Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-12-07 PZC MINUTES• • • CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING C01\1MISSION December 7, 1999 I. CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers of Englewood City Hall; Chairman Welker presiding . Members present : Members absent: Also present: Weber, Willis, Douglas, Rininger, Welker Simpson, Ex-officio Stockwell, Hayduk, Lathram, Ransick Planning Analyst Lauri Dannemiller Assistant City Attorney Nancy Reid II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES November 16 , 1999 Chairman Welker stated that the Minutes of N overnber 16, 1999 are to be considered for ap- proval. Douglas moved: Weber seconded : The Minutes of November 16, 1999 be approved as written. AYES: NAYS : ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Weber, Douglas, Welker None Willis, Rininger Hayduk, Lathram, Ransick, Stockwell The motion carried. III. COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE Sign Code Amendments CASE #ORD-99-04 Chairman Welker stated that the Public Hearing on the proposed amendments to the Sign Code was continued to this date. He asked for a motion to open the continued Hearing. Douglas moved: Willis seconded: The continued Public Hearing on the Sign Code amendments be opened. AYES: NAYS : ABSTAIN: ABSENT : Willis, Douglas, Rininger, Weber, Welker None None Hayduk, Lathram, Ransick, Stockwell 1 • • • The motion carried . Mr. Welker asked that staff present the issue. Ms . Dannemiller was sworn in. She testified that the proposal before the Commission is the result of work by a legal consultant, by the City Attorney's Office, and by staff. The proposal has been referred to other City Departments, among them Public Works and the Traffic Divi- sion . Ms. Dannerniller advised the Commission, when they review the proposed amendments, that verbiage in bold type is new and proposed to be added to the existing Sign Code; verbiage that is being deleted is indicated by "strike-through". Ms. Dannemiller distributed copies of the proposed wording from Mr. Vestry , Englewood Traffic Engineer, as well as a synopsis of changes proposed in the ordinance. Ms. Dannemiller stated that the proposed sign code amendments are applicable only to the South Broadway frontage, provide incentives for Broadway businesses to replace old signage, and to do creative advertising on new signage. One of the goals is to improve the quality of the signage along South Broadway. Ms. Dannerniller noted that the information before the Commission is separated into "regulations" for the signs, and "policies". This separation is recommended by the City Attorney. Policies are administrative procedures, and the regula- tions are applicable to the actual signage . Ms. Dannemiller discussed the review process for signage by a Sign Review Committee. The Sign Review Committee will be composed of one graphic design professional; one sign fabri- cator or contractor; one Broadway merchant; one representative from the Building & Safety Division or Public W arks Department, and one staff member from Community Development (NBD). Recommendations from the Sign Review Committee are made to the City Manager, and all final decisions regarding permits for signage in a specialized sign area -South Broad- way -remain with the City Manager or his designee . All applications for sign permits must go through permit review by City staff. Ms. Dannemiller reviewed the synopsis of proposed changes; these changes include allowance of animated signs provided there are no more than four images, and the images do not change more than once per two seconds. ·Balloons are not permitted; flags will be permitted but the size of the flag will be restricted. Flashing or blinking lights will be permitted, but may not imitate any traffic control device, and must flash or blink less often than once per two seconds. Marquees are permitted with review and conditions -the lights must meet flashing limitations, and information on the sign must be related to a specific event on the premises. Ground signs will be allowed to 25 foot height, with review, and roof signs will be allowed if they are an integral part of the structure, and comply with conditions. In no event may a roof sign be more than five feet above the parapet. Roof signs for large structures and at least 100 feet of frontage are also permitted with review and compliance with conditions. Wall murals will be permitted with review and conditions, they must not be lighted, and only one per building will be allowed. Projecting signs will be allowed, with the maximum area increased to 35 square feet, and the maximum projection increased to 42 inches. There is no change in the number of • 2 • • • signs allowed based on street frontage . Illumination of signs will be permitted with review and compliance with conditions. Permitted maximum sign area will increased based on the street frontage. Mr. Welker asked the intent of the word "restoration" in relation to animated signs. Ms. Dan- nemiller stated that if a business presently has a sign that was, at one time , animated but the animation was discontinued to comply with the existing sign code , animation may be restored to that sign. Members of the Commission questioned the size restriction of 10 square feet for a flag. It was pointed out that flags flown by residents exceed the 10 square foot size . Mr. Welker suggested that the size should at least be the "common size " of a patriotic flag . Mr. Welker questioned the difference between a "marquee " and a "marquee sign " as related to this proposed Ordinance. Ms . Dannemiller stated that the marquee is part of the structure , but that flashing lights which may be placed on this marquee are not part of the structure. Mr. Welker pointed out that a "marquee " may be constructed in conjunction with a building, and the marquee itself is not a sign. He asked that thi s be clarified . Mr. Welker asked , regarding roof signs , is it 20 ,000 square feet of "building " or lot area . He pointed out that the proposed ordinance states "uses " which occupy more than 20 ,000 square feet -it is not specific as to whether it is structure or lot area , and suggested that this provision must be clarified. Window signs for businesses located on a second story were discussed. Mr. Welker pointed out that Page 8, C-1 -f does not specify "second story ", only that " .... window signs may be in- stalled in windows above the first floor if a .... ". Mr. Welker suggested that this provision could be read that if a business is located on the 10 m floor of a 10 story building , they would be entitled to signage. What is the intent of this provision? If the intent is that signage be per- mitted only on first and second levels of a structure , this provision should so state that. He urged clarification of this provision. Projecting signs were discussed . The 42 " projection over public right-of-way will be allowed , provided the projecting sign must be a minimum of 10 feet above the grade level. Mr. Welker asked if allowance of the project is an automatic encroachment , or if the property owner and/or businessman must go through the process of requesting encroachment approval. Mr. Simpson stated that an encroachment agreement will have to be processed for any projection over or into public right-of-way. Illumination for signs is increased from 25 watts to 40 watts. There may be no light intrusion onto residential properties . Ms. Dannemiller stated that the business community is supportive of changes to the sign code . Staff has discussed the proposed changes at South Broadway Merchants' meetings . The busi- ness community is most anxious for the amendments to be approved . 3 • Mr. Welker asked whether banners will be permitted. Ms. Dannemiller stated that banners on individual properties will not be permitted. There will be allowance of pole banners installed by the City in the various "districts" along South Broadway. Mr. Welker asked about those banners that are hung across Broadway announcing a special event. Ms. Dannemiller stated that this type of banner is "temporary" signage, and is permitted. Mr. Weber stated that he thought part of the idea behind revision of the Sign Code was to ad- dress signage in the CityCenter Englewood development, but this proposed amendment appears to address only the South Broadway area. Is CityCenter Englewood to have its own sign code? Mr. Welker stated that the signage for CityCenter Englewood is part of the overall PUD. Mr. Weber discussed the wall murals, and referenced the mural on the Liquor Barn on South Broadway. He suggested that murals might be allowed in other areas that are not along South Broadway. Ms. Dannemiller suggested that once it is determined how the proposed amend- ments work for the South Broadway corridor, it may be possible to apply these restrictions to other commercial corridors, such as Hampden Avenue . Mr. Simpson suggested that at this time, it is important to focus on the South Broadway corridor. This proposed ordinance is in- tended to create a distinct sense of "place" -which is important with the various commercial "districts" along South Broadway. Other commercial corridors would have to be evaluated to determine if this same approach would be logical. Mr. Welker suggested addition of the word "approval" on Page 7, B-1. Ms. Dannemiller • agreed the word "approval" should be added . • Mr. Douglas asked for clarification on the ratio of street frontage to sign area . Mr. Douglas contrasted