Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-02-02 PZC MINUTES·e CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 2, 1982 I. CALL TO ORDER. The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 6:55 P.M. by Chairman Judith B. Pierson. Members present: Stoel, McBrayer, Pierson, Senti, Tanguma, Barbre, Becker, Carson Members absent: Also present: Powers, Ex-officio Allen Assistant Director for Planning D. A. Romans Senior Planner Susan King Planner I Harold Stitt Assistant City Attorney Thomas V. Holland Ms. Pierson welcomed Mr. Walter Stoel to the Commission. Mr. Stoel was appointed for a four-year term by City Council, and will fill the seat vacated by Mr.Ed Draper. Mr. Thad Carson was reappointed to the Planning Commission for a four-year term. Mrs. Pierson announced that she has sub- mitted her resignation to City Council, and that Mr. Hart Gilchrist was appointed to the Planning Commission to serve out her term, and will begin his term with the Commission on March 1, 1982. Ms. Pierson suggested that Mr. Gilchrist might be interested in sitting in on the joint Englewood- Littleton Planning Commission meeting scheduled for February 23rd. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. Mrs. Pierson stated that the Minutes of January 19, 1982, were to be con- sidered for approval. Carson moved: Tanguma seconded: The Planning Commission approve the Minutes of January 19, 1982, as written. AYES: McBrayer, Pierson, Senti, Tanguma, Barbre, Becker, Carson NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Stoel ABSENT: Allen The motion carried. III. FINDINGS OF FACT Sign Code CASE #3-82 Chairman Pierson stated that Findings of Fact on the proposed revision of the Sign Code were to be considered for approval. -2- Carson moved: Becker seconded: The Findings of Fact on Case #3-82 be approved as written. Mr. McBrayer questioned whether the secondary signs along alleys were fully addressed in the proposed Sign Code, and whether this should be referenced in the Findings of Fact? Ms. Powers stated that this is addressed in the Sign Code, and is mentioned on Page 5 of the Findings of Fact. Mr. McBrayer then questioned whether the Findings of Fact specifically mentioned the amortization of nonconforming signs. Ms. Powers referred Mr. McBrayer to No. 21 in the Findings of Fact, which addresses the issue of amortization. The vote was called: AYES: Pierson, Senti, Tanguma, Barbre, Becker, Carson, McBrayer NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Stoel ABSENT: Allen The motion carried. IV. MOTORCYCLE REPAIR SHOPS IN B-2 ZONE DISTRICT CASE #2-82 Ms. Pierson stated that it was the determination of the Planning Commission at the close of the last meeting of January 19th, that their decision re- garding motorcycle repair shops in B-2 should be reconsidered. She asked if the staff wished to make any comments? Ms. Romans stated that Senior Planner King has reviewed the records of Uses Not Mentioned beginning in 1964 through the present date; there have been 40 cases that have been considered by the Commission as Uses Not Mentioned, 17 of which have been auto-related. The majority of the decisions rendered have been on a "site specific" basis, rather than a blanket approval for the entire zone district. Ms. Becker expressed concern that the decision rendered by the Commission on January 19th would preclude motorcycle repair shops in the entire B-2 Zone District, and not just at the subject site on East Hampden Avenue. Ms. Becker stated that there may be locations in the B-2 Zone District where a motorcycle repair shop might be appropriate. Ms. Romans stated that the primary staff concern was the condition of the building at 1008 East Hampden Avenue, which Mr. Anderson proposed to use for the motorcycle repair business. If the building could be brought up to Code, there would not have been the staff concern. The Planning Com- mission, on the other hand, felt it was a use that should not be permitted in the B-2 Zone District. Mr. Senti stated that his feeling was that it should not be permitted in this building, but to disapprove the motorcycle repair business throughout the B-2 District is wrong, and that the decision should be reconsidered. Mr. Carson stated that his opinion is much the same as Mr. Senti's. He stated that he feels this is an isolated case, and that the ruling should apply to this particular location, not the entire B-2 Zone District. Mr. McBrayer stated that he did not feel the Commission had that prerogative when considering the matter; he felt that it was presented to the Commission as an "interpretation of the ordinance", and not for a specific site. , -3- Ms. Powers stated that one suggestion to handle such cases on a specific site basis is to treat them as "conditional uses"; this would entail holding a public hearing on these requests, but the issues of a particular site would then