The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1982-05-10 (Regular) Meeting Agenda• • - 0 City Council Meeting -Special .-May 10, 1982 CITY COUNCIL MEETING Ma 10, -'l'-'-9...::.8=2 _______ _ RESOLUTION# 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 ORDINANCE f 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 • • • 0 0 • I . . - • • • • . f . t t ~--I {' -f d. , ~{J), C,<._ tl{ , /)1 1 · l ){ (/, J 1 ·001 rn )ROLL CALL Moved Seconded Ayes Nay Absent Abstain HlQdav Neal Fitzoatrick Weist Bi lo Bradshaw Otis I ...(I f._,;,' 0 ' IL,[,' ) 1(:.J C / ) I / Jl( > -..1.,,I ;f;J Y_J.)~ t:J - /J1 L f (ll ') . { d I ( I) {~JI 1 I . • • - • • ROLL CALL Moved Se con de d Aye s Nay Absent Ab s ta in Hiq aay l...--"'"" Neal c- Fltzoatrick L-- We i s t t.-- Bi lo .......- Bradshaw ,_ .__- Ot i s ., I • • • • - • • ROLL CALL Moved Seconded Ayes Na y Absent Abstain ~,oaav - Neal - v-Fi tznatrick Weist - Bi lo V Bradshaw - Otis - /. I • • • • • - • • ROLL CALL Moved Seconded Ayes Nay Absent Abt . s a1n Hiodav Neal Fltzoatrick Weist Bi lo Bradshaw Oti s ~'>l -~=::::-------~---------· -~ ~1..,(1...{t/ 4,) ' -~ C•ri{_ < )_,,._,, t,.. i. , ~ ~ ~· <. t, 'l. <1 • < J. ( < .J I . • - • • • - • • ROLL CALL Moved Seconded Ayes Nay Absent Abstain Hicidav Neal Fitzoatrick Weist Bi lo Bradshaw Otis I ,. ' I . • • - .- • • • • ROLL CALL Moved Seconded Ayes Nay Absent Abstain lf1 qdav Neal Fi tzoatrick Weist Bi lo Bradshaw Otis ~ r ~ -w/ <YJ2 u w.,;/_t ,tJ fa!-~. ,{. '), U. i::L /! ~ ,t J ~<:1 ~ t t/1.) l a 'L! , >llJ, -:I-4!-j/-1,U. '){d 1' ti:: nndtt ". "". (' /}}) }>111-!<.;I;, / ,, . ,,, a~.v ·-;t~ ,d., Z-u, [,{j -·-,5-trvu«I " 1 a ,t U.-d,' 'ffi-f n u:x, ?'j /Y) ,(' l1 (' <L¢Jl d {1 J'.d.!.<J (_~ ) , 2 )'l, I.L 2 <l/ J-./ clt,tJ..ttA/ l t ) 2 (' (1 l d ~ ) ( J ' 1 .J (1. (Ji-f l/ -0 I ? ., I-;k?< '?~ n 44.-, £ ;au...d..b.. i (c7 7 l t'L,?):.((t:ur-tcXJ J _y:Jc 1/J d I (/ (" 1/ '-'/ l ,/_) /:f HJ') _, 1 , -y) < ? ' /?,.,/1-12<.J ~c ,,1..·.t.;) ,i-i "!A.. 1 :cr L 0.<'o t'~ ( 5' ,;(,} lJ ' I / "(~ L ( .12:fU-~ )'O • I • • • • ROLL CALL Moved Seconded Ayes Nay Absent Abstain Hlgday Neal Fltzoatrick Wei st Bi lo Bradshaw Otis r !YJ 7-t~.~ 'L.- / ' /l/_J_~ /D dr2J<2 .1 _ JtU1J2..J '(l ' IU c~/1 Jlz~ -z,{( C<& J (?. t~-# ~·d/7. Y t cv ( .._J}· c:ia d l'u J,d ti ,')y; J 1.-r Z>~ j~..i., "-( ( I ?2 _" J /' cJ ('.,.t f_l( I . {, /-{1£{ t l l /-JU t . lt' ecf r /3 c;,'di:f J d tf(cdd UL l1J -;!.l ?' '~F' YJ ! A !. I . • • • • - • • ROLL CALL Hoved Seconded Ayes Nay Absent Abstain H1<1day Neal Fltzoatrick Wei st Bi lo Bradshaw Otis • I . • • • • • • ROLL CALL Moved Seconded Ayes Nay Absent Ab s tain H19day Neal Fltzoatrick Wei st Ri lo Bradshaw Otis t(,/t )) } tf ct"1.. c i l '--i) j'~c ( ,;(1J {{ l t /_ -/) /7 d i _. , ,/ //, )TV -r 1 ~ t: y./1 t t' '' { I : t c' /., . l (' ( i f -i • A > ("c1~, "·0 .. I-/J7 I • • c/ ''I' . ',.t'_/1" • ~·~A( - • • • • ROLL CALL Moved Seconded Ayes Nay Absent Abstain H1qday Neal Fitzoatrick Wei st Bi lo Bradshaw Otis C/_ tu,,~---~ [urLl?}~ a· p u ,,1 t,=v-n.,vu_ '"U ?') -,e_{)j , ;ft./~ l za n --1a 1 1.. I-c" "f''>> i.:'f }} ,0 i L / (. ?r )1 j) ) J ' -/' U t_ c ll , 2 JI--. , 11 _ C, >,z.. .tz . ~ < A )u~~I ) · )tdt I-/J u /ru ..) /) u ~ I . • l( ) ,, • n • - • • ROLL CALL Moved Seconded Aves Nay Absent Abstain Hi qday Neal Fi tzoatrick Wei s t Bi lo Bradshaw Otis '1-3 1a de,ho uf-/i,1,1-1) /YYIO ..,, r °rf J" o ; 0 -f./0u l_--l)"n-u · j) t U 1 1.,(1?) t ,,( ~ /JU /J, t 1 lez. ft ~L ( d,-.:J ./. /[} /1-(1 LJ. - 0 1 l () ) -, 1 c1 t ? - I . • • • - • • • ROLL CALL Moved Seconded Ayes Nay Absent Abstain Bradshaw Otis I . • • • • • ROLL CALL Moved Seconded Ayes Nay Absent Abstain HIQClav Neal Fl tzoatrick Wei s t Bi lo Bradshaw Otis II t-~~,(f_v /;J, 0~ 1<;-U-Cu 'l{ ~ a 't l !.t1.1_ u. ,_ .a.e 1{)~1" '(;.__./ t r/.-1 0, t 1kan1 c1 t!I S ~ i g' (' t '/t () Lt'-lj. U 1( I ;i""i_ /_/ )') 1 -U. /I< 1:r -( { ?'HI 1-L t ~ e. tt k.. ,.[ I ~ U<_ I I ~-<.._) I . • - -JC,'z I -I-lt • • • • • • ROLL CALL Moved Seconded Ayes Nay Absent Abstain H1 oday Neal Fi tzoatrick Wei st Bi lo Bradshaw Oti s ~ z-A Qi+_ o'> u_1.'i . J/O~ <' (~ ?U () <A!. .,~ ~'} ·c{_ /Y) ~ !t/7~ ~ t't-~ -. /2,U}t/W'<f ;z;- 1 (LlL,, ,,lj../) L~ ~,a_ iJ.. lz..,, , 0 /u' a...., i... 1 {L) ~ -o "c_,,f"l./'-<..4-(A}\J /_. t u{ {11.f' )!/J rc"tt .it!x..../ 1 '!!t ,t!" "7t.ot r ,£ de, \µ'Y)W t fl, 1 j / ~ /)/ (, ,! .J 31s I s a(',-)){ ---- • I • • -• • - ROLL CALL Moved Seconded Ayes Nay Absent Ab s tain Hiqdav Neal Fltzoatrick Weist Bi lo Bradshaw Otis 1-_ '{uiu tU!nut--a ,y£1~af d.ruFi,tZ11w1 (J,1; ._ -{ n u u .,. y»i r_ ,. 6-",n 1 ~~~: / o _/2 '-{,aud ,,_,;"7?1,c.l , /Jw.d ~r '?i elr .u • ))f b q/a /li_ ~'>'<Y~ --- 3 5 3 S ~ s;/v 1 1< o/J<_j A,u.e C .z, I [ [I ,4 f -lQ -f. ,·\ I ll 1, ?fl I -,,c , '-:f:rJ.cL,_, dni_ 1-Ulnc -er fa lit./ nxe., .. ~"YI Jtf -L/f It . tl t2 , ., v. ~ :) , z] <!{-1 ~ -~ /.. Yl 7 a oLr jt-, l'>l /ti.·e0 1 1 >'J 6 uJ ·, /ta 1 '11Aif c/1 f7' Ct"U 11 cJ 1~7/r r t'14~ • I . • - • • • • ROLL CALL Moved Seconded Ayes Nay Absent Abstain Hiqdav Nea1 Fitzoatrick Wei st Bi lo Bradshaw Otis !J-.a ,~fiJ w /)1. YI l X 1,. Uc q s-1 s df <f /Jl£,t(/) - v 1-µ 1 f1 /t/7 4 . ~1') -/)l,d. f-'y:)£ 1.,!'Yl<J .J2 'l?.,f).{ rG a ,,/~ e./f (,(b~ . i (,c 4_J_ i.L 'YiL.t..,, - t< ,zq /-1" n1 ' Ht'/ a 1 I- J ) u ()f- ,, , 'f u U tar') ,,,u,f ' _/1 c,0 /1 1J.. /-Jc-tl,., v l.1 ~. 66, 31 s ;J,. ''""J - l ~ G__, < \-IL i 6_ 7<T /Ut C /?l-t7V' t 'k.. 0" 2 .-{}( Y)? > 1 .( JV (/'JC, IA-< LC l. l I) ( . .J ) ; /t,< .-('f/11 rt~ ( ,z · ~ '..I '-(J U l .:,...U jJ. ()_ t C't L1 ? • I . • -• • • ROLL CALL Moved Seconded Ayes Nay Absent Abstain H1gday Neal Fl tzoatrick Wei s t Bi lo Bradshaw Otis -.,h,I._~ dL ~/)1 ~i~ ¥/-f'a J -;/u:i( ·ry~a 'l Qz.., _ ..... /1a o ? ~ L 01 ti c~ -. n;f '-1 i -1u-u d l l t1-J ,,,w 5~ d<J "rtti ~·~tt,~~'i.~ :!!:~~'l~,)"''rf:; "-6,,J', ~ -~ ) <!... t'Yl-1.. ~LU /V.~~ ~i-r) "1-«./ • --1.,,(~,t_,t.1-. i4 .Jj__b-ti //.d.{; a Jh:_.U·<J f!_1. J (: l) YLl ?t q .J t) '-l'cl... < ~.t.t:JJ r t 1L l-l.<. J: f 1 uu < .t_.u4 ---A~~-L-.l~cµ,-:-,bb'--J-( )--:g.~----.------------ ~'lr~ S fJ I zc (U t ~ ;qt,J <.J ; Jl.1 -4·<:J, )' i1.t0 ~rA / (..; '.L <' '7 (). f ltu tt ~ ~ 2 l -<. ..1.,._ _ .._~-~7-~ 1-rr C;Ja t[', ./U ~ tfV//A~ rJ' l \,\...l.,, 2/ a ( -1 !C 7 • ( ,,< • • ~ .... '-· I • • -• • • ROLL CALL Moved Seconded Ayes Nay Absent Abstain HiQdav Neal Fitznatrick Weist Bi lo Bradshaw Otis ,... /~A tl-e--.,</Y'llt1r -----------J,,_, «1 lu, '-fio»/fd P-(!, L, '/J tviQ /3 , c L 6 4 4, ~ ·10 /_p -[ ,,(. G ,, (! fl J..,{ 1//-t ~....,, ;< . 'J1 ({!_,f . f. ), I ~ g /J t... f- -. t c Jl 1'v / l,{ t / I, ) l -f Y0 r; u., fa l 11 rt_ ~ 'ju ~ .. ~m ,;,,r YJI > di.. ,,, 1. I I , t > 21. ·,i' Ct( le! 1,<. C<~ ~!. ~< u.u }J~f' / ~ (., (_ • t'l C I 7 / )'J' (b?.t·V / 1.i y l<,j _,;/ ~ _lJ. I v '-'-""<. 'X./ /') L 1 ' /t ' 2.() ,~1- ;,-< <1 I. ) J ~ l.. r. --[,0 ,_f-;J., t • I . • - Moved Seconded • • • • • ROLL CALL Ayes Nay Absent Abstain H1gday Neal Fltzoatrick Wei st Bi lo Bradshaw Otis { .,,0 c. lu ~) .. JlLl'l-fl-~ ~/.' /.~ /'1.,£<2 't ~Y)t. H • • (. un&u· I . • - • • • • ROLL CALL Moved Seconded Ayes Nay Absent Abstain H1qday Neal Fi tzoatrick Wei st Bi lo Bradshaw Otis d}i~ft/ul-th-0-fF';__ .±lia/Y) -u .. ;y· />..s&< d,,,--aµ--- Yo2 a a,a/lL)_,;(..)-~~ '>'>LJI ;y_./-r ~ ~? /)IYUU '/tU/P/w'-(}.,/YYvf'f'td14j .-y,c1 av ce 0 v 0 ~ L ~~a . • • I . . I 'n • - • • ROLL CALL Mov e d Seconded Aye s Na y Ab s ent Ab s tain H1 qday -Neal ---Fltzoatrick -Wei s t - Bi l o .__. Bradshaw - Otis - • I • • • • - • • 7 :30 P.M. 1. • • • AGENDA FOR THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE ENGLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL MAY 10, 1,~t,µ /(),~ j J~'C (y~ Call to order, invocation, pledge of allegiance , and roll call. Public Hearing . (a) To consider an Ordinance on Final Reading amending the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance of the Citysof Englewood by repealing and reenacting S22.7 thereof to revise the Sign Code contained therein. (Copies enclosed .) 2 . Adjournment. I ;Ji J;lc. /itc y L ANO, MC COWN City Manage r AM/sb • I • • ,_ Page 3 Page 4 Page 6 Page 8 Pag 9 Page 9 p g 11 p 14 • • • • §22. 7-3fl : Add i n place of last two sentences: A person who has applied for a sign permit and is not engaged in the sign erecting business may be allowed to install, e r ect, move, or malntaln hls own slgn upon demonstration to the Department that he possesses sufficient knowledge and skill and is appropriately insured for public protection. Upon such demonstration, the Director or designee may issue a nonrenevable sign contractors license. Such license will be valid only for the installation, erection or moving of signs as specified on the permit. §22.7-5 g: Remove g Inside Signs; reletter succeeding subsections and insert the following as "k": Signs Within Buildings. Signs within buildings that are not visible from the public right-of-way or are more than twelve (12) inches from the interior side of a window. §22.7-7b: Add after last sentence: Slgns wh ich adve rtise the pre-leasing of a proposed de v elop- ment or redevelopment may be permitted no more than two (2) signs and shall not be more than twenty-four (24) square feet per face in area. §22.7-9 e: Change Particular Signs Allowed to: Signs Additionally Allowed. §22.7-10 b la: Change Subsection 3 hereof to Section e 2 and 7 hereof. §22.7-9 e 3: Add S ction e 3 Identification Sins. Signs llmlLu J LU IIJIIIC ol o ccup,lllL, .,i,fr~1.,....j;"ru111l ,.;•:1 , .111J IIU IIIOfl! than four (4) square f t per sign in area. Such signs are limit d to no more than one (1) pr street front, and may b illuminated only froa cone aled light source. Such signs do not count against 11aJtiaua sign ar a or number. §22.7-10 3: Add at nd: Such s ign do not count g in s t maximum s ign r or numb r. 122.7-13 d: d sign Ch ng Director of d sign • to Dir ctor E£ I • • - Page 15 Page 15 Page 15 • • • • • -2- §22.7-14: Prohibited, Hazardous and Abandoned Signs -Enforcement Procedures. It shall be unlawful to display, construct, erect, alte r, remod e l, enlarge, move or maintain a prohibited sign within the City. It s hall furthermore be unlawful to display, construct, e rect, en- large , move or maJntain a hazardous or abandoned slgn wlthin the City. a . Notification of Unlawful Signs. Notice shall be give n by Certified Mail or personal service to the owner or lessee of such unlawful signs and to the owner of the property on which such unlawful signs are located. Prohibited signs as described in Section 22.7-8 shall be declared a nuisance by the Department. The notice shall require that prohibited signs be brought into conformance with this Ordinance or be removed within one hundred eighty (180) days after the notice has been received. Signs prohibited in Section 22.7-8 d, j, and 1, shall be removed within three (3) years from the date the notice is received. 122. 7-14 b: Change~ to appeal. 122.7-14 c: Add to end of first sentence: •••.• wh ich may i nclude removal of the si gn by the city. • I • • • • NAME ADDRESS ·.I '5 4 3. ~Al.fr,·-tic I 1~'f7" S Gwi.u~ • • • PUBLIC HEARING Before The CITY COUNCIL on PROPOSED SIGN CODE May 10, 1982 TELEPH ONE OBSERVER 0Z 7i,/-//21 w1~~,?~ I --,a~-C>3o' < 7 ~ t -4-3 ,:z ~Cf;.1il i I I WISH TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL IN FAVOR IN OPPOSITIO N I NO POSITION X • • X I 2( I • • NAME ~ • -• • ADDRESS PUBLIC HEARING Before The CITY COUNCIL on PROPOSED SI GN CODE May 10, 1982 TELEPHONE OBSERVER 3C/s-l .S:. ~ 7!37 -c/l/96 I I WISH TO ADDRESS THE -CITY COUNCIL IN FAVOR IN OPPOSITION I NO POSITION LA" V I e • NAME ADDRESS ,_,,,/; ,[_ C ' ·-:P. ;(. p _,... (I ,, C ;/, ~ ~ ,__,,,,., --------..