Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-07-18 PZC MINUTES• • • CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION July 18, 2000 I. CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7 :05 p.m. in the City Council Chambers of the Englewood Civic Center, 1000 Englewood Parkway. Chairman Welker presided. Members present: Stockwell, Weber, Willis , Lathram, Welker Rininger, Sauter, Goodyear, Rempel Members absent: Staff present: Senior Planner Harold Stitt Planning Analyst Lauri Dannemiller Assistant City Attorney Nancy Reid II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES June 27, 2000 Mr. Welker stated that the Minutes of June 27, 2000 were to be considered for approval. Willis moved: Lathram seconded: The Minutes of June 27, 2000 be approved as written. Mr. Stockwell asked that the Minutes be amended as follows: Page 3, Paragraph #3, third line: modify sentence to state that "Mr. Stitt stated that ... " Page 4, Paragraph #4 , add statement: "It was stated by a representative from LLC that the only frequencies used would fall within the radio wave frequencies of 1.8 to 1.9 gigahertz." Page 9 , Paragraph #4, add statement that the Parks & Recreation District consider development of the ball fields to be high priority. Page 12, top of page: Mr. Stockwell asked if all volunteers were noted. All members who had volunteered at the previous meeting were correctly noted. Page 10, Paragraph #3: Mr. Stockwell stated his opinion that the following sentence is unclear and incomplete: "There have been many changes in the community, and the amendments to the ordinance have not kept pace and inhibit new forms of development. " Other members of the Commission did not find the sentence to be unclear, or incomplete. The vote on the motion to approve the Minutes, as amended on Page 3, Page 4, and Page 9 , was called : AYES : NAYS : ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Stockwell , Weber, Willis, Lathram, Welker None None Sauter, Rininger, Rempel , Goodyear H:IGROL'PIBOARDSIPLANCOMM\Minutes\Minu1es 2000\PCM 07·2000A.Joc • • • The motion carried . III. FINDINGS OF FACT U.S. West Wireless, LLC 4155 South Broadway CASE #CU-2000-02 Chairman Welker stated that the Findings of Fact for the application of U .S. West Wireless, LLC were to be considered for approval. Weber moved: Willis seconded: The Findings of Fact for Case #CU-2000-02 be approved as written. Mr. Stockwell asked if reference should be to "Quest" rather than U.S. West. It was pointed out that the application was filed as "U.S . West Wireless, LLC"; also the Findings reflect the name of the company at the date of the Public Hearing which was U.S. West Wireless, LLC. The vote was called: AYES : NAYS: Stockwell, Weber, Willis, Lathram, Welker None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Goodyear, Rempel, Rininger, Sauter The motion carried. IV. HISTORIC DESIGNATION Englewood Depot 3090 South Galapago Street CASE #HD-2000-02 Mr. Welker asked for a motion to open the Public Hearing on proposed historic designation of the Englewood Depot. Stockwell moved: Lathram seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #HD-2000-02 be opened. A YES: Weber, Willis, Lathram, Stockwell, Welker NAYS: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Goodyear, Rempel, Rininger, Sauter The motion carried. Mr. Welker set forth the parameters for conduct of the Hearing. Lauri Dannemiller, Plann ing Analyst, was sworn in. Ms. Dannemiller stated that an application from the Englewood Historical Society has been received requesting historic designation of the H:IGROUPIBOARDS\PLANCOMM\"1inutes\Minutcs ~000\PCM 07·2000A.Joc • Englewood Depot, now located at 3090 South Galapago Street. All required documents in sup- port of the application have been submitted by the applicant. Ms . Dannemiller presented the proof of publication of the Public Hearing to the Recording Secretary , said notice having been published in the Englewood Herald on July 7, 2000 . Ms. Dannemiller stated that in order for a property to receive historic designation , there is spe- cific criteria that must be met. A specified criteria applicable for all designations is that the structure must be at least 50 years old. Four additional criteria are cited in the ordinance, and all designations must meet at least one of the additional criteria. Ms. Dannemiller stated that staff recommends approval of the application designating the Englewood Depot structure as a historic structure based on compliance with the following crite- na: 1. The structure is at least 50 years old ; 2. The structure embodies distinguishing characteristics of an architectural type valuable for study of a period or style; 3 . The structure reflects the broad social history of the Cit y of Englewood. Ms. Dannemiller stated that the Englewood Depot was constructed in 1915 ; therefore , it does comply with criteria #1. The structure was built in