Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-01-19 PZC MINUTESCITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING CClfMISSION • JANUARY 19, 1982 • • I. CALL TO ORDER. The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Co111Dission was called to order at 7:00 P. M. by Chairman Judith B. Pierson. Members present: Draper, McBrllyer, Pierson, Senti, Tanguma, Allen, Barbre, Becker, Carson Members absent: Also present: Powers, Ex-officio None Assistant City Attorney Thomas V. Holland Assistant Director Dorothy A. Romans Senior Planner Susan King Planner I Harold Stitt Ms. Pierson noted that approval of Minutes would be considered under Commission's Choice. II. INTERPRETATION OF ZONING ORDINANCE ·Motorcycle Repair in B-2 Zone District Ms. Pierson asked for the staff report on this case. CASE #2-82 Ms. Susan King stated that the application, filed by Jit. Eugene Anderson, is for interpretation of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for a use not mentioned in the B-2 Zone District. The subject site is at 1008 East Hampden Avenue. Mr. Anderson leases this property, and has stated that he wants to operate a motorcycle repair business which is not specifically mentioned as a principal permitted use in either the B-1 or B-2 Zone Districts. The subject property is zoned B-2, Business; there is a frame building on the site, which is considered by the Code Enforcement Division to be in "poor" condition. There are no variances on the subject property. Ms. King stated that to the north of the subject site is a mixture of car-related businesses, greenhouses, apartments and single-family homes. Directly east of the site is a two-story office building of recent con- struction. To the south of the site is a residential development, with single-family and two-family uses. A gas station is immediately to the west of the subject site, and there are other car-related businesses and retail uses along Hampden Avenue both to the east and west of the site under consideration. The 1979 Comprehensive Plan indicates that this area should be a "mixed use" classification, oriented more toward the medical-service business. Ms. King reviewed comments from other Departments. Chief Building In- spector Pittman has stated that to accommodate a motorcycle repair shop, the structure would have to be reclassified to an H-4 occupancy. 11lere would have to be extensive remodeling and improvement of the structure to meet the 1979 Uniform Building Code, such as fire resistant exterior walls, parapet walls on the exterior of the building, and floor surface would have to be of non-combustible, non-absorbent material. It is Mr. Pittman's opinion that the building will not -me~t the 1979 Unifora Building Code requirements for an H-4 occupancy. -2- Fire Marshal Walt Groditski has indicated that he sees no problem with the proposed use, but did stipulate that the building must meet all Building Code and Fire Code requirements. It is the opinion of the staff that if the building can be brought to meet the requirements of the Building and Fire Codes, that the applica- tion filed by Mr. Anderson for approval of a motorcycle repair shop at 1008 East Hampden Avenue should be approved. If, however, the structure cannot be brought into compliance with the UBC and Fire Code, the use should not be approved at this location. Ms . Becker asked if there was any stipulation on screening for outside stor age of cycles that cannot be stored in the shop? Ms. King pointed out that there is very limited yard area for storage of motorcycles, and that screening has not been discussed. Ms. King noted that Mr. Anderson, the applicant, is present this evening. Ms. Pierson asked Mr . Anderson if he wished to address the Commission? Mr. Anderson stated that he did not feel there was anything further he could state in support of the application. Ms. Pierson asked if anyone else wished to comment on the request? • ~. Becker asked Mr. Anderson if he and the property owner plan to bring the structure up to the Uniform Building Code and the Fire Code? Mr. Anderson stated that he has not discussed this with the owner, Mr. Gleason, • but that he would doubt that either of them would want to invest that much money in the building to bring it up to Code. Mrs. Pierson asked if the Commission were to approve the request for interpretation, whether a time limit could be placed on the approval? Assistant City Attorney Holland stated that the Commission can attach · conditions to approvals of this type, and could place a time restriction on the approval . Mr. Allen asked Mr. Anderson if he understood what would be involved in bringing the structure up to Code, and whether he would want to make that investment in the building? Mr. Anderson stated that he might make the investment if he owned the building. Mr. Tanguma asked for further clarification on the reclassification to H-4 occupancy. Ms. King explained that under the Uniform Building Code, a motorcycle repair shop would be an H-4 occupancy, which requires more stringent fire and building code requirements because of the hazardous nature of the use. Ms. Pierson stated that she understood if this particular use was determined to be permitted in the B-2 Zone District, this would apply to the entire B-2 Zone District, and not just to this location. Mr. McBrayer atated that this request is for an interpretation, and he also felt it would apply to other areas that have a B-2 Zone designation. Mrs. Pierson noted that the Comprehensive Plan committee that studied the strip commercial areas were very impressed with the revitalization of this area that was taking place, and that a lot of this revitalization seemed to be medical support service oriented. She questioned that a motorcycle repair business would be compatible with the type of redevelopment that has • .,_ • • • -3- been taking place in the area , and that the Comprehensive Plan Review Com- mittee felt should be encouraged. She suggested that the motorcycle re- pair shop would more properly be located in an industrial area. Mr. Tanguma pointed out that there are other motor vehicle oriented uses along the East Hampden Avenue commercial strip . Ms. Pierson stated that she felt the Comprehensive Plan studies show that this particular area is "turning around", and becoming more medically-oriented, and that she did not feel this particular use would be compatible with what is occurring in this strip commercial area. Mr. McBrayer stated that he felt it was important that everyone on the Commission understood that the discussion pertains to an interpretation of the "ordinance" vs . permitting this particular use at this particular site. Discussion ensued. Mr. Draper asked if the Commission should recommend that this use be in- cluded in the I-1 or I-2 industrial distr i cts? Discussion ensued. Becker moved: McBrayer seconded: The Planning Commission, upon consideration of the application filed by Mr. Eugene Anderson for an interpreation of whether or not a motorcycle repair shop would be permitted in the B-2 Zone District, finds that this would not be an acceptable use in that zone district • Mr. Tanguma discussed the fact that there are automotive and vehicular repair shops along South Broadway, and there is also a motorcycle store in the 4900 block of South Broadway. He noted that this entire area is zoned B-2, Business; he asked if these uses are nonconforming? Mrs. Romans pointed out that uses such as the van modification for handicapped, the muffler repair shop, and specific vehicle repair shops have made specific application to the Commission, and have been approved at a specific location; other uses have also applied, and been disapproved at at specified location. Vehicular repair in conjunction with filling stations has been considered a secondary use in conjunction with the primary use of sale of gasoline and oil products. Mrs. Romans pointed out that the uses that have been approved by the Planning Commission in the past have been on an individual basis; it has not been a "blanket approval" applicable to the entire district. Mrs. Pierson reiterated that she did not want to see a use of this type in this neighborhood; she did not feel it was appropriate around the Medical Center development. Mr. McBrayer asked if the businesses that had come before the Planning Commission and were approved for a specific location would be considered nonconforming inasmuch as they were approved on the basis of a specific use at a specific location? Mrs. Romans cited §22.4-11 b (16), which reads: "Any similar lawful use which, in the opinion of the Commission, is not objectionable to nearby property by reason of odor, dust, smoke, fumes, gas, heat, glare, radiation or vibration, or is not hazardous to the health and property of the surrounding area through danger of fire or explosion." Further discussion ensued. Mr. Allen stated that it seemed to him that the Commission was trying to determine that "we don't approve of motorcycle repair shops"; he pointed -4- out that there are several in the area, and that if the structure can be brought into compliance with the Building and Fire Codes, he didn't feel that the Commission had the right to say they could not do business at that location. Mr. Tanguma stated that he felt a precedent has been set because there are repair shops along Broadway, and the repair of motorcyc les isn't that much different from the repair of motor vehicles. Mr. Tanguma stated that he did not feel it would be fair to deny Mr. Anderson the right to operate his business at this location because the Commission wants to stop motorcycle repair shops in this area. Mr. Ed Cordova addressed the Commission, and stated that he is a business- man in the 3400 block of South Broadway, which block does have a lawnmower repair business. Mr. Cordova stated that he feels this is a lapse of en- forcement of the City Codes that has allowed the lawnmower repair business to begin and continue operation at this location. Mr. Cordova urged that repair shops not be permitted in the B-1 and B-2 zone districts. He did not feel that this type of use would be compatible with the efforts to improve and revitalize the downtown business area, and indeed, the entire business area of the City. Ms. Becker stated that discussion has been centered on the hazards and in- conveniences of motorcycle shops located in the B-2 Zone District. She pointed out that the materials used for this type of business are not that much different from those used in other engine repair shops. She stated that she felt the Commission should be aware that this determination will have ramifications on future requests for interpretations. She inquired what effect approval of the motion would have on those repair shops that are presently in business? Mr. Holland stated that those repair shops that are in business would have the right to continue until they cease operation. Further discussion followed. The vote was called: AYES: NAYS: Pierson, Becker, Carson, Draper, McBrayer Senti, Tanguma, Allen, Barbre The motion carried. Ms. Becker stated that she would appreciate more information specifically addressing motorcycle shops and vehicle repair shops in the business zone districts. Ms. Pierson agreed that it was time to look into this matter. III. COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE Sign Code §22.7 CASE #3-82 (9-81) Ms. Pierson stated that the matter of the proposed Sign Code is before the Commission, and a Public Hearing has been scheduled for this evening. Allen moved: Barbre seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #3-82 be opened. • • • • • • -5- AYES : Senti, Tanguma, Allen , Barbre, Becker, Carson, Draper, Mc Br ay e r, Pierson NAYS : None ABSEN T: None Th e motion carried. Ms. Pi erson reviewed the format that wou ld be followe d i n conduc t ing the Pub lic Hearing. Ms. Pierson then asked for the staff p r e s ent at ion . Ms . Susan Powers was sworn in, and testified that she is t he Directo r of Communit y Development. Ms. Powers presented for the re cord a copy of t he public notice of the public hearing which was publi sh ed in the Eng l ew o od Herald Sentinel on December 30, 1981. Ms. Powers s ta ted that wo rk on the revis i on of the Sign Code began in early 1981. The Compr e hen sive Plan, whi ch wa s approved in 1979, set forth several goal s , one of whi ch is im- p rovement of the visual quality of the City through imp r oved signage . The staff has also found, in working with the existing Sign Co de, th a t there a r e many ambiguities that make enforcement di ffi c ult. Ms . Powers testifie d t h at complaints had also been received from some of the down - town bus inessmen regarding abandoned signs, or s i gns t hat were in poor repair . Ms . P owers discus sed t he procedure foll owed in t he r eview of the Sign Code a nd the drafting of the proposed revisions. In drafting t he proposed revisions to the Sign Code, the staff reviewed specific prob lems that have been experienced in a t tempting to enforce the existing Sign Code and reviewed sign codes of other jurisdictions. A series of meetings with businessmen who might be affected by new restrictions and the general p ublic were held by both the staff a n d the Commission. The Planning Commission also held a public hearing on Novembe r 4, 1981, at which hearing testimony was received from persons i n a t tendanc e. Ms. Powers stated that the Lakewood Sign Code was declared unc ons t i tut i onal, and the staff and City Attorney's office reviewed this court de cision a nd have made every effort to assure that the proposed Sign Code i s written i n compliance with this legal decision. Ms. Powers s tated t hat there have been several drafts of the proposed Sign Code, a n d that changes have been made throughout, to meet the concerns expressed b y individuals i n the man y public meeting s and previous public hearing. Ms. Powe r s t h en reviewed the provisions of the proposed Sign Co de n oting that signs which are non-commercial in nature are c lass ified as "Signs not Subject to Permits." Signs subject to yearly regis trat ion, such as real estate signs and contractor signs were point e d out. Ms . Powers re- viewed the l i st of signs that are proposed to be p roh i bi t ed , and stated that some of these signs, such as billboards and th i r d-party advertising signs, have been prohibited since the 1974 Sign Cod e was adopted . The maximum heigh t of signs was discussed by Ms. Pow e r s. She pointed out that there are no substantial changes in these provisions as they apply to signs in the resid ential zone districts; however, signs in the c ommercial and in- dustrial dis tricts are proposed to mave a maximum heigh t o f 20 feet, which i s lower than presently permitted in t he 1974 Sign Co de • Ms . Pow ers pointed out that the size and number of s i gns permitted in the indus t r ial and commercial zone districts has also bee n cha n ged. A scale has been devised which would relate the size and n umb er o f signs permitted a busines s use to the amount of street frontage th a t part i c u l ar business has . A new section was added to deal with "suspended signs." Ms . Powers -6- pointed out that t he maximum sq uare footage of sign area has been raised back to the 600 sq. ft. because of concerns expressed at the public meetings; the maximum area p e r sign face will be 100 sq. ft. Ms. Powers stated that the r e are several different signs which are allowed and do not count against the total sign area; thes e include drive-thru signs, joint identification s igns , high-rise buildin g identification wall signs, secondary signs, short-term advertising s i gns , and signs set back from the public right-of-way. Ms. Powers discussed provisions for dealing with nonconforming signs . She pointed out that the Commission had considered eight or nine alternatives on dealing with the amortization of nonconforming signs, and the members determined that 10 years from the date a permit is sued, but in no case less than three years from the da t e the proposed Si gn Code would be adopted, would be a reasonable amortization period. The sta ff would notify the owner of a nonconforming sign and that property owner will have 30 calendar days to register the nonconforming s i gn. Ms. Powers e mphasized that the burden of notifying the owner of a n onconforming sign of the requirement for registration is on the staff. The re is an a ppeal process written into the proposed Code by which sign owners may a p peal to the Board of Ad just- ment for a variance. Ms. Powers then discussed prohibited s i gn s . She noted t hat there is no way to deal with them at the present time. Signs tha t a re prohibited would have 180 days to be removed or to b e brought into conformance with the Code; billboards would have to be removed wi thin three years o f t h e effective date of the ordinance. Again, an a p p eal proces s is wri tt en in whereby the sign owner may appeal to the Boar d o f Adjus tm e nt for a v ariance. If the owner does not remove a prohibited sign, th e Ci t y may remove the sign, and costs incurred by the City , plus an adm i n is trative cost, would be charged against the real property and its owners. Ms. Powers then reviewed the section on Hazardous Signs. Owners of signs that have been declared hazards will be notified of s uch determination, and will have 30 days to remove the hazardous sign. The sign owner does have the right to appeal, and the City may remove th e hazardous sign and bill the owner if it is not remo v ed within the given time period. Abandoned signs were then con sidered. The present Sign Code requires that abandoned signs be removed within 90 days, but it is felt that the 90-day time limitation is too long. From the day a sign is determined to be abandoned, there is a 30-day period before the sign is declared to be a nuisance; at the end of this 30-day period, a letter is is sent to the sign owner stating t hat t he sign must be removed within 30 days. This does, in reality, give a sign own er 60 days within which to remove the sign. The City may also remove t he sign if the owner does not comply with the notice of removal, and costs incurred by the City in the removal of the sign may be billed to the prop erty owner. Ms. Powers pointed out that the City may not remove a sign just because i t has been designated as nonconformin g ; to be removed b y the City, a sign must be determined to be prohibit ed, hazardous, or ab andoned. Ms. Powers asked that the staf f r e p ort for this hearing, the staff r e ports for previous hearings and meetings before the Commis s ion, and the Minu tes from those meetings be made a part of the record f o r this meeting. Ms . • • • 9\_ • • • -7- Powers asked that the Counission also take note o f a memorandum from Fire Marshall Walt Groditski c oncerning problems caused by roof signs, and a memorandum from Traffic Engineer Plizga regarding problems that specific types of signs cause with traffic flow. Ms. Powers then read into the record the following letter from the Centennial Chamber of Commerce. Ms. Powers noted that the Englewood and Lit t leton Chambers of Commerce have merged, and have become the Centennial Chamb er of Commerce, with headquarters at 180 West Girard Avenue in Englewood. CENTENNIAL OiAMDER OF COMMERa E~. Colorodo &0110 (JOO) 781 . 7&34 Englewood City Counci l 3-400 South Elati Street Englewood, CO 80110 January 19, 1982 The Centennial Chamber of Commerce i a vitally interested in all aapecta of the bualneu environment ln the area which la lta prime area of reaponalbllity. Thia newly formed Chamber la and wlll continue to be concerned with many iaauea impacting that total environment, One auch i11ue i 1 the one before you at this tiine, that of a univeraal 1 i1n code, The Chamber has reviewed the propo1ed c ode, compared lt w ith other exi1ting codes and dlacuued it with lndivl- duah involved in ita preparation. The Chamber recoanl&e• the myriad of problem• auociated with attempt• to eetablleh a Wliver- aal code, but aho recognize• the neceaalty of overc:omina th••• difflcultiea and adopting such a code. The propoaed code, ln lta preaent form, ia the result of untold hour a of work and much compromiae. T he Ce11tennial Chamber of Commerce congratulate• a ll thoee i nvolved in the preparation of the propoaed univeraal algn code and urge• lta adoption aa a poaitive contribution to the blaelneaa environ- ment which ia of concern to 1u all. Preaident -8- Mr. Tanguma asked that "vehicle consumer information signs" be explained. Ms. Powers stated that in a previous meeting, concern was expressed as to whether prices, etc. painted on car windshields in a car sales lot would be considered a "sign" and subject to regulation. It has been determined that a sign with this type of information would not be subject to a permit. This provision would also cover more than just the pricing which is marked on the windshields, but would also apply to such matters as emission standards, miles per gallon, etc. Mr. Allen asked if he understood correctly that the owner of property on which a prohibited, hazardous, or abandoned sign is located does not re- move such sign after notice from the City, that the City will do so and place a lien on the property? Ms. Powers stated that this is correct, and is following the procedure that is currently in effect regarding weed and debris