Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-07-20 PZC MINUTES• • • CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COl\'IMISSION July 20, 1999 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 City Hall, Chairman Welker presiding. Members present: Rininger, Stockwell, Weber, Willis, Douglas, Hayduk, Welker Members absent: Ransick, Lathram (both gave previous notice of absence) Also present: Harold J. Stitt, Senior Planner II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES July 13, 1999 Chairman Welker stated that the Minutes of July 13, 1999 were to be considered for approval. Douglas moved: Rininger seconded: The Minutes of July 13, 1999 be approved as written . AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Rininger, Weber, Willis, Douglas, Hayduk, Welker None Stockwell Ransick, Lathram The motion carried . III. ENGLEWOOD TOWN CENTER PUD Amendment -Sign Ordinance CASE #PUD-99-01 Chairman Welker stated that the issue before the Commission is a Public Hearing on a pro- posed amendment to the Englewood Town Center Planned Unit Development. Mr. Welker asked for a motion to open the Hearing. Douglas moved: Rininger seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #PUD-99-01 be opened. AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Stockwell, Weber, Willis, Douglas, Hayduk, Rininger, Welker None None Lathram, Ransick 1 The motion carried. Senior Planner Stitt was sworn in . Mr. Stitt stated that the Chair has received a copy of the Public Notice of the Public Hearing, which was published on July 9, 1999. Mr. Stitt stated that the Public Hearing is to consider a proposed amendment to the Englewood Town Center Planned Unit Development, in particular, signage regulations . Mr. Stitt distributed up-dated versions of the proposed amendment, dated July 20, 1999, to the Commission for reference during the Hearing . Mr. Stitt stated that his opening presentation will be limited, and the bulk of the presentation will be carried by Suzette Emerson and Douglas Ekstrand of the David Owen Tryba Architectural firm. Mr. Stitt stated that over the last several years , the City has been trying to devise a redevelop- ment plan for the site of the former Cinderella City Mall . The redevelopment, as now pro- posed, will encompass a light rail station, the Englewood Civic Center, as well as retail, en- tertainment, and residential use. The redevelopment of this 55 acre site into a transit-oriented mixed use development is unique , and signage design is an important part of the overall rede- velopment plan. Mr . Stitt reviewed public input which was generated during a series of public forums; the public cited several issues they felt were important, among them being positive perception of the redevelopment in the metro area, the redevelopment must have lasting value to Englewood, and contribute to the revenue base for the City; it must be integrated with the existing commercial and residential neighborhoods, and provide a unique sense of "place". • Mr. Stitt stated the intent of the proposed signage amendment is to provide "creativity", while • preserving the integrity and character of the overall development. He introduced Ms. Suzette Emerson, and Mr. Douglas Ekstrand. Ms . Emerson and Mr . Ekstrand were sworn in . Ms. Emerson stated that Mr. Ekstrand is a graphic designer , and will lead discussion on the proposed sign code for the PUD . Mr. Ekstrand reiterated Mr. Stitt 's comments regarding uniqueness of the proposed redevel- opment, and the desire to provide an opportunity to be creative in signage, yet preserve the integrity of the redevelopment as well as establish an identity for Englewood. Mr. Ekstrand then reviewed the proposed amendment, noting that the signage within the Englewood Town Center should: 1) Be well designed , legible, and appropriate to the uses permitted, as well as compatible with their surroundings and with the buildings to which they pertain in terms of scale, proportion, color, materials and lighting levels; 2) Be structurally sound and constructed of high quality, durable materials appropriate to an urban setting; 3) Strike a reasonable balance between the right of the individual to identify his or her business and the right of the public to be protected against the visual discord resulting from the unrestricted proliferation of signs and similar devices; 4) Not obscure the vision of motorists, and/or compete or conflict with necessary traffic signals or other traffic regulatory devices; and 2 • - • 5) Be uniquely designed to create a harmonious relationship with their surrounding envi- ronment. Mr. Ekstrand noted that Section 2 of the proposed amendment addresses design guidelines for proposed signage, postal address requirements, and touches on review of all signs and addi- tional elements by a design professional. Section 3 addresses the design review process and variances from the design guidelines. Sec- tion 3 also speaks to a "design review committee" to review variance requests. The "design review committee" will consist of an