Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1972-04-11 PZC MINUTESI I I Page 1415 MEMORANDUM TO THE ENGLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGARDING ACTION OR RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. DATE: April 4, 1972 SUBJECT: Street Name Change \ RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council that the name for the street extending from South Cherokee Street to South Elati Street, now known as West Hampden Place, be retained. Respectfully submitted, By .Order of the City Planning and Zoning Commission. Gertrude G. Welty Recording Secretary ,. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * I. CALL TO ORDER. CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Special Meeting April 11, 1972 " The Special Meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairman Lentsch at 8:00 P.M. Members present: Stanley ; Vobejda; Lentsch; Carlson; Ross; Weist; Brown; Supinger, Ex~officio Members abs~nt: Henning; Robins '. Also present:. Roma:Qs, Young I • ' . II. PROPOSED SIGN CODE 'J CASE #12-72 Assistant Director of Community Development Romans discussed attempts to restrict signs and billboards. Efforts to restrict the use of signs and billboards solely for aesthetic purposes has been found to be unconstitutional and limiting the use of land to achieve aesthetic pur- poses has been found to be be~ond the police powers of the cities. Restrictions on signs and billboards have been approved, so long as they have served the health, welfare, etc. of the public, and aesthetic considerations, if any, were secondary. In 1930, the Supreme Court of Indiana stated that there may be reasonable control over the construction and maintenance of billboards, and that it was also proper for the City to limit the size, height, location, etc. of such billboards. Mrs. Romans stated that the trend now is toward restricting matters which would off.end the sight, as well as thos.e which have sounds or odors which are offensive. . ' Mrs. Romans then discussed summarizations of the present Sign Ordinance of the City of Englewood; regulations contained within the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance and an analysis of sign ordinances of Denver, Littleton, and the Cou~cil o~ Governments Model Code. . . . Mrs. Romans presented several slides of different sign types existing in the City of Englewood. Mrs. Romans then noted that Mrs. Barbara Young, Planning Assi~tant, has been working on a sign inventory. This inventory will consist of a card for every business that has a sign, and will contain the address, name of business, owner, type of sign, location and size of sign, with space for comments and a picture of the subject sign on the back of the card. Mrs. Romans noted that with the adoption of the proposed sign code, some signs will be made non-conforming, and that this inventory will be of aid in determining such non-conformity. A land use map of the area south of Belleview Avenue along South Broadway was discussed. Mrs. Young pointed out symbols indicating ground, wall, roof, billboard, sandwich-board or arcade signs on the businesses. Mrs. Young commented that there are "almost as many signs non-conforming now as we would have if the Model Sign Code were adopted." Mrs. Romans further qiscussed th~ analysis of ordinances in Denver, Littleton, and the Council of Governments. She pointed out that conformance on restrictions in the sign code within the metropolitan area has many advantages. Mrs. Romans stated that it is proposed that the Sign Code for Englewood follow the Model Code, with adjustments written in where needed. I Mr. Carlson stated that he felt the Commission should meet with the Board of Adjustment and Appeals on this matter. Mr. Carlson also asked if the sign inventory card would in- dicate on it "how a sign became non-conforming?" The period of "amortization" was discussed. Mr. Carlson pointed out that a small business may install a sign which is, according to the schedule contained .in the analysis, to be amortized within two years. However, a large business may install a sign costing $15,000 or more, and would be amortized within five years by this schedule; he noted that these two signs might be able to be amqrtized at the same time by the fact that the larger business could more quickly recover the cost of the sign. Discussion followed. Mr. Supinger suggested setting a date, maybe 10 years hence, when all signs would have to be in conformance with the standards. Page 1416 Mr. Ross suggested that perhaps the amortization would be worked on the same basis as it would be for the I.R.S. Discussion followed. Mr. Lentsch askeq Mr. Ross to look into this matter, and report back to the Commission. Mr. Supinger stated that he felt the Commission should meet with the Chamber of Commerce Board in addition