removal from properties. Mrs. Pierson noted that 16 people have indicated on the sign-in sheet that they wish to address the Commission. She stated that she would call on these individuals who have so indicated. Mr. Dick Johnson 3550 South Inca -was sworn in, and testified that he just heard about the proposed sign code revision and the public hearing 30 minutes before the meeting this evening. He stated that he has been in business in Englewood for 10 years, and does not feel that the City of Englewood has supported retail businesses at it should, and as a result his business has been "mediocre" for 10 years. He stated that he has a sign at his place of business which would not comply with the provisions of the proposed Sign Code. He stated that he feels it is unfair to tell businessmen and property owners that they have 180 days, three years, or whatever, to bring their signs into conformance with a new Sign Code. He stated that the lifelihood of these businessmen may depend on that sign, and to change it would be a great expense to that businessman. Mr. Johnson stated that he could understand the desire to upgrade signs, but urged that the businessmen who are in Englewood not be hurt by this process. Mr. Johnson stated that he has paid taxes for the 10 years he has been in business in Englewood, and wants to remain here. He stated that he feels a Sign Code for new businesses locating in Englewood is one thing, but to impose new standards and restrictions on existing businesses is not fair. Mr. Draper inquired as to the age of the sign at Mr. Johnson's place of business, and the approximate cost of that sign? Mr. Johnson stated that the sign is 10 years old, and cost approximately $20,000 at the time it was purchased and installed. He stated that he had recently had it re- painted at a cost of $3,500. Mr. Johnson reiterated that he feels new businesses coming into Englewood should conform to the Sign Code, but the existing businessmen whose signs may not conform to the proposed Code should not be discriminated against. Mr. Johnson emphasized that he felt the 180 day removal time is too short. Mr. McBrayer pointed out that if the sign is not illegal or prohibited, but is nonconforming, the sign owner would be given three years to bring the sign into conformance or to remove it. Mr. Tom McGee was sworn in, and stated that he has operated H.E. Outdoor Posters since 1955. Mr. McGee stated that he had signs which were le&al • • • • • • -9- in Englewood until 1974, when the existing Sign Code was adopted, but this Code did not require removal of signs which became nonconforming with the adoption of the Code. Mr. McGee stated that his signs are 6' x 12 ' Jr. poster panels, and that no objections have been raised on the size of the signs. Mr. McGee stated that he would like to see outdoor advertising signs allowed in the City of Englewood. He stated that this form of advertising is employed by businesses who want to inform the public about the products and services that are for sale; it is a "good, clean, business". Mr. McGee stated that advertising space is also donated to organizat ions such as United Way, the March of Dimes, etc., and he did n ot feel that this business "deserves to be wiped out." Mr. Allen inquired whether Mr. McGee had any signs in Englewood at the present time? Mr. McGee stated that he had not had any signs in Englewood for two years; most of his signs are located in Denver, and he just built 12 i n Jefferson County. Mr. Steve Youel, Gordon Sign Company, was sworn in. Mr. Youel stated that he did not feel the issue of amortization of nonconforming signs had been considered at length, and inquired of the Commission if th ey were aware of the number of signs they were talking about. He stated that he felt most businesses along South Broadway and U.S. 285, for instance, would have signs that would not conform to the proposed Sign Code. To replace a sign that might have cost $20,000 ten years ago would now cost at least $35,000 to $40,000, and if that particular sign has just been renovated, it could have a life span of at least 15 years remaining. Mr. Youel acknowledged that while the Chamber of Conunerce has submitted a letter supporting the proposed Sign Code, he stated he would suspect that many individual business- men who would be affected by the Sign Code would not be in favor of the passage of this Code. He urged that a "grandfather" clause be wr it ten into the pro- posed Sign Code. Mr. Andy Hadler, Gannett Outdoor Company of Colorado, was swo rn in, and stated that his company would have problems with the propos ed Sign Code . Mr. Hadler stated that he felt the section on Prohibited Signs, Page 30 of the proposed Code, was unnecessary, and has a question on the legality of prohibiting specific signs. He stated that he felt the "City of Engle- wood will be facing legal action that no one wants to go through." Mr. Hadler reviewed previous court cases and decisions regarding the elimination of billboards, noting that Arapahoe County had attempted legislation re- garding billboards, and the Colorado Supreme Court ruled tha t the billboards could continue. The City of Denver later attempted to have billboards pro- hibited within the City limits, and this case was thrown out of court. Most recently, the Lakewood Sign Code was ruled unconstitutional, and they are now operating under an interim Sign Code. Mr. Hadler stated that all Supreme Court decisions say that businesses cannot be prohibited from ad- vertising; erection of new advertising structures may be prohibited, but removal of existing advertising structures cannot be required without compensation for that structure. Mr. Hadler testified that the City of Denver has recently paid Gannett Outdoor Company o f Colorado $16,000 for the removal of a sign, and that the Denver Urban Renewal Author ity paid $62,000 to have a Gannett advertising sign removed. Mr. Hadler stated that if the City of Englewood approves the proposed Sign Code, that "litigation may be our only recourse", and that the litigation would be on the basis of the proposed removal of present structures, and also to ask that outdoor advertising agencies be allowed to erect new structures in the City of Englewood. Mr. Hadler took issue with the memorandum from Mr. Joe Plizga, -10- Traffic Engineer for the City of Englewood, and testified that national • traffic studies have shown that there are no traffic problems created by outdoor advertising signs; no statistics have been gathered that show that outdoor advertising signs cause accidents. Mr. Hadler emphasized that Gannett Outdoor Company of Colorado will not remove the existing structures in the City of Englewood, and asked that the structures that are in existence be grandfathered in. In answer to a question from the Commission, Mr. Hadler stated that they have 45 poster signs, 12' x 25'; three painted signs and structures 14' x 48', and 25 poster structures in existence in the City of Englewood. He estimated the cost of removal of these structures could range from $4,800 to $32,000, and that if the City wants them out, the City will have to pay to have them