Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-01-18 PZC MINUTES• • • • CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING C01\1MISSION January 18, 2000 I. CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7 :02 p .m . in the City Council Chambers of Englewood City Hall, Chairman Welker presiding. Members present: Weber, Willis , Douglas , Lathram , Rininger , Welker Members absent: Hayduk , Ransick , Stockwell Also present : Planning Analyst Dannemiller Assistant City Attorney Re id II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES January 4 ,2 000 Chairman Welker stated that Minutes of the January 4 , 2000 meeting are to be considered for approval . Willis moved: Lathr am seconded: The Minutes of January 4 , 2000 be approved as written. AYES : NAYS : ABSTAIN : ABSENT : W illis , Lathram , Rininger , Weber , Welker None Douglas Hayduk , Ransick, Stockwell The motion carried. III. FINDINGS OF FACT Famil y Resource Center 3301 South Grant Street CASE #CU-2000-01 Chairman Welker stated that the Findings of Fact on the Public Hearing for the Family Re- source Center at 3301 South Grant Street are to be considered for approval. Rininger moved: Lathram seconded : The Findings of Fact for Case #CU-2000-01, the Family Resource Cen- ter at 3301 South Grant Street, be approved as written . 1 AYES: NAYS : ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Lathram, Rininger, Weber, Willis, Welker None Douglas Hayduk, Ransick, Stockwell The motion carried. IV. COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE Sign Code Amendment -South Broadway CASE #ORD 99-04 Mr. Welker stated that this Public Hearing was continued from December 7 , 1999. He asked for a motion to re-open the Hearing. Douglas moved: Rininger seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #ORD 99-04 be opened . AYES : NAYS : ABSTAIN : ABSENT: Lathram , Rininger , Weber , Willis , Douglas , Welker None None Hayduk , Ransick , Stockwell The motion carried . Ms . Lauri Dannemiller, Planning Analyst in the Community Development Department , was sworn in . Ms . Dannemiller testified that staff has addressed concerns raised by Commission members during previous segments of the Public Hearing. Ms . Dannemiller referenced a mem orandum to the Commission , dated January 14, 2000 , which cited issues raised and staff resp onse. Issue #1: Flag Size . Ms. Dannemiller stated that other agencies were contacted to determine the flag sizes allowed in those jurisdictions; the Englewood Safety Services also was contacted . Two common flag sizes were cited : 6' x 8 ', and 5 ' x 7'. The Englewood Safety Services wanted the Ordinance to allow a flag size no larger than 5 ' x 7'; this is a typical size for an outdoor commercial American flag . The 5 ' x 7' (35 sq. ft.) size has been inserted in the Ordi- nance . Issue #2 : Definition of "Marquee ". The question was whether "marquee " should be included as part of the Sign Code , inasmuch as the "marquee " is a structural feature . This definition was removed from the proposed Sign Code amendment , but will be retained in the overall Zoning Ordinance definitions , §16.8. Issue #3 : The word "approval" was omitted from §16-4-19-11-C-1-f in the previous draft of the proposed amendments . The word "approval" has been inserted at the end of the sentence ~-·· • • " ... without City Manager or designee approval." • 2 • • • Issue #4: Window Signs. The staff has clarified the section permitting window signs in sec- ond floor windows to advertise a business separate and distinct from the business occupying the first floor of a structure. The clarified section will read: "Window Signs. Same as 16-4- 19-10. C. 6 (B-1, B-2), except that window signs may include transom signs and window signs may be installed in windows on the second floor of a building if the business on the second floor is a separate permitted use from the business occupying the property on the first floor of the principal building." Mr. Welker asked if window signs will be the only type of signage allowed for businesses lo- cated on the second floor of a building. He suggested that if it is the intent to allow only win- dow signage for second floor businesses, to so state this in the Ordinance. If other types of signage -wall, or projecting signs -are to be allowed, to also so state this in the Ordinance. Ms. Dannemiller stated that she will further clarify the intent of this provision. Issue #5: Uses occupying more than 20,000 square feet. Ms. Dannemiller stated that the pre- viously worded section, §16-4-19-11-E, was eliminated, and a modified section, §16-4-19-11- C-1-e, was added. The newly added section will read: "Wall Signs: Same as 16-4-19-10. C.5 (B-1 and B-2 Districts), except that uses which occupy more than twenty thousand (20,000) square gross floor area of a structure per lot and have more than one hundred (100) feet of Broadway frontage may be allowed to mount wall signs extending up to five (5) feet above the parapet of the building if the sign design is reviewed and approved by City Manager or desig- • nee." • Issue #6: Industrial designation clean-up. Ms. Dannemiller noted that this is a housekeeping amendment to eliminate reference to the I-1 and I-2 zone districts from the South Broadway signage provisions. Issue #7: "Signable Area" clean-up. Ms. Dannemiller stated that the citation was corrected in this provision. Ms. Dannemiller then directed the attention of the Commission to a page of "Multiple Use" examples and "Actual Examples" -depicting signage area that is allowed by the existing Sign Code, and signage that could be allowed by the amendments as proposed. Ms. Dannemiller went through these examples, explaining each example in detail. Ms. Dannemiller stated that there are "bonuses" that may be allowed -additional types of signs, and increased height being just two of the bonuses businesses may be granted. Ms. Dannemiller stated