be addressed rather than whether it should be permitted through- out an entire zone district. Assistant City Attorney Holland stated that he had done some research on this question, but did not come up with answers completely satisfactory to him. Mr. Holland stated that if the Planning Commission were to approve the Use Not Mentioned under the provisions of §22.4-11 b (16), this would permit this particular use in the entire B-2 Zone District. If it is the desire and intent of the Commission to approve it on a site specific basis, then he felt they must do it in some other manner than under this particular section of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Holland stated that it is his feeling that, taking into consideration the manner in which the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance is written, the Use Not Mentioned cannot be approved on a "site specific basis" under the particular section of the Ordinance that has been cited. Mrs. Romans stated that she understood Mr. Holland's interpretation, but pointed out that since 1964 approval has been given on a site specific basis, and that the Commission has placed conditions on particular uses on specific sites. Discussion ensued. Mr. Barbre noted that there are areas on South Broadway that have a concentration of auto-related repair businesses, and he felt · that persons wishing to engage in motorcycle repair businesses should have the option to apply to the Planning Commission for approval. Ms. Becker expressed concern that the action of the Commission would pre- vent the individuals wishing to do motorcycle repair from locating in the B-2 Zone District. Ms. Becker stated that she was not really comfortable with the ramifications of the Co~ssion decision. Ms. Pierson pointed out that the building which had been proposed for use as a motorcycle repair shop was in poor condition, and would not be brought up to Code by the applicant and/or property owner. Mr. Holland suggested that the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance should be amended to permit the approval of the Uses Not Mentioned as a conditional use within a specific zone district. He noted that this would seem to be the best way, in this instance, to protect the B-2 Zone District in general from this type of use, but still permit motorcycle repair shops in a specific location. Ms. Powers pointed out that amendment to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance would require Public Hearings before the Planning Commission. Ms. Pierson stated that she did not feel it is necessary to give blanket approval for motorcycle repair businesses in either the B-1 or B-2 Zone Districts, and that perhaps the staff should prepare an amendment to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance to allow consideration of the Uses Not Mentioned as a conditional use on a site specific basis. Discussion ensued. Ms. Becker suggested that Mr. Anderson, the applicant for the motorcycle repair shop, should be notified that the Commission is considering the possibility of an amendment to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. -4- Mr. Stoel stated he understood that Mr. Anderson had come to the City asking for approval of a motorcycle repair shop. Mr. Stoel indicated that he is familiar with the area in question, and that the building Mr. Anderson proposed to use would not meet Fire or Building Code. He stated if he understood the situation correctly, Mr. Anderson is operating the repair shop at the present time, and the City questioned whether he should be doing so in that structure. Ms. Romans stated that the staff is often alerted to operations such as Mr. Anderson's through the application for a sales tax license, which the Zoning Division must sign; the staff was initially informed that the business was for the repair of "scooters", and the staff was of the opinion that this would not create a problem. However, it became evident that the repair work being done was not on the small "scooter" type vehicle, but on the large motorcycles, and it was at this point that the staff became concerned about the building not meeting the Fire and Building Codes; the Building Division and Fire Department were asked to check out the structure, and it was their opinion that the structure would not meet either the Fire or Building Code, and that the motorcycle repair should not be done in that structure until it was brought up to Code. Mrs. Pierson stated that the reconsideration has been brought before the Commission by motion at the previous meeting; she stated that she under- stood the action of the Commission would be whether to reconfirm the pre- vious action of the Commission that motorcycle repair shops are not appro- priate uses in the B-2 Zone District. She asked if there were further comments. Mr. McBrayer suggested that perhaps the matter should be