removed. Mr. McBrayer stated that he was offended by the tone of Mr. Hodler's testi- mony, and noted that the City is attempting to improve the downtown and commercial areas, and it is felt the elimination of billboards is one means to accomplish this. Mr. Hodler stated that if the proposed Sign Code is approved, within three years the billboard structures would have to be removed. He stated that he worked for a business, and that it is his job to try to protect that business which is threatened by the proposed elimination of this form of advertising. Mr. Hodler stated that he did not feel the outdoor advertising businesses had been consulted and considered in the drafting of the proposed Sign Code, • and that he is offended by that. Ms. Pierson stated that this is the second person who has testified that they were not notified or aware of the proposed revision of the Sign Code. She asked Ms. Powers to again review the meetings and publicity that has been attendant on this revision. Ms. Powers reviewed the process by which the proposed Code has been drafted, and the subsequent meetings with the Commission, automobile dealers, shopping center owners and downtown businessmen that would be affected. Notices were also sent to various sign companies notifying them of specific meetings, and notices of this hearing were sent to everyone who had attended any of the meetings. Mr. Hodler stated that he started employment with Gannett Outdoor Company in August, and became aware of the sign code revision in November. He noted there had been some personnel changes within his company, and that it was possible there had been an earlier contact with someone else in the company. Mr. Allen asked the average size and height company has in the City? Mr. Hodler stated and are of different heights up to 31 feet. Code is approved, the billboards would have of the billboards that Mr. Hodler's that the average size is 12' x 25', Mr. Hodler noted that if this to be removed within three years. Ms. Powers pointed out that billboards have not been permitted in the City • since 1974. Mr. Hodler stated that the present Sign Code, while not per- mitting erection of new billboard structures, does not require the removal of the existing billboards. Mr. Hodler stated that the company does ask that they be allowed to keep the billboards they presently have within the City of Englewood, but are not asking for permission to erect new structures. • • • -11- Mr. Randy Cordova, Midland Federal Savings, was sworn in. Mr. Cordova stated that replacement of signs within either three years or ten years would be expensive for the businesses who must replace their signs. Mr. Cordova expressed concern over the provision that requires that all faces of the ground signs be included in computing the total area of the sign . Mr. Cordova also expressed concern on the lack of a "grandfather clause" for nonconforming signs, window signs, and the illumination of signs. It was pointed out to Mr. Cordova that the illumination regulations of 25 watts per bulb have not been changed from the existing Code. It was also pointed out that one of the intents of the revised Sign Code is to encourage smaller signs; thus, the requirement that both sides of a ground sign be considered in computing the sign area. Ms. Pierson called on Mr. Jim Liley, who had indicated that he wished to address the Commission. Mr . Liley stated that he had nothing to say at this time. Mrs. Pierson declared a recess of the Commission at 8:40 P.M. reconvened at 9:00 P.M., with the following members present: Barbre, Becker, Carson, Draper, McBrayer, Pierson, Senti. No absent. The Commission Tanguma, Allen, members were Mr. Don Seymour was sworn in, and stated that he would like to speak in favor of the proposed Sign Code. He stated that he has no business interest in whether the Sign Code is approved or not. Mr. Seymour testified that he has lived in Englewood almost 50 years, and has paid his taxes; he would like to see the City go forward and improve its visual quality. He feels the pro- posed Sign Code is the first step to take, and urged that the Code be approved. Ms. Rachel <Mens, 3460 South Broadway, was sworn in. Ms. <Mens stated that she is heartily in favor of the proposed Sign Code. Ms. Owens stated that she is a member of the Englewood Downtown Development Authority, and is a local realtor. Mr. Mike Haviland, 3535 South Sherman Street, was sworn in. Mr. Haviland testified that he is director of the Englewood Downtown Development Authority, and is in favor of the proposed Sign Code. Mr. Haviland stated that he would hope the Commission would make a decision on the matter this evening. He stated that he felt the Commission and staff have made every effort to be fair to the business community in the compromises and changes that have been made in the proposed Code since the initial draft was considered. He stated that he feels there has been a more than reasonable effort made to contact businessmen and sign company representatives to notify them of the proposed changes. He agreed that the issue of a "grandfather" clause is an important issue, but he felt the Commission had come up with a comfortable resolution to this problem with the recommendation of the proposed amortization schedule. Mr. Haviland stated that he felt the Commission should "step forward as a Planning Commission and create some policy." He stated that there is a need for a good Sign Code, and stated that he is "emphatically in support" of the proposed Code • Mr. Gordon Close, 3451 South Acoma Street, was sworn in, and testified that he feels it is necessary to have this Sign Code approved. Mr. Close stated that he felt it would be good for the community. Mr. Close stated that there have been many meetings at which opponents were given opportunity to voice their objections and concerns. Mr. Close stated the proposed -12- Sign Code will no t be acceptable to everybody, but that it is needed to improve the City of Englewo o d. He stated that he supported passage of the Sign Cod e as presented. Ms . Becker a sked Mr. Close how he, as a businessman, expected a new custome r to f i nd h i s sto r e ; by signs, or what other form of advertising did he rely on? Mr. Cl ose s t a ted that it is important to have a good product or ser- vice to offer to the public, and it will become known by word-of-mouth. It is impo rtant fo r a business to create an image that will attract person s to the store. Mr. Close stated that the signing is also important, but t h at t h e s i gn do es not need to be large. He stated that he felt that "class and good t aste in a sign" is most important, and that he felt every store could be l o cate d by a customer without a problem regardless of the number of signs or the size of the signs. Mr. Close stated that in his par t i cular blo ck, the "image" of a music complex has been created, and this brings people into the area rather than the size of the signs on the individual stores . Mrs. Fra n Howard, 645 East Yale Place, was sworn in. Mrs. Howard testified that she is in favor of the Sign Code. She stated that she prefers to shop in a