Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007 Ordinance No. 037• • • BY AUTHORITY ORDINANCE NO. Yl SERIES OF 2007 -- COUNCll. Bll.L NO . 35 INTRODUCED BY COUNCll. MEMBER TOMASSO AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TmE 16, CHAPTER 6, SECTION 13, SUBSECTION E( I 7), OF THE ENGLEWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE 2000 , PERTAINING TO THE SOUTH BROADWAY DISTRICT IDENTIFICATION BANNERS . WHEREAS , the South Broadway Engl ewood Business Improvement Di strict (SBEBID) wishes to install banners to be affixed to the streetlight s to create an economically vibrant business district ; and WHEREAS, the passage of this proposed ordinance would allow Council approved districts to in s.a ll baimers on the streetlights ; and WHEREAS , installation of City authorized banners would be managed through a licensing agreement with the City of Englewood ; and WHEREAS , the Englewood Planning and Zoning Commission recommended amending the Englewood Municipal Code 2000 to allow authorized banners to be affixed to streetlights in the public tight -o f-way; NOW , THEREFORE , BE IT ORDAINED BY TH E CITY COUNCll. OF THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD , COLORADO, AS FOLLOWS : Section..l. The City Council of the City of Englewood , Colorado hereby authorizes amending Title 16, Chapter 6, Section 13 , Subsection E(I 7), of the Englewood Municipal Code 2000, to read as follows : 16-6-13 : Signs. E. Sign s Not Subject to Permits. 17 . South Broadway District Identification Bann ers . City owned 61!6 ~ banners or banners authorized bv Citv License which are affixed to streetlights in the South Brnadway right-of-way for the purpose of eelifHl8liftg illmliWlli the various South Broadway AelieR PlBR~. Introduced, read in full , and passed on first reading on the 21st day of May, 2007 . 9b i Published as a Bill for an Ordinance on the 25th day of May, 2007. A Public Hearing was held on June 4, 2007. Read by title and passed on final reading on the 18th day of June, 2007 . Published by title as Ordinance N~.2., Series of 2007, on the 22nd day of June, 2007 . I, Loucrishia A. Ellis, City Clerk of the City of Englewood, Colorado, hereby cenify that the above and foregoing is1,,1Ne copy of the Ordinance passed on final reading and publi shed by title as Ordinance No~, Series of 2007 . • . .. • • • • COUNCIL COMMUNICATION Date: I Agenda Item: I Subject: May 21, 2007 11 a I South Broadway District ldentlficatl.>n Banners Initiated By: Staff Source: Community Development Department Darren Hollingsworth, Ecor.omic Development Coordinator COUNCIL GOAL AND PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION There has been no previous Council action concerning this matter. PREVIOUS BOARD AND COMMISSION ACTION On April 1 7, 2007, the Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing to consider amendments to 16-6-13.E. 17 of the Englewood Municipal Code . The proposed amendments would allow approved districts to install banners on streetlights within the South Broadway right-of-way subject to a license agreement through the City of Englewood. The Commission approved a Motion to recommend that City Council amend the Englewood Municipal Code to allow City approved districts to affix banners to streetlights in the right-of-way. REQUEST Staff requests City Council adopt a Bill for an Ordinance approv ing the proposed amendment to 16- 6-1 3.E. 1 7 of the Englewood Municipal Code, and allow City approved districts to install banners on South Broadway streetlights. Staff also requests that Council schedule a Public Hearing on June 4, 2007 to take public comment on the proposed amendment BACKGROUND Title 16: UDC of the Englewood Municipal Code does not currently allow the South Broadway Englewood Business Improvement District (SBEBID) to install banners along the streetlights . The proposed amendment to the Englewood Municipal Code Is intended to clarify existing regulations and create economically vibrant business districts . Should this ordinance be approved by City Council, the SBEBID and other Council approved districts may install banners on the streetlights . Installation of City authorized banners would be managed through a licensing agreement with the City of Englewood. Approved districts would install and maintain the banners in accordance with a licensing