Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-09-08 PZC MINUTESl . • • CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION September 8, 1982 5 A ~ I. CALL TO ORDER. The meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairman McBrayer at 7:10 p.m. in the Library Conference Room. Members Present: Members Absent: Others Present McBrayer, Allen, Barbre, Becker, Carson, Gilchrist, Senti, Stoel, Tanguma, Romans, Acting Ex-officio. None The members of the Board of Adjustment and A;pe~, Mike Haviland, Executive Director, Englewood Downt~ Development Association, Thomas Holland, Assistant City_. Attorney and Planning Division staff members Susan King~ Harold Stitt, and Larry Yenglin. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. Chairman McBrayer stated that the minutes of the meeting of August 17, 1982, were to be considered for approval. Tanguma moved: Stoel seconded: The Minutes of August 17, 1982, be approved as written. AYES: Barbre, Becker, Carson, Gilchrist, McBrayer, Senti, Stoel, Tanguma, Allen NAYS: NONE ABSENT: None The Chairman declared that the motion had carried and the minutes stand approved as written. Chairman McBrayer called attention to the letter which was received from Mr. Jay L. Olvey, President of the Kent Village Association. He asked that the staff draft a letter for his signature acknowledging receipt of the letter and assuring the Association that they will be informed of any request to modify the approved Waterford Plan. Mr. Stoel and Mr. Gilchrist gave a status report of the ad hoc Landscaping Ordinance Committee. Mr. McBrayer asked that the matter be placed on the agenda of the September 21, 1982, Commission meeting as a discussion item. Chairman McBrayer also asked that the Planning Commission Work Program/Goals for 1982-1983 be placed on the September 21st agenda for discussion. Mrs. Romans stated that Cherry Hills City Manager Coward has suggested three possible dates for a joint meeting of the Cherry Hills and Englewood Planning Commission members. The proposed topics for discussion would be the proposed development of the Buell property, the Waterford development and the plans for the redevelopment of doWlltown Englewood. The three dates which were suggested -2- were September 28th, October 12th or October 26th. It was the consensus of the Commission members that the 28th of September would be the most con- venient date. Mrs. Romans will confirm .the date after it has been presented to the Cherry Hills Planning Commission. Chairman McBrayer declared a recess at 7:25 p.m. The Planning Commission reconvened at 7:50 p.m. in a joint meeting with the members of the Board of Adjustment and Appeals. J Mr. Mike Haviland, the Executive Director of the Englewood Downtown Development Authority was introduced and presented a slide show entitled ENGLEWOOD ON THE GO AND GROWING. The slide show was prepared originally to point out the many advantages of home ownership in Englewood and was shown to local real estate agents at meetings sponsored by representatives of the Englewood School District and the City. It has proven to be of such interest, that it is being shown to many diverse organizations. Mr. Harold Stitt, Planner I in the Planning Division, explained the pro- cedure that will be followed in enforcing the new Sign Code which became effective on August 6, 1982. Letters will be sent to the owners and/or lessees of all nonconforming, abandoned, prohibited and hazardous signs, and the owner of the property on which the sign is located, notifying them of the violation and advising them of the necessity for compliance with the Sign Code. They will also be advised of the process for appeal. The letters will be sent out in phases to the several areas of the City for efficiency of enforcement. The members of the Board and Commission were given copies of the forms and letters that will be used. Mr. Holland then reviewed Council Bill No. 40 which was passed on first reading by the City Council on September 7, 1982. This Bill for Ordinance pertains to an amendment to Section 22.2-6 of the Comprehensive and Zoning Ordinance and sets forth the criteria to be considered when reviewing a request for a variance to the Sign Code. The Board must determine that: 1. There are special circumstances or conditions such as the existence of buildings, topography, vegetation, sign structures or other matters on adjacent lots or within the adjacent public right of way, which would substantially restrict the effectiveness of the sign in question; pro- vided, however, that such special circumstances or conditions must be peculiar to the particular business or enterprise to which the applicant desires to draw attention and do not apply generally to all businesses or enterprises. 2. The variance, if authorized, will weaken neither the general purpose of this Ordinance nor the regulations prescribed for the District in which the sign is located. 3. The variance, if authorized, will not alter the essential character of the District in which the sign is located. 4. The variance, if authorized, will not substantially or permanently injure the appropriate use of adjacent conforming property. • l • -3- Mr. Holland called attention to the language of the Council findings set forth in the Bill for Ordinance which establishes that: 1. The Sign Code was enacted to meet the City's needs to revitalize and redevelop the City as a major regional retail shopping area and to control signage within the City and preserve its correlative character of strong family residential values. 2. It is the intent of the Sign Code to control signage for traffic safety and aesthetic reasons and to have a community which is beautiful, healthy, clean, well-balanced and safe. 3. It is the desire of the City Council to maintain strict compliance with said Sign Code to accomplish its purposes. 4. The Council recognizes there may be limited instances where it would work too extensive a hardship to require persons to comply with all provisions of said Code. 5. The City Planning and Zoning Commission has proposed criteria to relieve persons from strict compliance with said Sign Code upon a showing of undue hardship, and the Council determines it is proper to do so, so long as the purposes of the Sign Code remain complied with. Mr. Holland stated that this language makes it clear that it is the intent of the City Council, upon the recommendation of the Planning Commission, that variances to the Sign Code should be granted only upon the showing that a real and unnecessary hardship exists. Discussion ensued. The Board of Adjustment and Appeals and the City Planning and Zoning Commission adjourned their joint meeting at 9:00 p.m. D. A. Romans Secretary Pro Tem