to the Board of Adjustment. Discussion followed. Mr. Supinger stated that the adoption of a new sign code is important, and should be accomplished as soon as possible. Mr. Supinger stated that he felt it was very important to meet with representa- tives of the Chamber, the sign industry, etc. while the Ordinance was being drafted. Dis- cussion followed. Mrs. Romans stated that she was prepared to start drafting the preliminary Ordinance. Dis- cussion followed. Mr. Supinger stated that he felt the representatives of the sign companies, Chamber of Commerce, etc. could participate in the development of the S~gn Code. Discussion followed. Mr. Supinger discussed architectural review, which applies to both buildings and signs. Mr. Supinger pointed out there is more involved in the "design" of a sign than area, etc. Mr. Supinger stated that an Architectural Review committee would be composed of persons that have a background in "design". Further discussion followed. It was determined that representatives of the Chamber of Commerce, the Merchant's Asso ciation, Board of Adjustment, League of Women Voters, sign companies, industrial developments, and realtors, among others, should be included in the group asked to work on the development of the Code with the staff. III. OFF-STREET PARKING STANDARDS CASE #13-72 Amending Chapter 22.5-5 of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Mrs. Romans stated that the preliminary draft of the proposed amendment of the Off-Street Parking Standards, dated April 4, 1972, has been revised as of April 11, 1972, incorporating suggestions from members of the staff and those previ o usly received from the Commission. Mrs. Romans pointed out changes in the proposed amendment, amont them a formula setting forth widths and sizes of parking stalls. The minimum width of any parking stall is pro- posed to be 9 ft. Mrs. Romans stated that she had reviewed publications from the American Society of Planning Officials on off-street parking requirements; these publications reviewed 66 separate zoning ordinances, with 85 major use categories, with 609 different parking space requirements con- tained within the 83 major categories. Mrs. Romans stated that the staff has not attempted to break the use requirements down as far as some ordinances do. Mrs. Romans pointed out sections of the proposed ordinance which had been reworded, or in which space requirements had been increased. Mrs. Romans stated that she had called the State to determine what their requirements for hospitals, nursing homes, etc. are. In stating parking requirements for churches, restaurants, etc., the present ordinance requires parking based on the square footage of "seating floor area". This provision has been re- moved, and the parking will be based on the "gross floor area." Discussion followed. Mr. Supinger pointed out that if this propo sed amendment is approved, a use will not become non-conforming if they do not meet the new parking requirements; these requirements cannot be retroactive. Mrs. Romans discussed the parking required for restaurants under the present ordinance versus that which would be required under the proposed ordinance. It is felt that the pro- posed requirements are much more realistic than the present requirements. Mrs. Romans noted that the American Society of Planning Officials studies had broken restaurant needs into four categories: (1) drive-in (McDonalds); (2) carry-out (Kentucky Fried Chicken); (3) sit- down intensive use (mid-day; and (4) sit-down low intensity use (evening). The location of off-street parking spaces, the joint use of such spaces, and the maintenance of parking areas was then considered. Mrs. Romans noted that specifications for the paving or blacktopping of parking areas have been added. Discussion followed. Mr. Lentsch stated that he felt there should be a requirement for lighting of public parking areas. Further discussion followed. Mrs. Romans noted that the matter of multi-level parking structures is not covered in this proposed amendment. Mr. Wupinger suggested that perhaps a section could be written in providing that all parking structures must be approva:i by the Commission. Further discussion followed. The meeting adjourned at 10:25 P.M. Gertrude G. Welty Recording Secretary * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** I. CALL TO ORDER. CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION May 2, 1972 Chairman Lentsch called the regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission to order at 8:00 P. M. Members present: Stanley; Lentsch; Robins; Henning; Vobejda; Brown; Ross Supinger, Ex-o fficio Members absent: Carlson; Weist Also present: Assistant Director of Community Development Romans; Public Works Director Waggoner; Fire Chief Hamilton; Captain Hartley. --- ---- -------- -- I I I