independent City-selected architect or design profes- sional, the City's PUD site plan architect, and the Plan Administrator. Section 4 of the proposed amendment is concerned with illumination , what is required, what is allowed, the color of the lights, flashing lights and animated graphics . Mr. Ekstrand stated that illumination of store fronts and signs is very important to merchants . Flashing lighting is limited in usage -suggested only for entertainment businesses, restaurants, and nightclubs; they may be employed only during business hours. Animated graphics will be encouraged . Section 5 addresses permissible sign types. Any sign type that is not enumerated in this section is "prohibited". Section 6 pertains to permissible sign materials and methods of installation. Prohibition of • material types is contained in this section . • Section 7 governs location of signs, and sets forth clearance requirements, projection and height restrictions , and also addresses perpendicularly mounted signs and canopy signs. Section 8, maximum permitted sign volume/area, addresses means of measuring sign size, cal- culating allowable signage allowed . There are separate formulas to determine sign size for projecting signs and non-projecting signs. There are also separate formulas to be used in de- termining signage area for a multi-tenant building versus a single-tenant building . Ms. Emerson displayed a model which shows two types of signage -projecting and non- projecting. Mr. Ekstrand further discussed Section 8, which also addresses parapet-mounted signage. These signs would be restricted to tenants occupying more than 20,000 square feet of building area, and more than 80 linear feet of building frontage along a street. Not more than 70% of allowable signage may be above or atop the building parapet. Section 9 addressed auxiliary graphics, such as canopy signage, and seasonal decorations. Canopy signage must be of fabric and signage and lighting may be attached to the canopy upon approval of the design review committee . 3 Joint ID signage is addressed in Section 10. Tenants occupying more than 7500 sq. ft. may be • listed on one of the PUD Joint ID signs. The Joint ID signs may be positioned only on West Hampden Avenue (U.S. 285) frontage, and no more than one per block will be allowed. All Joint ID signs will require review and approval by the design review team. Section 11 addresses residential signage. This section addresses location, size, and type of signage permitted on residential structures. Mr. Ekstrand stated that the Appendix is a depiction of allowable signage examples. Mr . Welker asked if members of the Commission have questions of Mr. Ekstrand or Ms. Em- erson. Mr. Stockwell asked what was meant in Section 4, §§3, about the "color of light". Mr. Ek- strand stated that the signage may incorporate red, yellow and green colors, but a sign incorpo- rating those colors may not be located where it will conflict with a traffic control device. This will have to be determined by the design review committee . Mr. Stockwell questioned Section 7, §§3, height of signage. He suggested that if there were two-story retail, the rule to determine height might change. How will this impact a tenant next door -for instance, suppose a lower-level retail tenant rents one of the residential units above his business, and converts that residential unit for retail use also . If the retail business is al- lowed to extend signage from windowsill to windowsill, what impact will this have on adjoin-• ing residential units . Mr. Ekstrand suggested that this is the purpose of the design review committee -they will have to determine what impact the second story retail signage will have. Mr. Welker asked if there will actually be retail uses two stories in height. Mr. Stockwell stated a second story unit could be used for office purposes -they would also be granted sign- age that could impact adjacent residential uses. Ms . Emerson and Mr. Ekstrand agreed that this section needs expansion and clarification. Ms. Emerson stated that both second retail and office use would be entitled to signage. Mr. Welker urged clarification on this issue. Mr. Hayduk asked if he understood correctly that not all signs needed to be reviewed unless they were requesting a variance. He suggested that this provision is not clearly written. Also, the variance process should be clarified -who hears the request for variance or appeal. Mr. Stitt stated that the appeal process is spelled out in the Planned Unit Development guidelines. Mr. Hayduk suggested that there be cross-referencing included. Mr. Stockwell suggested that the appeal and reapplication process should be spelled out. Mr. Welker asked if a determination is appealed, is it taken to one of the existing City Boards. Mr. Stitt noted that variances and appeals follow different processes. 