good, c l ean building and is not impressed by gaudy signs or lots of lights. Ms. Jo Ellen Turner , 4630 South Cherokee, was sworn in, and urged passage of the Sign Code . Ms. Turn e r stated that she feels this is a vital first step in the revitalization o f the bus iness area, and is important to the economic health o f the commun ity. Ms. Becker inquired o f Ms. Turner how she would find a business that she was not fami l iar with? Ms. Turner stated that word-of-mouth or newspaper advertising, o r just walking along an area she might notice an attractive place and s top in. Mr . Michael Amur i, Arapahoe Signs, was sworn in. Mr. Amuri stated that he would agree t h a t required removal and replacement of signs could create a hardship on some b usinessmen. He noted that this provision could well drive some businessmen out of Englewood. Mr . .Amuri expressed the opinion that registration of rea l estate signs would be difficult to enforce, and questioned that t he s ix square feet per face was a realistic size. Mr. Amuri stated that he has some arguments against billboards, but would have to agree that t h ey do have the right to exist, and he urged that the Com- mission give add iti onal thought to the requirement that billboards must be removed within three years from the date the Code is approved. Mr. Amuri asked if outdoor d isplay of merchandise on public right-of-way, which is prohibited und e r the proposed code, would preclude sidewalk sales in the future? He stated that he felt "billboards" and "third party signs" are applicable t o the same type of sign and that this code prohibits them twic e. Mr. Amuri stat ed tha t he felt the inclusion of a "grandfather clause" should also be considered fu r ther by the Commission. Mr. Amuri also questioned why both faces of a gr ound sign should be measured in determining the a rea • • of the sign. Mr. Amu r i di s cussed the provision dealing with maintenance o f • signs, and questioned who ma de the determination that a sign was in need o f maintenance ; he sta ted h e felt this should be spelled out. Mr. Amuri th e n discussed t he section o f the pro posed Code pertaining to Permits. He not ed that as a sign p ainter, he had recently had to renew his license in the City of Eng l ewo od and paid $50 for that license. However, other people • • • -13- could get a permit to make their own sign, and did not have to pay for a license. He questioned the fairness of this, and urged that some pro- tection should be included in the Code for the people who are "licensed." Mr. Amuri asked how the staff and Commission proposed to determine whether work has begun on a sign either on or off-site within 60 days of the issuance of a permit? Mr. Allen asked Mr. Amuri what he felt would be a reasonable maximum height for a sign? Mr. Amuri stated that it would depend on the location of the sign and how far it is set back from the property line. Mr. McBrayer stated that he felt some of Mr. Amuri's concerns should be clarified. Ms. Powers stated that the City does have spectal provisions for sidewalk sales and they would not be prohibited by the provision regarding outdoor display of merchandise. Ms. Powers stated that she did not feel it was factual that all other connnunities count only one side of a sign in deter- mining the size. Mr. Amuri stated that he knew for a fact that Denver counts only one side of a sign, and that Lakewood also counts only one side of a sign. Ms. Powers stated that regarding his concerns expressed on the maintenance section of the Code, it is written into this section that "Th e Director or his or her designee, shall inspect and shall have the authority to order the painting ••. " Mr. Holland stated that the authority and responsibility are set out in the proposed code and the enforcement of this provision would not be arbitrary. Ms. Powers stated regarding the size of real estate signs, the staff made inquiries and were informed that the size stipulated in the proposed Sign Code is the standard size for real estate signs. Mr. McBrayer pointed out to Mr. Amuri that the $50 license fee is imposed on contractors; that he, himself, has to pay such a fee. If an individual provides a service to someone else, such as constructing a house or painting a sign, they must have a license. Mr. Ed Cordova, 3431 South Broadway, was sworn in. Mr. Cordova stated that he owns Flash Tailors, and that when he moved to that location, the building was a dilapidated warehouse structure. He stated that they have gone through the expense of changing the facade of the building, changing the signage, and had to remove a marquee, an old sign, and antennas from the roof of the building. Mr. Cordova stated that he believes in the Sign Code as it is now written, and urged that it be passed, particularly as it concerns the Downtown Englewood business area. Mr. Cordova stated that he generally agrees with the proposed Sign Code as it is written for the re- mainder of the City of Engelwood. He reconnnended approval be given to the proposed Code, and that it be implemented innnediately. Mr. Phil Grinnn, Freeman Signs, was sworn in. Mr. Grinnn asked if two contiguous streets are considered as street frontage? Ms. Powers stated that this is correct. Mr. Grimm stated that he did not feel this is written into the Code. Mr. Grimm stated that the Planning Division staff and Planning Commission have done a lot of work on the pro- posed code, but there are some points he wished to make. Mr. Grimm stated -14- that he felt the proposed size of signs could hurt some people; for in- stance, if the maximum square footage for a gr ound sign is 100 square feet, and both sides are counted toward the computation of the maximum size, the largest ground sign would be 5' x 10'. He felt this provision could be damaging to a lot of businessmen. Mr. Grimm stated that he also felt it was a little contradictory to allow a total sign area of 600 square feet, but the maximum number of signs allowed is five at 100 square feet each. Ms. Powers pointed out the "front line of the to "street frontage". credited for the total .. that the present Sign Code is written with reference to lot"; the proposed Sign Code has been written to refer Therefore, a business located on a corner lot would be street frontage on two sides. Ms. Debbie Brown, 4960 South Broadway, was sworn in. Ms. Brown stated that while she generally agreed with the intent of the Sign Code, she would have to remove the sign on her business. Ms. Brown stated that she felt a "grand- father clause" should be included in the proposed Code. Ms. Brown -stated that she felt some of the large signs are "landmarks", and should not be removed. Mr. Dick Johnson, 3550 South Inca, again addressed the Commission. Mr. Johnson stated that he felt it was "evident this Code is not adequate to be passed at this time", and suggested that an ad hoc committee be formed to work on the Code and get it into the proper shape so it can be approved . Mr. Johnson stated that Englewood has a highway going through the middle of the City, and has high-speed traffic on South Broadway and U.S. 285. Mr. Johnson stated that