tabled until the staff could complete research on the proposed amendment. Dis- cussion ensued. Mr. McBrayer stated that he was against making motorcycle repair shops a permitted use in the B-2 Zone District. Mc Brayer moved: Carson seconded: The Planning Commission reconfirm the decision on Case #2-82 to not allow motorcycle repair as a permitted use in the B-2 Zone District. Mr. B:lrbre noted that if the decision of the Commission is reconfirmed, this would continue to deny motorcycle repair throughout the B-2 Zone Dis- trict. He asked if there was any way to approve this particular request on a site specific basis? Ms. Pierson stated that she felt the course the Commission should follow is to reaffirm the determination of the last meeting, and to ask the staff to draft an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to handle these matters on a site specific basis. Mr. Tanguma stated that he felt confirmation of action taken by the Commission at the meeting of January 19th would prevent applicants from coming before the Commission with re- quests on a site specific basis until an amendment is approved. He stated that he would have to oppose this, and asked if the motion could be amended to make it possible for applicants to come before the Planning Commission. Further discussion ensued. The vote was called: AYES: Becker, Carson, McBrayer, Pierson NAYS: Senti, Tanguma, Barbre, Stoel ABSENT: Allen -5- Assistant City Attorney Holland stated that at the meeting of January 19th, the Connnission had voted to deny motorcycle repair as a permitted use in the B-2 Zone District; they voted to reconsider the decision later in the meeting. There is now a 4/4 vote to reconfirm their action to deny the motorcycle repair shops in the B-2 District. Mr. Holland stated that the motion had failed, and that it was his opinion the original decision stands. Ms. Pierson pointed out that during the time the Comprehensive Plan was being drafted, it was determined that the area around Swedish Medical Center would be encouraged to develop with medically-oriented support businesses. This would preclude motorcycle r e pair businesses in this area if the Com- prehensive Plan is followed. She stated that if the Connnission is going to be consistent, she felt it must be determined that the motorcycle re- pair businesses should not be a permitted use in the general B-2 Zone Dis- trict, and that the staff should be asked to draft an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance so that such requests may be considered on a site specific basis. Mr. Holland stated that the issue before the Planning Cbnnnission is whether or not they want to consider motorcycle repair as a similar lawful use in the B-2 Zone District. He suggested possible wording on a motion if the Connnission wanted to approve the motorcycle repair use. Further discussion ensued. Mr. Holland pointed out that the use is not permitted at the present time, and unless the Connnission votes to permit motorcycle repair in the B-2 Zone District, it will not be permitted. Mr. Holland reiterated that the issue before the Connnission is whether to allow motorcycle repair shops as a lawful permitted use in the B-2 Zone District. Mr. Stoel asked if he understood that motorcycle repair shops are not currently permitted in the B-2 Zone District, but that automobile repair shops are permitted? Ms. Powers pointed out that auto repair shops are permitted as an accessory to an automobile sales lot; the same would per- tain to motorcycle repair shops. They are not permitted uses by them- selves, however. Further discussion ensued. McBrayer moved: Carson seconded: The Planning Connnission not allow motorcycle repair as a permitted use in the B-2 Zone District. AYES: Tanguma, Barbre, Becker, Carson, Stoel, McBrayer, Pierson, Senti NRIS: None ABS ENT: Allen The motion carried. Ms. Pierson asked that the staff prepare an amendment to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance enabling requests for Uses Not Mentioned to be considered on a site specific basis. V. REORGANIZATION OF COMMISSION. Ms. Pierson stated that at the first meeting in February, the Commission usually chooses a new Chairman and Vice-Chairman for the ensuing year. Ms. Pierson asked for nominations for Chairman. -6- Mr. Barbre nominated Mr. McBrayer as Chairman of the City Planning and Zoning Commission. Mr. Carson seconded the nomination. Ms. Pierson asked if there were further nominations for Chairman? There were no further nominations for Chairman. Carson moved: Barbre seconded: Nominations be closed, and Mr. McBrayer elected chairman. AYES: Barbre, Becker, Carson, McBrayer, Pierson, Senti, Stoel, Tanguma NAYS: None ABS ENT: Allen The motion carried. Ms. Pierson turned the Chair over to Mr. McBrayer. Mr. McBrayer then asked for nominations for Vice-Chairman. Mr. Senti nominated Mrs. Marjorie Becker as Vice-Cllairman of the Commission. Mr. Tanguma seconded the nomination. There were no further nominations for Vice-Chairman. Carson moved: Barbre seconded: The nominations be closed and Mrs. Becker be elected Vice-Chairman. AYES: Barbre, Becker, Carson, McBrayer, Pierson, Senti, Stoel NAYS: None ABS ENT: Allen The motion carried. VI. PUBLIC FORUM. No one was present to address the Commission under Public Forum. VII. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE. Ms. Powers presented members of the Planning and Zoning Commission with a summary of issues that had been raised during the course of the public meetings on the Sign Code, and the response of the staff and Commission to those issues. Ms. Powers stated that this information is being put to- gether for the City Council to give them background information on the Sign Code before holding public hearings. Ms. Powers stated that the firm Wright-McLaughlin has been chosen to do the design work on Little Dry Creek, and the contract with that firm will be signed within the next week. Ms. Powers stated that Wright-McLaughlin will be asked to give an up-date presentation on Little Dry Creek probably within the next month; she stated that possibly this could be done with several of the boards and commissions that are interested in Little Dry Creek, such as the Parks Commission. Ms. Powers stated that she understood -7- Wright-McLaughlin were to present three alternatives for consideration for the downtown section of the improvements, those alternatives being: (1) Open the channel up down the mall to Cherokee; (2) close the channel completely to Broadway, or (3) to leave the channel open as it presently is. Ms. Powers pointed out that City Council has chosen the Sellards & Grigg Alternative #2, which is to improve the existing channel, make improve- ments to the box conduit, and add an additional pipe at the point of in- take at Bannock and Girard Avenue, and to use the high school athletic field for a detention pond. Ms. Powers noted that Wright-McLaughlin will be making a presentation to the Urban Renewal Authority at their meeting of February 3, 1982. Ms. Powers stated that she had nothing further to report on the Prowswood site. Ms. Powers stated that the APA National Conference will be held in Dallas, Texas, from May 8 -12. She suggested that the Commission should consider who they wish to designate to attend the Conference. Ms. Powers reminded Mr. Tanguma that his written report on his attendance at the APA Conference in Boston last Spring has yet to be submitted to City Council. Ms. Powers stated that City Hall will be closed in observance of President's Day on February 15th, and the City Council will meet on February 16th. Ms. Powers stated that there are a couple of items that the staff is working on that may be ready for consideration on the 16th; not all the information is available at this time. She stated that the Commission could meet the evening of the 16th even though the City Council is also meeting, because neither of the items requires a Public Hearing and there would be no need to use the Council Chambers. She asked if there would be any problem for members if a meeting should be called for the 16th? Mr. Senti indicated that he could not attend if the meeting were to be held on Wednesday, the 17th. Mr. McBrayer stated that the Commission should plan to meet on February 16th as originally scheduled. Ms. Powers stated that the meeting with the Littleton Planning Commission has been scheduled for February 23rd. Discussion ensued regarding items of mutual concern to both Englewood and Littleton. Matters which were suggested for inclusion in the discussion were: 1. Bicycle Trail/Greenway Belt. 2. South Drive-in Plans. 3. Centennial Race Track. 4. Annexation Policy. 5. Sign Code. 6. Santa Fe Corridor. 7. Littleton City Hall/Solar System. Ms. Powers stated that this meeting would be in the Library Conference Room, and would be an informal session with sandwiches, etc. The meeting would probably begin at 6:00 or 6:30 P.M. VIII. COMMISSIONER'S CHOICE. Mr. Barbre discussed a situation that residents along South Clarkson are experiencing. Dogs from Cherry Hills Village are allowed to roam into -8- Englewood and they knock over the trash cans in the alleys. Most of the residents pick up the trash, but there are a couple of residents that do not. Mr. Barbre noted that several residents must use the alley for access to their garages, and the spilled trash has caused problems in maneuvering through the alley, plus flat tires, etc. Ms. Powers stated that she would follow up on this matter. Mr. McBrayer asked if the staff could investigate the possibility of a joint meeting with the Planning Commission and City Council. He stated that he had found the previous City Council/Planning Commission meeting to be most informative and helpful, and felt that another such