Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-10-03 PZC MINUTESf j • • • I. CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION October 3, 1989 CALL TO ORDER. DRAFT The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairman Tom Gerlick at 7:00 P.M. Members present: Fish, Hogue, Schultz, Tobin, Carson, Gerlick D. A. Romans, Acting Ex-officio Members absent: Becker (with prior notice) Wanush, Ex-officio Al so present: Harold J. Stitt, Planner II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES September 19, 1989 ·Chairman Gerlick stated that the Minutes of September 19, 1989 were to b~ con- sidered for approval. Carson moved: Fish seconded: The Minutes be approved as written. AYES: Hogue, Gerlick, Fish, Carson, Schultz, Tobin NAYS: . None ABSENT: Becker ABSTAIN: None The motion carried. III. SIGN CODE REVISION §16-4-19 of EMC CASE #2-89 Chairman Gerlick stated that the issue before the Commission is a Public Hear- ing on proposed revisions to the Sign Code, §16-4-19 of the Englewood Municipal Code. He asked for a motion to open the Public Hearing. (Secretary's Note: Public Notice of the Public Hearing was published in the Englewood Sentinel on September 21, 1989.) Carson moved: Schultz seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #2-89 be opened. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Schultz, Tobin, Carson, Fish, Gerlick, Hogue None Becker None The motion carried. -1 - Mr. Gerlick outlined the procedure to be followed in conducting the Public Hearing, that being that testimony from the applicant and proponents will be received, and the Commission may then ask questions; testimony will then be • received from opponents, and the Commission may again ask questions. The Com- mission may make changes or modifications in the proposed Sign Code, and will then submit a recommendation to the City Council regarding the Sign Code. Mr. Gerlick then asked the staff to make the presentation. Mr. Harold Stitt was sworn in, and testified that he is the Planner in the Department of Community Development. Mr. Stitt stated that the first Sign Code for the City of Englewood was adopted in 1973, and revised in 1982. The proposed revision is the first major revision to the Sign Code in almost nine years. In the intervening time, the staff has found in working with the Code that there are areas that are vague and interpretations are not consistent. The proposed revisions are an attempt to clear up those areas, and make chang- es that will be beneficial to the community at large. Mr. Stitt stated that one of the changes is to bring the Sign Code into compliance with the number- ing system used in the Englewood Municipal Code. When the Sign Code was en- acted the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, of which it is a part, was numbered "Ordinance 22"; when the Municipal Code was redone to include the Comprehen- sive Zoning Ordinance, it became Title 16, and all sections of that Ordinance have a "16" prefix. The numbering system throughout the Sign Code has been revised to comply with the Municipal Code. A second area of revision has been to clarify sections that have presented problems in interpretation. The revisions have been written so that the in- tent of the Code has not been changed, but is clarified. A third area of revisions are the result of meetings with community groups • such as the Chamber of Commerce, meetings with Sign Contractors, and from staff experience in working with the Code. Mr. Stitt then reviewed the proposed revisions. A major revision pointed out by Mr. Stitt is the division of the sign requirements for low-density residen- tial areas from the sign requirements for the higher-density residential dis- tricts, such as R-3 and R-4. The R-3 and R-4 districts do permit not only higher-density, but more intense type of uses such as professional offices, and a new section has been created outlining the sign code requirements for these zone districts . Joint Identification Signs are now proposed to be allowed for a group of "non- related" businesses; for example, all businesses within one block may want to take advantage of a Joint Identification Sign. The businesses need not all be under the same ownership. There is also a change in calculation of sign area for ground signs. Both sides (sign faces) of a ground sign are now calculated for total sign area. As now proposed, the area of only one side (sign face) would be used in the calculation of the total sign area. Mr. Stitt stated that this covers the major categories of change proposed in the Sign Code. · Mr. Gerlick stated that members of the Commission had received the staff re-• port, and asked if there were questions from the Commission of Mr. Stitt. -2 - • • • Mr. Fish stated that it appeared that the low-density residential districts will not be allowed to have suspended or projecting signs. Mr. Stitt stated that suspended signs identifying a household by giving the surname of the residents, or giving the street numbers, will not be regulated by the Sign Code. The projecting signs and suspended signs are not applicable to residen- tial "uses". Ms. Tobin asked if the "grandfather" clause would be eliminated, or would it still pertain to those signs that are in place at this time. Will the provi- sions in this Sign Code apply only to signs that are installed after the Coun- cil enacts it. Ms. Tobin further asked if someone had a ground sign with three faces, would the staff still count only one face in determining the amount of signage allowed. Mr. Stitt stated that the grandfather clause is not being eliminated, and that only one sign face would be counted in cal- culating total signage. Mrs. Romans stated that the Sign Code will still contain the section on Non- conforming Signs. Mrs. Romans further stated that, in her opinion, very few signs will become nonconforming as a result of the enactment of the new reg- ulations. Mr. Stitt estimated that there are less than 12 nonconforming signs in existence at the present time, and stated that attrition has affected the number of nonconforming signs. Mr. Schultz asked if the staff had checked with adjoining municipalities to determine how the proposed Sign Code stacks up as far as being restrictive. Mr. Stitt stated that Littleton is in the process of revising their Sign Code, which has been more restrictive than Englewood's Code. Denver provisions are . more liberal; Aurora is much more restrictive, and Lakewood is 50/50 . Mr. Stitt stated that there is one additional modification that he would sug- gest, which is on page 5, §16-4-19-4, Permit for Group Signs. This wording would be: Persons submitting a plan for a All SIGNAGE fol'-' a gY-'BtJfJ of signs which aJ'-'e IS designed as an integral part of a new OR EXISTING Planned Bevelepment BY-' a single development occupying no less than 24,000 square feet of lot area, may be granted a 25% increase in number of signs or maxi mum square foot area subject to the approval of the Director of the Department. Mr. Fish asked the meaning of the word "appurtenant", which was used on Page 2 of the ordinance. He questioned whether this is an actual word, and stated that he could not find this word in his dictionary. Ms. Tobin stated that she could not find the word in her dictionary either, and advised staff that when writing ordinances, words must be used that can be readily understood by the general public. She questioned that this has been achieved in the proposed Sign Code. Mr. Fish pointed out a grammatical problem on Page 4, C. Mr. Stitt agreed that the wording of the paragraph needs to be revised. Mr. Fish requested clarification of Page 17, §§6, regarding short-term window advertising, which clarification Mr. Stitt provided. Mr. Gerl ick asked if other members of the audience wished to address the Commission . Mr. Bob Marx was sworn in, and testified that he is appearing as a representa- tive of the Greater Englewood Chamber of Commerce. The Chamber would like to -3 - thank Mrs. Romans and Mr. Stitt for involving them early on in the process of the Sign Code revision. The Chamber feels that the revisions as before the Commission are pretty much in final form, and the Commission should recommend • the revisions be enacted by the City Council. Mr. Hugh Fowler was sworn in and stated that he would agree with the Chamber's reconmendation. He stated that anything to help business in Englewood should be approved. Mr. Fowl er asked about group signs; is it the intent of this revision to allow group signage like that for Silo and Rocky Rocco on U.S. 285. Mr. Stitt stated that it is the intent of the Code to permit group signs like the one used by Silo and Rocky Rocco. Mr. Phil Grimm was sworn in, and testified that he is representing Rocky Moun- tain Sign Association. They are very happy with the job the staff has done on the Code, and recommended approval. Mrs. Romans pointed out that Mr. Grimm was an active member of the Task Force that drafted the original Sign Code back in the early 1970's. She thanked Mr. Grimm for his continued participation and interest in the Sign Code in the City of Englewood. Mr. Gerlick asked if anyone else wished to speak. No one else addressed the Commission either in favor of or opposition to the proposed Sign Code. Carson moved: Fish seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #2-89 be closed. AYES: . NAYS: Tobin, Carson, Fish, Gerlick, Hogue, Schultz None ABSENT: Becker ABSTAIN: None The motion carried. Mr. Gerlick asked the pleasure of the Commission. Mr. Fish pointed out that there are some revisions that need to be made to the proposed Sign Code, and suggested that the document be brought back to the Commission after those revisions are made. Discussion ensued. It was the consensus of the Commission that a recommendation for approval could be made this evening, and the staff would make the revisions prior to submission to City Council. Carson moved: Tobin seconded: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Carson, Fish Becker None The Planning Commission recommend to City Council that the revisions to the Sign Code be approved and adopted. Gerlick, Hogue, Schultz, Tobin The motion carried. • Mr. Schultz discussed his concern with the signage around the Ponderosa Res-• taurant in the Englewood Market Place. He asked if