people in retail business in Englewood depend on outside traffic driving through for their livelihood. Mr. Johnson stated that he has been in business here 10 years, and that only 13% to 15% of his business has come from the residents of Englewood; the remaining 85% of his business comes from people driving through who stop in; consequently, their sign is very important to them. Mr. Johnson stated that if the traffic pattern along U.S. 285, for instance, is revamped, it is possible that different signage could be used at that time. Mr. Johnson again pointed out that the "grandfather clause" would be very important to his business. Mr. Johnson stated that basically, the Sign Code is a good idea, but should be rewritten. Mrs. Becker stated that if she understood Mr. Johnson's testimony correctly, he feels that 85% of his patronage comes from people driving through the City of Englewood who stop because of his sign. She asked if people didn't come into his place of business because of the type of business he has? Mr. Johnson reiterated that 85% of his business comes from residents out- side the City of Englewood. Mr. Johnson stated that it is hard to stay in business in Englewood, and that the City officials should concentrate on ways to keep business in Englewood. Ms. Becker asked what Mr. Johnson considered "heavy" traffic? Mr. Johnson stated that U.S. 285 carries heavy traffic, and that a sign is needed to notify motorists of his business location. He stated that if shopping centers are going to be built where people can drive at 10 mph, it's fine; but he urged that the businessmen who are not located in a shopping center and who are in business in the area not be penalized. Mr. Allen asked what Mr. Johnson considered to be the optimum size of a sign and the optimum height? Mr. Johnson stated that his sign is probably 30 feet in height. • • • • • • -15- Mr. Steve Youel of Gordon Sign Company again addressed the Commission. He stated that he has been involved with sign ordinances for eleven years. He stated that Denver passed their Sign Code in 1971, and all other communities followed suit. Mr. Youel testified that he feels the present sign code is adequate, and that if it were to be enforced, it could upgrade the area. Ms. Becker asked Mr. Youel if he was familiar with the Fort Collins Sign Code? Mr. Youel stated that he was familiar with some of the newer areas of Port Collins, and that the ordinance is applicable to the new areas. Ma. Becker stated that the Sign Code must also be applicable to the older downtown area, and discussed her favorable impression in driving through the 11ain business area of Fort Collins. She stated that what Fort Collins has achieved is very much in keeping with what she envisions the City o f Englewood is trying to accomplish. Mr. Youel noted that the size of a sign is misleading, particularly to a passing motorist. He noted that while the proposed Englewood Code would restrict the s ize of signs to 100 square feet, the Fort Collins Code permits signs up t o 150 square f eet in size. Mr. Youel stated that he felt there were two issues that really nee d further consideration by the City, those issues being t hat of the "grandfa ther clause", and the issue of optimum size of signs. He c olllllented that he felt the .. jority of the signs that are of concern to t he Commission and s taff have been up since before the 1974 Sign Code was adopted. Mr. McBrayer took issue with the argument that large signs are ne e ded on streets which carry high-speed traffic, and cited Havana Street which carries considerable traffic, but the signs along this thoroughfare are s11aller than those which are along South Broadway or U.S. 285 through Englewood . Mr. Youel suggested that the staff should talk to Mr . J anssen in Denver reaarding the attrition and ..ortisation of signs. Mr. Youel stated that •ill'• are removed voluntarily by some businesses and sign companies when 1 ..... expire or businesses ceaae. Mr. Youel stated that he felt the Sign Companies and businesses that put signs up under a legitimate permit have the riaht to aaintain those signs. Mr. J:la Klein, 630 West Hampden Avenue, was sworn in and stated that he had just gone into business in Englewood, so his sign would have a 10-year life span before it would have to be removed. However, he stated that he would feel "chagrined" if he were to be allowed to keep his large sign for 10 years and everyone around him had to replace their signs within three years. Mr. llein stated that new business•en want to become a part of the com11Unity and they are part of the comaunity's economics; he pointed out that business supports cities, and that the businessmen are residents and citizens of the city and should enjoy privileges of that city. He stated that he felt the businessmen are asking the s taff and c01llllrl.ssion to work with them. 'lbomas V. Holland, Assistant City Attorney, was swo rn in. Mr. Holland stated that he felt there were three issues which had been raised before the Commission that are leaal issues, and that he would like to address them. Mr. Holland stated that the first issue is whether or not the pro- posed Sign Code complies with the Colorado Supreae Court decision on the Lakewood Sian Code. Mr. Bolland stated that the C011mUnity Development staff and the City Attorney's staff have worked together to make sure that the Code is written to COllPlY with that Supreme Court decision, and that he feels cOllfortable that the City of Englewood has a proposed Sign Code that does coaply with this Court decision. -16- The second issue Mr. Holland addressed was whether or not a City can, in fact, prohibit billboards. In 1975, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that billboards could not be prohibited within an entire city. However, approxi- mately six months ago, the United States Supreme Court ruled that billboards may be prohibited within a city if that city so wished; this was a decision on a case in San Diego. The Colorado Supreme Court has, since this decision was handed down, recognized that ruling and reversed its previous ruling. The third issue addressed by Mr. Holland was that of amortization of non- conforming signs. Mr. Holland stated that nonconforming signs can be required to be removed within a specified time; it must be a "reasonable period of time", but there is no financial liability to the City to pay for the removal of those signs within a "reasonable" amortization period. Mr. Holland stated that it is his opinion that the proposed amortization schedule contained in the Sign Code is reasonable. Mr. Tanguma asked if he understood that signs in existence could be pro- hibited, and that the City would not have to compensate the company or business to get them removed? Mr. Holland stated that this is the case if the amortization time is "reasonable". Mr. Hadler stated that he did not feel there was a clear definition on what is considered "reasonable" amortization. He stated that Gannett Out- door Company of Colorado is dealing at the present time with the State Highway Department on the beautification of highways and it is the