meeting would be most helpful. Ms. Powers said that she would pass Mr. McBrayer's suggestion on to the City Manager. The meeting adjourned at 8:15 P.M • .. ertrude G. Welty · vRecording Secre ry -9- MEMORANDUM TO THE ENGLE~OD CITY COUNCIL REGARDING ACTION OR RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. DATE: February 2, 1982 SUBJECT: ACTION: Carson moved: Becker seconded: Findings of Fact -Proposed Sign Code The Findings of Fact on Case #3-82 be approved as written. AYES: Pierson, Senti, Tanguma, Barbre, Becker, Carson, McBrayer NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Stoel ABSENT: Allen The motion carried. By Order of the City Planning and Zoning Connnission. - -10- DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION IN TIIE MATTER OF CASE NO. 3-82, ) FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS ) AND RECOMMENDATION RELATING TO ) THE REPEAL OF SECTION 22.7 OF ) TIIE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDI-) NANCE, THE SIGN CODE, WHICH WAS ) ADOPTED BY ORDINANCE NO. 18, ) SERIES OF 1974, AND THE ADOPTION ) OF A NEW SECTION 22.7 OF THE ) COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE, ) COMPRISING TIIE ENGLEWOOD SIGN ) CODE. ) The Planning Commission, after a review of evidence taken during a Public Hearing and during public and special meetings, together with a survey of other metro area sign codes, a comparison to sign code standards, model sign ordinances and general and technical sign reference works, makes the following findings of fact: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. That upon the recommendation of the City Planning and Zoning Commission, the City Council adopted a Comprehensive Plan for the City of Englewood by Resolution No. 49, Series of 1979, on December 3, 1979, and that 113 Englewood citizens actively participated in the development of that Plan. 2. That in approving the Comprehensive Plan, the City Council adopted certain goals for the City, which goals affirm the desire of the citizens of Englewood, inter alia: To encourage and support the vitality and the existing variety of established businesses; To provide the climate for attracting new businesses, thus increasing our tax base; and To upgrade marginal uses and to replace or rehabilitate deteriorating structures. To improve the visual aspects of businesses along these commercial strips. To this end, attention must be given to sign control, landscaping of parking lots and public areas, and other amenities. To improve the visual quality of the City. •• -11- 3. That a stated project goal of the Englewood Downtown Develop- ment Authority is to: Create an attractive downtown as a focus for community activity and pride. 4. That the Planning Commission finds the Sign Code to be an integral part of the Zoning Ordinance and that its enactment will promote the purposes of zoning in that the Sign Code represents values which are spiritual as well as physical, aesthetic as well as monetary. The Sign Code will promote community purposes of being beautiful, healthy, spacious, clean, well-balanced, and safe. S. That the Planning Commission further finds and determines that the enactment is within the zoning power of the City, which is con- stitutional; that it furthers substantial governmental interests in aesthetics, safety, traffic, health, the economic well being of the City; that the govern- mental interests furthered are unrelated to the suppression of free speech and that such incidental impact, if any, upon the exercise of free speech is not greater than necessary to further the City's governmental interest and accomplishes furthering of that interest in a rational, effective fashion. 6. That a letter received from the Downtown Business Association, dated March 19, 1981, expressed concern about abandoned signs and their effect on the perception of the downtown business area . 7. That the present Sign Code was adopted by Ordinance No. 18, Series of 1974, and has remained unchanged since its adoption while con- ditions in Englewood have changed with substantial new development and re- development. 8. That the City of Englewood is one of the major commercial activity centers serving the metropolitan area; properly regulated si$nage is vital for the maintenance of this commercial function upon which city revenues depend. 9. That evidence demonstrates that signage in Englewood has not been developed and maintained so as to meet the goals of the Compre- hensive Plan and revisions to the Sign Code are necessary to expedite the attainment of the stated goals. 