the "county seat" style , stucco on wood frame , and is the only known surviving building of its type in Colorado -applicable to criteria #2 . The depot served Englewood and Ft. Logan , and helped distinguish Englewood as a city in • and of itself, separate from Denver -applicable to criteria #3. • Ms . Dannemiller stated that included in the supporting documentation is a Xerox copy of an arti- cle from the Englewood Enterprise , a newspaper in circulation in 1915 , regarding the depot. Ms . Dannemiller stated that the Englewood Depot was listed on the Colorado Register of Historic Places through the Colorado Historical Society ; this was accomplished on November 9, 1994 . Ms . Dannemiller emphasized that , because of the relocation of the Depot, the historic designa- tion will apply only to the structure , and not to the site . Mr. Weber asked for an explanation of the "county seat style" of architecture. Ms. Dannemiller stated that as she understood this architectural style, it is long, low , narrow , one story , and of stucco finish . Mr. Stockwell questioned the $100 fee noted on the application. Ms. Dannemiller stated that the fee is required to cover costs of publication , research, etc. In this particular instance, inasmuch as the structure is already on the Colorado Historic Register, the fee was waived because the background research had already been done. Lathram moved: Weber seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #HD-2000-02 be closed . A YES: Willis , Lathram, Stockwell , Weber, Welker NAYS: None ABSTAIN: None H:IG RO UPIB OARDSIPLANCOMMIM in utcs\Minutcs 2000\PCM 07 -2000A.doc • • • ABSENT: Goodyear, Rempel, Rininger, Sauter The motion carried. Mr. Welker asked the pleasure of the Commission . Weber moved: Willis seconded: The Planning Commission approve and recommend historic designation for the Englewood Depot structure, presently located at 3090 South Gala- pago Street. A YES: Lathram , Stockwell , Weber, Willis, Welker NAYS : None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Goodyear, Rempel, Rininger, Sauter The motion carried. v. CITYCENTER ENGLEWOOD PUD Amendment -Sign Package CASE # PUD-2000-01 Mr. Welker stated that the issue before the Commission is a proposed amendment to the Planned Unit Development for CityCenter Englewood. He noted that the same parameters cited for the previous hearing are applicable to this Hearing. He asked for a motion to open the Hearing. Willis moved: Lathram seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #PUD-2000-01 be opened. AYES: NAYS : ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Lathram , Stockwell , Weber, Willis , Welker None None Rempel , Rininger, Sauter, Goodyear The motion carried. Secretary's Note: Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Englewood Herald on July 7 , 2000 , and a copy is in the Case file . Harold Stitt , Senior Planner, was sworn in . Mr. Stitt distributed revised copies of the proposed sign regulations , dated July 18 , 2000, to members of the Commission. Mr. Stitt noted that the initial Planned Unit Development was approved under the name of "Englewood Town Center"; however, the development is now referenced as CityCenter Englewood, and this terminology will be used throughout the presentation. Mr. Stitt stated that when the PUD was originally pro- posed and approved, a specialized sign package had not been delineated, and the provisions of the Sign Code contained within the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance were included as part of the PUD. Staff was aware that the provisions of the Sign Code contained in the CZO would not H:IGRO UP\BOARDSIPLANCOMM\"l in utc s\M in ute s 2000\PCM CJ7 -2000A.doc • • be appropriate for the proposed development, and a specialized sign package was always envi- sioned. Mr. Stitt stated an initial proposed sign package amendment was presented to the Plan- ning Commission almost one year ago; that draft was prepared by David Owen Tryba Architects . It was determined, however, that until the prospective tenant package for the development was clarified, it was unwise to pursue a sign package amendment. The second edition of the proposed specialized sign package has been prepared by the Beauchamp Group, and this proposal is before the Commission this evening. Mr. Stitt presented an overview of the proposed sign package, including sign requirements and the design review process; signs subject to permits; signs not subject to permits; signs subject to temporary permit; illumination; permissible sign materials, and permissible sign types. Also re- viewed were maximum permitted sign volume and area; permissible sign locations and methods of installation, auxiliary graphics, project and joint tenant monumentation signage, residential signage and office signage , and maintenance and upkeep. Mr. Stitt noted that sign volume or size differs based on the type of tenant; the proposal cites