agreement Additionally, the banners must meet the requirements of an approved permit from Xcel Energy (Public Service Company of Colorado) . In 2006, the South Broadway Englewood Business Improvement District was formed . This district Is • comprised of properties with Broadway frontage from US 285 to Yale . As pirt of the SBEBID's operating plan, the merchants are Interested In Installing and maintaining district ldentlflcatlon banners along this portion of the South Broadway commercial corridor. The merchants' plans for the placement of banners along the South Broadway commercial corridor are consistent with the community revltali1.atlon goals as expressed In the South Broadway Action Plan. FINANCIAL IMPACT There Is no direct financial cost associated with this ordinance . LIST OF ATTACHMENTS Plann ing and Zoning Commission Public Hearing Minutes Planning and Zoning Commission Public Hearing Findings of Fact Bill for Ordinance • • • • • I. CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING /..ND ZONING COMMISSION April 17, 2007 CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting of the City Pl anning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:03 p.m . in the City Council Chambers of the Englewood Civic Center, Chair Roth presiding. Pr esent: Absent: Staff: Brick , Krieger, Knoth , Roth , Mosteller, Fish , Bleile !entered 7:191 Calender 1,11 0,natel Diekmeier, Welker Darren Hollingsworth, Economic Development Coordinator Tri cia Lang on, Senior Planner Nancy Reid , Ass istan t City Attorney II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES March 20, 2007 Ms . Kriege r moved: Mr. Knoth seconded: TO APPROVE THE MARCH 20 , 2007 M INUTE S AS WRI TTEN . AYES: NAYS: Bri ck, Knoth , Roth , Krieger, Mostel ler, Fish None A BSTAI N: None ABSENT : Di ekme ier, Welker, Aleile Motion carried. Ill. PUBLIC HEARING Case #2007-06 South Broadway Di strict Id entificat ion Bann ers Chair Roth stated the issue befo re the Commission is Case #2007-06, South Broadway District Id entification Bann ers. Chair Rolh asked for a motion to open th e public hearing. Ms. Krieger move d : Ms. Mosteller seconded: THE PUBLIC HEARING ON CASE #2007-06 BE OPENED. AYES : NAYS: ABSTAIN : ABSENT : Brick , Knoth, Roth , Krieger, Fi sh, Mosteller None None Diekmeier, Welker, Bleile Motion ca rri ed. Mr. Hollingsw orth , Economic De ve lopment Coordinator, was sworn in . Mr. Hollingsworth stated the issue before the Planning and Zoning Commission is a,, Amendment to the • Unified Development Code (UDC) to allow City authorized business identification banners on street lights along the South Broadway corridor. Mr. Hollingsworth stated notice was published in the Englewood Herald on March 30, 2007. This was done in accordance with Section 16-2:3 G of th e Englewood Municipal Code. The publication was officially entered into the record . Las t year the Busine ss Improve ment Di strict was formed. The District i, a group of 125 business and property owners along th e South Broad way corridor from 285 north to Yale. The group has expressed an interest in installing ban ners on the street li ghts along the South Br oa dway corridor to serve as brand re cogn ition of the are a. Currently the UDC does not allow thi s. Th e Business Improve ment Di st ri ct co llects a special assessmen t for things such as mark eting and public safety . One of th eir pr;m ary objectives in the coming year is to install District identification banners. If the Amendment is co nsidered thi s would allow City approved business districts to in sta ll banners along th e South Broadway corri dor. M r. Ho llin gswort h asked if there were any questions. Ms . Krieger said the Commission does not ha ve anything to ac~ept so ho w can we approve something that is so vague . Mr. Hollingsw orth defe rr ed to th e Assis tant Ci ty Attorney, Na ncy Rei d, to answer that question . Ms. Reid state d that normally 1vhen you make a recommendation to Council ii is usu all y • discussed beforehand. Th e Charter requir es that the City Attorney draft any legis lati o n. At this time w hat Staff is aski ng th e Commission to do is to proceed with th e id ed of w hether or not yo u are going to allow banners and whether or not there will be ce rt ain conditions attached. It needs to go forward as a sugge st ion and then the City Attorne y's