Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-02-22 PZC MINUTESf • • CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 22, 1989 I. CALL TO ORDER. The regular meeting of the City of Englewood Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:00 P.M. by Chairman Volkema . Members present: Members absent: Members Late: Also present: Barber, Carson, Draper, Fish, Gerlick, Schultz, Tobin, Volkema Wanush, Ex-officio Becker Dorothy A. Romans, Assistant Di rector of Community Development Patricia H. Crow, City Clerk Harold Stitt, Planner II Susan Hirsch, Senior Planner Rick DeWitt, City Attorney Chairman Vo 1 kema stated that a quorum of the Cammi ss ion was present. Mrs. Becker has stated that she will be at this meeting, and that City Clerk Crow is present to swear Mrs. Becker in upon her arrival. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. February 7, 1989 Chairman Volkema stated that the Minutes of February 7, 1989 were to be con- sidered for approva 1. New co pi es of the Minutes have been submitted to the members, which new copies have been changed to reflect the members who were in attendance at the time the meeting was called to order. Fish moved: Carson seconded: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Carson, None Becker None The Minutes of February 7, 1989 be approved as written. Draper, Fish, Gerlick, Schultz, Tobin, Volkema, Barber Chairman Volkema ruled the motion carried, and the Minutes stand approved. * * * * * * * * * * Mrs. Becker entered the meeting, and was sworn in by City Clerk Patricia Crow. Mrs. Becker then took her seat with the members of the Commission . * * * * * * * * * * -1 - III. COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE §16-4-16 Flood Plain District CASE #1-89 Chairman Volkema stated that the matter before the Planning Commission is con- sideration of proposed amendments to §16-4-16, Flood Plain District. Carson moved: Fish seconded: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Carson, Becker None None None The Public Hearing on Case #1-89 be opened. Draper, Fi sh, Gerl i ck, Schultz, Tobin, Volkema, The motion carried. Barber, Chairman Volkema stated that Public Notice of the Public Hearing was published in the Englewood Sentinel on February 8, 1989. Mr. Volkema stated that Mr. Harold Stitt will make the presentation on the changes proposed in the Flood Plain District. Mr. Stitt was sworn in, and presented Commission members with copies of maps prepared by Sellards and Grigg, which depict areas within the corporate limits of the City which are subject to flooding. Mr. Stitt stated that the staff was contacted by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in October of ' • 1988 regarding changes in the federal regulations on Flood Plain Insurance. a Any community that has Flood Plain Insurance must have a Flood Plain Or-W dinance, and this ordinance must be in compliance with the federal regula- tions . The staff has incorporated these changes mandated by FEMA, and have also made some "housekeeping" changes to the Ordinance which is before the Commission at this time . Mr. Stitt stated that a listing of sections which will be changed is a part of the staff report, and that a revised copy of the Flood Plain Ordinance as it is proposed to be amended is also attached. Mr. Stitt pointed out that the copy of the Flood Plain Ordinance indicates sec- tions that are to be removed by italicized words, and additions to the or- dinance are in the capital case. Mr. Stitt referenced a map displayed for the Commission, noting areas which are recognized by FEMA as eligible for Flood Plain Insurance. The Flood Plain regulations will be applied by staff to other areas which are subject to flooding as shown on the map presented to the Commission, which map is referenced in the Ordinance. While these areas may not be eligible for flood hazard insurance, the application of the flood plain regulations will provide a means to require flood proofing of structures when new construction or remodeling may occur. The proposed Ordinance was reviewed. Mr. Fish questioned the term "Thalweg", and asked for definition . Mr. Stitt read the following definition from the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance: "Thalweg --The middle line of a channel or waterway. 11 Mr. Fish asked if there were major substantive changes proposed in the Flood Plain regulations. Mr. Stitt cited changes that may effect construction in flood hazard areas. These changes have been mandated by FEMA. ~ -2 - • • • Discussion ensued on the areas recognized by FEMA as flood hazard areas eligible for flood insurance, vs. other areas of the City which are subject to periodic flooding, which are not recognized by FEMA. Mr. Volkema asked if there were further questions from members of the Commis- sion. Mr. Volkema also noted that there were no members of the public present to address the Commission on the flood plain issue. Becker moved: Gerlick seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #1-89 be closed. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Draper, Carson None None None Fi sh, Gerl i ck, Schultz, Tobin, Volkema, Barber, Becker, The motion carried. Mr. Volkema stated that it is his opinion that the members of the Commission now have the right to discuss the matter among themselves if they so wish. Mr. Volkema asked that the City Attorney render an opinion on the ability of the Commission to have discussion after the closing of a Public Hearing. Mrs. Becker stated that it is her opinion this is the proper procedure to fol- low --to elicit input from the public during the course of the Hearing, and to then have discussion by members of the Commission following closure of the Hearing. Mr. Fish pointed out that at the meeting of December 13, a motion was not made to close the Hearing; it was declared closed by the Chairman, and a motion for approval was made immediately following that ruling. Mr. Fi sh stated that he does not question the right of the Commission members to dis- cuss an issue prior to making a motion on the issue. Mr . Volkema stated that he does feel that even after a motion is made and seconded on determination of a matter, that the Commission still has the option for further discussion be- fore the vote is called. He asked for a City Attorney's ruling on this inter- pretation, also. Mr. DeWitt stated that if there is a motion on the floor, a member of the Com- mission can speak to that motion. Mr. DeWitt stated that "after the vote is taken, the door is closed" and the issue should not be further discussed. Mr. DeWitt stated that he understood there had been a request for additional tes- timony following the closing of the Hearing on December 13. Mr. Volkema asked if the Commission could ask questions of staff members following the closure of a Hearing. Mr. DeWitt stated that this can be done if there are specific questions of staff, but suggested that the Commission should attempt to get all questions posed during the time the Hearing is open. Mr. Volkema asked for a motion from the Commission on the proposed amendment of the Flood Plain District. Carson moved: Draper seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council that tha proposed amendments to §16-4-16, Flood Plain District, be approved and adopted . -3 - Mrs. Becker stated that FEMA has mandated and approved the proposed amendments • to the Flood Plain District. Mr. Gerlick asked if the areas shown as possible flood prone areas were re- cently so designated. Mr. Stitt stated that these areas were designated as subject to flooding in a January, 1971 study done by Sellards and Grigg, Inc. Mr. Gerlick asked if the designation of these areas as flood hazard areas could have an affect on the property values. Mr. Stitt acknowledged that this is a possibility. Mrs. Tobin asked who made inquiries on whether properties are subject to flooding, and is it a routine occurrence. Mr. Stitt stated that inquiries are usually made by mortgage companies or banks, and the staff can only state whether the property is shown on the map as being in a flood hazard or flood plain area. Mr. Stitt stated that the inquiries are not routine. The vote was called on the motion: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Fish, Gerlick, Draper None None None Schultz, Tobin, Volkema, The motion carried. IV. COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE §16-4-19 Sign Code Barber, Becker, Carson, CASE #2-89 Ms . Hirsch stated that the staff is looking at the possibility of rewriting and revising the Sign Code, §16-4-19 of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. She stated that several areas of concern have been i dent i fi ed by staff as being in need of clarification and or revision. The issue of "Group Signs" was discussed. Ms. Hirsch stated that a 25% bonus in sign area and number of signs may be allowed by staff upon the presentation of a a sign package by a developer . However, the term "group" is vague to Ms. Hirsch, and she cited instances wherein a plan encompassing two signs has been interpreted to be a "group" and the bonus granted even though there are other business spaces in the development which will be leased and for which signage will be requested. Ms. Hirsch stated that she is of the opinion that this provision needs further clarification and more definition on what a "sign package" or "group" encompasses, and criteria expected from the applicant should be spelled out. There should be, stated Ms. Hirsch, some "trade off" if an applicant expects to receive the bonus on signage. Mrs. Romans stated that the intent of the "group sign" bonus was to cover situations such as the Swedish Medical Center Planned Development signage, or a residential development such as The Marks which was also developed under a Planned Development. Mrs. Romans stated that in her opinion, two signs do not constitute a "group". The bonus was to apply to a total development and not a piece-meal application. · • Ms. Hirsch stated that the applicants that bring in applications for two signs • and ask for the bonus provision are "trying to take advantage" of the provi- sion, and are giving nothing in return. She reiterated her opinion that there is further need to more cl early define requirements and expectations for -4 - t • "group signs". Discussion ensued. Mr. Barber asked if the intent is to regu- late aesthetics, or control the signage . Ms. Hirsch stated that by asking f or a sign package, the intent would be to assure conformance on placement of signs, and encourage harmony in the design, as well as to know the overall signage needs of a develop ment. Mr. Gerl ick asked what Ms. Hirsch expected to get in a "trade off" for the bonus provision. He suggested that possibly the bonus provision should not be given if the request is only for two signs. Ms. Hirsch stated that the bonus provision was to be an incentive for submission of a sign package, and the city is not getting the "package" on sign requests. Mr. Fish asked why Ms. Hirsch felt that Phar-Mor Plaza, which she had cited, was "trying to take advantage." Is Ms. Hirsch's concern the number of signs. Ms. Hirsch stated that the co ncern is not just to the number of signs, but to the overall appearance of a development. Mr. Gerlick asked why signage needs and uniformity criteria could not be ap- plied to vacant areas that are not yet leased, for instance. Ms. Hirsch st at ed that criteria could be applied to vacant areas provided the criteria is pre sented in a "package". Ms. Becker stated that it appears some "entity" should be in charge of -the application for signage--an individual or name should be identified for the staff to work with and to make sure that the s i gnage needs and criteria get back to prospective tenants or lessees of a development. Mr. Schultz asked about particular business logos; can these be included in the sign criteria for a particular development. Ms. Hirsch stated that if the size and location of placement on the building are acceptable, a business logo could be incorporated into the sign package. Mr. Fish suggested that criteria for Group Signs should include the submission of a total sign plan fo r the site to be developed, and t here should be sig- nificant development on the total site. Use of the word "gro up" was discussed. Ms. Hirsch suggested the use of "sign package" would be bet ter than the use of the word "group", and that the sign package should define the area the package will encompass. Signs requiring yearly registration were then discussed. These include real estate signs and cont ra ctor signs. Ms. Hirsch suggested that possibly reg- istration of this type of sign should be related to the zone di s trict in which they are placed, rather than the "use", such as "contractor" signs. Or, as an alternative, this section could be eliminated and the signs included under the listing of signs not requiring permits . Ms. Hirsch stated that she did not feel anything is gained by the City by requiring registration of these signs . Mr. Volkema suggested that the Commission recess and reconvene in the Communi- ty Room for the remainder of the qiscussion. There was further discussion on real estate signs. Ms. Hirsch cited a leasing sign on a single-family house which house was allowed by the Board of Adjust- ment and Appeals to be used for office purposes. This sign is the maximum -5 - allowed, and is lighted. Mr. Barber asked who was in charge of sign code en- forcement. Ms. Hirsch stated that the Zoning Enforcement Officer is in charge • of enforcement, and that enforcement is on a complaint basis 75% of the time. Mr. Fish asked if there were other instances where "use" should not be the criteria used to allow real estate or contractor signs. Mrs. Romans stated that in her opinion the signs should meet the criteria of the zone districts in which the use is located --such as on the leasing sign alluded to earlier; the criteria should meet the requirements for a residential zone district, not for a commercial use that was permitted by the Board of Adjustment. Mr. Volkema