four types of tenants , which are: 1) Type A: Freestanding Retail Tenants (50,000 sq. ft. or greater) 2) Type B: Freestanding Retail Tenants (2 0,000 sq. ft. to 49,999 sq. ft.) 3) Type C: Freestanding and Inline Retail Tenants (10,000 sq. ft. to 19,999 sq. ft.) 4) Type D: Freestanding or Inline Retail Tenants (up to 9,999 sq. ft.) Mr. Stitt stated that the master developer for CityCenter Englewood has been involved in the ne- gotiations regarding the proposed sign package, and some of the proposed regulations are dic- tated by contract. Mr. Stitt emphasized that the Sign Code contained with the CZO was not used as a beginning point for the proposed PUD sign package. Mr. Stitt stated that the City has ex- pended time and money to create a CityCenter Englewood development that is distinct in the metro area , and the sign package must also reflect that goal. Mr. Stitt stated that we have looked at the needs of the developer and of the tenants, and have tried to develop a project that will work. Mr. Stitt noted the graphics included throughout the proposal. Mr. Welker asked if the illustrations will be contained in the final document. Mr. Stitt responded affirmatively; there will be a "pattern book" in the Community Development Office on the sign- age acceptable for this development. Mr. Stitt further discussed the design review process for sign approval. Mr. Stockwell asked why the design review process and the application process is not concurrent. Mr. Stitt explained that separation of the processes was a conscious decision of staff and the Beauchamp Group. It is the opinion that once the design review process for sign approval is completed, it will simplify the application process . Errol Beauchamp was sworn in. Mr. Beauchamp stated that this sign package is something new in the metro area. Mr. Beauchamp noted that people try to push the limits on allowable size and design on signage; separation of the two processes -design review and application -should save time in the long run . H:IG ROUP\BOARDSIPLANCOMM\M inut<s\"linutes 2000\PCM 07-2000A.doc • • • Mr. Stockwell stated that it is "evident staff and the Beauchamp Group are married to this proc- ess"; he expressed the opinion that it is "extraneous'', creates extra paper work to go through two processes, and he doesn't agree with the proposed process. Mr. Beauchamp discussed sign types for tenants dependent on the size of the tenant 's business, and the methodology for determining signage allowed. Signs that are encouraged and signs that will be prohibited were also discussed. Mr. Welker questioned the allowable amount of signage for a business with four sides available for signage. Mr. Beauchamp stated that a free-standing single tenant building will be allowed one wall-mounted or projecting sign per frontage -to a maximum of three building faces. They would also be allowed one blade sign per frontage in addition to the wall or projecting sign; plus a maximum of two sq. ft. window sign if used in combination with other sign types. Canopy signs will also be allowed, permitting only the business name or logo on each canopy; again, the size may not exceed 2 sq. ft. in size for the logo/symbol. Discussion ensued regarding height of the canopy fascias, and the sign size that could be accommodated. Window signs were further addressed; it was noted that some businesses , such as restaurants, may cover basically an entire window with signage . Mr. Beauchamp stated that the tenants the developer is recruiting will not be using window signage to that degree. Mr. Beauchamp stated that tenants will be encouraged to use individual letters on exterior signs and not "cabinet" signs. Bare neon placed on walls will be prohibited . Sandwich-board signage was discussed. Mr. Stockwell asked if problems could be created by not mentioning this type of signage. Mr. Stitt pointed out that the Zoning Ordinance is a permis- sive ordinance ; if something is not specifically mentioned, it is not allowed. Mr. Beauchamp discussed projecting signs , and displayed a depiction of projecting signs on the screen. He pointed out that projecting signs, attractively designed, not only illustrates the tenants business but attracts the eye of pedestrian and motorist. Mr. Beauchamp then discussed the spe- cific signage allowable for identified tenant types: Type A , Type B, Type C , and Type D. Height of leading letters and remaining text varies from type-to-type of tenant. Mr. Beauchamp reiterated that "end-cap" businesses may have up to three sides of their structure signed. Mr. Welker asked if there is a prohibition of signage on frontages that may face a residential de- velopment. He cited Wal-Mart possibly wanting signage facing north into the residential neighborhood across West Floyd Avenue. Mr. Stitt stated that , in fact, Wal-Mart has requested signage on the north face of the building. Their signage request is for the north and