office will draft it. She stated the City Attorney's office has not had time to do th e drafting and has not compared it to other sections of the existing code for conflicts. She asked the Commission to not recommend any particular ve rbiag e, only whether or not authorized banners will be allowed and if you ha ve any co nditi o ns, what those would b~. Mr. Fish asked if the Amendment wo uld come back to the Commission. Ms. Reid stated it would not. Mr. Bri ck expressed a conce rn as to w ho wou ld be respo nsibl e fo r th e maintenance and cleaning of the banners. Ms. Reid stated th at is a question for Commun ity De ve lopment. Mr. Hollingsworth stated that the Bu sin ess Improveme nt District, w hi ch would be a City authorized District, would install and maintain their banners through the licensing agreement. Further discussion ensuPd regarding the cleaning and maintenance of the banners . Ms . Mosteller asked who would approve the design of the banners . Ms. Reid stated that would be by whoever you designate. • • • • Mr. Brick asked if Mr. Hollingsworth had any pictures of the proposed banners. He stated he does, but did not bring them t,· the meeting. The BID is proposing banners that would be on each side of the light pole, approximately 2 feet wide by 6 feet high, with a 1 7 foot clearance. The banners will not advertise any particular business. They do require an Xcel permit. After obtaining City authorization, the BID would have to obtain the appropriate Xcel permit. The permit describes how large the banners can be . Ms. Mosteller asked what the boundaries are of the Business Improve ment District. Mr. Hollingsworth stated they are from 285 north to Yale . Ms. Krieger stated the Commission is actually authorizing any approved district to install banners . What this specific Di stri ct is looking at installing does not rea ll y pertain. Mr. Hollingsworth stated that was correct. Tricia Langon , Senior Planner was sworn in . She stated she would try to cl ar ify what is being asked of the Commission tonight. Ms. Langon stated any proposed changes to the Code are not specific to any group or district. The Amendment would include the whole length of Broadway and would be for any City a1Jthorized group or district. City authorized means it would be through a Lic ense Agreement that would be approved by City Council. That is where the approva l comes from, not come from within Community Develop ment or an y staff member. The Li ce nse Agreement is the area in which to address maintenance rath er than within th e zoning code . Each Lic ense Agreement would be specific to the reques t. All Mr. Hollingswonh is look in g for this evening is authorization to proceed with the co ncept of allowing b, nriers as th e current Code does not allow bann ers other than th e banners that were apr,c-ved in the mid-90's for the South Broadway Action Pl an Di str ict. Chair Ro th asked if ther e was anyone in the audience who w ishe d to address the Commission. There was no one. Ms. Krieger moved : Ms. Mosteller seconded: THE PUBLIC HEARING ON CASE #200 7-06 BE CLOSED. AYES: NAYS : ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Ms. Mosteller Brick , Knoth, Roth, Krieger, Fish , Mosteller None Bleile Diekmeier, Welker Motion carried . Chair Roth asked if there was any furthe r discussion . There was none. Ms. Mosteller moved ; Mr. Fish seconded CASE #2007-06, SOUTH BROADWAY DISTRICT IDENTIFICATION BANNERS, BE RECOMMENDED TO CITY COUNCIL AND THAT THE MUNICIPAL CODE BE MODIFIED TO ALLOW CITY AUTHORIZED BANNERS TO BE INSTALLED ON SOUTH BROAD WAY LIGHT STA NDARDS SUBJECT TO • LICENS ING. Mr. Brick stated he finds it imperati ve th at the Li ce nse A greemen t contains stipu lations for maintenance and cleanliness o f the banners and th at so me entity is appointed to judge that. Ms. Krieger stat ed she felt the banne rs would be good for th e Ci ty as some form of identity fo r En glewood is ne eded, provided th ey are maintain ed and altrac ti ve . Mr. Fi sh said he agrees , but also it has to be noted the issue of advert isin g is not part of thi s, it is to identify the di strict, no t a particul ar bu sin ess. Ms . Krieger aske d for a frie ndl y amendment to include "d ist ri c t id entifi cat ion ban ner" in the motion. AYES : NAYS: A BSTAI N: ABSENT: Moti on fa il ed. Fish , Mosteller, Bl eil e