- • • • PUBLIC HEARING Before The CITY co~~IL PROPOiig i'.I6'1 69BS May 10, 1982 TELEPHONE OBSERVER 7£/ 63JJ t-~ .... I I WISH TO ADDRESS THE CI TY COUNC IL .,: IN FAVOR IN OPPOSITION NO POSITION • • ORDINA NCE NO. SERIES OF 1 98~ • • - BY AUTHORITY COUNCIL BILL NO. 2 2 INTRODUCED BY COUN CIL MEMBER~=N=E~A-L~~~~~ AN ORDI NANCE AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ENGLEWOO D BY REPEALING AND RE-ENACTING §22.7 THEREOF TO REV ISE THE S I GN CODE CONTAINED THEREIN. WHEREAS, the City of Englewood adopted its first Compr ehensive Sign Code in 1974, regulating the signage of the City;and the con di- tions wi th i n the City of Englewood relevant to signage have c h a n ged subs tantially since that time; and WHEREAS, the Sign Code of 1974 had no provisions fo r br ing- i n g into compliance with the Code those signs which did not meet that Code's requirements and that has resulted in unsightly and i nappropriate signage remaining in existence; and WHEREAS, the character of the City of Englewood i s as a regional retail shopping center to people in the metropolitan area, wh ich activity serves to generate significant revenues fo r n eces s ary Ci t y services; the City of Englewood has made a commitment to revital- ize a nd maintain Englewood as a vital retail center f o r the a rea by approvi n g a Comprehensive Plan, approving a Downtown De v elopment Pla n, a c t i vating the Urban Renewal Authority and has taken s teps to imp l ement and complete these City goals, and S i gn Code r e vi s ion is a neces sa ry ad j un c t to these goals ; and WHEREA S, the c orrel ative c haracter of the Ci t y of Englewood is as a f a mily residentia l area, and it is important to c on trol signage to be consist e nt with the values and goals of the importdnt family residential characte r o f the City of Eng lewoo d ; a n d WHEREAS, business lead ers i n the Ci t y of Englewood have expressed support for a Sign Code r evi s i on t o comple me n t updating and modernization of the City's commercial activities; and citizen~ of Englewood have expressed desires to promote, through zoning and signage control, a community which is beaut iful, healthy, clcun, well-balanced and safe; and WHEREAS, th City Planning and Zoning Commission has wel l perform d its Charter function by proposing a revised Sign Cod to City Council after numerous public hearings and meetings with su,·h Commis sion, citizens, and interested party participation and ha~ submi tted to the City Council proposed legislative findinqs of f~cl wh ich upport the en ctm nt of the propos~d Sign Code; and Ci t y Council adopts thos proposed findings of fact. NOW, T HEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO: 22.7 of th Compr h nsive Zoning Ordin nc and her by is ame n ded to read: • I • • • • • • This Ordinance shall be known and cited as the "City of Englewood Sign Code." §22.7 SIGN CODE §22.7-1 General Statement. The City Planning and Zoning COIIIRiaaion and City Council recognize that signs are a necessary means of visual c011111unication for the convenience of the public and that it is the right of those concerned to identify their businesses, services or other activities by the use of signs. However, the Co11111ission and Council are also aware that citizens of Englewood are concerned about adopting and enforcing sound environmental practices, in- cluding the strict control of signs, and 11.aiting signs to those which are accessary and incidental to the use on the preaiaea where such signs are located. It is to this end that the following goals are set forth and the regulations in this section are de ... d necessary: a. To protect the public from hazardous conditions that result from signs which are structurally unsafe, obscure the vision of motorists, and/or compete or conflict with necessary traffic signals or other traffic regula- tory devices. b. To encourage signs which are well-designed, legible, and appropriate to the uses permitted as well aa coapatible with their surroundings and with the buildings to which they are appurtenant. c. To provide a reasonable balance between the right of an individual to identify his business and the right of the public to be protected against the visual discord resulting froa the unrestricted proliferation of signs and similar devices. d. To require that signs whi ch advertise or identify au e or a business no longer in operation be removed within a reasonable tim. e. To require that signs which do not comply with the requirements of this Ordinance b terminated within a reasonable period of tillle. §22.7-2 Scope and Application of this Section. These regulations shall gov•rn and control the display, construction, erection, alteration, remodeling, enlarging, moving or -intenance of all 11ign11 permitted within all zone district, established by this Zoning Ordinance and ny amendments thereto. Thia aign code shall be adainiatered by the Director of the D part - ment of co ... unity Developaent who ahall have the power, and duties set forth nd those neceaaarily illlplied to adainiater and enforce this code; the Director may issue appropriat procedures and form,. Upon application to and iasuance by the Department of a permit th r a- fore, a aign aay b e rected, altered and aaintained only for a P naittad Use • I • • -• • • -2- in the Di str i c t in whi ch the signs are located ; signs shall be located on the same l ot as the Permitted Use; provided, however, tha t no sign of any ty pe shall be erected or maintained for or by a singl e -fami ly, t wo-fami ly or t hree-family residential uae, except Home Occupation signs an d c e rtain signs for whi ch no permit is required. No thing herein contained shall be deem ed a waiver of the provisions of an y other ordinance or regulation appli cable t o signs . Signs located in area s go verne d by several ordinances and/or applicable regulations s h all comply with al l such ordinances and regulations. If there is a conflic t b etween the regula- t i ons in this Section and any other ordinance or regul ations, the more stringent r e gulation shall apply. 122.7-3 Permits . a . Permit required . It shall be unlawful to displ ay, erec t, construct , relocate or alter (except for copy changes), any sign without firs t filing wi th the Department an application in writing, paying applicable fee s , a nd obtaining a sign permit, except as provided in 122.7-5 and 122.7-7 of this ordinance. When a sign perait has been iasued by the Departmen t, it shall be un l aw f ul to change, 110dify, alter or otherwise deviate from the terms or conditions of said permit without prior approval of the Departm ent. A written rec ord of such approval s hall be entered upon the origi na l permit a pplication a nd maintai ned in the files of the Department. b . Application for Permit. Application for sign permit s ha ll be made by t h e owner or tenants of the property on which the sign i s to be loc ated , his a uthorized agent, or a sign contractor licensed by the Cit y of Englewood. Such afplicationa shal l be aade in writin g on foraa fu rni s he d by the Plan- n ng Di vis ion, and s hall be aigned b J the app licant . The Departmen 1; shall, within five (5) working days of the date of the app lication , either approv or deny the ap p licat ion or r e fer the application back to the applicant in any instance where insuff i cient i n f o rmation baa been furnia h d . If t h Departaen t find s t hat work unde r any perm.it isaued iii not in ccordance with the inforaation s upp lied in t he permit appli cation and/or is in violation of this or any o t he r pertinen t or dinance, or should it be found that there has been any misrepreaen tation in connection with the applicatiun for the permit, (including non-auffici nt fund checks), the sign owner or leas or erector shall be notified of such findings and that the violation must be corrected within five (5) workin g days of notic • If such corrocLion is not made, th p rait shall be revoked and wr itten notice th r of shall be serv d upon the sign owner or erector. No pe r s on ahall proc ed with ny p rl of auch work after such n otice i s recei v ed . Th e owner or leas a of th sin or the owner of th p r operty on whi c h the aign 1a located shall have ti righL to appeal the decision of t he Depart aent i n tha aaoner provid d for in §22.2-6b of thia Ordinance. If actual work either on or off-site 1a not co need under ny sign p rait iaau d within aixty (60) daya froa the date of auch p rait, th • p raiL ah 11 autoaatically b coae null and void. Delaya which are not a rsault of willful acu or n 1 t of th contractor, owner or psraon obtaining th • I • • • • • -3- permit may be excused and the Director may grant an extens ion of time in which to start or resume operations. All requests for extensions and app roval the~~of sha ll be in writing. When any permit has been revoked under the terms of this section, permit fees shall not be refunded. ' c. Plans, Specifications and Ot her Data Requested. The application for a sign permit shall be accompanied by the following plans and other information. The name, address and telephone number of the owner or persons entitled to possession of the sign and of the sign contractor or erector; the location by street address of the proposed sign structure; complete information as required on application forms provided by the Department, including a site plan and elevation drawings of the proposed sign drawn to scale, c aption of the proposed sign and such other data as is pertinent to the application; plans indicating the scope and structural detail of the work to be done, including details of all connections, guy lines, supports and footings, and materials to be used; application for an electrical pe:na.tt for all electrical signs, and the required information for such application; a~d a statement of va lue or c ost of the sign. d. Permit Fees. A per.it fee shall be paid to the City for each sign permit issued under this section. The perait fee shall be in accordance with the fee schedule established by the City Council. e. Identification and Marking of Electrical Signs . Each electrical sign hereafter erected or reaodeled ahall bear thereon a clearly legible identifica- tion plate not exceedina fifteen (15) square inches in area, stating the name of the peraon, firm or co rporation responsible for its conatructioo and erection, with installation date and per.it nuaber and shall be aarked with input amperes at full load input . f. Licenaio& and Inaurance Requir ... nta. 1. Any peraon, fira or corporation engaged in the buainess t f installing, erecting , moving or aaintaining signs in the City of Englewood shall be duly licensed by the City. A peraon not engaged in the sign erecting business may be allowed to inatall, erect, aove or aaintain his own sign upon demonstration to the Department that be posseases sufficient ltnowled and skill and is appropri- ately insured for public protection. The Director may iasu a temporary lie nae. 2. Before any perait ia iaaued for a aian which ia located over public prop rty or whi ch aay r quire any work over public property, the rector sh 11 furniab to the City a certificate of inaurance froa a fira with corporate surety, and authorized to do buaineaa in the State of Colorado, for public liability and property daaa a in aaounta eatabliah d by the D partment of not less than th following, and covering the liability of th• aign r tor with reapect to all work perforaed by hia or hia eaenta or employ es: Ford atb or injut')' to any on peraoo ••••••••• $100,000 Total liab ility in any oa accident ••••••••••• 300,000 Property daaa e •• , .••••.••• , .• , •••••••.••••• , • 50 ,000 • ~, I • • • • -4- §22.7 -4 Permit for Group Signs. Persons submitting a plan for a group of signs which are designed as an integral part of a new Planned Development or a new single development occupying no lesa than 24,000 square feet of lot area, may be granted a 25% increase in nwaber of signs or maximum square foot area subject to the approval of the Director of the Department . 122.7-5 Signs Not Subject to Peralta. The following signs displayed for non-co111111ercial purposes, may be erected and aaintained in all Zone Districts without a permit. Such signs shall be in addition to all other signs per- mitted in any Zone District providing auch aigna do not require direct electri- cal wiring, and conform to aetbacka and other physical characteristic require- ments of the designated zone diatricta. Even though permits are not required for the following signs, wall aigna shall be located only in the signable area, and window signs shall be counted toward tha 25% maximum coverage. This restric- tion shall not apply to holiday decorations, or to short term advertising as provided in 122.7-10 e 6. No perait shall be required for copy changes or maintenance to a conforming aign if no structural changes are aade. a. Bulletin Boards. Bulletin boards for public, charitable or religious institutions, which are not over twelve (12) square feet in area, and which are located on the premises of aaid institutions. b. Election Signs. Election aigna shall not be posted more than forty-five (45} calendar dsya prior to the election to whi ch the sign relates, and shall be raaoved within fifteen (15) calendar daya following the election to which the sign relates. Such signs ara liaited to wall, window and ground signs, and shall not be a banner of paper or cloth. In residential zone districts, there shall be no more than two (2) election signs per each lot; they shall not exceed twelve (12) square feet of total sign area, and shall be no aore than aix (6) feet in height above grade. In C0111111er- cial and Induatrial Zone Diatricta, there shall be no aore than two (2) per each street frontage; they shall not exceed twenty-four (24) square feet of total sign area. c . Flags. Flags of nations or an organization of nations, states and cities. d. Holiday Decorations. Signs in the nature of decorations, cl arly incidental and COllaOnly aaaociated with any national, local or religious holiday; provided that such aigna shall be displayed for a period of noL •or than sixty (60) consecutive calendar daya. Such aigna may be of any typ , nu•ber, area, height, location, illuaination, or aniaation, and shall be located ao aa not to conflict with traffic regulatory devicaa . e. Ideolo&ical Si&na. Ideological a1&na not aora than twelve (12) square feet in total aian area. Such aiana are liaited to not aore than t (2) par lot. f. llluainated Buildinaa. Providing no aigna. ayabola, lattera. fi uraa, etc., identifyina an .... service, or product. occur on the buildin or th part of th buildin which ia illuaiaat d. Ina id i&na. Siana within build in a that ara not viaibla fr Lh roadway aod are aore than 12 inch a (r(I. tha wind " • • I • • -• • • -5- h, Memorial Signs. Memorial aigna or tablets, giving the name of building and date of erection, when cut into any masonry surface or inlaid so as to be part of the building. i , Private Parking or Traffic Direction Signs. Signs giving parking or traffic directions or restrictions which do not requ ire direct electrical wiring, provided that such aigna are limited to: wall and ground signs, not more than two (2) signs per curb cut on the lot and not more than six (6) square feet per face in area, and not aore than six (6) f eet in height above grade. Not more than one (1) directional sign may be displayed at each curb cut. Such signs may be illuaiD&ted froa a concealed light source which does not flash, blink, or fluctuate, and shall not be animated. j. Public Signs . Signe required or apecifically authorized for a public prupose by any law, atatute or ordinance. k. Scoreboards, Scoreboard• located on athletic fields. 