south fa- cades; no signage is requested for the east or west facades. Mr. Stitt stated that staff is working with the local managers and the sign company to reduce the size of the signage because of the impact on the residential neighborhood. Mr. Stitt referenced the "screening walls" erected along West Floyd Avenue to control sound; these walls are presently six feet in height and may be ex- tended to eight feet in height. These walls may help mitigate impact of signage , but staff will continue working with Wal-Mart. Mr. Stitt did note that the Wal-Mart development agreement stipulates signage on the north and south facades . H:IG RO UPIBOARDSIPLA NC OMM\M in u1e s\Minu1es 2000\PC~ 07·2000A .Joc • • • Mr. Welker asked about signage projecting above a parapet wall . He commented that he saw no reference to this in the proposed amendment. Mr. Welker stated that signage above parapet walls was considered in the recent Broadway signage amendment, and recalled that it had also been discussed in conjunction with this site in the previous draft of one year ago. Mr. Stitt stated that typical buildings in CityCenter Englewood will not be designed with parapet walls. Mr. Stitt referenced a "sign band" which will be used in locating signage on facades. Mr. Stitt agreed that parapet walls and signage projecting above those walls was discussed one year ago; at that time, a theater development was still under consideration. However, when the theater development did not materialize , it was felt unlikely that other prospective tenants would be interested in simi- lar structural accommodations, and parapet walls and signage projecting above those walls was not included in this draft of the proposed sign package. Different types of signage, including marquee signage, was discussed. Mr. Stitt pointed out that if a tenant proposes a sign , or location of signage, that does not meet the approval of the design review board, the tenant will have the option of appeal to the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. Ms . Lathram asked if the light rail signage and the CityCenter Englewood signage complies with the proposed sign package . Mr. Stitt stated that this signage does comply . Mr. Stitt discussed methodology proposed for calculating sign area, and referenced page 16 of the proposal. Volume signage and flat, wall-mounted signage, as depicted in the proposed sign package, were reviewed and discussed. Mr. Beauchamp stated that the calculation methodology provides a strong incentive to tenants to use volume signage; this type of signage is very readable by both motorist and pedestrian. Mr. Welker posed a theoretical multi-tenant building; each tenant is allowed a volume sign , win- dow , blade , and canopy sign. If there are offices on the second floor , what type of signage would be allowed --the same selection of signage? And if so, where would it be located. Mr. Beauchamp referenced §3.6.14, Office Signage. This section addresses sign types and locations for all office uses. Mr. Beauchamp stated that the intent is to limit signage to first floor uses. Mr. Stitt stated that the intent is to maintain a pedestrian-friendly atmosphere throughout the CityCenter Englewood development; this includes the type and placement of signage. Mr. Stitt referenced the Common Area Maintenance (CAM) agreement, and suggested that in the future the CAM tenants may be involved in determining some signage issues . Mr. Welker asked about sandwich-board signs. Mr. Stitt stated that sandwich-board signs are presently prohibited in the Englewood Sign Code, and will be prohibited in the PUD sign pack- age. Mr. Welker asked about permitting them if they were to be located in an alcove or entrance to a building. Mr. Stitt stated if a sign is within view of, or located on the public right-of-way, it must be in compliance with the Code. Mr. Stitt suggested that if sandwich-board signs are al- lowed, it could be "opening a can of worms '', and staff could not support permitting this type of signage. Mr. Stockwell suggested that sandwich-board signs should be allowed in outside patio eating areas of restaurants . H:IGROUPISOARDSIPLANCOMM\Minu1es\Minutcs 2000\PCM 07-2000A.doc • • • Mr. Welker asked about traditional signs -such as the barber shop poles. Mr. Stitt stated that a barber shop pole sign would be allowed -probably classified as a projecting volume sign Ms. Lathram asked about patio areas, with canopies and umbrellas -will this be considered as signage if they carry advertising. Mr. Stitt stated that the canopy/umbrellas will not be consid- ered as permanent signage. Mr. Stitt noted that restaurants will be allowed to post a "menu board" on a wall of their restaurant; this would not be considered part of their allowed signage. Mr. Willis asked about advertising products at restaurants --maybe a particular brand of bever- age. Will this be "signage". Mr. Stitt stated that there are