suggested that relating the signage to the zone district would be the way to proceed. Prohibited Signs were then discussed. Ms. Hirsch stated that banners are per- mitted in one section of the Code, and prohibited in another section. She suggested that there should be consistency in whatever is determined. Mr. Draper stated that banners are "temporary signs". Ms. Hirsch agreed and stated that banners are frequently used for short-term advertising. Mr. Barber observed that businessmen are aware of the restrictions on banners, pennants, and other prohibited forms of signage during the work week, but-on weekends when no enforcement officers are on duty they put up the banners, pennants, etc. Ms. Tobin inquired about hot air balloons that are frequently used in adver- tising. Is there anything in the Sign Code which would govern the use of this type of advertising. Mr. Volkema asked about the use of search lights in connection with advertis- ing a business 1 ocat ion. Mrs. Romans stated that search 1 i ghts are pro- hibited, and cited conflicts with traffic controls. The use of banners and pennants was further considered. Mr. DeWitt pointed out that the Ordinance allows short-term advertising signs for no longer than two-week periods. Discussion ensued. Mr. Fi sh suggested that perhaps a stipulation could be included in the ordinance that would limit the use of short-term advertising signs by any given business to a specific number of times per year. This would eliminate the use of the signs for two weeks, taking them down for a day or two, and putting them up again. Third Party Signs were then discussed. Ms. Hirsch stated that two third party signs have been recently installed in the street medians, one for Phar-Mor Plaza and the other for the Buyer's Club/Home Club deve 1 opment. Ms. Hi rs ch stated that she understood there was some interest in expanding the Sign Code to allow installation of third party signs. She suggested perhaps this type of sign should be allowed as a Conditional Use in B-2, I-1 and I-2 Zones. Or, perhaps a special "sign zone'' should be allowed along major thoroughfares such as U.S. 285 where third party signs could be installed. Ms. Becker stated that she would be opposed to allowing third party signs, and personally does not like the Phar-Mor Plaza sign. Mr. Carson asked if the City could be sued by someone wanting to install an- other third party sign and the application was denied. Mr. DeWitt stated that -6 - • • the Phar-Mor Plaza sign is termed a "directional" or "informational" sign. Mr. DeWitt also stated that City Council has not stated that they wanted third party signs permitted. Discussion ensued. Mr. Volkema asked why the Commis- sion would want to consider permitting third party signs. Mr. Fish suggested that possibly criteria for installation of a third party sign could be written so strictly that applicants wouldn't want to proceed with installation. Mr. Barber suggested that signs such as the Phar-Mor Plaza sign direct traffic to developments that are off the "beaten path", and possibly they could be considered as part of a "group" or sign package. Mr. Volkema stated that we do want to encourage business. He asked if the Commission wanted to ask staff to work on third party signs for directional purposes. Mr. DeWitt stated that City Council would want to review this also. Mr. Volkema asked that this be brought back for further discussion. Ms. Hirsch discussed the need for criteria for signs in the R-3 and R-4 Zone Districts separate and distinct from criteria for signs in more restrictive residential zone districts. Ms. Hirsch pointed out that the R-3 and R-4 Zone Districts permit office s and uses that are more intense than the strict residential usage, and controls fo r signage sho ul d be amended accordingly. Members of the Commiss i on felt it would be proper to have signage controls for R-1 and R-2 Zone Districts separate from the controls for R-3 and R-4 Zone Districts. The issue of Abandoned Signs was discussed. Ms. Hirsch stated that when a business is no longer in operation, and if the businessman or owner of the sign does remove the sign face, we are left with the empty frame and wiring, which can be very un sightly and dangerous. Discussion ensued. Mrs. Romans noted that she had seen some signs on businesses no longer in operation where the sign was covered by a canvas bag or other means. Ms. Tobin suggested that the s ig n face just state "closed". Mr. Fish stated that he felt sign owners should be given the option of painting the name of the business out, or cover- ing the sign. The consensus of the Commission was that the abandoned signs should be painted out, covered, or