1, Symbols, Syabola or create of national, atate, religious, fraternal, professional aod civic organization&. m. Vehicle Conauaer Information Signe, Signs on cars, trucks, or other vehicles displayed in co ... rcial lot• which give information as to price, emissions or mileage as required by state or federal law of such vehicles. 'nlese signs a re limited to 25% coverage of window area. n. Works of Art, Works of art which in no way identify a product. 122.7-6 Signs Subject to Temporary Perait, The following signs may be displayed in the designated zone districts under the conditions described, upon granting a teaporary perait. a. Special Event Signs, In residential zone districts, special event signs are peI'llitted in addition to all other signs allowed for a PeI'llitted Use. Such signs shall be limited to one (1) wa ll or one (1) ground sign, subject to lilllitations described in this section and in 122.7-Sa; no more than twelve (12) feet in height, and ahall not exceed twe lve (12) square feet in rea, and shall not be displayed for aore than thirty (30) calendar days. In COIIIM!rcial and induatrial zone districts, one apecial event sign may be peraitted in addition to all other aigna. Such aign ahall be limited to wall, window or ground aigns, aubject to liaitationa deacrib din ll2,7-10c 1, 5, and 6. Such sign shall not be aore than twenty-four (24) square feet in area and aball not be displayed for aora than thirty (30) calendar daya. b, Street Banners. Banner• acroaa public thorough fare• announcing events aponaored by the City, Englewood School Diatrict, Arapahoe County, or charitable oraaniaationa may be authorized by teaporary parait by the Director, Such Street Bannera ahall ba installed, raaov d and aaintain~d by the aponaor, • I • • • • • • -6- §22 .7-7 Signs Subject to Yearly Registration . The following signs are additionally permi t t ed i n all zone dis- tr i c ts and shall be registered by the owner or l essor , with the Depa r tment sixty (60) calendar days after the effective date of t his ordinance. This r egistration must be renewed on an annual basis thereafter and subject to t he f ollowing conditions : a. Contractor Signs. A sign not more than t we l v e (12) s q uare feet per face in area and not more than twenty-four (24 ) s quare fee t in total sign area, which names the contractors or sponsors engaged in constr uction on the property where the sign is located . b. Real Estate Signs. Signs whic h adver tise the sale, rental or lease of the preaises upon which said sign• are located . Su ch s i gns shall not extend outside the property line and ahall not be more than six (6) square f eet per face in area. 122.7-8 Signs Prohibited in All Zone Districts . The following signs are prohibited in all zo ne distri cts and are declared a nuisance by the Department . a. Any ground sign within a triangular area o f thirty (30) feet along t wo (2 ) aides of an intersection of curbs of two (2) streets, a railroad right-of-way and a street, a driveway and a street, or an alley and a street, which does not have a clear area of seven (7) feet betw e en the grade l evel and the bottom of the sign unless approved by the City Traff i c Engineer. b. Animated signs . c. Bann e r s , pennants, valan,es , a nd wi nd-powered devices. d. Billboards . e . Fl ashing o r bl inking s igns , except f o r scoreboards and time and temperatur e d ev ices. f. Portable s i gns. g. Outdoor display of merchandise on pu blic right-of-way. h. Roof signs. i. Search lights. j. Signs painted on fances. k. Strings of light bulbs used in connection with co .. ercial premise• for comaercial purposas, othar than traditional holiday d corstiona. 1. Third-party signs. •· Wheeled advertising devices, except for paraanant aiplS on licenaed vehicles. • I • • • • • -7- §22.7-9 Signs Permitted in Residential Zcning Districts: R-1-A, R-1-B, R-1-C, R-2, R-2-C, R-3 and R-4. a. Permitted HaxillUII Nuabe r. 1. Residential uses shall be peraitted one (1) sign in addition to those penaitted in 122.7-Sb, c, d, ande. 2. Nonresidential uses shal l be permitted two (2) signs in addition to those permitted in 122.7-5. b. Permitted Haximua Sign Area. 1. Single-family, Two-Family and Three-F11111ily Re sidences. One (1) square foot in addition to the area of those permitted in §22.7-Sb, c, d, and e. 2. Religious and Educaticnal Institutions, Public Buildings and Residential Uses with Between Four (4) and Thirty-Nine..<122. Dwelling Units. Twenty (20) square feet or t.wo (2) square f eet of sign area for each one-thousand (1,000) square feet of lot area; not, however, to exceed sixty (60) square feet of total sign are~ and provided that no one sign face shall exceed twenty (20) square feet in area. 3. Professional Offices or Residential Uses Havin Fort or More Dwellin Units. Twenty (20) square feet or two (2) square feet of sign area for each thousand (1,000) square feet of lot area; not, however, to exceed ninety-six (96) square feet of total sign area for each lot provided that no one sign face shall exceed thirty-two (32) square feet. 4. Other Lawful Non-Residential Uses. Twenty (20) square feet of sign area for each use, provided that no one aian face shall exceed ten (10) square feet. c. Pe rmitted Sign Types. l. Ground Signs. Gro und signs are permitted only for religious and ducational institutions, public buildings, hospitals, clinics, pro- fessional offices, or forty (40) or aore residential units. Such signs shall be no more than fifteen (15) feet in height and shall ba set back ten (10) feet frOIII the property line and are subject to the limitations des- crib din 122.7-Ba. 2. Marquees, Canopy or Awning Signs. All signs shall b p ralJul to the face of the aarquee, canopy or awning upon which such signs ar dis- played and ehall not project above or below the face of the aarque , canopy or wning, and shall only identify the buainese by n ... and/or addreea. 3. Projecting Signs. Haxiaua ar .. of the sign shall ba twenty- five (25) square feet per face and the aaxia&aa heiaht shall be twenty (20) feet. Such signs shall be located in the "eipable area" of the facade of th buildJna, and auat not obscure aajor architectural details or extend • I • • -• • • -8- a bove the roof l ine . Such signs ahall have a c lear an c e o f t e n (10 ) feet from grade level to the bottom of the aign. Maxillum projection shall be thirty (30) inches from the building to which it ia attached . If a aign projects more than thirty (30) inchea over the public right-of-way , a n enc r oachm ent agreement muat be obtained from the City. 'Wher e a projecting sign has two (2 ) or more display facea, all facea ahall be included in de termining the a r e a of the sign. 4. Suapended Siana. Suapended aigna ahall no t exce ed four (4) square feet per face in area; ahall be aeparated by a d is t a nce of fifteen (15) feet and ahall have a llin:laua clearance of aeven (7) f eet above gr ade l evel to the bottom of the aign. Such aigna ahall be 1 1.aited in con t ent to i dentification or addreaa of the buaineaa. 5 . Wall Signa. Wall aigna ahall be no grea t e r than twenty (20) f eet in height, ahall not project 110re than twelve (12 ) i nc hes from t he face of the building to which it ia attached and ahall not extend above the roo f l ine or the parapet wall. 6. Window Signe. Window aigna ahall no t o ccup y mo r e than 25% of t he window in which they are diaplayed end a hall not be d i splayed in win- dow s a bove the firat f loor level. d. Perllitted lll ullinetion . All •ian• d e acribed abov e except home occu- pa tion aigna aay be illuainated, but only from a c on cealed l i ght aource. Signs aha l l not reaain illullineted between the hour• of 11:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., e xc ept aigna peraitted for aedical aarvicaa and public s e rvices s uch as police a nd f ire, which are provided on a twenty-four hour ba aia . e. Par tic ular Siana Allowed. 1. llolle Oc c upation Sign. Hoae occupat i on sign not 110re than one (1) s quare foo t in a rea , which ia affixed to the buil d ing , a nd which is unlighted a nd un anima t ed. 2. Hi &h-Riae Bu i ld in& I de ntification Wall Sian a. For multi- storied buildings in excesa of the aaxillua he ight perllitted in the R-3 Zone District, additional wall aign area a hall be permitted for building identification purposes in conformance with the achedule set forth below. Sign area shall be baaed upon a aquare footaae factor multiplied by hori- zontal lin r footag of the buildinaacade at the elevation of the facad where the 1ign i1 placed. a) For 1i1ns located from aixty (60) feat to one hundred (100) Ce tin height, the factor ahall be five (5) aquare feat. b) For aians located froa one hundred one (101) to one hundred fifty (1SO) feat in height , the f actor ahall be •ix (6) square f et. c) For aigna located one huod r ed fifty-one (151) feet to two hundred (200) feet in height, the f a ctor a ha ll be aavan (7) aquara feet. Hulti-atoried buildinga aay be peraitted identification wall aign1 o the du provided bJ aub~raar apba 1 throuah 3 for each buildin1 • I • • • • • -9- f acade visible f rom a public right-of-way . Wa ll sign a r eas perm it t ed by this subsection for one facade aay not be 1111ed for sny facade o t he r than the f acade for which such allowance is granted and shall be e x empt f rom 122.7-11 a 3. Such signs shal l not count against aaximum s ign are a, or maximum number of signs. 122.7-10 Signs Peraitted in Coaaercial and Industr ial Zon e Di stricts: a. signs if signs if five (S) greater. B-1 and B-2, I-1 and I-2, Permitted Haxiaum Nuaber. Each permitted use may have three (3) the linear foot of the street frontage i• 150 feet or l ess; four (4) the linear foot of the street frontage is 151 feet t o 30 0 feet; signs if the linear foot of the street frontage i s 301 f eet o r b. Peraitted Haxiaim Sign Area. L For All Peraitted Uses: a) For a Lot Having One Peraitted Use. For the Permitted Use , the aaxiaua aian area shall be eighty (80) square f eet or sa c a lculated from t he table herein: Sign Area/Foot of Street Frontaae Street Frontage 1 foot to 100 feet LS sq. ft./1 foot 101 feet to 250 feet 1.0 sq. ft./1 foot 251 feet + 0 .4 sq. ft./1 foot No single a ian face shall exceed one hund r ed (1 00 ) square feet in area , e xcept a s provided in subsection 3 hereof, nor shall t he total sign area of any use e xc ee d s i x hund red (600 ) s quar e feet. b ) For a Lot Havin a Two or More Permitted Uses. For each Permitted Use the max:laua a i an area shall be eighty (80) square feet or a s calculated fro• the table herein: Buildina Front 1 foot to 100 f t 101 feet+ SilPl Area/Foot of Building Fron t l ,S aq. f t ,/1 f oot 1.0 aq . ft./1 f oo t No ainale eian face shall axcaed o-hundred (100) square falilt in area except as provided in 122.7-10 e 2 a nd 7 nor a hall the total sign area of any uae axceed six hundred (600) square f .. t. c. Peraitted Sia n Types , 1. Ground Si!na. flle aaxiaua hetaht of a around aian ahell b tv nty (20) feet. Theiatance betvffn sips OCI adjacent lot. ahall ba 11 01. • I • • • • • • -10- less than the height of the taller sign. If there is more than one business in a building or if a group of buildings are associated by ownership , no ground signs are permitted except Joint Identification Signs. Where a ground sign has two (2) or more display faces, all faces shall be included in deter- mining the area of the sign. 2. Marquees, Canopy or Awning Signs. All signs shall be parallel to the face of the .. rquee, canopy or awning upon which such signs are dis- played and shall not project above or below the face of the marquee , canopy or awning, and shall only identify the business by name and/or addre ss. 3. Projecting Siana. Haxiaum area of the sign shall be twenty-five (25) square feet per face and the aaximua height shall be twenty {2oi feet. Such signs shall be located in the "aignable area" of the facade of the building, as described in 122.7-lla 3, and auat not obscure majo r arch itec tur- al details or extend above the roof line. Such signs shall have a clearance of ten (10) feet frOIII grade level to the bottom of the sign, Maximum projec- tion shall be thirty (30) inches froa the building to which it is attached . If a sign projects more than thirty (30) inch•• over the public right-of-way, an encroachment agreeaent auet be obtained from the City . Where a projecting sign has two (2) or aore diaplay facea, all faces shall be included in deter- mining the area of the sign. 4 . Suspended Signs. Shall not exceed four (4) square feet per face in area; ahall be aeparated by a distance of fifteen (15) feet and shall have a ainiaum clearance of seven (7) feet above grade level to the bottom of the sign. Such signs shall be l imited in content to identifica- tion or address of the buaineas. 