Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1973-08-14 PZC MINUTESPage 1584 I. CALL TO ORDER. CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 14, 1973 Special Meeting The Special Meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 8:00 P.M. by Chairman Lentsch. \ Members present: Martin; Jorgenson; Tanguma; Stanley; Henning; Lentsch , Supinger, Ex-officio Members absent: Brown; Weist Board of Adjustment members present: Martin; Kreiling; Leonard; Maddox Sign Code Committee members present: Tromly; Grimm; Anderson; Brelsford Staff members present: D. A. Romans, Assistant Director Barbara Young, Planning Assistant II. PROPOSED SIGN CODE CASE #31-73 Mr. Lentsch stated that the Special Meeting had been called for the purpose of reviewing the proposed Sign Code. He asked that Mr. Brelsford, Chairman of the Sign Code Committee, review the Code for the benefit of the Planning Commission and Board of Adjustment members in attendance. Mr. Brelsford stated that the Sign Code Committee was '"formed 13 months ago, and has met almost weekly since that time. He stated that he feels the Committee has drafted a "good code" and they have tried to achieve a degre~ of uniformity with the codes of other municipalities in the metro area. Mr. Brelsford stated that the Code does not permit billboards and does not provide an amortization clause. Assistant Attorney George Lee entered the meeting. Mr. Brelsford proceeded to review the proposed Sign Code section by section. Mr. Weist entered and took his chair with the Commission. Mr. Kreiling questioned the phrase "above grade" which is used throughout the Code. Discussion followed. Mr. Brelsford noted that the Committee had permitted projecting signs; however , only one side of the projecting sign is to be counted for square footage of sign area; all signs would count toward the total limitation of 80 sq. ft. in the commercial and business dis- trict. Mr. Kreiling asked about marquees? Mr. Brelsford stated that the installation of marquees was subject to the Building Code; the Sign Code Committee was only concerned with the signing on such marquees. Discussion fol~owed. Mr. Brelsford discussed the matter of enforcement that will be needed, and stated that he would like to recommend that one person be assigned to enforcement of the sign code, on at least a part-time basis. Discussion on lighting of signs was discussed. Direct illumination is limited to 25 watts per bulb. Mr. Leonard asked if the number of bulbs per sign should be limited? Discussion followed. Mr. Grimm suggested that possibly the wording should be changed to include an "incandescent bulb". Further discussion followed. The matter of "street frontage" and the number of signs that might be allowed was discussed. Mr. Brelsford stated that the restrictions for the industrial districts are very similar to those for the business districts, and pointed out the one or two changes to members. §22.5-8, Sign Area Measurement, was now considered. Mr~ Supinger stated that he did not agree with this section; it is his opinion that with all the sign area permitted in the various districts, that the provision where only one side of a multi-face sign is used for measurement purposes is unnecessary. He emphasized that there is a lot of sign area per- mitted under the provisions set forth in each district, and does not think the use of only one face of a sign is justified. Mr. Supinger stated that he would encourage the Planning Commission to reduce the area allowed in the districts or modification of this section relative to sign measurement. Mr. Supinger again stated that he felt this section "is more liberal than is necessary for adequate identification." Further discussion of sign measurement ensued; reference was made to drawings in the back of the proposed sign code booklet to illustrate types of signs and the methods of measurement. Mr. Brelsford discussed §22.5-9, Non-Conforming Signs. He noted that Denver had adopted an amortization clause which is based on cost of the sign. However, City Attorney Berardini has stated that he does not feel this can be properly defended. The proposed sign code for the City of Englewood does not have an amortization clause. Further general discussion followed. Mr. Supingei asked if every city was obligat~d to go by the recent court decision handed down by Judge Winner? Mr. Lee pointed out that that decision was a District Court case ; however, he assumes that it will be appealed, and if up- held, then the City would be obligated by that decision. Mr. Supinger referred to a statement in the "general statement" of the code which states that signs should be well-designed and compatible with their surroundings and with the buildings to which they are appurtenant. He asked if this could be taken to mean support I I I I I I Page 1585 of a design review procedure? Mr. Brelsford stated that such a procedure was discussed , and the Sign Code Committee was of two optnions on the matter part in favor, and part definitely opposed. Discussion followed. Mrs. Henning asked about garage sale signs, whether they would be prohibited or permitted, and what restrictions if permitted? Mr. Grimm stated that any sign .tacked to a telephone pole .or other public property would de f initely be prohibited. Brief . discussioh 'ensued. Mr. Lentsch expressed appreciation to the members o f . the Sign Code Committee for their hard work and devotion to their task. The meeting adjourned at 9:55 P.M. Gertrude G. Welty Recording Secretary * * * * * * * * ·* * * * * ~ * . * * * * * ·* ' * * . * * ·* * :'\' . * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * I. CALL TO ORDER. CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION August 21, 1973 The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 8:00 P. M. by Chairman Leo Lentsch. Members present: Jorgenson; Lentsch ; Stanley; Martin; Henning; Tanguma Supinger, Ex-of f icio Members absent : Brown; Weist Also present: Board of Adjustment members Maddox , Kreiling, Martin Sign Code Committee members Tromly, Brelsford, Chandler Staff members: D. A. Romans, Assistant Director B. S. Young, Planning Assistant II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. Chairman Lentsch stated that Minutes of July 17, 1973, and August 14, 1973, were to be considered for approvalo Tanguma moved: That the Minutes of July 17, 1973, and August 14, 1973, be approved as written. Mr. Martin questioned the statement in the August 14th Minutes that there was no amortization clause in the proposed Sign Code, and cited a sentence in the Code which indicates there is such a clause. Discussion followed. Mr. Supinger stated there is no amortization clause in the proposed Sign Code. Mr. Martin seconded the motion;~upon the call of the role, the motion carried. III. SIGN CODE CASE #31-73A August 14, 1973 Mr. Martin stated that he felt the proposed Sign Code is very well written; however, he felt that clarification should be made on a couple of points. Mr. Martin cited sections on the location of Ground Signs, which section states that the setback shall be 20 ft. from the boundary lines when within fifty-five feet of the intersection of two streets, a railroad right-of-way and a street, or a driveway and a street; it is his feeling that the inter- section of an "alley and a street" should be included in these sections also. Discussion followed. Mr. Weist entered and .took his chair with the Commission. Further di:scussion ensued. Mr. Chandler suggested that the word "alley" be included in this section; he noted that the definition is clear, but that this section does need further clarification. It was so determined by the Commission. Mrs. Henning asked about signs for garage signs; she stated these signs would fit into the temporary sign category, but they are not enumerated to allow them. Mr. Brelsford stated that he could not recall that the Sign Code Committee had discussed them. Mrs. Henning stated that she was referring to the "on-site" g arage sale sign, and noted that a lot o f people would be in violation of the ordinance if they were not permitted. Discussion followed. Mr. Supinger asked if the Commission wished to include on-site garage sale signs under "signs not subject to permit?" Mrs. Henning discussed Council consideration of an Ordinance pertaining to dealers of second- hand merchandise, and noted that garage sales are exempted from that proposed ordinance. Mr. Chandler stated that he lives in Denver, and noted that garage sales have become a majcr problem; a number of cities are prohibiting garage sales altogether. Mr. Chandler also dis- cussed the matter of sales tax that should be collected on these sales; he noted that it is State Law that if an item or sale yields $150, sales tax must be collected. He felt the City might be inviting trouble that other cities have experienced if garage sales are allowed. Further discussion followed. Mr. Brelsford pointed out that if the signs advertising a