Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-09-22 PZC MINUTES• • CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION I:' SEPTEMBER 22, 1981 J 1 4 I. CALL TO ORDER. The Regular Meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Conunission was called to order at 7:00 P.M. by Chairman Judith B. Pierson. Members present: McBrayer, Pierson, Tanguma, Allen, Barbre, Carson, Draper Powers, Ex-officio Members absent: Senti, Becker Also present: Susan T. King, Senior Planner Harold Stitt, Planner I Larry Yenglin, Planner I Jeri Linder, Planning Intern Thomas V. Holland, Assistant City Attorney II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES . Chairman Pierson stated that the Minutes of the meeting of September 9, 1981, were to be considered for approval. Carson moved: Tanguma seconded: The Minutes of the meeting of September 9, 1981, be approved as written. AYES: Pierson, Tanguma, Allen, Barbre, Carson, Draper, McBrayer NAYS: None ABSENT: Senti, Becker The motion carried. III. SIGN CODE REVISION CASE #9-81 Mrs. Pierson stated that this i s a Public Meeting to discuss proposed revisions to the Sign Code . She stated that the pro- posed revisions to the Sign Code are the result of several things, among them be i ng the spirit and intent of the Compre- hensive Plan which was adopted i n 1979. The Comprehensive Plan urged beautification and pride in the conununity. The staff has also been reviewing sign codes from other conununities, as well as reviewing the existing Englewood Sign Code which was adopted by Ordinance No. 18, Series of 1974, in an effort to come up with an equitable, workab l e Sign Code. Mrs. Pierson stated that the Conunission invited members of the Board of Adjustment, the Englewood Downtown Development Authority, the Downtown Business Association, the Chamber of Commerce, members of the 1973 Sign Code Committee, and members of the Englewood City Council to attend this meeting to discuss the proposed Sign Code, and to invite their comments and suggesting regarding the proposed changes. • • •• -3- restrictions in the residential areas remain the same, except that in determining the maximum sign area, the proposed Code would require that all sign faces are to be used in calculating sign area; the existing Code requires that only one sign face is used to calculate the sign area. This would result in a reduction of the total sign area allowed in the residential classifications. The height of wall and window signs in low density districts remains the same; ground signs in low density districts are not permitted. Wall and window signs in the high density districts would be reduced from the permitted height of 25 feet to 20 feet in the Proposed Sign Code, and ground signs in high density districts would remain at a permitted 15 feet in height. Ms. Powers then discussed the proposed restrictions for signage in the connnercial and industrial zone districts. The existing Sign Code allows a connnercial or industrial establishment to have a maximum number of five signs regardless of the size of the ownership, or a maximum of three signs per front line; if a business was situated on a corner lot, they could have three signs per each street frontage, or a total of six (6) signs. The proposed Sign Code would relate the maximum number of signs to the size of the street frontage, but allow no more than five signs. The proposed Sign Code will allow the same type of signs as the existing Sign Code, and in addition, will allow Suspended Signs, which are not presently mentioned in the Sign Code . The maximum Sign Area is proposed to change; in the existing Sign Code, a use is guaranteed 80 sq. ft. of sign area, OR 1-1/2 sq. ft. of sign area for each linear foot of lot frontage up to 100 feet, plus one square foot for each linear foot of frontage thereafter. The proposed Sign Code would delete the 80 sq. ft. guarantee, but would adhere to the 1-1/2 sq. ft. of sign area for each linear foot of lot frontage up to 100, plus one sq. ft. for each linear foot thereafter. Wall signs are limited to a maximum of 40% coverage of the "signable area", and window signs are limited to a maximum 25% coverage of the window in which they are displayed. The maximum area per sign is decreased from the presently permitted 200 sq. ft. to the proposed 100 sq. ft., and the maximum total sign area is de- creased from the presently permitted 600 sq. ft. to the proposed 300 sq. ft. The height of signs permitted in the connnercial and industrial districts was then discussed by Ms. Powers. The height of wall signs would remain the same, being allowed the height of the building, but not above the roof line. Height of window signs would be limited to signs on the first floor; window signs are presently