Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-12-13 PZC MINUTESI • CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION December 13, 1983 I. CALL TO ORDER. The Special Meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:00 P. M. by Chairman Marjorie L. Becker. Members present: Allen, Barbre, Becker, Carson, McBrayer, Tanguma, Venard Powers, Ex-officio Members absent: Stoel Also present: Acting Assistant Director for Planning Susan T. King Planner I Harold J. Stitt II. COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS B-1, Business Zone District B-2, Business Zone District I-1, Light Industrial Zone District I-2, General Industrial Zone District Sign Code Design Guidelines Mrs. Becker noted that copies of the proposed amendments had been sent to members for their perusal several days previous to the meeting. Mrs. Becker asked if the Commission members wanted to have an in-depth review, or if they just wanted to ask questions on matters of concern to them. It was the consensus that the Commission members would ask questions regarding matters of concern in the proposed amendments. The B-1 District was considered. Mr. Carson questioned #11 on Page 2, under the Permitted Principal Uses: Book Stores, NOT INCLUDING ADULT BOOK STORES. He stated that he thought the possibility of an Adult Book Store was zoned out anyway, and why make reference to an adult book store. Ms. Powers pointed out that the amendment to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance regarding adult uses, which was adopted approximately two years ago, is based on distance measured from given points, such as schools, churches, etc. There are some areas of the downtown area where these measurements do not apply, and an adult book store or adult use would be permitted. Therefore, it was felt that it should be addressed in the proposed B-1 Zone District amendments. Mrs. Becker asked if there were other questions on the proposed amendments to the B-1 Business District. Ms. Powers stated that she would like to comment on the proposed B-1 District regulations. These amendments to the B-1 Zone District will accommodate the redevelopment of the Downtown Area, and will replace the provisions that were previously considered in the B-DD (Business-Downtown Development) Dis- trict. The B-DD District will be dropped, and will not proceed through the Hearing process before City Council. Ms. Powers pointed out the change in the downtown redevelopment plans, noting that there will no longer be the "mall" along Girard Avenue, and the need for height restrictions along that corridor has been eliminated. The new development plan seems to fit within the parameters of the B-1 Zone District with the minor changes that have been noted. \ -2- Mr. Carson asked if a plumbing shop would actually be permitted in the ~ downtown area. Ms. Powers stated that if the plumbing shop is incidental to the retail sales room, it would be permitted. Ms. Powers emphasized that the market will dictate the uses that develop in the downtown area. Ms. Powers pointed out that residential use has been added as a permitted use to the B-1 District; residential uses have not previously been allowed in the business district. Mrs. B.ecker stated that if there were no further questions on the B-1 District, the Commission would then consider the B-2 regulations. Ms. King stated that there have been several requests to allow mini-ware- housing and storage in the B-2 District. The staff is considering allowing this as a Conditional Use; the Commission would view each application, and the applicant would be required to provide proper landscaping, loading spaces, etc. Ms. King stated that there is an application that will be coming in regarding mini-storage on property north of the Centennial Shopping Center; this development will be similar to that on Broadway at Dry Creek. Mr. Carson questioned whether the mini-warehousing/storage would not be more of an industrial use than a commercial use. Discussion ensued. Mr. McBrayer stated that he felt if it is allowed as a Conditional Use where the Commission would have a good "hard look" at the total request --not just the use -- it would be all right to allow it in the B-2 District. Mr. McBrayer emphasized that he would not want to be limited in the review of the application in any way. Ms. Powers stated that this would be the advantage of handling the re-~ quest a .s a "Conditional Use." W It was the consensus of the Commission that Mini-storage and not warehousing could he added as a Conditional Use on Page 5, #5 of the B-2 Regulations. Mrs. Becker asked if there were further questions regarding the B-2 regula- tions. There being no further questions, the Commission then considered the I-1 Zone District regulations as proposed. Mrs. Becker stated that on Page 14, she felt there needed to be clarification on the provisions of Setback/Sc.reening vs. Solid Fence. Ms. King stated that the staff felt that the installation of a solid fence could be in lieu of providing landscaping if the property owners so desired. However, this pro- vision was written prior to the provisions contained in the Landscaping Ordinance which is to be heard before City Council on December 20th. The provisions in the Landscaping Ordinance