Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1973-08-21 PZC MINUTESI 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 Page 1586 garage sale were not on the property of the subject garage sale, they would be third party signs which are , prohibited by the proposed Sign Code. Further discussion followed. Mr. Martin, Sr., stated that there have been garage sales in his neighborhood ; in one instance people were hauling merchandise to be sold to ·the site, and the sale lasted for five days. Mr. Martin also noted that there had been sales conducted by All Souls Church, which were set back from the street, and bothered no one. Mr. Martin, Jr. stated that he felt the City should be collecting sales tax on these sales. Mr. Supinger stated that he understood the sales tax ordinance .applied to garage sales at the present time. Further discussion followed. Mr. Martin, Sr. suggested that persons wishing to post a sign advertising a garage sale by required to buy a permit and to collect sales tax for remittance to the City. He suggested that perhaps rules on the length of time the sale could continue and other regulations could be drafted to control these sales. Discussion followed. Mrs. Henning pointed out that ·garage sales could still be held; the restriction would be that no signs advertising such sale could be posted. Mr. Tanguma stated that he felt there should be provisions in the proposed Code for posting a temporary sign advertising garage sales. Discussion followed. Mr. Chandler stated that one of the main thrusts during the past 14 months while the Sign Code has been drafted has been to "clean up the City", and that in his opinion, "home-made signs stuck everywhere is not cleaning up the City." Further discussion followed. Mr. Supinger noted that it might be appropriate to state that signs advertising garage, patio, yard sales, etc. are prohibited in all zone districts. It was the determination of the Commission to leave the wording as it now reads, and garage sales would be prohibited. The matter of political signs was then discussed. Mrs. Romans stated that Mr. Lee, Assistant City Attorney, had attempted to get information on the State provisions pertaining to political signs. Mrs. Romans stated that it is Mr. Lee's opinion that political signs should not be permitted in residential districts; they may be permitted in business and industrial dis- tricts. If political signs are on a state highway, the State provisions governing such signs would apply. Henning moved: Martin seconded: Political signs be excluded from low and high density residential districts. AYES: Jorgenson; Lentsch; Martin; Stanley; Tanguma; Weist; Henning NAYS: None ABSENT: Brown The motion carried. Mr. Weist discussed the provisions for termination of a non-con£orming sign, whereby if a sign is damaged more than 50% of its total value, or destroyed, the right to maintain such non-conforming sign shall cease. He asked the reasoning behind such a provision. Mr. Brelsford stated that this provision is, very simply, that if a non-conforming sign is destroyed or damahed more than 50% of its total value., it may not be replaced in the same way it was before the damage or destruction, but must conform to the proposed sign code. Mrs. Romly pointed out that this does not force a business with an existing non-conforming sign to remove such sign until it has been damaged or destroyed. Discussion followed. Mr. Lentsch asked if the roof sign of the First National Bank were to be destroyed or damaged more than 50% of its total value, could this sign be replaced? Mr. Brelsford stated that roof signs are prohibited; therefore, it could not be replaced as a roof sign. Additional signing might be located elsewhere on the property, however. Further discussion followed. Mr. Weist stated that he felt people would object to a "force beyond their control placing them at the disadvantage of having to replace the sign to con- form with the Code.'' Mrs. Tromly noted that if businessmen were allowed to replace a destroyed non-conforming sign with a new non-conforming sign, nothing would be gained toward the goal of compliance. Further discussion followed. Mr. Chandler noted that one of the objections to roof signs, aside from an aesthetic viewpoint, is the massive support structures required for these signs can delay or even prevent adequate fire fighting in the structure. Mr. Martin, Jr., asked how the Code would be enforced? Mr. Supinger stated the inspectors from the Code Enforcement Division would be responsible for enforcement. Mr. Tanguma asked if the proposed Code would require additional personnel? Mr. Supinger stated that it would not in the present form. Mr. Chandler noted that representatives of the Code Enforcement Division were on the Sign Code Committee, and if something was felt to be an enforcement problem, they tried to work it out. Discussion followed. Mr. Supinger stated he did not agree with everything that is in the proposed Sign Code, but he does feel it is a good point to start. He stated that he did not f£el a Code could be worth very much without some provision to get rid of non-conforming signs. He stated that he felt the City should consider some way of modifying the