permitted to the height of the building, but not above the roof line. Ground signs have a presently permitted height of 32 feet; this is proposed to decrease to a maximum of 20 feet. Projecting signs have a presently permitted height of 26 feet; this is proposed to be reduced to 20 feet maximum height. Ms. Powers discussed the proposed method of dealing with existing signs which do not conform, such as hazardous, abandoned, and -4- illegal/prohibited signs. Owners of signs which are deter- mined to be hazardous or abandoned by the staff will be so notified within 48 hours of such determination, and will have 30 days to remove such sign. If the owner of the sign or property fail to have the sign removed within the specified 30 day period, the Department of Community Development will do so, and a penalty fee would be assessed in addition to the cost of the removal of the offending sign. Ms. Powers stated that on abandoned signs, the existing Code requires that the sign be "abandoned" for 90 days; the proposed code would shorten that time span to 30 days. All illegal and/or prohibited signs would be required to be removed within 60 days from the effective date of the proposed Sign Code. Other non-conforming signs would have to be brought into compliance with the proposed Sign Code within three years, or whenever one of the following conditions occur, whichever is earliest: 1. Whenever the sign is damaged more than 50% of its total value, or destroyed, from any cause whatsoever, or becomes obsolete or substandard under any applicable ordinance of the municipality, to the extent that the sign becomes a hazard or a danger. 2. Whenever the ownership of the property changes on which the Non-conforming Sign is located. 3. Whenever there is a change in the leasee, ownership of the business or use to which the sign pertains. 4. Whenever there is a request made for a permit to change the sign. 5. Whenever there is a request for a permit to make improve- ments to the exterior of the principal building. Ms. Powers pointed out that a stay on the termination of non- conforming signs may be granted by the Director for six months if substantial attempt at compliance is proven. Mr. McBrayer then presented a slide show, which depicted various types of signs, a contrast of signage that exists in Englewood and other parts of the metro area, and examples of good signage and signage that is undesirable. Mr. Senti entered the meeting at 7:45 P.M. during the above slide presentation. A refreshment break was called at 8:05 P.M., and the meeting reconvened at 8:15 P.M. Mr. McBrayer stated that the floor was now open for questions that had previously been written and submitted to the staff, and for questions and comments from the floor. • • • • • -5- Mr. McBrayer stated that a written question which was submitted was whether restrictions could be written prohibiting requests for variances on hazardous and abandoned signs. Ms. Powers reiterated that there is a provision in the proposed Sign Code allowing a six-month extension on the removal of non- conforming signs, which extension request would not go to the Board of Adjustment and Appeals. Appeals regarding hazardous and abandoned signs may be made to the City Manager. Ms. Powers asked Assistant City Attorney Tom Holland whether it could be written into the proposed Code that the appeals could not be submitted to the Board. Mr. Holland stated that the right to appeal is written into the Municipal Code, and that the Code would have to be altered; it could not be done in the Sign Code alone. Mr. McBrayer stated that another written question that had been submitted concerned the recent Supreme Court decision on the Lakewood Sign Code; was that code too vague, and what im- pact would this have on the Englewood Sign Code? Mr. McBrayer noted that Lakewood had attempted to limit the content of the sign, which the Englewood Code does not. Assistant City Attorney Holland stated that the Supreme Court decision was announced on September 21st; he does have a copy of the decision, which is very comprehensive. Mr. Holland stated that some of the provisions of the Supreme Court decision will have an impact on the existing Englewood Sign Code as well as on the proposed Sign Code. He stated that he has not had an opportunity to fully review the decision, but that he would do so. He stated that he felt the City can get guidance from this decision to do the type of Sign Code that we want . Ms. Powers asked if Mr. Holland could have an outline of the implications of the Court Decision prepared by the next meeting of October 6th. Mr. Holland stated that he would have a memorandum to Ms. Powers by that date . Mr. John Maxwell agreed that abandoned signs are unsightly and should be terminated . He pointed out that if signs are licensed, it should be sufficient to cover the removal of the sign; if the property owner/businessman removed the sign, the moneys could be refunded, but if the sign is l eft and the City has to remove the abandoned sign, the proper t y owner/businessman would forfeit the license fee on the sign. Mr. Allen stated that he was satisfied with the existing Sign Code; the only thing that was of concern to him was the matter of abandoned and poorly controlled/poorly appearing signs . Mr. Allen stated that he felt the existing Sign Code could accomplish what is intended by the proposed Code, but either the city is lax in enforcement, or we do not have the authority to enforce the Sign Code properly. Mr. McBrayer pointed out that the proposed Sign Code would decrease the time-frame required for removal of abandoned signs by 60 days. Ms. Powers further discussed the process that must be followed under the existing Code in an attempt to remove an -6 - abandoned sign . Ms. Powers noted that even with the time- consuming process that now has to be followed, six abandoned signs have been removed in a two-block area of South Broadway recently . She emphasized that the proposed Sign Code would decrease the time frame to 30 days rather than the 90 days which presently exists . A member of the audience asked how the 30 days was determined -- from what point in time? Ms. Powers stated that the Department would be working with Sales Tax Division, and it would be figured from the date the sales tax license would expire. It was pointed out that many businesses may not have a sales tax license, and yet have a sign. Or a business may move across a street, and retain the sales tax license, yet abandon a sign at the former location. Discussion ensued. Mr . McBrayer stated that he felt there were several ways to determine the date a sign is abandoned, and that the staff and Connnission would further explore this question. He stated that he had previously suggested that on properties on which a non-conforming sign is located, a formal statement of the non-conforming status of the sign be filed against the property; this would reflect on the record of that property, and would put new property owners on notice that the sign must be brought into conformance upon purchase of the property. Mr. Roger Robohm stated that he felt the three-year amortization time on non-conforming signs would be extremely expensive for some businessmen, and could put some of them out of business. • He stated that he was also concerned about the proposed size of signs permitted under the proposed Sign Code. He stated that he is aware of the need for aesthetic appeal, but asked who determined the aesthetics of a sign. Ms. Powers stated that at the time the existing Sign Code was approved, 32 feet in height for a sign was permitted; now, it is a question of whether another set of standards are appropriate. In reviewing the Englewood Sign Code and contrasting it to Sign Codes in adjoining and other municipalities, the Englewood Code is really very lenient. Ms. Powers stated that in reviewing the existing Sign Code, it may be determined that these standards are still applicable and should not be changed. Ms. Powers pointed out that a letter from the DBA was sent to Mayor Otis, which connnunication expressed concern over the condition of signs in the downtown area. This was one impetus for reviewing the existing Sign Code and coming up with the proposed changes. Mr. Haviland, executive director of the Englewood Downtown Development Authority, stated that they had recently held several public meetings on the proposed development plan for the downtown area; he had asked participants to fill out a questionnaire, and some of the recurring concerns that came through from these participants was that of aesthetics and signage in the downtown area. He stated that a lot of people want to see improved signage in the downtown business area. Mr. Gordon Close, chairman of the DBA, stated that their membership is concerned with the appearance of the downtown area. He noted that motorists seem to increase speed when driving through the downtown sector, rather than slowing down • • • • -7- to view what businesses are along Broadway. He stated that it is the feeling of the DBA membership that a great part of the problem is the clutter and antiquity of the existing sign- age that is in the downtown area. It is their feeling that a lot of signs in the downtown area should have been removed a long time ago. Mr. Close discussed the "clutter" of the existing signage, and noted that some of the larger signs obstruct v iew of smaller signs. He stated that the DBA would like to see s ome conformance in the signs in the downtown area. Mr. Clo