Brick , Kri ege r, Knoth , Roth None Diekmeier, We lker Ms. Kri e3er as ked fo r clarifi ca ti on fro m Ms. Langon. Ms. Reid in for med Ms. Krieger sin ce • the public hl ,u ing w as closed sh . co uld no t speak to Ms. Langon, o nl y to her. Ms . Mostel;"r asked if th e Commission co uld reopen th e hearin g. Ms. Reid sta ted th ey could and at thdt time Ms . Lango n co uld respo nd . Mr. Bl ei le moved: Ms. Krieger sec o nd ed: THE PUBLI C HE A RI NG ON CASE #2007-06 BE RE OP EN ED . AY ES : NAYS: ABSTA IN : ABSENT: Bri ck, Knoth , Ro th , Krie ger, Fi sh, Mosteller, Bleil e None Nor·. Diekmeier, Welker Motion carr ied . Ms. Langon stated for clarifi ca tion thi s hearing and Am endment is not specific to the Busin es s Improvement Distri c t nor is it for a busin ess district, it is for So uth Broadway districts. The request is fo r modifications to 16-6:13-E1 7 in th e Code. That ci tation is for South Broadway District Identification banners, not spe cific to any gro up , business or business district. Ms . Krieger move d: Mr. Knoth seconded : THE PUBLIC HE AR ING ON CASE #2007-06 BE CLOSED. 4 • • • AYES : NAYS: ABSTAIN : ABSENT: Brick, Knoth, Roth, Krieger , Fish, Mosteller, Bleile None None Diekmeier, Welker Motion carried. Ms. Mosteller moved ; Mr. Knoth seconded CASE #200 7-06, SOUTH BROADWAY DISTRICT IDENTIFICATION BANNERS, BE RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL TO Cl1Y COUNCIL WITH A FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION FOR ADOPTION ANO THAT THE MUNICIPAL CODE BE MODIFIED TO ALLOW CITY AUTHORIZED SOUTH BROADWAY DISTRICT IDENTIFICATION BANNERS TO BE INSTALLED CN SOUTH BR OADWA Y LIGHT STA NDARDS SU /lJ ECT TO LICENSING. Ms . Mosteller said she believes this is a good thing and she appreciates the Busine ss Improvement District coming forward with this request. It meets a lot of the intent with what the City is trying to do with the South Broadway Action Plan and is good for the City. She said she is hopeful that it passes. •;,. Bleile stated he agr eed with Ms . Mosteller. A YES : NAYS: ABSTAIN : ABSENT: Fish , M ostell er, Bleile , Brick , Krie ger, Knoth, Roth None None Diekmeier, Welker Motion carried. JV, STUDY SESSION Minimum Frontage Requirements in Multi-Unit Zone Districts Ms. Langon stated tonight 's discussion is a continuation of a pre vious discussion on the minimal lot width or frontage requirements in the multi-unit districts . Mr. Brick expressed conc ern over whether design and development standards should come first and then based on those the decision on whether the 25 foot would then be generated by the design and development standards . He feels it is very important that the quality of properties such as those in northwest Englewood be at a high level because of the area itself, Ms. Langon said she believed that the concept was ag ain that the Commission would move forward and by moving forward you would consider some type of developrrent or site standards. The consensus from last month's meeting was to move forward to consider changin g the lot w idt h. She as ke d the Commission ers if th at st atem ent was co rr ec t. Th ey agreed th at is w as . • Mr. Fi sh said since th e last meetin g di sc ussion he toured many parts of Engl ewood to view the multi-unit zon e di stricts and is no t sure th e Commis sio n sh o uld mak e any chan ges. When he tou r ed th e no rth we stern area he saw a lot of units w ith no thin g but do ubl e car ga ra ges and con crete slabs in fr ont. In oth er part s of th e City he does n't rem e mb er see in g th at type of constructi o n at all. M s. Kri eger st ated ju st beca use th ey are not th ere now, th at does n't mea n yo u co ul d not b uild them . He agreed. Wh at are we tryin g to do? He got th e impression the Commi ss io n is tryin g to preve nt develo pm ent th at has alrea dy bee n o n- going fo r a w hile . Th e areas that he drove th ro ugh are predo min ately no t multi-unit; th ey have a ve ry strong sin gle-fa mil y characte ri sti c to them. , o w he is wond er in g after ~ee in g th e areas th at maybe by reve rsin g th e rul e th e Co mmiss io n is go in g to enco urage higher densi ty dwe llin gs in area s th at a'.e predom in ately sin gle-fa mily. He is conce rn ed . M r. Bl eile stated he did no t feel that is the case . H e beli eves w hat the Com mi ssio n is tr