10. That it is appropriate to subject ideological signs to less restrictive regulation than that to which commercial signage is subject because ideological speech promotes a far broader array of societal in- terests. Freedom of ideological expression is inextricably entwined with our most deeply held individual values, it is the cornerstone of our con- stitutional democracy. Thus, the Planning Commission finds that the less pervasive restrictions to ideological signs set out in the code are ap- propriate while still regulating the size, type, height, and number of ideological signs, those signs being: Bulletin Boards, Election Signs, Flags of Nations, Organization of Nations, States or Cities, Holiday Decorations, Identification Signs, Ideological Signs, Illuminated Buildings, Memorial Signs, On-site Informa- -12- tion Signs, Private Parking or Traffic Direction Signs, Professional Signs, Public Signs, Special Event Signs, Street Banners, Symbols, Crests of National, State, Religious, Fraternal, Professional and Civic Organizations, Vehicle Consumer Information Signs, and Works of Art. 11. That certain signs should be prohibited in all Zone Districts, those being: Animated Signs, Banners, Pennants, Valances, Wind- Powered Devices, Billboards and Flashing or Blinking Signs, which signs tend to distract the driver's at- tention from the roadway to the sign, and which cause an especially hazardous situation in the business dis- trict with traffic signals, cross traffic, turning vehicles, vehicles pulling into and out of parking spaces, and especially with the pedestrian movement at intersections and mid-block. In addition, these signs are not aesthetically pleasing. Portable Signs and Wheeled Advertising Devices, which are not at a fixed location and often become placed so as to be an obstruction to motorists or pedestrians; additional problems occur when Portable Signs are in- advertently knocked over by the wind or a group of pedestrians. Outdoor Display of Merchandise on Public Right-of-Way which could block or detract from traffic signs and interfere with pedestrian movement. Roof Signs which can pose significant problems to fire- fighting operations if a fire has made significant head- way inside a building or if tactical roof operations are required. Additionally, these signs can obstruct water application, interfere with efforts to ventilate smoke and toxic gases, increase the danger of roof collapse and present possible electrical hazards. Because of height, motorists looking at such signs may lose proxim- ity perspective with traffic. Flashing or Blinking Signs and Search Lights which can be mistaken for an emergency signal or a traffic control device. Strings of Light Bulbs used for commercial purposes which can cause glare and temporary blindness to the motorist. Third Party Signs and Billboards which have a distracting effect on motorists and cause them to remove their at- tention from traffic conditions. Also, a commercial enterprise, as well as the interested public, has a stronger interest in identifying its place of business and advertising the products or services available than it has in using or leasing its available space for the purpose of advertising commercial enterprises located elsewhere. This determination supports the prohibition of Third Party Signs and of Billboards. • -13- 12. That the Planning Commission finds that Billboards, especially, and excess signage, substantially contribute to the problem of traffic safety by drawing motorists' attention. Excess signage and billboards significantly detract from the City's comprehensive commitment to making its physical en- vironment in commercial and industrial areas more attractive as evidenced by City revitalization efforts occurring through E.D.D.A., U.R.A., Downtown redevelopment, and preserving our industrial and commercial area appropriate to the family-oriented community, which Englewood is. Excess signage and billboards also detract from the ability of commercial enterprises to present a pleasing, balanced, well-proportioned commercial message to consumers and may confuse and misdirect consumers in their efforts to find suitable goods and services. The Commission finds and determines that the City's interests in aesthetics, traffic safety, remaining a commercial center, revitalization and appropriately informing consumers are furthered by the Code's restriction on excess signage, control of signage and prohibition of billboards, and that other measures would promote less well the achievement of the City's goals in these areas. 13. That certain signs should be subject to annual registration, those being: Contractor Signs and Real Estate Signs. 14. That signs permitted in residential zone districts for residential uses should be limited in number, size, height, and type so as to maintain and protect the character and quality of neighborhoods in Englewood. 15. That signs permitted in residential zone districts for non- residential uses should be limited in number, size, height and type so that the appropriate and necessary information is transmitted in a way compatible with the residential nature of the area in which such uses are located. 