provisions for temporary signage, and short-term temporary signage is probably what that would be classified. Mr. Welker asked about seasonal advertising. Mr. Stitt stated that this will be "short-term" ad- vertising. Mr. Stockwell cited §3.6.8.9 -Prohibited Signs, and noted that prohibition of "temporary or sales signs attached to storefront" is contradictory to statements that temporary signage is al- lowed. It was suggested that this prohibition be eliminated. Mr. Stockwell again addressed the issue of sandwich-board signs, and suggested that the pro- posal be amended to permit this type of signage. Mr. Stitt reiterated that the staff/consultant po- sition is that sandwich-board signage should not be allowed as part of the PUD sign package. Mr. Stockwell suggested that the provision could say they be prohibited "except where specifi- cally permitted by the design review board." Ms. Lathram asked if the design review board will have authority to grant exceptions as sug- gested by Mr. Stockwell. Mr. Stitt stated that the design review board will not have authority to make exceptions on prohibited signage. The BOA may consider a request for a variance to the sign package , but the Board has a specific set of criteria that applicants must meet. Mr. Stitt ad- vised against making exceptions to listed prohibited signs; if it is the determination of the Com- mission that sandwich-board signs should be permitted, he suggested they eliminate the prohibi- tion from the proposed sign package , and write specifics into the package on where sandwich- board signs would be permitted. Mr. Welker stated he felt the sandwich-board signs could be allowed in specific areas; for in- stance, he would find them acceptable for outdoor eating areas. Ms. Reid suggested that if the Commission is considering amendments to the proposed sign package , to make a motion regarding the specific amendment, approve the amendment, and then consider the entire sign package , as amended. She advised against approving the sign package , and citing amendments as part of the overall approval. Mr. Stockwell stated that the Commission didn't need to make separate motions to amend a sec- tion prior to consideration of the entire sign package. Ms. Reid stated that she was not present to argue with Mr. Stockwell; she was offering legal advice as legal counsel to the Commission . H:IGROUP\BOARDSIPLANCOMM\Minutes\Minutes ZOOOIPCM 07·2000A.doc • • • Ms . Lathram asked about joint ID signs; how many will be allowed in the CityCenter develop- ment. Mr. Stitt stated there will be four joint identification signs allowed along U.S . 285 , and three within the PUD area. Two ID signs will be allowed on the South Santa Fe frontage. Mr. Stitt stated that the signs will allow six tenant names per face, and does include the CityCenter logo at the top of the sign . The signage along the Santa Fe frontage was discussed. Mr. Welker asked how signs not located on the PUD site could be allowed. Further discussion ensued. It was determined that all refer- ence to signs on Santa Fe frontage be eliminated from the proposed sign package. Signage at primary entrance points to CityCenter Englewood was discussed . Mr. Stitt stated that entry signs will be installed at U.S. 285 and South Inca Street, at West Floyd A venue and South Inca Street, at South Elati and Englewood Parkway, and at U.S. 285 and South Galapago Street. Ms . Lathram inquired about street signs ; will there be specially designed street signs. Mr. Stitt stated that street signs are being considered, but he has not seen a protot ype sign . Mr. Welker discussed situations wherein the entire building fa~ade , b y virtue of painting , be- comes a "sign ". What will eliminate this possibility in CityCenter Englewood . Mr. Stitt stated that the regulations contained within the sign package apply to "signs". In the case of painting on building facades, it would have to be determined if it fits into these regul a tions, plus it would have to be addressed by the CAM agreement. Mr. Welker asked about neon strips added to buildings to enhance their image . Mr. Stitt stated that the sign package will not allow neon to be used in the manner described by Mr. Welker. Use of neon as part of a sign was discussed. Mr. Stitt stated that this can also be addressed by the CAM. Mr. Stockwell again addressed the sandwich-board signs (freestanding tripod signs ) at restaurant entrances. Mr. Stitt reiterated that if it is the desire of the Commission , a motion should be made to include the freestanding tripod signage specifically for enclosed outdoor eating establish- ments . He emphasized the need to establish size limitations on this type of sign if it is allowed. Mr. Welker asked for a definition of "ideological" signage. Mr. Stitt stated that this is included as a result of a lawsuit a number of years ago against Lakewood; the State Supreme Court ruled that first amendment rights