5, Wall Signs. Wall aigna shall be placed only in "signable areas" of a building facade except as specified in 122. 7-10 e 7. "Signable Area" of the building aeana any a rea of the facade of the build ::ng up to the roof line which is free of windows and doora or major architectural detail. The area of the wall s ign must not exceed 40% of the identified "signable area". Wall signs may not project more than eighteen (18) inches from the supporting wal l. Wall aigna may not extend above the roof line or parapet wall. 6. Window Signs. Window signs shall not occupy more than 25% of the total area of the window in which they are diaplayed. Thia 25% maximum coverage shall include all Iliana except short term advertising signs regardleaa of whether it ia counted for sian area lloved or not. Slgna di»- played twelve (12) inchea or leas froa the interior of windows shall b debited against the square foot area and nuaber of signs allowed a pcrmiLted use. Window signs ar not peraitted in windows above the first floor. d. Penaitted Illuainstion. Signa in Coaaercial and Industrial Zones may be illuminated, but all direct illumination ahall not exceed t wenLy- five (25) watta per bulb. e. Sign• Additionally Allowed. The following sign» are also allowud in co ... rcial and induatrial &onea aubject to the condition& atated . • , I • • • • • - -11- 1. Drive Thru Identification Signs. Each Permitted Use with a sheltered drive thru facility may have one (1 ) identification sign attached to the shelter structure subject to the limitations of 122 .7-lla 3. Maximum sign area shall be ten (10) square feet for each lane of the drive thru facility. Such signs shall not count agains t maximum sign area or number. 2. High Rise Building Identification Wall Signs. For multi- storied buildings in excess of the maxim\111 height permitted in the B-1, B-2, I-1 or I-2 Zone Dist~icts, additional wall sign area shall be permitted for building identification purposes in conformance with the schedule set forth below. Sign area shall be baaed upon a aquare footage factor multi- plied by horizontal linear footage of the building facade at the elevation of the facade where the sign is placed: (a) Por signs located f rom sixty (60) feet to one hundred (100) feet in height, the factor shall be five (5) square feet; (b) Por signa located froa one hundred one (101) feet to one hundred fifty (150) feet in height, the factor ahall be six (6) square feet; (c) For signa located one hundred fifty-one (151) feet to two hundred (200) feet in height, the factor shall be aeven (7) square feet. Multi-storied building• aay be permitted identification wa ll signs for each building facade viaible froa a public right-of-way. Wall sign areas permitted by this subaection for one facade ma y not be used for any facade other than the facade for which such allowance is granted and shall be exempt froa 122 .7-lla 3. Such signs ahall not count against maximum sign area and nuaber . 3 . I dentifica tion Signs. Signa limited to name of occupant, addreas of premiaes, and no more than four (4) square feet per sign in area. Such aigna ar~ liaited to no more than one (1) per street front, and may be illuminated only from a concealed light source. 4. Joint Identification Signa. Joint Identification Signs re permitted for two or more Permitted Uaes on the aame lot as the sign. I f two or more businesaes occupy the same building, or a group of buildings are associated by ownership, no ground signa are peraitted except Joint Identification Signs. Each individual identification within the Joint Identification Sign shall be uniform in aize , type and sty le ex c ept fo r t he name of the development. The following Joint Identific ation Signs are in addition to all other signa in terms of maximum sign area and numbe r. a) Peraitted Area of Joint Identific ation Signs. One (1) s quar foot of aign area for each two (2) linear feet of street f rootag provided, however, that no single aign ahall exceed one hundred (100) squ r feet per face, and that the total area of the Joint Identific at ion sign s hall not exce d two hundred (200) aquare feet . b) Peraitted Kaxiaua Nuaber of Joint Identi f i c a t i on Signs . One (1) aign for each atreet frontage. 5, Secondary Siana. On the rear of the building, ach buain •• or uae aay have one (1) aian identifyina n ... of the buaineaa, the produc ts s old, aanufactured or aervicea offered, which ehall not be count d toward the aaxiaua eign area or nuaber. Such aecondary aign ahall not ex ceed • I • • • • • -12- one-half (1/2) aquare foot of aign area for each linear foot of the front lot line, or one (1) aquare foot of aign area for each linear foot of build- ing front for a lot having two (2) or aore Permitted Uses. 6. Short Term Advartiaing Signe. In addition to other signs allowed in a Permitted Use, each buaineas or designated use may be permitted short term advertising signs, provided such aigns are limited to wind ow or wall signs. Window signs shall not cover aore than 20% of the window area above that specified in 122.7-Dc 6. Wall aigna ahall not be greater than fifty (50) square feet in area and aubject to the liaitations of 122.7-10c 5. All such signs shall be liaited to a two (2) week period after which a permit will be required. Such sign• shall •how the date of installation or display. 7. Signs Set Back from Public Right-of-Way. For buildings with building frontage of fifty (50) feet or less: The permitted area of only one sign face aay be increased at the rate of one- third of one percent (.0033) for each additional foot of distance beyond the first one hundred (100) feet of building setback and based on the great- er of eighty (80) square feet or as calculated in 122,7-ll b 1 (b}, but in no case greater than one hundred (100) aquare feet. In no case may the increase be more than one hundred (100) percent of the maximum permitted sign face area and the additional sign area calculated herein shall not count against the maximum sign area and aay exceed forty (40) percent of the signable area. The increaae in sign face area will be granted for a sign face whi-:h shall be placed at the setback diatance aa uaed in the calculation herein. For building& with building frontage of fifty-one (51) feet or more: The permitted area of only one sign face aay be increased at the rate of one-third of one percent (.0033) for each foot of diatance b yond the first one hundred (100) feet of building aetback and baaed on the greater of eighty (80) square feet or aa calculated in 122.7-lOb 1 (b), but in no c se greater than one hundred (100) aquare feet. In no one case aay the increase be more than one hundred (100) percent of the aaximwa permitted sign face area and the additional sign area calculated herein shall not count against the maximum sign area. Thia increaae in aign face area shall be granted for a sign which shall be placed at the setback distance as used in the calculation herain. 122,7-11 Sign Area Heaaur aent. a. Area to be Measured. ·:he area of a eign ahall b m aaured in confo rmance with the regulation••• herein eat forth, provid d that the structure or bracing of a aign shall be oaitted from measurement, unless such structure or bracing ia aade part of the .. aaage or face of the sign. Where a aign haa two or aora die play facaa, the area of all facaa ahall Lou included in deteraining the area of the aip1 , 1. Si&n with Backin&, The area of aigna encloa d by a box or outline ehall be aeaaured by deteraining the area of each rectangle which create& the ... 11 at eingle continuous periaetar encloaing the extreae limit& of the diaplay aurfaca or face of the aign; including ell fra a, backing, face pletea, non-atructurel tria or other coapon nt part• not otherwiaa uaed for aupport. • I • • • • • -13- 2 , Signs Without Backing. The a r ea of signs consisting of indi- vidual let ters or symbols shall be measured by determini ng t he sum of the a r e a of the smallest single continuous rectangle encl osi ng the ex t reme limits of each message, including all fraaea, face pl ates, non-structural trim or other component parts not otherwise used for support. 3. "Signable Area", Signable wall area is a continuous portion of a building facade unbroken by doors or windows or major a rchitectural f e a ture s. It is calculated by selecting a continuous surface , t hen drawing a n imaginary rectangie within specified height limitations and computing the square foot area of this ractangle . Persona displaying s i gn s a ttached to a building may detenaine the "signable area" to be used by c hoo s ing any such area on the building facade for the display of signs. Signs ma y n ot cover more than 40% of this area . If, because of the design of the building, a signable area cannot be identified, the Department a nd the ap plicant will determine a suitable area for aignage . 4 . Irregular Outline. In the case of an irregularly shaped s ign or a sign with letters and/or symbols directly a f fixed to or painted on the wall of a building, the area of the sign shall be the entire area within a single-continuous rectilinear periaater of nut more than eight (8) straight l ines enc los ing the extreme limits of writing, representation, emblem or any f igure of similar charac ter. b, Num~~r o f Signs. Each continuously e nc l osed area of a sign face, eithe r by ou lh·.i e or by an imagina r y line, shall be considered one sign. Signs whi c h have aore than one s ign s tructure attached to a common support o r wa ll may be counted aa a single sign, or aa seve r al signs; however, if co unte d aa one aian, the total sur f a c e area o f s uch ault i ple unit signs shall i nc lude ve rtical and horizontal a pacina be tw een algna. 122,7-12 Ma int enance. Every sign , including those specifica lly exeapt from this section in respect to peraits and perm i t fees, s hall be maintained in good condition at all times. All signs shall be kept neat ly painted, including all metal parts and supports thereof that are not ga l van i zed or of rust-rueistant metals, The Director or his or her design ee, shall inspect and shall have the authority to order the painting, repair, alteration, or removal of a sign which is not in conforaance with this ordinance by reason of safety , health, or public welfare, or by reason of inadequate maintenance, dilapida- tion, or obsolescence. 