removed. Ground vs. Pole signs were discussed. Ms. Hirsch stated she felt there is a need for clarification of the definitions for Ground Sign and Pole Sign. Electrical signs were addressed. Ms. Hirsch stated that a form of sign that is not addressed is the "lighted changeable message" sign that has become popular. She stated that there have been inquiries as to whether a sign of that type would be permitted in Englewood. Mr. Draper stated that he is of the opinion that this type of sign is a hazard. Ms. Becker agreed and stated that signs of this type should be included in the Prohibited list. Mr. Volke- ma suggested that if Englewood decides to prohibit this type of sign, but they are permitted in other jurisdictions, it might cause a problem. Mr. Barber suggested that if this type of sign is allowed, one could get into the "anima- tion" of signs very easily. Ms. Hirsch suggested that if the Commission determines to allow them, perhaps criteria co ul d be written setting forth the timing on the message changes. Mr. Draper urged that this type of sign be limited to time and temperature only. Mr. Volkema su ggested that the staff check with Littleton to see what restrictions they have, and noted that the City must consider the signage with respect to the needs of businesses. Mr. DeWitt stated that he understood the changeable message sign was allowed for the RiverFront development in Littleton, and now other businesses have asked for and gotten permission for the same type of sign. -7 - The use of flags as signage was discussed. Mrs. Becker suggested that the use of the flags, particularly of some sizes, are "signs" and not for patriotic • purposes. Discussion ensued. Mr. DeWitt stated that the Federa 1 Government does have regulations governing the use of flags. Mr. DeWitt also cautioned that restricting the use of flags because of an interpretation that they are "signs" could infringe on "freedom of speech". The condition of some of the flags was discussed, as were the facts that the flags are not removed at sun- down and are left out in the elements. Mr. Volkema suggested that more research needs to be done on the issue of Flags. The total issue on Sign Code revision is to be brought back to the Commission for further discussion prior to Public Hearing. V. ATTENDANCE GUIDELINES Mr. Volkema stated that a record of attendance for Commission members is sub- mitted to City Council. He stated that the Commission should see this infor- mation prior to its submission to Council. Mr. Volkema suggested that attendance guidelines should include notification to the Department of Community Development by a member when they are aware of a pending absence. He al so suggested that if a member is absent three con- secutive meetings with no notification, that a communication would be sent_to the City Council recommending replacement. Ms. Becker suggested that perhaps a member could be placed on "probation" for a time to see if attendance could be improved prior to replacement. Mr. Fish stated that he is aware that in Loveland if a member misses three consecutive meetings they are removed from the Commission. Mr. Draper stated that being a member of the Commission is a responsibility; the members applied for membership on the Commission, and the members should make an effort to attend the meetings. He would agree that three meetings missed should be cause for removal. Mrs. Becker suggested that consistent sporadic absences may cause as many problems as consecutive absen- ces. Mrs. Becker also pointed out that there may be extenuating circumstances that must be taken into consideration. Mrs. Becker stated that she also felt that "offenders" should have the opportunity to appeal to City Council before dismissal. Further discussion ensued. Mr. Barber suggested that initial notification of absence should be by tele- phone to the office, but that perhaps a written statement should also be sub- mitted which can in turn be submitted to City Council. It was also suggested that when the Recording Secretary calls the roll, it can be noted whether a member who is absent is absent with or without prior notice. Ms. Tobin pointed out that on occasion the Commission has special meetings, or meets on nights other than the regular meeting night, such as on Wednesday following Monday Holidays. Members may have other activities already scheduled which would preclude attendance at the Commission meeting. The consensus of the Commission was that absence from four consecutive meet- ings with prior notice or three consecutive meetings without prior notice is grounds for communication from the Commission to City Council. Members shall • also attend at least 75% of the meetings