that Assistant City Attorney Reid has discussed election signs with her. She asked if the Commission wanted to address this issue now. Mr. Welker stated that if the Sign Code is being amended, the Commission might as well hear the issue on election signs . Assistant City Attorney Reid stated that the issue was raised by the City Clerk regarding the number of election signs permitted. Election Signs do not require issuance of a permit, but 3 • there is a restriction of two signs per "lot". Does this mean a 25 ft . "lot" as is platted in most subdivisions, or the common understanding of "lot" --meaning a building site or building par-• eel -typically 50 or 75 foot frontage, and comprising two or three of the 25 ft. "lots " as plat- ted. Now that there are consolidated elections -City, County, State, and National elections occurring at the same time , people may not be able to post signs in their yard supporting all candidates and/or issues they favor . On the other hand , if the maximum number of signs al- lowed is eliminated, this could lead to a proliferation of signs, albeit for a short period of time . Ms. Reid noted that the currently allowed maximum square footage of signs in residential dis- tricts is 12 square feet, and in business/industrial districts the maximum square footage is 24 square feet. Discussion ensued. Mr. Welker suggested removing the restriction on the number of signs allowed. Mr . Weber asked why the concern on this ; concentrate enforcement efforts on issues that matter -not on the number of election signs . Further discussion ensued . Ms . Dannemiller stated that the determination also needs to be made whether this is per "plat- ted lot", or per street address or ownership. After discussion, the Commission reached the consensus that there should be no limit on the number of election signs that may be placed at any one street address. but that the total square footage limitation currently cited for election signs shall remain in force . Ms . Reid stated that this will be incorporated into the amendments of the Sign Code. Ms. Dannemiller asked if the Commission had any questions on the proposed amendments . Mr. Douglas expressed concern on §16-4-19-11-2-A and B; these provisions seem to be basi- cally the same . He asked how this would apply if a building frontage is 100 ft., but his busi- ness occupies only 50 3 of the building, and another use occupies the remainder of the build- ing . Brief discussion ensued. Ms. Dannemiller suggested changing the heading on 2-B to "Permitted Use " Frontage in Linear Feet. Mr. Douglas stated this clarifies the issue for him. He also expressed appreciation to Ms. Dannemiller for the Multiple Use Examples and Actual Examples prepared, showing how the total sign area is calculated. Mr . Welker asked if there was further discussion or questions from the Commission. Douglas moved: Rininger seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #ORD-9-04 be closed. AYES: NAYS : ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Lathram, Rininger , Weber, Willis , Douglas, Welker None None Ransick, Stockwell , Hayduk The motion carried . Mr. Welker asked the pleasure of the Commission. 4 • • • Douglas moved: Lathram seconded: The Planning Commission approve the proposed Sign Code amendments, said amendments to include amendment to allow election signs per street address, and to retain the total square footage of sign area on election signs as currently cited. Mr. Welker asked if there were questions or discussion. Hearing none, he called for the vote. AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Rininger, Weber, Willis, Douglas, Lathram, Welker None None Hayduk, Stockwell, Ransick The motion carried. V. PUBLIC FORUM Mr. Welker asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. No one in the audience ad- dressed the Commission. VI. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE • Ms. Dannemiller stated that she had nothing to bring to the Commission. VII. ATTORNEY'S CHOICE Ms . Reid noted that the Board of Adjustment & Appeals (BOA) did grant the variance re- quested by the Western Arapahoe County Homeless Alliance (W ACHA) for distance reduction between the Family Resource Center and St. Louis School. Ms. Reid stated that Community Development staff determined that the Arapahoe House Detox Triage Center is a nonconform- ing use, and that WACHA did not need a second variance reducing distance between two group living facilities. A letter from Reverend Reycraft, pastor of St. Louis Parish, was sub- mitted for the record; this letter is basically the same letter submitted by the Archdiocese of Denver at the Planning Commission hearing, which stated that the Archdiocese and school are supportive of the proposed family resource center. Ms. Reid stated that there was some confusion on the part of some members of the audience at the Board meeting. The BOA had closed the public hearing at their meeting of December 8th, and no further testimony was taken at the meeting on January 12th. There were some people in attendance who expected to be given the opportunity to speak. This did not occur. Mr. Rininger asked whether a variance for parking was considered. Ms. Reid stated that this is a separate issue, and if the parking issue cannot be resolved by WACHA they will have to • request a variance from the Board for parking. 5 VIII. COMMISSIONER'S CHOICE Mr. Welker stated that he will be attending the Business Appreciation Luncheon , scheduled for January 27, 2000 at Hudson Gardens. Other Commission members who indicated they would be attending were Mr. Willis , Ms . Lathram , and Mr. Rininger . Mr. Weber stated that he had previously responded , but a con- flict has arisen in his schedule, and he will be unable to attend . The meeting was declared adjourned. --- ertrude G. Welty , Recording Sec re f:\dep t\n bd\gro up \boards\plancomm\minutes 2000\pcm 0 l-2000b .doc 6 • • •