4 • - • • • Mr. Hayduk asked if there is a period of time set forth for approval or denial of proposed sign- age. Mr. Ekstrand stated that it doesn't seem to be included in this draft of the proposal, but should be 10 days. Mr. Willis stated that the Design Review Committee is something to be created; he asked what qualifications will be required, and who will choose the members. Mr. Ekstrand stated that the design review committee will be composed of an independent City-selected architect or design professional, the City's PUD site plan architect, and the Plan Administrator. Mr. Stitt sug- gested that the City Council will appoint the members to the committee. Mr. Stitt stated that the design review committee will be a public agency, and if 20 years in the future some new tenant needs signage approved, it will still have to go before the design review committee. Mr. Stockwell asked whether there is need to set forth procedures that determine when the de- sign review committee will meet. Mr. Welker suggested that the committee could determine what is needed to call a meeting. Mr. Stitt said that meetings of the design review committee would be triggered by any application for signage approval. Mr. Stitt reiterated that the design review committee signage review is applicable only to the PUD area. He stated that the design review committee will see a high level of activity until the redevelopment is built out and fully tenanted. Activity should then slow down until there is a tenant change. Mr. Hayduk asked if the design review committee would have the authority to determine that some proposal is "too much". Mr . Stitt stated that the committee will have that authority . If the committee determines that changes are needed in the sign guidelines, they may so recom- mend, and another PUD amendment procedure will begin. Mr. Stockwell asked where it is written that the design review committee will have that right. Mr. Hayduk asked that this be clarified. Mr. Douglas asked what is "paniflex". Mr. Ekstrand stated that it is a durable, vinyl plastic - typical of sign panels over gas pumps. Mr. Douglas asked what 50 foot-lamberts are. Mr. Ekstrand stated that it is a form of calcula- tion based on illumination from a source. Mr. Douglas referenced Section 8, permitted sign volume, and noted that it appears the for- mula in the proposed regulations dated July 20th double the size from that permitted in the regulations dated July 16th . Mr. Ekstrand stated that this is correct. Ms . Emerson commented that the first formula did not provide enough signage area. Discussion regarding signage volume ensued. Mr. Stockwell stated that tenants with two lev- els of retail or office should have different sign calculations than two tenants each having one level of retail or office. The Joint ID signage was further discussed. Mr. Welker noted that this signage will only be placed along the U.S. 285 frontage. Mr. Ekstrand stated that this is correct. 5 Mr. Welker commented that in his business , he has tried to determine ways around ordinances, guidelines, and standards; he then posed a hypothetical question: a theater with the main en-• trance, and retail shops on three street fronts -how is this signage figured. Mr. Ekstrand stated that this would be figured as a multi-tenant building, and signage would be based on lin- ear street frontage for each business, not on overall square footage. The theater might have less linear footage than the adjoining businesses. The overall signage pattern will have to be taken into consideration by the design review committee . Mr. Welker inquired about signage on corner properties; will the signage area be based on street frontage total, or only on the main entrance frontage. He stated that he did not find any where in the proposed guidelines that this is addressed, and it should be clarified. Ms. Emer- son stated that this provision was included in one of the drafts, she believed in Section 8. It will be reinserted; the signage will be based on entrance street frontage . Mr. Welker discussed the sign volume for projecting signs -height x depth x width . If a "cir- cle" is projecting is the area the circle, or a square contained within the circle . Mr. Welker noted that there are instances where buildings , by virtue of the exterior paint , be- comes a "sign"; how will that be handled in the redevelopment. Mr. Ekstrand stated that if a type of "sign " is not mentioned, it will not be allowed. Mr. Welker asked about window painting . Mr. Ekstrand stated that tenants will be allowed to have signs painted on the win- dows, but it will be limited to 25 % of the window area. Canopies and banners were discussed in greater detail. Ms. Emerson stated that if the canopy contains lettering, it will be counted as signage; if it is only color and/or striped, it will not count against signage . Height and clearance of signage was then discussed. Mr. Welker stated that these provisions need definition on the types of signs the restrictions apply to. He asked how signage on second floors fit into these parameters. Mr. Welker then stated that he has a problem with proposed allowance of parapet signage . He stated that he doesn't want to see a "strip mall" effect in the CityCenter. He