on a yearly basis. The Recording Secretary shall announce, at the time of initial Roll Call, whether an absence is with prior notice or without prior notice. -8 - • Mrs. Becker asked if the Commission could receive a calendar of the City Holi- days so that members may know when to pl an to meet on Wednesday evenings rather than the customary Tuesday evening. Mr. Volkema stated that he wanted new membership rosters and a calendar as Mrs. Becker has suggested. Mrs. Ro- mans stated that the City Manager's Office is working on updating the member- ship roster , and it will be available in the not-too-distant future. VI. WOOD BURNING BAN Mrs. Romans submitted to Commission members copies of the existing Resolution #31, Series of 1987, which urges voluntary compliance of no driv i ng and/or no wood burning on high pollution days. City Attorney DeWitt stated that the City Council wants to have a plan devised within this next year to follow during the high pollution season. A copy of a draft ordinance was included in the packet. A method whereby citizens of En- glewood can be notified of or confirm high pollution days must be devised, as well as rules for enforcement. Mr. Volkema suggested that members review both the existing regulations and the proposed ordinance, and be prepared for further discussion at the next meeting. Mrs. Becker stated that she and her husband burn wood during the winter months, and that while they do rely on wood burning , they also believe in and support the environmental concerns. Mrs. Becker stated that there must be a central source where Englewood citizens can call to verify high pollution days for this community. Ms. Tobin stated that a number of elderly people rely on wood for the mai n source of heat, particularly if they have access to free wood. VII. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE. Swedish Medical Center. Mr. Volkema stated that the Planned Development for Swedish Medical Center has been remanded back to the Planning Commission by City Council. Mrs. Rom ans stated that attorneys for Swedish Medical Center and for Mr. and Mrs. Dunn have agreed to begin the process anew, and suggested that a Public Hearing could be set for March 21. The entire request for Planned Development approval and approval of vacation of a portion of South Pennsylvania Street and of the South Pennsylvania/South Logan alley is to begin again. Discussion ensued. Carson moved: Draper seconded: The Planning Commission schedule a Public Hearing on March 21, 1989 to consider a request from Swedish Medical Center for approval of a Planned Development, the vacation of a portion of the .3400 block of South Pennsylvania Street, and the vacation of a portion of the 3400 block of the South Pennsylvania/South Logan alley. The property is to be properly posted not less than 15 days prior to the date of Hearing, and Public Notice shall be published in the Engle- wood Sentinel. -9 - AYES: Gerl i ck, Fish None None None Schultz, Tobin, Volkema, Barber, Becker, Carson, Draper, NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: The motion carried. Planning Commissioner's Handbook Mrs. Romans submitted copies of the Planning Commissioner's Handbook to the Commission for their review. Some amendments have been incorporated in this edition, and other amendments still need to be included. This is being sub- mitted for information only at this time, and will be included on future work session agendas. VIII. COMMISSIONER'S CHOICE Mr. Fi sh stated that he would not be in attendance on March 7. Mr. Barber stated that he would also be out of town on March 7. Mr. Volkema stated that he will be driving back to the City on that date, and planned to be in atten- dance at the meeting, but in the event he is not present, he designated Mr. Draper to Chair the meeting in the absence of himself and Vice-Chairman Fi~. Mrs. Becker stated that she is taking a class in Greeley on Tuesday and Thursday evenings, which class is dismissed at 5:50 P.M. She stated that she may be a few minutes late in arriving at the meetings on Tuesday nights, but does plan to attend. Mrs. Tobin expressed concern on the way the secret ballot was handled for the election of Chairman and Vice-Chairman at the previous meeting. Mr. Volkema stated that it is customary for two persons to count the ballots. The ballots are then destroyed. Mrs. Tobin stated that she did not see the destruction of the ballots, and was concerned because someone else went through the ballots following the Secretary's tallying of the votes. There being nothing further to come before the Cammi ss ion, the meeting was declared adjourned at 9:40 P.M. ~L~ Gertrude G. Welty 7 Recording Secretary -10 - •