. THAT th e staff repo rt was made part of th e reco rd .
4 . THAT the U nifi ed D eve lop men t Code was adopted in 2004 and it was the first
major rewrite of th e zo nin g and subd ivisio n reg ul ati ons in 20 yea rs.
5. THAT the A mendm ent is des igned to provide clarity to exis tin g regu lo:io ns and
permit th e disp lay of fl ags of busin ess imp roveme nt districts.
6 . THAT no perm it or rev iew by th e City is req uired.
7. THAT th e fl ags w ill not ad ve rt ise specific busin esses .
8 . THAT :he fl ags w ill no t exceed 15 square feet in size .
9. THAT th e flags of City approved busin ess dis tricts di sp lay o nl y th e name, em blem
and/o r th e logo o f th e organ izatio n.
•
•
10. THAT t he amend men t does no t includ e merch ant associa tio ns as e11 titi es able to •
disp lay fl ags .
2
•
•
•
DEC ISIO N
THEREFORE , it is th e decision of the City Plannin g and Zoning Commission tha t Cas e
#2008-12 Public Notice Amend ments to Titl e 16 of the Unified D evelopmen t Code sh0t1lcl
be referred to the City Council w ith a fa vorabl e recommenda tion.
The decision was reach<?d upon a vo te on a mo tion made at the m ee ti ng of the City
Planning and Zo nin g Conmissio n on Septembe r 16, 2008, by M s. Krieger, seco nd ed by
M r. We lker , w hich motion states:
AY ES :
NAY S:
ABSTAIN:
ABSE NT:
O.SE #2008-12 AMEN DMENTS TO TITLE 16 U N IF IED
D UELOPME T CODE REALTED TO THE SIGN CODE AN D FLAGS
BE RECOMMENDED FOR A PPRO VAL TO CITY COUNCIL WITH A
FAVOR A BLE RECOMMENDATIO N FOR ADOPTION WIT H THE
FOLLOW ING AMENDME T:
I. THE FIRST SEN TE NC E OF 16-6-13 E J (b) SHALL READ :
FLAGS OF CITY APPROVED BUSINESS IMP ROVEME NT
DISTR ICTS, PROVIDED THE FLAGS DISPLAY ONLY THE NAM E.
EMBt.EM AND/OR THE LOCO OF TH E ORGANIZA TI O AND
NO IND IVIDUAL BUSI NESS N.~MES.
Krieger, Roth , Brick, Knoth, Ki ng, Fish, Calender, W elker
None
None
Bl t;le
Motion ca rri ed.
Th ese Findin gs and Conclus ions are effec tiv~ as of the mee ting on Sep tembe r 16 , 2008.
BY ORDER OF THE C ITY PLANNING & ZON I NG COMM ISS ION
et:fi(