122,7-13 Nonconforain& Siana. Az,.y sign which was lawfully erected and maintained prior to thu effectiva date of this Ordinance, but which doea not confora to the liaita- tions aatabliahed by this Ordinance, except t ho s e aian• prohibited, hazard- ous or abandoned, shall be non-conforaing eigna and eubject to the following conditions: a. lla&iatration of Non-conforain& Siana, All non-conforaing signs shall ba required to ba raaiatered with the Depa rtaent, If a valid perait exists for the non-conforaing aian, the Departaant will coaplete the • I • • • • • -14- r egis tration and notify the owner or lessee of the sign or the own er of the property on which the aian is l ocated requesting verification of the r egis- t ration information. If no valid penait exists fo r the non-conforming sign or i f insuffic ient information in available, t he owner or lessee of the sign or t he owner of the property on whic h the sign i s located will be notified and must register the non-confoI"llling aign or provide the necessa ry informa- t ion within t hirty (30) c alendar daya of receipt of the notifica tion. b. Termination of Non-conforaing Signe. Any non-con forming sign shall be brought into conforaance or ahall terainate and c ease to exi s t wi thin ten (10) years from the date a perait waa iaaued. If seven (7) yea r s or more has passed from the date a perait waa iaaued to the effective date of the Code, then the sign must be brought into conforaance or termina te and c eas e to exist within three (3) yeara from the effective date o f the Code. Any non- conforming aign without a valid perait muat be brought into conforma nce or terminate and cease to exist within three (3) years from the effec tive da te of the Code. In addition, a non-conforming sign muat be brought i n t o conform- ance or terminate and ceaae to exiat if any one of the follow i ng conditions occur : l. Whenever the sign is damaged more t han 50% of its total replace- me nt value, or destroyed froa any cauae whatsoever, or become s obsolet e or substandard under any applicable ordinance of the mu nicipality , to the extent that the s ign be comes a hazard or a danger. 2 . Wheneve r the ownership of the pr operty c hanges on which the non- conforming sign is located. 3 . Whenev e r there is a change in the leaaee , own ership of the business or use t o whic h t he s ign pertains . 4. Whene ver there is a r e quest a&d e for a perait to change the sign. 5. Wh enever there i s a r e quea t f or a perait to make improveaents to the facade of the build i ng on whi c h the non-con foraing aign is located. c. Non-conforming Signs in New l y An nexed Areas. Any owner or operator of a non-confora1ng sign in a newly annexed area shall terminate auch non- conforming sign in accordance with the requireaenta of this section, with the effective date of the annexation ordinance be ing the 1tart of the time limita- tion. d. Appeals. The owner or leaaee of a sign, or the owner of the property on which a sign is located who baa been notified by the Department that such aign is non-conforaing aay appeal that decision to the Director or deaignee, within twenty (20) daya of t ha r eceipt of such notice. 'rhe appeal ahall contain the appellant'• naaa and addreaa, the deciaion being appeal d, and a brief explanation why the a ppe llan t ahould not be required to comply with the docuaent appealed. Tha director or deaignee aay aeet informally with the appellant to exchange nece ae ary inforaation and ahall iaaue a deciaion in writina to the appellant a t his address stated in the appeal. If the decision of the Director of deaianee ia not aatiafactory to aaid owner or leaaee, within thirty (30) d ay a of the Director'• deciaion, he aay apply for a variance froa the loard of Adjuet .. nt and Appeal• aa pro- I • • ....... • • • -15- vided for in §2 2 .2 -6 of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. §22.7-14 Prohibited, Hazardous and Abandoned Signs -Enforcemen t Proce- dures. a. Notific ation of Un lawful Signs . No prohibited ·, abandoned, or hazardous sign shall be displayed, constructed, erected, altered, remodeled, enlarged, moved or maintained within the City. Notice shall be given by certified mail or personal service to the owner or lessee of any sign pro- hibi ted in all Zone Districts aa described in 122.7-8, and to the o"'ner of t he property on which it ia located. The notice shall state that such a prohib ited sign, shall be altered to conform with this Ordinance or be re- mov ed within one hundred eighty (180) days after the notice has been received. Signs prohibited in 122.7-8 d, j, and 1, shall be removed wi t h in three (3) ye ars from the date the notice is received. Hazardous signs are those which by reason of inadequ ate mainten- ance, dilapidati>n, or obsolescence, create an iaainent hazard to public health, safety, or welfare, as declared by the Department; those signs are further declared a nuisance and shall not be displayed or erected "'ithin the City. The notice shall require hazardous sian removal within ten (10) days. Signs abandoned for a period of thirty (30) days shall be declared abandoned signs and a nuisance by the Departaent; abandoned signs shall not be displayed or maintained within the City. Th• notice shall require abandoned remo val within thirty (30) days. b. Appeals. The owner or lessee of a sign or the owner of the property on which a sign is located who has been notified by the Department that such sign is prohibited, abandoned or hazardous may appeal that decision to the Director or designee within twenty (20) days of the receipt of such notice , except for hazardous signa ppeal 11U8t be within five (5) days. The appeal shall contain the appea l lant's naae and address, the decision being appealed, and a brief explanation why the appeal l ant should not be requir ed to comply with the document appealed. The director or designee may meet informally with the appeallant to exchange nec essary information and shall issue a decision in writin g to the appellant at his address st~tcd in the appeal . If the decision of the Director or designee is not satisfactory to said owner or lessee, within fifteen (15) days may apply for a vari~nce from the Board of Adjustment and Appeals as provided in 122.2-6 of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, except for nazardoua aigna in which case the Director's deciaion is final. c . Failur to Comply with Notices. If the owner or 1 &be of a pro- hibited,abandoned or hazardous sign or the owner of the property on which such sign is located fails to comply with notice given pursuant to this s cti>n within the time specified, the City Kanaaer or his d sign e ia uthorized to cauae the action required by ordinance. All coats incurred by the City plus an adainiatrative coat of fifteen percent (15%) of the direct coats shall be charged aaainst the real property and its owners. d. Notice of Costa. If the City incur• co1t1 takina action required by this action, a stat m nt shall be prepared for the entire coat plus • sign I • • • • • -16- f ifteen percent (15%) administrative costs, and be mailed by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the owner of the property on which the sign is located with instructions that said statement will be paid in full plus costs within thirty (30) days of said mailing date. The notice shall also inform the property owner that the failure to pay the statement f or costs fo r sign removal within sixty (60) daya ahall result in an assessment being made against the property which shall constitute a lien pursuant to §22.7 of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance of the City of Englewood. e. Assessment. If the full amount of the statement relating to sign removal from realty is not paid within sixty (60) days, the City Manag er shall direct the Director of Finance to assess the entire amount of the statement plus an additional twenty-five percent (25%) penalty against the specified realty. After asaessment by the Director of Finance, a copy shall be sent to each owner of record of the aaseaaed realty. The assessment shall contain a legal description of the premiaea, the expenaes and c oats incurred, and the date of sign removal, and a notice that the City claims a lien for this amount. The Director of Finance ahall certify auch asaessment to the County Treasurer who shall collect such asaeaament in the aame manner as ad valoreJD taxes are collected. f. Aaaeaaments: From the date of the aaaeasing statement, all assess- ments shall constitute a perpetual lien againat the specified realty and shall have priority over all liens excepting general tax liens and prior special assessments. No delays, mistakes, errors or irregularities in any act or proceeding authorized herein shall prejudice or invalidate any final assess- ment; but the same may be remedied by the Director of Finance, as the case may require, upon application made by the property owner or other interested person. When so reaedied, the aame shall take effect aa of the date of the original aaaeaament by the Director of Finance. g. Other Reaediea . Any unpaid charge plua all costs and penalties shall co natitute • debt due the City. The City Attorney ahall, at the dir- ection of the City Manager, institute civil suit in the name of the City t o recover such charges, coat and penalties. The City may prevent by iojunc tiou and require reaoval of any sign erected without a permit. These remedies shall be cumulative with all other remedies, including prosecution in Municipal Court for each violation of t his chapter pursuant to the provisions and penalties eatablished by Title I, Chapter 2, of the '69 E.M .C. 122.7-15 Severability. The provieiona of this c ode are severable . I f any part of t h i s code is declared unconatitutional bv a final judgaant of a c ourt of c omp el- e nt j urisdiction, that deciaion ahal l not affect any portion of the cod whic h remains, but the remainder ahall be in full force and effect aa i f t he portion declared unconstitutional had never bean a part of the c od e. 122.7-16 Definitions. Animated Sian. Any sign or part of a sian which chanaaa position uy mo v mentor rotation or &i•a the illusion of such chana• of position. Awninaa, A shelter aupported ntiraly from the aatarior wall of a I • • • • - \ ....... -17- building a nd o f a type which can be r etracted, folded or c o llapsed against the face of the s upp or t ed bu i ldinu , Canopy. A roof-like structure which is attached to a wa l l or walls of a buil ding and may be provided with ground suppor t s . Us ually o f a ligh ter material than a marquee. Concealed Light Source. An artificial light intended to i llum i na te the face of a sign, which light is shielded from public view and fr om ad - joining properties. Department. The Department of Co11111Unity Development . Director. Direc tor of the Department of Coaaunity Deve lopm ent . Display Surface or Face. nte area made available by the sign s tructure f or the purpoae of displaying a message. Distance of Sign Projection . The distance from the exter i or wall sur- fac e of the building, or from the furthest point on a man s ard r oof, to the dis play f ace o f a wall sign . Drive Thru · Identification Sign. A sign which iden tifies a d r ive thru facility and the business to which it belongs . Elect ion Sign. A sign providing information regard ing e lec t ions, candi- da tes, or iaaues conc erning such elections. Ex terior Wal l Surf a c e . The moat exterior part o f a wall, sun screen , or any screening or material c overing a building. Gro und Sign. A aign suppor t e d by poles , u p r i ghts or braces extended from the ground or an objec t on t he ground; bu t not a ttached to any part of any building. Ideolog ical Sign. A sign which exprcasea a religious, po l it ica l , social or other philosophic al stanc e. Illuminated Sign . ei t her by lights on t h A sign l i ghted by or exposed to a r tificial lighting s ign, within the aign, or direc t ed towards th sign. Individual Letter Sign . Letters or figures individual l y fas hion d from metal or other aateriala and atta ched to t he wa ll of a building o r o t her s urfac e; but not including a sign painted on a wall or other aurfac e . Joint I dent if i ca tion Sign . A s ign whic h aervea as coaaon or coll c L- ive i d nti fic ation f o r tw o or 1110re busineas or industrial u s e11 on t he 11am lot . Suc h s i gn aay contain a directory t o aaid u ses a s an integral pa r t t hereof , or may aerve as general identifica tion only for such develo pme nt11 as s h o pping center•, industrial parka and the like . Major Archit c tural Detail , Distinguishab le design feature s o f Lh fac ade of the building such e a wiadova , doors , balcon ies, colUllllla, or p tt m s o r d s igns form d et th tim of construction by t ho l>u.lldl1111 materi e l. • I • • • • - -18- Mansard Roof. An architectural feature which is a steep roof structure which is a portion of a roof structure or is attached to the wall of a building. Mansard Roof Sign. A sign attached to the aide of a Mansard roof, Marquee. A rigid, roof-like structure, usually of glass, metal or wood construction, attached to a wall or wall& of a building or structure and supported by the building or structure which may or may not have ground supports, ~arquee Sign. A sign attached to, painted on, or erected agains t the face of the marquee. Non-conforming Sign. Any aign lawful when erected but which, on the effective date of this Ordinance, does not conform to the limitations estab- lished by this Ordinance. Parapet Wall, That part of any wall which extends entirely above the roof line. Portable Sign. Any sign which is not per11&nently affixed to a building, structure, or the ground, except signs painted on or magnetically attached to any licensed vehicle. Projecting Sign. A sign other than a wall aign which projects from and is supported by a wall. Roof Line, The highest point on any building where an exterior wall encloses usable floor area including roof area provided for housing mechani cal equipment. Roof Sign. Roof sign shall mean a aign erected upon or above the roof line or parapet of the building or structure, except that aigns located on a mansard roof shall be considered a wall sign. Short Term Advertising Signs. Signs which advertise the sale of pro- ducts or services on a short term bt·sis. Sign. Any object, device or part thereof, situated outd(>('rs or indoors, which is used to advertise, identify, dieplay, direct or attract the atten- tion to an object, person, institution, organization, bueiness, product, service, event or location, by any means including words, letters, fiKur a, design, symbols, fixtures, colors, motion, illuaination or proj cted lllUlgc u . If for any reason, it cannot be readily deterained whether or nol an object is a eign or a particular cateaory of sian, th• Department shall mak such determination baaed on the criteria of the sian cods. Sign With Backing. Any aign that is diaplayed upon, against, or throu~h any material or color surface or backin& that foraa an integral part of auch display and differentiates the total display froa the backaround against which it ia placed, .