ying to look at is , it us ed to be 25 fee t and was cha nge d to 30 fee t and tha t chan ge ha s now hind ered th e 25 foo t owners fr o m redeve lopin g and improvin g th eir pr ope rty. In go ing back to 25 fee t yo u wi ll ac tu al ly allow a large r perce nt age of po tent ial uni ts to be redeve lo ped, m ore than just the few in th e nor th wes t area. Mr. Fish aske d if Staff co uld pr ov id e th e Co mmi ss io n w ith so me kin d of meas ure of w here dupl exe s with or with o ut fr ont ga rages currentl y ex ist and w here th ey co ul d p o tenti all y be • built in th e R-2 zo ne s to determin e th e im pac t th e change would have on th e City. Mr. Bric k sa id he also wo uld li ke to see th e numb ers. M s. Kri ege r stated th at is no t th e iss ue, it is just th e backg ro und of w hy the change to 30 foo t lo ts was impl emen ted in th e fi rst place . Th e iss ue is w heth er peop le ca n bui ld a duplex, not w hether they ca n have a fr o nt ga rage. Ms. Lan go n stated the majority of pro perties in the R-2-B and th e R-3 di stri cts are all pl att ed as 25 foo t lo ts. A pro per ty is usuall y Lo t 1 and 2, for a co mbin ed to tal of 50 feet. Th ere are a few pro perties th at ar e three lots w id e (7 5'), a few 60 foo t lots, som e 37 ½ fo o t lo ts and a few 25 fo ot lots. Th e vas t maj o . ity, easi ly 90%, are 50 foo t lo ts. In north west En glewoo d in th e R-2-A di strict most of th e lots are 60 foo t w ide o r wider and th ey do no t have alle ys so th e ga rages must be out fr o nt. With th e cha nge to th e 50 foo t w idth req ui re ment esse ntially every o ne of the R-2 and R-3 dis tri cts fun cti o ns as R-1. Th e o nl y properties th at co uld rede ve lop are the fe w pro perti es that are large r th an 50 fee t, w hic h is es tim ated to be 10% or less. Ms. La ngo n w ill ask Mr. Vo boril , Pl ann er, if he ca n ge nerate a repo rt showi ng th e num ber of properties fo r th e Co mmi ssioners. M s. Lang on reminded the Co mmis sio ners th ey do not ha ve to ch,Jng e the entire City; th ey ca n ch ange all di stri cts or ju ~t on e distri ct. M r. Bl eile sa id loose nin g the rest ricti on wo uld all ow more peo ple th e opportunity to rede vel o p and rein vest. Discussion ensued regardin g desi gn standards . Ch air Roth pa ssed around se veral pi ctu res of units that he had taken. Ms . Langon asked for a consensus from the members . Mr. Bleile said he w ou ld li ke to go '-' ith the consensus to mak e the lot size 2 5 feet contingent up o n design stand ar ds and 6 • • development standards being developed based on garage locations and different,,, :i ng between alley and no alley. The Commissioners all agreed. Mr. Fish suggested the des ig n standards be simple and not too constrictive. Ms. Krieger suggested if the members ~ve not read the current design standards they should to know what is currently on the boo s Ms. Langon stated Staff wi ll work on refining the changes more for the next meeting and try to get it to what the Commission is looking for . Sh e also suggested the Commiss ioners take a ride to various areas of Engle wood and Denver to look at properties. V. PUBLIC FORUM Mr. Michael Dickman addressed th e Commission regarding the 25 foot w ide c hange . He sta ted he does not live in En glewood, but is looking to de ve lop propertie s in the Cit y. He stated it was perplexing to him to see the R-2 zoning and the SO foot frontage, but hav e to have 60 fee t to build a duplex. He said he now can better understand what is going on and the thought process that goes behind the change. He said based upon what he is hearing about the propose d Bates Station de ve lopment, if it is going to be mixed-u se, this could be a nice phasing coming out from there and providing some new gentrified housing pro duct that the people w ho want to move into those neighborhoods would accept and be ab le to hit a pri ce poi nt that would probably be somewhat affordable for those people too. D evelopers ha ve to try to hit the market at an affordab le point w here someone will buy it and let it grow over a period of time . • Th e Commissio ners thanked Mr. Di ck man for his comments. • VI. STAFF'S CHOICE Ms. Lango n stated the May meetings wi ll be held on May 8'h and May 22"'. Discussion will continue on the minimum frontage requirements . Upcoming meetings will include the Englewood Estates PUD Amendment and Craig Hospi tal 's proposal to rezone their property on Clarkson . She asked if the Commis sion ers have any ideas or pi ctures of multi-unit dwellings to please let her know . VII . ATTORNEY'S CHOICE Ms . Reid stated she had nothing further . VIII. COMMISSIONER'S CHOICE Mr. Fish reminded everyone of the Kent Place Open House this coming Sunday. Ms. Mosteller asked whether there was anything from the Citizen Survey that would be relevant to Community Development and that the Commission might want to take on . 