may not be restricted on signage. Mr. Stitt cited one or two wordings of ideological signage. Mr. Welker noted that contractor signs seem to be a bit large , and there is no time limitation im- posed. Mr. Stitt noted that contractor signs will be allowed through a build-out period . Mr. Stitt stated that language can be added to limit allowance of contractor signs to the build-out period . Mr. Stitt noted that Mr. Loss (in the audience) had pointed out to him that menu displays are cur- rently permitted in the sign package; this was included to provide advertising in restaurants. Mr. Stitt also pointed out that if the freestanding tripod signs (sandwich-boards) are allowed for one use , other uses such as shoe repair shops, or flower shops, for instance, will want such signage. H:IGRO UP\B OARDSIPLANCOMM\M in ute sl.\-l in utes 2000\PC M 07-2000A .doc • • Mr. Weber asked if outdoor eating areas are allowed, will they be required to be fenced. Mr. Stitt stated that fencing would not be a requirement of the City. Mr. Beauchamp suggested that a recommendation the outdoor eating areas be "enclosed" or "defined" could be imposed. Ms. Lathram stated that in her opinion , she does not feel the freestanding tripod sign (sandwich- board) will lend itself to this development. Mr. Weber stated that he doesn 't have anything against sandwich-board signs , but does not think they will add much to this development. Mr. Weber referenced Page 18, last paragraph, and asked for clarification of the maximum size allowed. He asked if the totals cited are "totals ", or per side. Mr. Beauchamp stated that the to- tal cited is per side. John Loss was sworn in . Mr. Loss stated that he is representing the master de veloper, Miller- Weingarten. Representatives of Miller-Weingarten have been involved in negotiations on devel- opment of the sign package. Mr. Loss urged the Commission to recommend approval of the sign package ; he stated that , in his opinion , the sign package addresses aesthetic and visual desires and functional needs for tenants . The provisions contained within the sign package will provide an incentive to tenants to step out of "bounds " and take advantage of the sign age pro visions . At the same time , the sign package meets the needs of identification and recognition factors for ten - ants. Mr. Loss commended Mr. Beauchamp for his e fforts on de velopment of the sign package , and supported approval. Mr. Loss discussed the sandwich-board sign issue , noting that typically governing documents dealing with signage in outdoor eating areas is covered by ECR or CAM agreements. Mr. Loss stated the project objective is to have a lot of people living and working in close proximity , and there must be a means where areas open to everybody have rules and covenants applied, but still be able to function. In his opinion , the subject of signage within leased areas or placed on walls is pretty well spelled out. The sandwich-board sign standing out in a common area doesn 't seem to be permissible in his opinion. If someone wishes to do something -a menu board on a wall , or a sandwich-board within their leased area , Miller-Weingarten would not consider the sign to be subject to the provisions of the sign package. Mr. Loss stated th at if the sandwich-board were to be placed on the public sidewalk, it should not be allowed. Mr. Loss stated that in the opinion of Miller-Weingarten, initially tenants will not take advantage of the great ideas the sign package will allow , but over time it will come. Mr. Stockwell asked if Mr. Loss understood the rights of tenants leasing property would be the same for outside activities as for indoor activities so long as the property is under lease to that tenant. Mr. Loss stated that this is his understanding . Brief discussion ensued. Mr. Loss again urged approval of the sign package as proposed. Stockwell moved: Lathram seconded: The Public Hearing on PUD #2000-01 be closed . AYES : NAYS : Stockwell, Weber, Willis, Lathram, Welker None H:IGROUP\BOARDSIPLA NCO MMl."1inu1es\Mi11 utcs 2000\PCM 07 -2000 A.doc 10 • • ABSTAIN: None ABSENT : Rempel, Rininger, Sauter, Goodyear The motion carried. Mr. Welker asked the pleasure of the Commission. Stockwell moved: Weber seconded: The Planning Commission recommend approval of the Planned Unit De- velopment Sign Standards developed by Beauchamp Group, dated July 18, 2000, with the following modifications: §3.6.8.9 §3 .6.12 §3.6 .12 .1 Eliminate "Temporary or sales signs attached to storefront. Eliminate reference to signage on Santa Fe frontage Eliminate reference to signage on Santa Fe frontage Mr. Welker asked if there was discussion on the motion. There was no discussion. Mr. Welker called for the vote. AYES: NAYS : ABSTAIN: ABSENT : Stockwell, Weber, Willis , Lathram, Welker None None Rininger, Sauter, Goodyear, Rempel The motion carried. VI. FIVE YEAR CAPITAL PROGRAM Mr. Stitt distributed to