16. That signs permitted in commercial and industrial zone dis- tricts should be limited in number, size, height and type so as to afford all commercial and industrial interests an equitable opportunity to ad- vertise and meet the goals set out in the Comprehensive Plan. 17. That the number of signs permitted in commercial and industrial zone districts should be based on a system that relates the number of signs permitted to the frontage of the lot on which such uses are located. 18. That maximum sign area should be reduced to lessen the visual clutter, improve advertising opportunity and help meet the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. 19. That permitted sign types should be regulated as to location so as to increase visibility of the signs and eliminate potential hazards to the public health, safety and welfare. 20. That certain types of signs, because of the unique circumstances under which they are utilized, should not count against maximum sign area or maximum sign number, those signs being:· Drive Thru Identification Signs which are necessary to convey consumer and traffic safety information. -14- High-Rise Building Identification Signs which are for buildings in the commercial, industrial and R-3 Zone Districts, should be permitted for identification at a scale consistent with the height of the building. Joint Identification Signs which are necessary to pro- vide equal access to advertising while controlling signage to meet the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. Short Term Advertising Signs which are necessary to provide consumer information. Secondary Signs which provide identification information. Signs Set Back from Public Right-of-Way which provide compensation for businesses located at a substantial dis- tance from the public right-of-way. 21. That signs which are not in conformance with the requirements of the Code are inconsistent with the Code and are not intended to be perpetual. Such exceptions ought to end at a certain future time. Signs must, therefore, be removed or brought into conformity with the Code. This is "amortization" of those signs, and this concept contains no connotation of compensation or any requirement for it. The Commission has balanced the burden or loss to be placed on the individual by the Code with the public good sought to be achieved by the Code. The Commission has made what it deems to be a reason- able accommodation of these interests. The Commission has considered certain ~ factors, including, but not limited to: the nature of the nonconforming sign, the character of the structure, the location, what part of the individuals's total business is concerned, the time periods, salvage, depreciation for in- come tax purposes, depreciation for other purposes, and the advantage, if any, resulting from the fact that similar new signs are prohibited. 22. That to improve and enhance the aesthetic character of the City, meet the goals of the Comprehensive Plan, and protect the residential, commercial, and industrial areas in the City, it is necessary to seek the removal of signs which detract from the aesthetic standards of the community or which pose a threat to the public health, safety and welfare, in the most expeditious manner possible, those signs being: Nonconforming Signs which currently exist in the City of Englewood; the removal of which signs requires the development of a process which will allow for an equitable return on the investment in such signs while providing for their removal in a reasonable period of time. Prohibited Signs currently existing in the City of Englewood; which, in order to meet the goals of the Comprehensive Plan and to provide a more attractive and safe commercial, industrial and residential en- vironment, should be removed in a reasonable period of time. Abandoned Signs which currently exist in the City of Englewood and those which will be abandoned in the future; which signs are misleading to the public, un- -15- attractive and pose a potential hazard and should there- fore be removed in a reasonable period of time~ Hazardous Signs which currently exist in the City of Englewood, which signs pose a threat to the public health, safety and welfare and therefore must be re- moved in the shortest time possible. CONCLUSION Therefore, it is the conclusion of the City Planning and Zoning Connnission that the proposed Sign Code should be approved as written and referred to the City Council for their consideration and approval. The above legislative Findings of Fact are made based on evidence which has come before the Planning and Zoning Commission in the hearings held upon the proposed Sign Code. These Findings and the Sign Code, as written, are approved and forwarded to City Council with the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission that they be adopted. BY ORDER OF THE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. ~)