stated that typical parapet signs are large , bright signs. Ms. Emerson stated that they were considering impact such as the Pavilions in Denver , and were trying to grant a degree of creativity to tenants of the CityCenter. Mr. Welker asked about the maximum height for Joint ID signs. Ms. Emerson stated that the Joint ID signs will be designed for the total development. Mr. Welker discussed the need to tie this in with the existing sign code inasmuch as the proposed Joint ID signs will be located along the perimeter of the site. Banners were discussed . Mr. Ekstrand stated that this could be seasonal banners, or banners noting an upcoming event. Display of these seasonable banners or decorations will be limited to no more than 60 consecutive calendar days. 6 • • - • Mr. Welker noted that residential complexes may have more than one entrance, and could have as many as four entrances. Is the proposed limitation per entrance, or per complex. Mr. Ek- strand stated that the signage cited is per entrance for residential complexes. Projecting signs and the sign volume/area were further discussed, as was the location of the signage. Mr. Douglas discussed the formulas that were set out. Mr. Stitt suggested changing the word "building" to "tenant" in the formulas -this would provide clarity on the intent of the provision. Mr. Hayduk noted that signs that are not enumerated are prohibited . He asked about banners in support of school functions, or election banners. Mr. Stitt stated that there are free speech aspects that must be taken into consideration; length of display can be restricted. Mr. Welker asked about "going out of business sale" banners -some of these stay up for quite a period of time. Mr. Willis asked for an explanation on the "multiplier" used in formulas to determine signage allowable. Mr. Ekstrand stated that the typical tenant will have a store frontage between 35 to 70 linear feet, and a store depth of 30 to 40 feet. Other projects were also considered on sign- age allowable, and this formula was developed. Mr. Willis asked how streetscaping and landscaping would affect the signage. Ms. Emerson stated that there will be street trees, and tenants and the design review committee will need to • take this into consideration in determining type, size, and location of signage. • Mr. Welker asked if those businesses fronting along U.S. 285 will be governed by the existing City Sign Code, or by these signage guidelines. Ms. Emerson stated that those build- ings/tenants will also be governed by these sign guidelines. She pointed out that a majority of those buildings will be single tenant buildings. Mr. Weber referenced the prototype projecting sign, and asked what materials might be used in such a sign. Mr. Ekstrand stated that the prototype sign would be of aluminum structure and skin, painted, resin/fiberglass, and would be mounted to the building itself. Seasonal and temporary signage was again discussed. Mr. Welker suggested changing "sea- sonal'' to "temporary". Mr. Hayduk suggested that 253 window coverage might be too lib- eral. Mr. Welker asked if the seasonal/temporary signage must go through the design review committee; he agreed the restrictions need to be tightened. The length of time a seasonal/temporary banner or sign may displayed was further discussed. Ms. Emerson stated that in some cases, a banner is displayed for the "allowed" 30 days, is taken down for one or two days, and then put back up for display for another 30 days. Discus- sion ensued. Mr. Stockwell suggested that a provision be inserted allowing a seasonal or tem- porary banner to be displayed no more than 30 days prior to an event. Also, that verbiage on any banner or temporary sign for any one business must be changed before a second banner or temporary sign can be hung. Mr. Welker asked if the allowable time should be stretched to 7 the suggested 60 days, or keep display time to 30 days. Mr. Weber suggested 45 days would be adequate display time . Mr. Douglas suggested that between 45 and 60 days would be ac-• ceptable. Ms. Emerson suggested writing separate requirements for seasonal banners/signs and for tem- porary banners/signs. Mr. Welker stated that he liked this proposal. Mr. Stockwell suggested that seasonal banners be allowed a 60-day display time, and that temporary banners/signage must be required to have changed verbiage between times of display. Mr. Welker referenced Section 4, §§4 -Flashing Illumination. He stated he doesn't want to see this type of sign allowed . He did note that marquee signs are not mentioned in the pro- posed guidelines, and that perhaps theater marquee signs should be addressed. Mr. Welker further discussed his distaste for flashing illumination signs. Mr. Stockwell asked if sandwich board signage will be allowed . Mr. Stitt stated that sandwich boards are not listed as permitted signs ; therefore, they are prohibited . Discussion ensued. Ms. Emerson suggested inclusion of sandwich board signage outside restaurants only if there is no impediment of pedestrian