would still require the property owner to put in landscaping. Discussion ensued. Mr. McBrayer suggested that a statement might be included in this section to the effect that: "This does not relieve the respective applicants from complying with the landscaping ordinance." Mrs. Becker asked if there were other questions regarding the I-1 Zone Dis- trict. There were no further questions. Mrs. Becker stated that the Commission would now consider the I-2 General Industrial Zone District. Mrs. Becker stated that she questioned whether the Ordinance could state, regarding Natural Production Uses, that the "land shall be reclaimed for recreational purposes." She questioned if the land is privately owned, that this requirement can be imposed. She asked what other uses c·an be made of old sand and gravel pits. Would this land , -3- ever be useful for anything but for recreational purposes. Discussion en- sued. Mr. Tanguma pointed out that the site could be filled, and built upon. Mrs. Becker asked if there would not be probl~ms with underground water if the site were to be filled and built upon. Mr. Allen stated that there would be. Mr. McBrayer stated that there would not necessarily be problems with underground water. Mr. Stitt stated that he felt this provision was included with the intent to insure that there is some type of reclamation on former excavation sites. Mr. Stitt stated that most gravel pits have been reclaimed for park or recre- ational purposes, but he felt that it could also be reclaimed for private recreational purposes. Discussion ensued. Mrs. Becker asked if there was a way to state that the site must be reclaimed for something other than landfill purposes. Mr. Stitt suggested a state- ment to the effect that "the site must be reclaimed for a use permitted in this zone district." Landfills are not permitted uses in the I-2 Zone Dis- trict. Discussion ensued. Mr. Stitt stated that an ordinance pertaining to landfill operations is being considered by the staff, and that one of the proposed provisions would be to require that any applicant for an excavation operation submit a plan outlining the reclamation process for that site. Further discussion ensued. It was pointed out that if developed for public recreational purposes, this would be permitted as a public facility; if de- veloped for private recreational purposes, it would be done as a Conditional Use, wherein outdoor commercial recreational facilities are permitted. Mrs. Becker stated that she had the same question on Page 8 regarding the apparent conflict between Setback/Screening and the provision of a Solid Fence. It was suggested that this could be handled in the same manner as the provision in I-1. Proposed amendments to the Sign Code, §22. 7, were then considered. Mr. McBrayer stated that he would like to hear a synopsis of what brought about the proposed amendments. Mr. Allen stated that he had not studied the pro- posed amendments to the Sign Code. Mr. Stitt stated that the changes the Commission is being asked to consider have come about after one year of enforcement of the Sign Code. Mr. Stitt pointed out that until one actually works with the provisions of an ordinance, the inconsistencies in regulations are not apparent. Mr. Stitt stated that some of the proposed amendments are clarification, changes in language to make the provisions more clearly understood by staff and by public. Mr. Stitt cited instances where a proposed amendment is an attempt to reach a compromise so that property owners/businessmen will not be unduly penalized. The changes do not compromise the position of .the City of Englewood regarding signage in the corporate limits, however. Mr. Stitt stated that on .street banners, it shall be required that the sponsor and sponsoring agency shall provide evidence of insurance and assume the liability. Mr. Stitt also reviewed the proposed amendment to real estate signs, Signs Prohibited in All Zone Districts, Signs Permitted in Residential Zone Districts, Signs Additionally Allowed, and Definitions. Mr. Stitt noted that under Prohibited Signs, the staff i$~proposing elimination -4- of "strings of lights"; it is difficult to prove that a string of lights is used for advertising purposes, and is not for protection or lighting of the premises, such as car lots. Regarding animated signs, barber poles are being eliminated from the prohibition. Traditionally, the barber pole is turning when the shop is open, and is stationary when the shop is closed. The staff does not feel that a turning barber pole is that big a problem. The staff also suggests eliminating balloons and lighter than air objects from the prohibited sign list. The Commission pointed out that the "Penzoil Can" that is a lighter than air object, and is an advertising device, would then be allowed. Mr. Stitt sug- gested that perhaps such devices could be handled on a special permit basis. Ms. Powers pointed out that the balloons seem to be used by the car sales lots on weekends. Mr. Stitt stated that the staff is suggesting a changing in wording from "wind enhanced device" to wind signs. Mr. Stitt stated that flashing "lights" has been added as prohibition, also. • Mr. Stitt discussed the clarifications on signage permitted in the residential districts. Changes