--------iiiiiiiiiaiii----------• , I • - • • • • -19- Sign Without Backing. Any word, letter, eablem, insignia, figure of' similar character or group thereof, that is neither backed by, incorporated in or otherwise made part of any longer display. Signable Area. The signable area shall .. an that area of a building facade up to the roof line which is free of window• and doors or major architectural detail and may be encloaed by an illaginary rectangle. If, because of the design of the building, a aignable area cannot be identified, the Department and the applicant will determine a auitable area for signage. Special Event Sign. A sign which announce• an event aponsored by a public, civic or charitable group. Suspended Sign. A aign auspend ed froa the ceiling of an arcade or marquee. Third-Party Sign. A sign relatina to product• or aervices not on the same lot. Wall Sian. A aign attached to, painted on, or erected againat a wall of a building, the diaplay aurface of which ia parallel to the face of the building to which the aign ie attached. A aanaard roof aay be conaidered a wall if the top edge of a aian attached to it extend• no aore than twenty-four (24) inchea froa the aanaard roof aurface. Wind Si&n. AAy aign aet in aotion by wind or bree&e, such aa banners, flags, pennant• or other object• or aaterial. Flaa• of nation•, atatea or municipalitiu shall not be cluaiffod u Wind Sips. Window Area. The area of all windowa on the firat floor of a building which facea or are viaible froaone public ri&ht-of-vay . Window Sian. A aian which 1a applied or attached to, or located within twelve (12) inches of the interior aurface of a window; which aian can be seen through the window froa the exterior of the atructure. • I • • • • • • Introduced, read in full, and passed on first reading o n the 5th day of April, 1982. Published as a Bill for an Ordinance on the 7 th day o f April , 1982. Read by title and passed on final reading on the~~~~da y of ~~~~~~~~~' 1982. Published by title as Ordinance No. Series of 19 82, on the day of , 1982: Attest: Eugene L. Otis, Mayor ex officio City Clerk-Treasurer I, Gary R. Higbee, ex officio City Clerk-Treasur er of the City of Englewood, Colorado, hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true, accurate and complete copy of the Ordinance passe d o n final reading and published by title as Ordinance No. , Series of 1982. Gary R. Higbee • I • • ·./ Page 3 Page 4 Page 6 Page 8 Page 9 Page 9 Page 11 Pag 14 • • • • §22 .7-3fl: Add in place of last two sentences: A person who has applied for a sign permit and is not e ngaged in the sign erecting business may be allowed to i nstall, erect, move, or maintain hls own sign upon demonstration to the Department that he possesses sufficient knowledge and skill and is appropriately insured for public rrotection. Upon such demonstrntion, the Director or designee may issue a nonrenevable sign contractors license. Such license will be valid only for the installation, erection or moving of signs as specified on the permit. §22.7-5 g: Remove g Inside Signs; reletter succeeding subsections and insert the following as "k": Signs Within Buildings. Signs within buildings that are not visible from the public right-of-way or are more than twelve (12) inches from the interior side of a window. §22.7-7b: Add after last sentence: Slgns which advertise the pre-leasing of a proposed develop- ment or redevelopment may be permitted no more than two (2) signs and shall not be more than twenty-four (24) square feet per face in area. §22.7-9 e: Change Particular Signs Allowed to: Signs Additionally Allowed. §22.7-10 bl a: Change Subsection 3 hereof to Section e 2 and 7 hereof. §22.7-9 e 3: Add Section 3 Identification Si~. Signs llmltcd to name of occupant, ddreaa of premises, and no aorc than four (4) quare fe~t per aign in area. Such aignR are limited to no more than one (1) per street front, and may be illuminat d only from a conceal d light source. Such signs do not count agalnst 11U1.Xl111um 11lgn ar or number. §22.7-10 e 3: Add at nd: Such signs do not count against 111&Xiaim sign area or number. 122.7-13 d: Change Dir ctor of d aign dcsigne . • to Dir ctor or , I • • Page 15 Page 15 Page 15 • • • • -2- §22.7-14: Prohibited, Hazardous and Abandoned Signs -Enforcement Procedures. It shall be unlawful to display, construct, erect, alter, remodel, enlarge, move or maintain a prohibited sign within the City. It shall furthermore be unlawful to display, construct, erect, en- large, move or malntaln a ha~ardous or abandoned sign within the City. a. !l_o_tification of Unlawful~. Notice shall be given hy Certified Mail or personal service to the owner or lessee of such unlawful signs and to the owner of the property on which such unlawful signs are located. Prohibited signs as described in Section 22.7-8 shall be declared a nuisance by the Department. The notice shall require that prohibited signs be brought into conformance with this Ordinance or be removed within one hundred eighty (180) days after the notice has been received. Signs prohibited in Section 22.7-8 d, j, and 1, shall be removed within three (3) years from the date the notice is received. §22.7-14 b: Change~ to appeal. §22.7-14 c: Add to end of first sentence: ••••• wldch may include removal of the slgn by the city. • I • • • • • - CENTENNIAL OiAMOER OF COMMERCE 160W.G•Ofd Englewood City Council 3400 South Elati Street Englewood, CO 80110 Englewood. Colo<ooo 60110 (JOJ) 761 -76.'.la January 19, 1982 The Centennial Ch&mber of Conunerce is vitally interested in all aspects of the business environment in the are& which is its prime area of responsibility. Thia newly formed Cha.mber is &nd will continue to be concerned with ma.ny iaaues impacting that total environment. One such issue is the one before you &t thia time, th&t of a universal sign code. The Chamber h&a reviewed the proposed code, compared it with other existing codes &nd diac11aaed it with ind ivi- duals involved in its prep&r&tlon. The Chamber recognizes the myriad of problems associ&ted with &ttempta to eat&bliah a 11niver- sal code, but also recognizes the n11ce11aity of overcoming these difficulties and &dopting 1111ch a code. The proposed code, in its present form, is the result of 11ntold ho11ra of work and 1n11ch c ompromise. Th Centennial Chamber of Conunerce congrat11latea all those i nvolved in the preparatlon of th proposed wiiveraal aiiin code &nd urges its doption as a poaitlve contriblltlon to the bllaineaa environ- ment which is of concern to 11a all. Pre•ident - • I . uiif); ~i,~~a J Y(~?l~ ,:,.5" .. ~!~~;; l.wllrila .. ,,~ ... ·--'.i, • • - ,, . r::""q~,??~~ ..... , •.. u,i:,,.,_~ ··-·. ... --..... -· -·-·····-··--··· ralph schomp ·"£[Bsmol1 ile January 25, 1982 29 49 South Broad way Englew~•,d Col orado 80110 Phone 762-8000 • Mr. Harold Stitt City of Englewood Planning Office 3400 South Elati Street Englewood, Colorado 80110 Dear Mr. Stitt: After reviewing the proposed sign code and talking to you on the phone last Tuesday, I felt our opinion should be expressed for we were unable to attend the hearing Tuesday, January 19th. Having a unifonn sign code is a worthy endeavor, but we find some provisions which will be very costly in the next three years. Our signs which have been in existance for several years, and for which we pay current lease payments after original installation costs will become non-confonning signs. This will require removal and installation of new signs ~hich will conform to the proposed rules. We do not find this to be a satisfactory resolution at this time. We understand a variance appeal would be in order, but does this not defeat the purpose of a sign code? We feel that at the time the sign is altered structually is the time it should be brought into confonnity. Enforcement is going to be another problem with the potential of increased personnel being required. Who is going to pay for this? We feel that our business co ntributes a great deal to the current tax ba se , and we are not interested in paying more taxes for some- thi ng wh ich does not add any services to the people of this c011111unity. As stated the concept is good, but ~onsideration should be given to those who are established, have paid substantial taxes through the years, and wh o confonned to previous codes. Thanks for hear i ng us out in this matter. Sincerely yours, RALPH SC~SMOBILE J~i rts JSR/sl G nera 1 Manager • I~ 0 I • • plan·west Mayor Eugene Ot is and Members of City Coun cil City of Englewood 3400 South Elati Street Englewood, Colorado 80110 Dear Mayor Otis, • • Ma y 7, 1982 I..) /J f1i1W 1 o iJBZ c..-3 ---.. .___ .. ,. ·---· This letter is in reference to the upcoming dec isi on on the proposed sign code. I have reviewed the proposed code , and find the critical items ( height, square footage , number, and amortization schedule) to be rea sonably protective of the sign industry livlihood,to provide assurance of imp roved aesthetic con- ditions for citizens of Englewood , and to provide an adequate level of continued communication for our businesses. Your approval of the sign code , as rev ised, is recommended . Thank you for your attention. Sincerely, W. William Howard 2970 s. Lafayette Dr. 1411 E. Dartmouth Ave. 2755 eouth locu I 1trNt tulle 117 denver, oolorado 80222 (303)7 14111 ) I l'UBliSHER'S AFFIDAVIT ST ATE OF COLORADO. 'J NTV OF J\rapahoc ) )ss. ) J .;,ck L, =Bac,o~ oo !.Olomnly s wuo, tllat I om tho . of Engle~oo4 SeQ~~n~~ Iha! lhe same 11 • week ly newspaper published in lhe C11yol Engl.ewoad County of Arapahoe State of COk>ra do And has• general c1rcul1hon lhern1n tha1 sa,d newspaper has been publist'ed conunuousJy and uninterruptedly 1n said Cmm1yot Arapahoe tc,, J P..~MKI or m<>fe lhan 52 .. cc-., prior 10 the 1,rs1 pubhcat1on ol the annexed notice that said .. .."'P800f 11 entered in tne po11 olhce at Englewood ColOfado as second claa1 ma,I matter and that lt'te U•d n6wspilper 11 a newspaper within the m anmg of th acl ol the General Assembly ol the Slate of Cofo,ado approved March 30. t923 Wd tonMlt'd l('(J:,I Not.CPS nnd AdVOfllsernctnll 111<1 01111.. t4.h 11•i.1IUMI lo !ho ,,,.ntut{I ,md Pvt>t, hmg ol legal notices and advert11me(lt1 lh, I lh nnnf',t('(t no1,c.-wns published ,n lhe t•"}ulnr un<J cntiro ,ssuM 01 ~,111<1 newspaper 0111 1' r,lrh wN"'k Otl ltl(• same csay ol each week lo, lh pet 10d 01 /\pr il 7, '" 82,.,.,,,,.. I ,I 11 '"'•I ,I ,.,t,., ,,. t ,11 lh1• 1· ,lt4 ,.t APRIL 7' 19 82 Jt(/(~ S.gnatu,e and Title tK"Ct no ""°'" to befOfe me. • Notary 8th Ooyot • Pv'*-'*' Aot'M 1, 1NI -- • • • • I • • - • • • - SIGN CODE INFORMATION PACKET INDEX 1. Plann ing & Zon ing Commission Agenda -September 9, 1981 2 . Planning & Zonin g Commission Minutes -September 9, 1981 3. Staff Repo rt to the Planning & Zoning Commission re: Zoning Ordinance Amendment Case 1/9-81. September 9 , 1981. 4 . Planning & Zoning Commission Agenda -September 22 , 1981 5. Letter dated September 15, 1981 . 6 . Letter to Interested Citizens, dated September 22 , 1981 . 7. Sign-in Sheets -September 22, 1981. (Two pages) 8 . Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes -September 22, 1981. 9. Planning & Zo ning Commission Agenda -October 6, 1981 . 10. Letter to "Interes t ed Citizens" dated September 28 , 1981. 11. Letter to "Interested Businessman" dated Septemb r 28, 1981. 