approach to get rid of non-conform- ing signs that would be different from the way Denver has proposed. He stated that he did not think the proposed Code would be the answer to the problem of non-conforming signs, with- out a provision for the replacement with conforming signs. Mrs. Henning asked if Mr. Supinger had any suggestions for getting rid of non-conforming signsz Mr. Supinger stated that he had suggested a blanket-time in which alL signs would have to come into conformance. Mr. Supinger discussed the Denver Sign Code provisions which were challenged and the resulting Court Decision; he stated that he felt this decision would be appealed. In his opinion, it would be "disastrous" if this decision were allowed to stand. Mrs. Henning asked if it would not be better to go along with the decision at the present time and if it is over-turned, amend the Code at that time? Mr. Supinger pointed out that the City of Littleton has a Sign Code with provisions relating to I I I I I I Page 1587 non-conforming signs that are different from the provisions in the Denver Code; the Littleton Code has not been challenged. Mr. Brelsford stated that the matter of amortization had been discussed by the Committee several times, and it was felt that this was not the answer. A standard time limit of five to seven years was also considered; however, the City Attorney stated that such a provision could not be defended. Discussion followed ~ Mr. Chandler stated that the City Attorney had indicated that a "sign was real property, and you cannot take real property from anybody unless you pay for it." He stated that the Committee could find no way around this provision. Further discussion followed. It was determined that a Public Hearing would be held on October 2, 1973, on the proposed Sign Code. It was also determined that special communications be sent to certain segments of the com- munity, such as the Chamber of Commerce, relative to the public hearing on the proposed Code. IV. SPECIAL MEETING August 27, 1973 Mr. Supinger ptated that a meeting of the City Council, Planning Commission, and Core Area Consultant has been set for Monday, August 27, 1973, 7:30 P.M. The meeting is for the purpose of considering the Core Area Design Program as recommended by the Core Area Citizens' Committee. Mr. Supinger stated that a packet of pertinent information would beddelivered to each member on Friday, August 24, 1973; each member was urged to attend this meeting if at all possible. V. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE. There was nothing to be considered under Director's Choice. VI. COMMISSION'S CHOICE. Mrs. Henning asked of Mr. Supinger if there was any information to be presented relative to the State Highway requests? Mr. Supinger stated that a notification had been received from the City Manager earlier in the day; it was impossible, however, to have information ~vailable for consideration by the Commission at this meeting. Discussion followed. Mr. Lentsch noted that he had asked for reports by Commission members on the Parks and Recreation program, and on the storm sewer project. The meeting adjourned at 9:~5 P.M. Gertrude G. Welty Recording Secretary * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *"' CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION August 27, 1973 The Special Meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairman Lentsch at 7:35 P.M. Members present: Weist; Henning; Jorgenson; Lentsch; Martin; Stanley Supinger, Ex-officio Members absent: Brown; Tanguma The City Council and Planning & Zoning Commission were meeting in joint session to consider adoption of recommended design pr.ogram as proposed by the Core Area Citizens Committee. Mr. Tanguma entered the meeting and assumed his place with the Commission. Mayor Senti gave an explanation of the purpose of the meeting, to consider the adoption of the recommended design program as proposed by the Core Area Citizens Committee, including development goals, givens and development parameters. Mr. Larry Wylie of the firm of Environmental Planning and ~esearch, gave an explanation of the Core Area study process. He pointed out on a map the boundaries of the Core Area and gave a history of the Core Area study to date. He stated that there have been 12 meetings of approximately 180 people and that the response has been fantastic. He recited to Council and to the Planning and Zoning Commission surveys which had been made in the Core Area. The Core Area Citizens Committee came .up with a set of goals and parameters as did the consultants. A joint meeting in July produced the set of goals which were up for adoption tonight. He stated that the consultants needed goals and paramete~s defined by the City in order to begin work on the plans for the Core Area. The developmental strategy as to the action of the plan would be in the final phase of the project. Mr. Paul Faberman, a consultant, appeared before the Commission and Council. He the consulting team is made up of a design half and a marketing-financial half. potential for every imaginable use hqS been investigated, measured, and tested. potential uses have been screened out for use in the Core Area. stated that The market Most of the