Commission members copies of the latest Budget 2001 Calendar, and a copy of the forms used in requesting inclusion of capital expenditures in the FYCP/CIP. Mr. Stitt suggested that due to the lateness of the hour, this discussion be delayed, and the Commis- sion think of projects they want to see implemented which are supportive of the Comprehensive Plan . The FYCP/CIP discussion will be included on the agenda for the next meeting of August 3th. Mr. Stitt discussed the timing factor to get the recommendation to the City Manager for in- clusion in the budget to City Council. Mr. Stitt also stressed the importance of City Council knowing the Planning Commission had input into and review of the requested CIP projects. Fi- nancing and phasing of proposed project was also briefly addressed. VII. PUBLIC FORUM No one was present to address the Commission. VIII. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE Mr. Stitt directed the attention of the Commission to a memorandum from Planner Langon re- garding the Unified Development Code . Clarion & Associates has been engaged to do the UDC , H:IGROU PIB OARDS\PLANCO MM\M inutes\Minute s 2000\PCM 07-2000A.Joc 11 • • • and as part of the first phase they are requesting interviews with members of the Commission - either individually or collectively -on problems they perceive with the existing CZO, and sug- gestions they may have on new development standards. Members were asked to call Ms. Lan- gon to schedule an individual interview with Mr. Elliott of Clarion & Associates. Mr. Stitt stated that Mr. Sauter and Ms. Lathram had, at the previous meeting, expressed interest in attending a conference on Construction Law. Mr. Stitt stated that there are no policies govern- ing attendance at conferences for the Commission, and staff is not trying to dissuade attendance at any particular conference. Mr. Stitt stated that there is approximately $1,500 remaining in the 2000 budget for conference attendance, and there are a variety of conferences that might be more applicable to members, such as the Colorado APA conference which will be held in Westminster later this year. Other conferences which Commission members may want to keep in mind for attendance throughout any given year are the national APA, traditionally held in the spring, the Colorado Municipal League Conference held in June, as well as a variety of other local and state conferences. Mr. Stitt stated staff will catalog the various conferences for reference by the Commission. Mr. Stitt suggested that as a group, it might be valuable to develop a conference attendance policy to get the most out of conference funding. Ms. Reid stated that Mr. Brotzman reviewed the CLE conference brochure in which Mr. Sauter and Ms. Lathram had expressed interest; it is City Attorney Brotzman's opinion that there are other conferences that would be of more value to members of the Commission; this conference is directed toward construction litigation . Ms. Lathram withdrew her name as a possible attendee. Mr. Stockwell stated that he had tele- phoned staff to express his interest, and also withdrew his name as a possible attendee. Mr. Welker noted that Mr. Sauter is not present; this will have to be discussed with him at the next meeting . Mr. Welker asked what was on the agenda for the next meeting. Ms. Dannemiller noted there have been some changes since the agenda schedule was prepared; the UDC and CIP discussions are scheduled for August 8th; and she will be presenting the Parks, Recreation and Open Space discussion on August 22nd. Ms. Dannemiller discussed the Comprehensive Plan task force committees that will consider open space, economic development, and housing issues, and suggested a general meeting of the Commission following adjournment of the business meeting of August 22nd. Mr. Welker ex- pressed interest in participating on the open space committee, but does not want to act as "chair". Mr. Willis asked if the Commission member is to contact Senior Planner Graham to get names for the committees, or if he, Mr. Graham, is to contact the Commission member with the list of names. Ms. Dannemiller suggested that it will be staff responsibility to contact the commis- sioner and committee members . H:IGROUP\BOARDS\PLANCOl-LM\Minutcs\Minutes 2000\PCM 07-2000A .Joc 12 • • IX. ATTORNEY'S CHOICE Ms. Reid said she had nothing to bring before the Commission. X. COMMISSIONER'S CHOICE Mr. Welker stated that he had tried to contact the two newly appointed members to the Commis- sion, Mr. Goodyear and Mr. Rempel. Mr. Goodyear has had very recent surgery, and could not be in attendance this evening, and Mr. Welker was unable to reach Mr. Rempel. Mr. Willis commented on the improved visual system for the Council Chambers. There was no further business brought before the Commission, and the meeting was declared adjourned . H:IGROUP\BOARDSIPLANCOMM\Minutes\Minutes 2000\PCM 07 -2000A .Joc 13