12. Sign-in Sheet -October 6, 1981 . (One page) 13. Issues and Answers in Response to Sign Code Meting on Septemb r 22 , 1981. 14. City Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes -October 6, 1981 . 15. Letter to Bill Harrison, dated October 7, 1981 , Sign-in sheet attachment. 16. Letter dat d October 14, 1981--attachm nt sign-in sheet for October 19th me ting with New Car Dealers. 17. L tt r dat d October 14, 1981--attachm nt sign-in h et October 20, 1981. 18. Planning & Zoning Commission ag nda -Nov mb r 4, 1981. 19. Sign-in She ts of Public He ring b for Cit Pl nning & Zoning Commission -Novemb r 4, 1981 20. Planning & Zoning Commission Minut s -ov mb r 4, 1981. 21. Staff R port to City Pl nning & Zoning Commi aion r Zoning Ordin nc Am ndm nt. Cs 09-81 . Nov mb r 4, 1981. 22. Sign-in h t from m ting b (or City Pl nnin & Zoning Commission D c mb r 1, 1981. 2 • Pl nning & Zoning Commis ion g nd -D c mb r 1, 1981. 24. Pl nnin & Zonin Commis ion Minut • -D c mb r 1, 19 1 • • I • • I- • • • • -2- 25. Staff Report to Planning & Zoning Commission re: Zoning Ordinance Amendment, Case #9-81 . December 1, 1981. 26. Planning & Zoning Commission Age nda -January 19, 1982. 27 . Memorandum to Persons Interested in the Revised Sign Code, dated January 8, 1982. 28. City Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes -January 19, 1982. 29 . Staff Report to City Planning & Zoning Commis sion re: Zoning Ordinance Amendment, Case 119-8 1. January 19, 1982. Attachments "A", "B", and "C". 30. Sign-in Sheets from Public Hearing before Planning & Zoning Commission , January 19, 1982. (5 sheets) 31. Planning & Zoning Commission Agenda -February 2, 1982 . 32. Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes -February 2, 1982 . 33. Memorandum to Susan Powers, Director of Community Development from Tom Holland, Assistant City Attorney. Date of March 12, 1981. 34 . Memoran dum to Susan Powers, Director of Community Development from Tom Holland, Assistant City Attorney. Date of October 6, 1981. 35. Memorandum to Susan Powers, Director of Community Development from Tom Holland, Assistant City Attorney. Date of November 4, 1981. 36. Memorandum to Planning & Zoning Commission from Susan Powers, Director of Community Development. Date of March 26, 1982. 37. Proposed Sign Code Comparison and Summary. February 17, 1982. 38. Mailing list for notices of May 10th meting: 7 sheets 39. L tter to Englewood City Council from Centennial Chamber of Comm rce, d ted J nu ry 19, 1982. 40. L tt r to H rold Stitt from John S. Rob rt of Ralph Schomp Oldsmobil , dat d J nu ry 25, 1982. 41. tt r to Mayor Otis and M mb r of En 1 wood City Council from Willi8111 How rd, d ted May 7, 1982. • I • • -• • • CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION September 9, 1981 7 :00 P. M. Conference Room A I. Call to Order. II. Approval of Minutes : July 21, 1981 III. Cottonwood Village Subdivision -Final Plat. Case 117-81. IV. Sign Code Review . Case #9-81 . V. Hearing Procedure Rules. VI . Public Forum. VII. Director's Choice. a. Update on Adult Entertainment Ordinance. b. Prowswood. c. Downtown Plan. d. Permit System . e . Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Revision . VIII. Commission's Choice . IX. Adjourn. • I • • • • - CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION September 9 , 1981 I. CALL TO ORDER . The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Coillllission was called to order at 7:00 P.M . by Chairman Judith B. Pierson . Members present : Pierson, Barbre, Carson, Draper, McBrayer, Senti Powers, Ex-officio Members absent: Becker , Tanguma , Allen Also present : Associate Planner Susan T. King Audience : Mr. and Mrs. Robert Bolton Mr . Biggi Mr . Jerry Ray Mrs. Donald L . R. Smith II . APPROVAL OF MINUTES . Chairman Pierson stated that the Minutes of July 21, 1981, were to be considered for approval. Carson moved : Barbre seconded : The Minutes of the July 21, 1981 , meeting be ap proved as written. AYES : Carson, Draper, McBrayer, Pierson, Senti, Barbre NAYS: None ABSENT : Becker, Tanguma, Allen The motion carried. III . COTTONWOOD VILLAGE SUBDIVISION Final Plat CASE #7-91 Ms . Susan King, A sociate Plann r , g v the st ff report . Ms . King introduc d Mr . and Mrs. Rob rt Bolton, owners of the s ub ject site, and Mr . Biggi, engin r for th Boltons. Th propos l is to divid th prop rty into thr building sits, with th xisting structure t 825 Weat Quincy Av nue remaining on th on building sit ; th oth r two ait s would b approxi- mat ly 1/3 and 1/4 in iz . The prop rty is zoned R-1-A, Sin 1 -f mily r sid nc , nd the propos 1 will facilit t th cone ruction of two sin 1 -f ily homes. Ace ss to th two in- rior lot would b by priva ly intain d cul-d -a c ex- ndin north from W s Quincy Avenu . Ma . King stated that condi ions which w re plac don th approv 1 of th Pr liminary Pl th v b n t by th applic nts on this, th final plat • I • • n • • - -2 - o f the proposed subdivision, t~ose conditions being as follows : 1 . A 20-foot wide easement for the six-inch water main has been extended to the center of the cul-de-sac. 2. A specification sheet of all water and sewer lines has been submitted and approved by the Utilities Department. 3. The radius of the cul-de-sac has remained at the size in- dicated on the preliminary plat. 4 . Grading of the property has been approved as minimizing erosion of the City Ditch . 5 . Plans for the private road have been approved by the Engineering Department . Mrs . Becker and Mr. Tanguma entered the meeting at 7 :05 P.M. and took their places with the Cotmnission. Ms . King stated that no negative conments regarding the f inal p lat of the proposed subdivision have been received from other property owners , or f rom various utilities departments to whom it has been referred . Mr . McBrayer asked what work had been done on the site? Mr. Bol t on s tated that they have removed some old foundations, and were ab l e to obtain some clean fill dirt, which they have brought onto the property . Mr . Biggi stated that they have tried to s mooth the grade of the property so that the water will flow acro ss t he property . Mr. McBrayer stated that he felt Mr. and Mr s. Bolt on s hould be a ware that the Building Dep artmen t a nd tho s e i n c ontrol o f t he Ci t y Ditch are attempting to p reven t water f r om going into the Ditch ; the City Ditch i s not to s e rve as a "drainage" canal f or runo ff water . Mr . Bolton stated that t h e f r on t h alf o f t he property would drai n to Quincy Avenue, and the y would not be drain ing t h e e n tir e site to t he Ditch . Mrs . Pierson asked if there were furthe r comments or questions p rtaining to the final plat of the Cottonwood Village Sub- division? She stat d that she would ent e rtain a motion to ap- prove the Final Plat and recommend it to City Coun cil. Barbre moved : T ngum second d : Th Pl nning ColDDission a pprove the Fin al Plat of t h e Co t tonwood Village Subdivision, and r fer &aid Plat to t he City Counci l f o r th ir pproval. AYES : Carson, Dr pr, McBrayer, Pi rson, S nti, Ta nguma, Barbre, B ck r A.YS : None ABSENT : All n Th motion c rri d . • I • • • - -3- Mr. McBrayer noted that there were not too many areas in the City where new single-family homes could be constructed, and that it was nice to see efforts made to develop these areas. IV, SIGN CODE REVISION CASE #9-81 Ms. Powers stated that members of the Commission were sent copies of the proposed Sign Code. Ms. Powers stated that the intent of the staff is to give an over-view of the proposed changes at this meeting, and present a proposed schedule of meetings for the Commission's consideration. Ms. Powers stated that it is proposed to handle the consideration of the Sign Code in much the same way as the Bicycle Trail System was handled --a series of public meetings spearheaded by a member of the Commission prior to the Public Hearing and recommenda- tion to City Council . Ms. Powers stated that she would hope the members of the Planning Commission would attend as many of these public meetings as possible. Public meetings on the Sign Code are proposed at this time for September 22nd and on October 6th, with a Public Hearing tentatively scheduled for October 20th. Ms. Powers reviewed the reasons for the revision of the Sign Code, noting that staff had kept a list of complaints and problems experienced in working with the existing Code. Sign Codes from other cities were also reviewed . The present Sign Code was drafted in the early 1970's, and is based on the DRCOG Model Sign Code. Other cities which adopted the DRCOG Model Sign Code have made major revisions in their codes in the past 10 years. No revisions have been made in the Englewood Sign Code since it was adopted, and it does not necessarily reflect the values and goals of the community as they exist today. Ms. Powers stated that she had asked the City Attorney's office for an opinion regarding termination of signs that would become non- conforming with the adoption of the new Sign Code. Tom Holland, Assistant City Attorney, indicated in a written opinion that termination can be required, but that it must be "reasonable." Ms . Powers discussed some of the more pertinent changes, these being that the enforcement of the Sign Code will be the responsi- bility of the Planning Division rather than of the Code Enforce- ment Division . The Sign Code is a part of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, and it seems appropriate that the Planning Division have the enforcement respo~sibility . Mr . Harold Stitt, Planning Assistant, will be assigned the enforcement of the Sign Code. Ms . Powers stated that another impetus for th r vi ion of th existing Sign Code is the ne d for redevelopment and improv - ment along South Broadway in the downtown ar a. Improved igning would be a form of improvem nt, nd could h v n impact on th nt i r downtown r a . Th propo d Sign Cod ia bing r vi w d by D sign Workshop, Inc ., th Pl nning Consulting firm for th downtown proj ct to d rmin if th rear ny inconsi t nci a. Sine th staff h s work d so closely with D aign Workahop, Inc . hroughout th pl nning proc sa, it ia doubtful that there will b any conflicts . • , I • • • - -4- Ms. Powers stated that if the proposed Sign Code is adopted, the existing Sign Code would be repealed. Summary sheets con- trasting what is permitted in the proposed Sign Code and what is permitted in the existing Code were discussed . Ms . Powers stated that in the existing Sign Code each zone district was addressed separately, which led to a lot of repetition. Under the proposed Sign Code, signs permitted in all the residential zone districts are considered as one category, and signs per- mitted in all the business and industrial zone districts are considered in a second category. The major changes are in the business and industrial zone dis- tricts, and include the following: Height of signs permitted has been lowered from the existing 32 feet to the proposed 20 foot limitation . The total number of signs allowed per business has also been changed; a business is presently allowed a maximum of five signs --no matter the size of the lot on which the business is located; the proposed Sign Code would relate the maximum number of signs allowed to the street frontage of the individual business . The maximum area of signs is another area of change : the maximum area of signs will again depend on the street frontage of the business . Mr. Tanguma asked about the car dealers with cars parked along the frontage of their lot with advertising on each car; how would this be figured, and how would the signs be classified? Discussion ensued. Mrs. Becker suggested that perhaps these signs on the individual vehicles would be "temporary"? Ms . Powers stated that this would be considered further and would report back to the Commission. Ms. Powers stated that under the proposed Sign Code, both faces of a sign would be counted toward the maximum sign area; the existing Sign Code states that just one face of a sign is counted. She pointed out that this will have considerable impact on the commercial strip areas. Ms. Powers noted that on Page 7 of the proposed Code, S22.7-5, Signs Prohibited in All Zone Districts, includes sub-section "m", which states : "Strings of light bulbs used in connection with commercial premises for commercial purposes, other than traditional holiday d corations." She stated that there are questions that the strings of bulbs are a "sign", and the City Attorney's office has been requested to research this. Ms. Becker noted that at a couple of restaurants in Littleton, the trees have tiny light bulbs strung through them, and while they r not a "sign", sh flt they were very attractiv. Discussion nsued. Ms. Pierson st t d th t perhaps some r striction on th wattage of the bulbs us d could be included in th Code. • I • • • • -5- Mr . Tanguma asked about hand-lettered