movement. Mr. Ekstrand stated that he and Ms . Emerson have noted the comments and concerns voiced by the Commission, and stated that they appreciate the guidance of the Commission. Mr . Welker asked if anyone else wished to address the Commission. Art Emison, 5564 South Lee Street, Littleton, was sworn in. Mr. Emison stated that he has property in northwest Englewood that he wants to develop, but does not have direct access to the property . Mr. Welker asked Mr. Emison if the comments he wishes to make are in direct connection with the issue before the Commission -that of the public hearing on sign guidelines for the CityCenter. Mr . Emison stated they are not. Mr. Welker suggested that this is not the time for Mr. Emison's comments, and that the Commission will hear from him later in the meeting. Mr. Douglas asked Mr. Stitt if he has determined the proper route for an appeal from the de- sign review committee . Mr. Stitt stated that the PUD Ordinance has several appeal procedures set forth , and cited §16-4-15-J-2 of the Englewood Municipal Code. Mr. Welker asked the pleasure of the Commission . Discussion ensued. Douglas moved: Rininger seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #PUD-99-01 be continued to August 3, 1999 . AYES: NAYS: Weber, Willis, Douglas, Hayduk, Rininger, Stockwell, Welker None 8 • • • • • ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Lathram, Ransick The motion carried. IV. PUBLIC FORUM Mr. Emison was invited to address the Commission. Mr. Emison reiterated his statement that he owns property in northwest Englewood, which he acquired at a tax sale, and to which he does not have developed street access. There is some right-of-way dedicated, but it is not developed for street purposes. To get to his property, he must "trespass". He stated that he has worked with Mr. Stitt and other City personnel for two years trying to resolve this situation, but has been unsuccessful. Mr. Emison stated that he wants to get on the agenda for a Commission meeting to make his full presentation and case. He stated that he has been cited for weeds on the right-of-way fronting his property, and was billed for $800 to have the weeds removed from the street right-of-way that is unimproved. He has appealed this to the City Manager , and was told that he is not responsible for mainte- nance of the right-of-way , but the bill has not been cleared. This hearing before the City Man- ager was in November of 1998. Mr. Welker stated that he isn't sure the Planning Commission is the correct body to hear Mr. Emison's issue . Mr. Stitt stated that he is in consultation with the City Attorney's office to determine whether Mr. Emison's issue should be placed on a Commission agenda. Mr. Douglas asked if Mr. Emison 's issue is that he does not have access to his property, or that the access is not developed. Mr. Emison stated that it is both, and reiterated that he must trespass to get to his land. He also reiterated the fact he received a citation to clean up the right-of-way. Mr. Emison stated that when you look at a map, it does not appear that his property is landlocked because dedicated right-of-way is shown , and he does have a copy of the deed dedicating this right-of-way. It clearly shows that the right-of-way is owned by the City of Englewood . He stated that his property is 300 feet south of Evans and Zuni. Mr. Welker reiterated his opinion that Mr. Emison's issues are not within the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission. Mr . Emison stated that this general area came before the Planning Commission some years ago for a change of zoning, which was denied. He expects the Com- mission to enforce the zoning restrictions that are in place on the property, and to get the land- scaping business to cease and desist operation. He stated that he hoped that the Planning Commission had the power and would enforce their rulings on zoning. Mr. Welker advised Mr. Emison of the need to pursue meetings with various City personnel to resolve the issues ; to request additional meetings with the City Manager if the clean-up as- sessment has not been cleared , and to pursue the development of the right-of-way with the City Council. He suggested that if there is no satisfaction through persistence on Mr. Emison's part, that the next recourse would be through the Courts. Mr. Welker emphasized that it is 9 -- Mr. Emison's responsibility to pursue resolution to issues he has cited; the Planning Commis- sion cannot do it for him. • V. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE Mr. Stitt stated that he had nothing to bring before the Commission. VI. ATTORNEY'S CHOICE No representative of the City Attorney's office was present. VII. COMMISSIONER'S CHOICE Mr. Douglas asked why no member of the legal staff was present. Mr. Welker stated that he had called to speak to Assistant City Attorney Reid earlier in the day, and was told that there had been a death in her family. There was no further business brought before the Commission. The meeting was declared ad- journed . 10 • •