this proposed Sign Code -4 - .. • • • would better regulate signage to eliminate the "cluttered" appearance. He asked if there was anything that could be done at this time to require the three signs be combined on one structure. Mr. Stitt stated that the signs to which Mr. Schultz was referring were installed in compliance with the current Sign Code. Mr. Stitt further pointed out that the Ponderosa Restaurant, Pier I, and Checker Auto Parts are on their own "pads" in the Market Place, and are not under the control of Tranunell Crow, the developer. Further discussion ensued. Upon questioning, Mr. Stitt stated that even under the revised Sign Code, the same signage could be requested and approved. Mr. Stitt stated that in a Planned Development, a sign package would be part of the Pl an. Mr. Schultz stated that he would like to require that the placement of signs for all businesses in a development such as the Market Place be on one sign. Mr. Stitt stated sign plans would be requested on all new major developments. Mrs. Romans stated that another problem area has been "The Marks" anci 11 ary services; the staff understood that there were to be several small accessory shops for the tenants of the development, and the total signage allowed was figured on the basis of the area of those small units; however, the developer leased a major portion of the accessory area to Blockbuster Video, and the resulting signage is not in keeping with the intent of the ordinance, even though it technically complies. Brief discussion ensued. Mr. Gerlick stated that staff will make the revisions to the Code as discussed at the meeting, and refer the Sign Code on to City Council. IV. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. Mr. Gerlick stated that Mr. Wanush has provided the Commission with an outline of the Plan to follow in their revisions. He asked that the Commission study the outline, and be prepared for further discussion at the next meeting. V. PUBLIC FORUM. There was no one present who wanted to address the Commission. VI. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE. Mrs. Romans stated that the election for City Council positions is scheduled for November 7, which is the regular meeting date for the first meeting of the Commission in November. She asked if the Commission wanted to meet on Novem- ber 14 in lieu of the November 7 date. Mrs. Romans stated that there is a Subdivision Plat that will be coming before the Commission for consideration. Discussion ensued. The Commission determined to consider the Subdivision Plat on October 24; the regular meeting dates of October 17 and November 7 will be canceled. VII. COMMISSIONER'S CHOICE. Mr. Gerlick asked Ms. Tobin for an update on the Housing Task Force. Ms. To- bin stated that she had discussed with Mayor VanDyke the conflict of meeting dates scheduled by the Housing Task Force with those of Council representa- tives. She stated that Mayor VanDyke had suggested that generally the last Monday of the month was open for Council members, and that perhaps something could be worked out on that basis. Ms. Tobin stated that she had discussed the possibility of changing the meeting night with members of the Task Force, and pointed out that attendance has been very poor at the meetings recently, -5 - but those in attendance indicated they would check to determine if another evening would be convenient for them. She stated that she felt the Task Force is progressing, and hoped to have written documents by the end of the year. Mr. Fish suggested the possibility of a special meeting of the Task Force to "inform" City Council, and that they not be included as a part of the Task Force on an on-going basis. Mr. Gerlick stated that City Council members have indicated a desire to e a part of the Task Force on a permanent basis, not just for an "informational" session. He suggested that Ms. Tobin follow through with checking with the membership to determine whether another evening is convenient for the majority of the membership. Mr. Fish stated that he had reviewed a 1969 edition of the Comprehensive Plan, which was done in small brochure format for each topic. He found this format to be excellent, attractive, and informational. Mr. Schultz reported on a Waste Management Task Force meeting which he had attended just prior to the Planning Commission meeting this evening. Four City Council members are participating in this Task Force, as are Mrs. Becker and himself from the Planning Commission. He stated that the City Council already has a considerable amount of information on Waste Management, and want to move forward on this issue very rapidly. They also want the Waste Manage- ment issue to be addressed and be a part of the revised Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Hogue inquired about the construction and excavation at U.S. 285 and South Santa Fe. Mr. Carson and Mr. Schultz discussed the improvements that are taking place with the railroad tracks and replacement of the trestle to accom- modate both tracks. There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was declared adjourned at 8:10 P.M. Recording Secretary -6 - .. ' • • •