recom- mendation of the Highway Department staff that amortization not be used because it is not well defined. He stated that he would be happy to give the name of that contact with the State Highway Department to Ms. Powers. Ms. Pierson stated that if there was no further testimony to be offered, she would entertain a motion to close the Public Hearing. Becker moved: Carson seconded: The Public Hearing be closed. AYES: Allen, Barbre, Becker, Carson, Draper, McBrayer, Pierson, Senti, Tanguma NAYS: None The motion carried. Mrs. Pierson asked the Commission's choice on this matter? Ms. Becker moved: Carson seconded: The Planning Commission table further consideration of .the proposed Sign Code until February 2, 1982. Mr. McBrayer spoke in favor of making a decision regarding the proposed Sign Code at this meeting. He pointed out that there have been numerous meetings regarding this proposal, and that many hours of testimony have been heard by the Commission; there have been compromises made on concerns that have been expressed by the businessmen and general public, and he felt it was time to make a decision. Mr. Tanguma stated that he would agree with Mr. McBrayer that it is time to make a decision. Ms. Becker stated that she agreed that the City deserved a decision; how- ever, she stated that she felt the Commission needed to carefully review • • • • • • -17- the testimony and concerns that have been presented at this meeting, and noted that it is now 10:00 P.M. She was concerned that this might not result in as "careful" a decision as should be made. Mr. Allen stated that he also felt a decision should be made at this meeting. The vote was called on the motion to table: AYES: Barbre, Becker, Draper, Senti NAYS: Carson, McBrayer, Pierson, Tanguma, All e n The motion failed. McBrayer moved: Carson seconded: The Planning Commission reconnnend that the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, §22.7, be amended by repeal of the existing Sign Code, §22.7, and adoption of the proposed Sign Code dated January 19, 1982. Mr. Allen stated that he has studied this matter for a long time, and there are parts of the proposed Code he would like to see approved. But, he feels there are provisions in the proposed Sign Code that could be harmful to the businessmen in Englewood; he further stated that he feels the existing Sign Code is sufficient to take care of the problems and concerns that have been voiced if this existing Sign Code were to be enforced. He stated for these reasons, he would have to vote against approval of the proposed Sign Code . Ms. Becker asked if Findings of Fact should be made at this time, or at a later time? Ms. Powers stated that the Findings of Fact could be made and approved at a later date. Ms. Becker reiterated her favorable impression of the signage in Fort Collins. Ms. Becker stated that she did not feel the size of sign had that much to do with ability to find a particular place of business; that if one really wanted to find a particular business it can be done without large signs. Ms. Becker stated that she felt the proposed Sign Code was appropriate. Mr. McBrayer stated that he is very much in favor of the proposed Sign Code. He noted that in cities that undertake revitalization projects, one of the first things they consider is the Sign Code. He stated that he did not feel new businesses and revitalization efforts should be concentrated around old signs. Mr. McBrayer noted that many thousands of dollars have been spent on the downtown revitalization effort to this date. Mr. McBrayer stated that the Commission and staff have compromised on the matter of amortization of signs to grant every sign a life of 10 years, and that he did not feel a drastic hardship is being created for anybody. He urged that the first step be taken and that approval be given to the proposed Sign Code. Mr. Allen stated that revitalization efforts for downtown Englewood have been going on for 22 years, but never before has getting rid of signs been the first thing that had to be done. He stated that the size of a sign has never been an issue before. Mr. Allen stated that he thinks Englewood is being revitalized, and he does not feel it is proper to impose hardships on the business people. Mr. Allen stated that he is very much in favor of revitalization, but cannot support passage of the proposed Sign Code. The vote was called on the motion: -18- AYES: Becker, Carson, McBrayer, Pierson, Senti, Barbre NAYS: Draper, Tanguma, Allen The motion carried. Ms. Powers stated that the Findings of Fact would be available for considera- tion at the next meeting on February 2, 1982. IV. PUBLIC FORUM. No one addressed the Commission under this section of the Agenda. V. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE. Ms. Powers stated that she had been informed that the School Board had voted four to one to approve use of the athletic field at the High School as a detention pond in the flood control measures for Little Dry Creek. Interviews have been completed on the Little Dry Creek Flood control project, and Wright-McLaughlin Engineers have been selected to design and engineer the project. They will subcontract with EDAW, a planning consulting firm from Fort Collins, to provide the aesthetic design. Ms. Powers stated she had nothing further to report on Prowswood. Ms. Powers stated that she understood Joslins in Cinderella City will be converting the second floor of their building to office space, and will house their regional headquarters at Cinderella City. Ms. Powers stated that the proposed meeting with the Littleton Planning Commission has been postponed. The staff has met with Mr. McMinimee, the Director of Community Development in Littleton, and agree that there are many common problems facing both municipalities. Ms . Powers suggested that the Commission consider matters which might be discussed prior to the meeting with the Littleton Commission. Brief discussion ensued. Matters which were mentioned as being of common interest were the race track prop- erty, annexation, the South Drive-in property, Platte River development and the bicycle system. VI. COMMISSION'S CHOICE. Ms. Pierson stated that she would entertain a motion to approve the Minutes of January 5, 1982. Barbre moved: Carson seconded: The Minutes of January 5, 1982, be approved as written. AYES: McBrayer, Pierson, Senti, Tanguma, Allen , Barbre, Becker, Carson, Draper NAYS: None The mtoion carried. Mr. Draper expressed concern that perhaps the Commission had exceeded their scope of responsibility in the decision regarding the repair of motorcycles • • • • • • -19- in the B-2 Zone District, and that this matter should be reconsidered. Discussion ensued . Assistant City Attorney Holland stated that someone who voted in favor of the motion could move to reconsider the matter. Draper moved: Carson seconded: The Planning Commission further review the matter of motorcycle repair in the B-2 Zone District at the next meeting of February 2, 1982. AYES: Carson, Draper, McBrayer, Pierson, Senti, Tanguma, Allen, Barbre, Becker NAYS : None The motion carried. The meeting adjourned at 10:30 P.M •