7 Ms. Langon stated she has not read the entire document, but there probably are some issues . Ms . Langon reminded everyone of Robert Simpson's farewell reception on Thursday from 4:00 to 6:30 in the Community Room. City Manager Sears is scheduled to speak at 4 :30. The meeting adjourned at 8:55 p.m . • • • • CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF CASE #2007-06, FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RELATING TO SOUTH BROADWAY DISTRICT IDENTIFICATION BANNER AMENDMENT INITIATED BY: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 1000 ENGLEWOOD PARKWAY ENGLEWOOD, CO 80110 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Commi ss ion Members Pres ent: Kri ege r, Ro th , Kno th , B, itk, Bl eile , Fish , Mostell er, Commis sion Members Abs ent: Diekmeier, Welker Th is matter was heard before th e City Pl anning and Zon in g Commi ssio n on April 1 7, 2007 in the City Co un ci l Chambers of the En ~!:·,,-:,.,d Civic Center . Testimo ny was received from staff. Th e Com mis ;io n re ce iv ed noti ce of Publi c H ea ring and the Staff Report, which were incorporated into a~d made a part of the record of the Public Hearing. After consideri ng the statements of th e wi tn ,:sses , and reviewi ng the pertin ent documents, th e members of the Cit y Plannin g and Zonin1: Commission made th e fo ll ow ing i ,,llli~g s and Conclusions. FINDINGS (If FACT 1. THAT the Public Hearing on South croadway District Id ent ifi ca tion Banner Amendment was brought before the Planning Commission by th e Departm ent of Community Development, a department of the City of Eng lewood. 2. THAT no ti ce of the Public He ar ing was published in th e Engle woo d Herald on March 30, 2007. 3. THAT the Amendment is designed to allow City authorized district identification banners along South Broad way subject to licensing . • 4. THAT testimony was heard and the banners are not for individual advertising, but are for designating a particular district. 5. THAT the banners would be a benefit to the City as some form of identity is needed. 6. THAT the Amendment meets the intent of the South Broadway Action Pla n. CONCLUSIONS 1. THAT the Publi c Hearing on South Broadway Di stri ct Identification Banner Amendment was brought before the Planning Commission by the Department of Community De ve lopment, a department of the City of Englewood . 2. THAT notice of the Public Hearing was published in th e Englewood Hera ld on Ma rch 30, 2007 . 3. THAT the Amendment is designed to allow City aut ho rized district identification ban ners alo ng South Broadway subject to licensing. DECISION THEREFORE, it is th e dec ision of the City Planning and Zoning Commiss ion that Cas e #2007-06 South Broadway District Identification Banner Amendment should be referred to the City Council with a favorable recommendation . The decision was reached upon a vo te on a motion made at the meeting of the City Pl anning and Zoning Commission on April 17, 2007, by Ms. Mosteller, seconded by Mr. Knoth , wh ich motion states: YES: NAYS: ABSTAIN : ABSENT: TO RECOMMEND CITY COUNCIL APPROVE CASE #200 7-06 SOUTH BROADWAY DISTRICT IDENTIFIC ATION BANNERS BE RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL TO CITY COUNCIL WITH A FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION FOR ADOPTION AND THAT THE MUNICIPAL CODE BE MODIFIED TO ALLOW CITY AUTHORIZED SOUTH BROADWAY DISTRICT IDENTIFICATION BANNERS TO BE INSTALLED ON SOUTH BROADWAY LIGHT STANDARDS SUBJECT TO LICENSI NG. Krieger, Roth , Knoth, Bleile, Fish , Mosteller, Brick None None Diekmeier, Welker Motion carried. • • • • These Findings and Conclusions ar e effecti ve as of the meet ing on April 17, 2007 . BY ORDER OF THE CITY PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Don Roth , Chair ' • •