the ratios contained on Page 7 (proposed amendment) and ratios on Page 4 (exist- ing). Mr. Douglas stated that the increases proposed for the businesses along the South Broadway corridor could result in a "lot of signage". Discussion ensued. Mr. Robert Simpson, Director of Community Development was sworn in . Mr. Simpson ad- dressed the concerns on allowable signage, noting that the proposed amendment was based on the existing Sign Code . Mr. Douglas reiterated his concern regarding increased allowable signage for Broadway busi- nesses, specifically as it might relate to uses within a small strip development. If each use within that strip development is allowed the maximum signage, this would be a proliferation of signage for a small area . He suggested that this is a large loophole in the proposed ordinance, and further suggested that staff revisit this portion of the proposal and calculate the increased signage area . Mr. Welker asked how signage would be calculated for a business with two street frontages - Broadway and a side street. Is the signage determined by the street frontage from which the business is addressed? Ms. Reid suggested that the signage would be determined by the street address. Mr. Welker cited Colonial Bank -this business is addressed from South Broadway, but actually has more street frontage on West Hampden Avenue. 4 • • • Mr. Simpson further addressed the intent of the proposed sign code revisions. The intent is to provide some increase in the signable area, and provide the business people with an incentive to upgrade the quality of signage, and also exercise creativity in the signage . Mr . Simpson stated that the increases proposed in the revised sign code are based on the provisions in the existing sign code, and only provide small increases based on existing allowable sign area. Mr. Douglas reiterated his contention that there is a large loophole created by the increase in allowable signage . He stated that the multiple uses, therefore multiple signage, in a building or street frontage under one ownership is great concern to him. He stated that it appears to him that the allowable signage could increase by three times for the same frontage . He reiter- ated the suggestion that staff needs to calculate the actual allowable sign area. Ms. Dannemil- ler reiterated that this proposed Sign Code amendment has been reviewed with, and assistance provided by , a land use attorney; some of the information has been successfully used in other sign codes throughout the country . Mr. Simpson again stated that staff will address commission concerns, and further review the proposed sign code, particularly as it applies to increased allowable signage. Mr. Welker discussed his concern with uses , such as Hollywood Video, wherein the entire building is a "sign ". He cited another similar use on South Broadway in the vicinity of Che- nango . Ms. Dannemiller asked how the Commission wanted to proceed. She said that she would be happy to make the changes and revisit the sections of concern, and report back to the Commis- sion with another proposed ordinance if that is their desire . Discussion ensued. Mr. Welker inquired about agendas for up-coming meetings. Staff suggested the date of January 18 , 2000, if the Commission wants to continue the Hearing. Douglas moved : Rininger seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #ORD-99-04 be continued to January 18 , 2000. AYES : NAYS: Douglas, Rininger, Weber , Willis, Welker None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Hayduk, Lathram, Ransick, Stockwell The motion carried. IV. PUBLIC FORUM No one addressed the Commission. v . DIRECTOR'S CHOICE 5 • • • Mr. Simpson provided members with an update on CityCenter Englewood, noting that a con- tract has been signed with Miller-Weingarten for retail development, and City Council ap- proved a tenant list on December 6m, which list includes businesses such as Bennigan's, Pea- berry Coffee, Ruby Tuesday, Border's Books, Office Depot, and Halley's Health Center. Miller-Weingarten will continue searching for additional, high quality tenants . Negotiations with Legacy for housing development on the site have broken off, and negotiations are now going forward with Trammell Crow Residential. Trammell Crow will commit to construction of the residential/retail mix, and propose 500 residential units to the north of Englewood Parkway as it extends through the site. Trammell Crow will also commit to closing on the site in February, 2000, and will commit to a purchase price of $5,000,000 . Negotiations with Wal-Mart were successfully concluded and they closed on acquisition of the land for their de- velopment on November 23rd. Wal-Mart will be a 134,000 square foot building, with ground- breaking