se stat e d that he felt the businessmen should take a long look at the existing signing along South Broadway. Mr. Close al so connnented that he didn't think the idea of "grandfathering" signs i n when a new Code is adopted was proper. Mr. McBrayer stated that he felt the group of individuals who support the development of malls and greenbelts are al so i n support of improved signage; all these improvements are done with aesthetics in mind. Roger Robohm stated that he had talked with a former Boulder businessman, who went out of business because of the mall. He stated that this attempt at beautification has caus ed problems for these businessmen. Mr. Robohm stated that he is willing to make changes, but within limits. Mr. Leonard Robohm stated that they have invested $23 ,0 00 in improving the front of their building, and received a plaque from the Chamber of Connnerce commending them for their imp rove- ments; he stated that it appeared they would have to give the plaque backtotheChamber because their sign isn't liked. Mr. Robohm stated that he also felt the size of the signs which would be permitted under the proposed Sign Code would not be large enough to be legible from a vehicle traveling at 30 mph , and that in support of this he would defer to Mr. Grinnn wh o is in the Sign business. Mr. Grinnn stated that he did not feel the existing Sign Code "was that bad", but that the problem is with enforcement . He stated that there was no enforcement power in the existing Code. Mr. Grinnn stated that he felt a lot of busines sm e n a n d property owners will be willing to work with the staf f on t h e matter of signage. Mr. Grinnn questioned the deletion of the 80 sq. ft. guarantee for each business; he stated that he doe s not feel this is too muc h signage . Mr. McBrayer stated that the Commission and staff want to come up with a Sign Code that is fair, but still re duce the clutter and poor signage that has proliferated in the City. Mr. McBrayer stated that possibly a new formula for d eterm ini ng the number and square footage of signs should be devised. Mr. Grinnn pointed out that the existing Sign Code is only eight years old; many sign s that were installed and conform to the existing Code would become non-conforming under the proposed Sign Code if it were to be approved as it is p r e sently written . Discussion ensued on identification signs on the rear of -8- businesses; Ms. Powers pointed out that identification signs at the rear of business establishments would not be counted toward total sign area. Mr. McBrayer discussed the termination of non-conforming signs within three years; he suggested that possibly a formula could be devised using the three-year time limitation, and giving additional time or "credit" on the age of the sign. Ms. Powers pointed out that there are not very many new signs on South Broadway in the downtown area. Mr. Cordova, owner of Flash Tailors, stated that he didn't think there was much problem with the present Sign Code. He stated he did feel there is a need for more enforcement. The matter of lowering signs as would be required under the proposed Sign Code was discussed. Mr. Grinnn stated that he did not think the 20 ft. height will have that much effe ct on the over-all appearance of the signage. Ms. Powers stated that she felt a decrease in permitted height would have a positive effect on the over-all appearan ce. She pointed out that it is not the intent of the staff or the Com- mission to write a Code that is so restrictive that busine sses would move out of Englewood. The staff and Connnission do want the connnents and suggestions from interested citizens and businessmen. She stated that she was still of the opini on that a guaranteed sign area of 80 sq. ft. per business --no matter the size of the building --is too much, and that the amount of signage should be based on the amount of street frontage. The amortization of non-conforming signs was further discussed. Ms. Powers discussed the enforcement of the Sign Code, and noted that at the present time the Code Enforcement officers are responsible for enforcement of the Sign Code. During the sunnner months, there are so many problems with weed and litter complaints that enforcement of the Sigh Code cannot b e top priority. It is proposed that enforcement of the Sign Code would become the responsibility of the Planning Division, and that a member of the staff would be working full-time on the enforcement of the Code. Further discussion ensued. Mr. Cordova suggested that the property owner needs to be brought into this. He suggested that perhaps a clause could be put into the lease between the property owner and business- man that when the premises are vacated, the sign is to go with the business