are proposed in the "maximum" permitted number of signs that are allowed. In Multi-family Districts, one sign will be permitted for each street frontage; on a corner lot, it may be necessary to have an identi- fication sign on both s.treet frontages. Mr. Stitt discussed the proposed changes on maximum sign area allowed in residential areas. Joint Identifica- tion Signs were discussed. The provision of these signs has been added to ~ the R-3 and R-4 Zone Districts; these two residential districts allow office buildings, and a joint identification sign is a logical way to advertise for all the occupants of an office building. Mrs. Becker stated that she felt the permission of joint identification signs for office buildings in the R-3 and R-4 Districts was a good idea. Mr. Stitt then discussed the definition of Sign, which is to be changed. Mr. Stitt then discussed the amendments to the DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR SOUTH BROADWAY INCENTIVE AREA, which amendments all pertain to signage require- ments within this specific area. Mr. Stitt stated that there has been dis- cussions with several persons interested in redoing the facades of their buildings, and in erecting new signs. Discussions have also been held with representatives of the sign companies. One of the concerns expressed was the prohibition of individual back-lit letters to be used in signing. Decorative banners are proposed to be permitted. Wall signs may be located only in the "sign zone" of a building. Projecting signs shall only be located in the sign zone, and are restricted in size. Signs painted on windows shall be permitted in windows above the first floor, but shall identify the business located on the premises only. Mrs. B.ecker asked if there were questions of Mr. Stitt regarding the amend- ments to the Sign Code or to the Design Guidelines. Mrs. Becker stated that if there were no questions, she would suggest that a date for Public Hearing be scheduled for these proposed amendments. Ms. Powers stated that she would request that the Public Hearing on the B-1 and B-2 be scheduled as soon as possible because the redevelopment is moving ahead very quickly at this time. Ms. Powers pointed out that the Commission has previously scheduled the R-2-C SPS, R-3 and R-4 for Public • • -5- Hearing on January 17th; the publication timing is such that the B-1 and B-2 could also be included to be heard that evening if the Conunission so desired. Carson moved: Tanguma seconded: The Planning Commission scheduled a Public Hearing on the proposed amendments to the B-1 Business and B-2 Business Zone Districts on January 17, 1984; a Public Hearing on the amendments to the I-1, Light Industrial and I-2, General Industrial Districts, on the amendments to §22.7, Sign Code, and §22.4C Design Guidelines be scheduled for Public Hearing on February 7, 1984. All public notices shall refer to the proposed amendments as modified by the Conunission on this date. AYES: Barbre, Becker, Carson, McBrayer, Tanguma, Venard, Allen NAYS: None ABSENT: Stoel The motion carried. Mrs. Becker stated that she felt the proposed amendments regarding the Sign Code reflect a good year's work in enforcement of the Code; also, the pro- posed amendments to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance reflect a lot of staff work. III. PUBLIC FORUM. There was no one present to address the Commission • . I IV. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE. Ms. Powers reviewed the agenda for the meeting on January 4, noting that there will b.e th.e Safeway Parking Plan, and street, alley and easement vacation requests to be considered to facilitate the Safeway development. Also on that agenda, will be discussion of the annexation/zoning of the Brock development on the fairgrounds property. Ms. Powers stated that it is anticiapted the petition for anenxation of the first phase of this site will be submitted to the City on December 14th; the City Council will con- sider this matter on first reading on December 20th, and want to consider it at second reading on January 3rd. Ms. Powers stated that she has no in- formation regarding the annexation to give the Commission at this time. Hrs. Becker stated that this appears to be a very important meeting on January 4th, and asked if members were aware at this time whether they would be in attendance. Mr. McBrayer stated that he would be out of town and unable to attend. Ms. Powers pointed out that this meeting is on a Wednesday evening rather than Tuesday evening. Ms. Powers reported that Assistant Director Dorothy Romans had major surgery on December 12th; she is recuperating nicely • V. COMMISSION'S CHOICE. Mr. McBrayer asked the status of the document on "promotion of Englewood" that was spearheaded by the Commission. Ms. Powers stated that Ms. Dalquist -6- has been working on the compilation and publication of this document with the assistance of the EDDA. She stated that she would ask Ms. Dalquist what the status is. Mr. Carson stated that he understood it had to be changed following the change of the downtown plan, but that it is nearly ready for publication. Mr. Tanguma stated that this was also his under- standing. The meeting adjourned at 7:50 P. M. rtrude G. Welty Liecording Secretar •