scheduled for January, 2000, and grand opening scheduled for August 15, 2000. The agreement with the Museum of Outdoor Art has also been approved by City Council, and has closed. MOA will occupy 7,000 square feet of area on the second floor of the Civic Center , and will provide programs , art exhibitions and educational programs for youngsters as well as adults. MOA will bring in excess of $1,000,000 worth of outdoor sculpture to Englewood . Staff is continuing to work on the shuttle program which has been financed by way of a Smart Growth grant received by the City . RTD is scheduled to open the light rail line in July , 2000. The RailVolution Conference will be in Denver in the Fall of 2000, and is being sponsored by RTD and the City of Denver. Englewood personnel will be very involved in providing assis- tance for this conference, also, and we anticipate that the CityCenter transit oriented develop- ment will be a strong feature for the conference attendees . The South Broadway project is continuing; underground of utility lines is progressing between Tufts and Mansfield Avenues. This entails new light poles, and new lighting fixtures; the area will be much brighter for those driving Broadway at night at the conclusion of this effort. The Commercial Catalyst program has provided assistance through fund leverage for improvements to signage, facades, and site improvement for 16 Broadway businesses. Widening of South Broadway from the downtown area north to Yale will begin in 2000; during this period of time there will be traffic "calming" devices such as "bulb-outs" constructed at intersections ; new street furniture, and landscaping will be installed as part of the overall improvement program. In conjunction with the South Broadway Action Plan and improvement, we are concentrating on the City "image", and entry-port monumentation and district signage will be developed and installed . The City is continuing to work on possible redevelopment of the General Iron Works site, and have been working with RTD regarding partial use of the site versus use of the total site. Staff is also working on the Santa Fe/Platte River corridor, and updating the Comprehensive Plan. Staff hopes to have a draft overlay of the Santa Fe/Platte River corridor prepared for presentation to the Commission in the very near future. The Santa Fe/Platte River corridor efforts can lead to improved cooperation with Littleton, Sheridan, Denver, and Arapahoe County on development throughout this important corridor . 6 • • • Staff is also working on revisions to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. These amend- ments will be coming to the Com.mission during 2000. Mr. Simpson reminded Commission members of the Holiday Dinner scheduled for December 16, at Q's Tee II Green . Mr. Willis asked about a theater in the CityCenter site. Mr. Simpson stated that the theater market has gone "soft"; theaters have gone to multi-screen complexes, stadium seating and other amenities, all of which have increased costs for the theater companies. Some of the theater companies (Mann, for example) have gone bankrupt. Other theater companies have been contacted, among them Edwards, Cineplex, Loews, Sony and others -none of them are interested in a theater in Englewood at this time . Also, they would need six to eight acres for a theater development; this acreage is no longer available in the CityCenter development. Mr . Simpson stated that the City had been negotiating with Mann, and when that company went bankrupt it did impact the City 's financing. But, financial issues have been worked through, the development of the site has been reconfigured, and the integrity of the proposed develop- ment remains. VI. ATTORNEY'S CHOICE Ms. Reid discussed zoning enforcement, noting that there is one zoning enforcement officer to cover the entire City. This individual enforces on a "complaint" basis, therefore, if members of the Commission have an issue -signage, or use, to notify the zoning enforcement officer. Ms . Reid stated that she brings this up in response to an inquiry from a Commission member regarding the "Penetrations" Tattoo parlor. The zoning enforcement officer contacted the business, and the offending signage has been removed. Mr. Welker discussed the corner of U.S. 285 and South Clarkson; there is a sign for the medi- cal office building on the southwest corner of the intersection that is in the sight-triangle and he expressed concern that someone could be hidden by that sign and struck by a vehicle turning right onto Clarkson. VII. COMMISSIONER'S CHOICE No one brought anything up for discussion. The meeting adjourned. iukh Ld-u-i~ d'ertrude G. Welty, Recording Seer~ f:\dept\nbd\group\boards\plancomm\minutes 1999\pcm I 2-99a.doc 7