vacating. The matter of signing at the rear of businesses was furt her considered. Ms. Powers quoted the following from the proposed Sign Code: "Secondary Signs. Each business or use may have • • one (1) sign identifying that business or use and the address • on the rear of the building, which shall not be counted toward the maximum sign area. Such Secondary Sign shall not exceed one-half (1/2) square foot of sign area for each linear foot of the front lot line." . , • • -9- Mr. Grimm reiterated his opinion that the removal of the 80 sq. ft. sign area which is presently guaranteed every business is out of line. He suggested that possibly the "signable" area as proposed would be ample for those businesses that might have 12 foot frontage. Mr. Don Ensign, Design Workshop consultant for the EDDA, stated that he felt the Sign Code should be more restric tive; he stated that the signage is something that needs to be looked at by the community --the size of the signs that are allowe d , and the competition in the size of signs. He pointed out t hat the businesses will not be competing exclusively with t he businesses within the block, but with other communities within the metro area. Mr. Ensign stated that appearance does have an important impact on the choices people make on where to l i ve, shop, etc. Mr. Allen stated that he has read both the existing Sign Code and the proposed Sign Code; the entire Code sugges ts to him that it is so restrictive that it cannot be enforc ed, and it is counter-productive. He stated that there is no way the detailed inspections could be enforced the way the Codes are written. Ms. Powers stated that she also found the existing Sign Code to be very difficult to interpret, but that the staff had simplified the Code in the proposed version. Mr. Roger Robohm stated that he felt the Sign Cod e was written for a "new city"; he pointed out that Englewood i s not a new city with nice, new buildings; we must deal with the existing buildings. He stated that he would agree that c leaning-up in the downtown area is needed. He pointed out, how ever, that he did not feel this clean-up is needed in every sector of the downtown. Mr. Grimm stated that he felt the main problem i s a matter of enforcement; some of the signs have been erected illegally. Ms. Powers stated that a lot of signs were put i n before the existing Sign Code was in effect; she felt a big question was how to deal with the termination of the signs. Ms. Powers asked Mr. Grimm if h e ob j e c ted to the proposed 20 ft. height limitation on signs? Mr. Gr i mm pointed out that just seven or eight years ago, when the existing Sign Code was adopted, the 32 foot height limi tat i on was approved; now i t is proposed that a height of 20 feet be approved, and those s igns in excess of that would become non -conforming . He cited the signs on the Burt car dealerships , wh i ch pole signs are approximately 32 feet in height. He stated that he did not feel there was a big problem with the present height of the pole signs. Mr. McBrayer s t ated that the Commission and staff would try to work out a compromise on the restrictions . Mr. Don Seymour asked where the City would stand on the variances on sign height, area, etc ., that have been approved by the Board of Adjustment and Appeals? -10- Ms. Powers stated that she had been informed by the Assistant City Attorney that this could be dealt with in a couple of ways: (1) They could remain because they obtained variances from the Board; or (2) They could be termed non-conforming and be required to conform or be removed within the determined time limitat ion. Mr. McBrayer thanked the members of the audience for their attendance, and reminded them of the next public meeting on October 6th, which will also be held in the Library Conference Room. Ms. Powers asked that if members of the audience knew of other persons who would be interested in this matter, to please invite them to attend the meeting on October 6th. She pointed out that this meeting on October 6th would be open to the general public, and that sign companies, auto dealers and other businessmen would be notified of this meeting. Mrs. Pierson also thanked members of the audience for their attendance. She stated that they were welcome to remain for the rest of the Commission business meeting. IV. PUBLIC FORUM. Mrs. Pierson asked if any member of the audience wished to address the Commission on any matter? No one responded. V. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE. Ms. Powers asked if members of the Board of Adjustment would remain following the meeting for a brief time. VI. COMMISSION'S CHOICE. There was nothing brought up for discussion under Commission's Choice. The meeting adjourned at 9:10 P.M. . . • • •