signs advertising garage sales which are tacked to utility poles --whether this would be prohibited under the Sign Code? Ms. Powers stated that this is prohibited under the Litter section of the Weed and Litter Ordinance which is presently being considered by the City Council . Discussion of third-party signs ensued . Mr . Tanguma stated that he felt this could be too restrictive, and did not see anything wrong with permitting third-party signs; this re- striction could deprive individuals of a means of income. Mrs. Becker asked whether multi-colored buildings, which serve as an advertisement, would be permitted ? Ms. Powers stated that the staff had avoided the prohibition of wall graphics since they can be quite attractive . In checking with other communities, it was determined that Aspen is the one community which deals with wall graphics, and that they are encouraged in Aspen . This will be examined in more detail . Mr . Draper asked how the Sign Code would be enforced. Ms. Pow ers stated that it would depend on the specific Ordinance that is approved . Ms . Powers stated that the intent is that a member of the Planning Division staff will be charged with the enforcement of the Sign Code . Th s taff would work closely with the businesses affected by the ordinance to encourage compliance . Mr. Draper asked if the individual businesses were responsible for obtaining the proper permit s, or whether the Sign Companies are responsible? Ms . Powers stated that the Sign Companies are pretty good now about obtaining the proper permits . She did note that there are a lot of signs along Broadway that were installed without permits simply because the property owner/businessman and/or sign company may not have been aware at the time of in- stallation tha t permits were required. Signs that would not r quire permits w re reviewed. Ms. Powers pointed out that the Crime Watch Area signs w re requ sted by members of the Police Department and the Traffic Engineering Divi sion . Ms. B ck r commented th t sh did not f 1 that Hom Occup tion signs should be permitted on ground signs; sh stated that she did not object to 100-squ re inch sign affixed to the house, but that she would obj ct to a ground sign posted in the yard which dv rtised a hom occup tion. Mr. T nguma inquir d wh th r th "H lping H nd" which i post d in windows for childr n would b consider d toward sign re , nd wh th r it wou ld requir a permit? Ha . Pow rs stat d th t this would b check d into furth r by the at ff . Mr . Tangum lo inquir d bout r ligiou signs which my b post don houa ; would th ae r quir a p rmit, and would they count toward h m ximum ai n r p rmitt d? Ma . Pow rs stat d that th ff would lso look into this. I • • • • -6- Ms. Powers stated that the proposed Sign Code also contains r e s trictions on the location and placement of signs. The pro- posed Sign Code defines the "signable area" on a structure, and restricts the percentage of that signable area which may be devoted to signage . Ms . Powers explained what the term "signable area" refers to. Window signs may not cover more than 2 5% of the window area , and may not be permitted in windows above the first floor . Wall signs may not cover more than 40% o f the wall area . Mr. Tanguma asked if the staff had considered the economic im- pact this proposed Sign Code would have on the businessmen in the City ? He stated that he felt the implementation of this proposed Sign Code would cause an increase in the prices because the businessmen have to make a profit, and this sign code would be costly to comply with . Mr. Tanguma stated that the more governmental regulations that are placed on businessmen , the more money it costs . Discussion ensued. Mr. Draper noted tha t even t hou g h the new sign s permitted i n the proposed Sign Code are smaller than those wh ich a re permitted under the existing Sign Code, they could co s t more to replace because of inflation . He asked Ms . Powers what she envisioned as a re s u lt o f the i mplementa t i on o f the proposed Sign Code . Ms. Powers stated that there would be less "clutter" in the signage ; she noted that there is only so much information that c an be absorbed by the motorist driving at any given speed. 1'he proposed Code would relate the size of the sign to the s ize of t he building ; there f ore , the signs would be in sca l e with the stru ctur e s. Discussion e nsue d . Mr . Ta ng um a noted tha t any redevelopmen t that take s p lace in t he downtown area will probably be the larg e r office buil d i n gs, a n d the y wo u ld not have t he n um ber or size of sign s that a retail outlet would r equire. He stated that he felt com pe tition would take care of the n ee d to improve appearance and signage. Mr. Tanguma stat e d that while he felt there should be some sign control, he did not want to see a code so strict that businessmen are forced out of the area. Ms. Pow rs stated that it is not th goal to los busin ss; th goal is to try to improve the appearance of the colllllunity, and thereby ttract new businesses into the community. Ms . Pow rs then discussed the Non-conforming Sign ection. If a sign th tis legal und r th existin g Cod would b com non- conforming under the propos d Sign Co de , th p rop rty own r- busines man would have thr e years to bri n g t h at sign into con- formanc . If any of th following fiv r e asons occur, the sign must b brought into conform nc arlier th nth thr -ye r limit ion : 1. is than 501 of its tot 1 d. wh taoev r. or becomes nd rd und r any pplicable ordinanc of the xt nt that th sign becomes a • I • • • - -7- 2. Whenever the ownership of the property changes on which the Non-conforming Sign is located. 3. Whenever there is a change in the leasee, ownership of the business or use to which the sign pertains. 4 . Whenever there is a request made for a permit to change the sign. 5. Whenever there is a request for a permit to make improve- ments to the exterior of ~he principal building . Ms. Powers noted that under the existing regulat i ons , the only means of eliminating a non-conforming sign is if it was deter- mined to be "abandoned". This was quite an involved process, and it was difficult to prove "abandonment." The signs that are prohibited in all zone districts and are illegal must be removed within 60 days of the effective date of the ordinance . In the event the property owner/businessman does not comply within the 60-day period, the City may cause the removal of the sign and bill the owner for the cost to re- move the sign, plus a penalty fee. Ms. Powers stated that signs that are determined to be hazardous and abandoned must be removed within 30 days following such declaration by the Department of Community Development . If the property owner/businessman does not remove such hazardous or abandoned sign within that time period, the City may cause such removal and may bill the property owner/businessman for the cost of removal plus a penalty fee . There is an appeal procedure wr itten into the proposed Code, whereby such a property owner/busines sman may appeal to the City Manager. The matter of a fee schedule was discussed. It was noted that there is no fee schedule set forth in the proposed Sign Code. It was suggested that charges made by other communities be checked. Mr. Tanguma asked if there was a possibility that those individuals who have signs that are illegal or prohibited under the proposed Sign Code could be given a 60-day gr c period to obtain a permit without fee if they would bring the sign into conformance? It was determined that this would be further investigated by the staff. Ms. Powers stated that the next meeting scheduled for di cussion of the proposed Sign Code is September 22, 1981. She stat d that Colllllissioner McBrayer was willing to assist with th se m etings on the Sign Code much as he did on the Bicycle Trails project. The staff has proposed that them eting of September 22, 1981, b d voted to pr senting the proposed sign co de tom mbers of th Downtown Dev lopm nt Authority, the DBA , the Chamb r of Colllll re , th Bo rd of Adjustm nt nd Appals, and form r Sign Cod Committ m mb r . Th m ting on Octob r 6, 1981, would then b op n to th public for pr s ntation of th propoaed Sign Cod, nd h rin is tentativ ly sch dul d for Octob r 20th . • g ner l public I • • • - -8- Ms. Powers stated that she would like to receive comments on the proposed Sign Code back from the Commission members as soon as possible. Mr. McBrayer stated that he had some comments on the proposed Code, and noted that reference is made to "direct electrical wiring" in several places. He noted that there is a new type of sign that is coming out that is totally solar-powered. He suggested that this sign should be considered in the proposed Sign Code . Discussion on the solar-powered sign vs. the electrically- wired sign ensued. Mr. McBrayer noted that on Page 18 of the proposed Sign Code, reference is made to illumination that shall not exceed 25 watts per bulb; he noted that it does not restrict the number of bulbs that may be used , thereby not restricting the total amount of illumination. He suggested that perhaps "candlepower" restrictions should be written into this section. On Page 21 (2) of the proposed Sign Code, requiring termination of a Non-conforming Sign prior to the three year limitation "whenever the ownership of the property changes on which the Non-conforming Sign is locatec" --he asked how the staff would know when such property changed ownership? He suggested that the staff should have documents recorded on properties with non-conforming signs which would put new property owners on notice that they must bring the sign into conformance with the Sign Code upon purchase of the property . Mr. McBrayer questioned the definitions for arcade, plaza and mall signs. He noted that Cinderella City is an interior mall, and that there should not be different standards for plaza signs than there are for arcade and mall signs . For th public m tings on September 22 and October 6th, he s ugg sted that the staff have sli des of examples of each type of sign; xamples of good signs and bad signs; of signs which would conform to th proposed Code, and sign which would not conform. He lso suggest d that there be ov rlays explaining th chang in th propo d Cod from th xiating Cod. H lo suggested that list of "h rd r asons" for the revision of the Sign Cod b d vis db for these me tings, noting that it is difficult to justify sthetics as a r son for th re- vision . bout four months ago, Mayor Otis r - Bro dw y busin ssman complaining bout igns on South Bro dw y. The DBA supported th complaint; th taff follow d up on th complaint, finding that there are lot of viol tions in th downtown are on signs. H . Powers no d ht Hr . Gordon Clo • ch irman of th OBA, is v ry aup- por iv o th ch n a th staff ha propos d. He ia very con- rn d bou "cl nin th commercial/business area. nd l th is one in that dir ction. Mr . • • d h t h f l on of th . bi probl with ,• ·c .,,.. rion-conforming r a • ) I • • • • -9- Ms. Powers asked members of the Commission for their impression of the proposed Sign Code? Ms. Pierson stated that she likes the proposed Sign Code and would support the changes. Mrs. Becker stated that she also would support the changes as sug- gested in the proposed Sign Code. Mr. Senti stated that he felt this was about 10-years over-due, and would support it. Mr. Carson stated that he would like to consider the ramifications of the proposed revisions further. Mr. McBrayer stated that he felt the Commission and staff should realize that the proposed Sign Code, as written, is the "ultimate", and that compromises will have to be made. He stated that it is a good point to start from. V. HEARING PROCEDURE RULES CASE #10-81 Ms. Powers stated that the proposed Bill for Ordinance on rules of procedure governing Hearings before the Planning Commission, Board of Adjustment and Appeals, Liquor Licensing Board and City Council, was submitted by City Attorney Rick DeWitt . Ms. Pow ers stated that the staff has gone over the proposed Bill for Ordinance, and has submitted some suggestions to Mr. DeWitt, including that hearings on "Conditional Uses" before the Planning Coll'lllission be added on Page 3. Also, in Sl-7-4, that the time limitation be set at 35 days rather than 30 days. The staff also asked that "Findings of Fact" be used in reference to the written reasons required. Ms. Powers pointed out that this proposed Bill for Ordinance is up-dating the procedures that are now in effect. Mr. Draper stated that there has been some question about whether the oath should be administered at some of the Hearings before the Commission. Ms. Powers stated that if it is a quasi-judicial hearing, the oath is administered; if it is an administrative hearing, the oath need not be administered. There were no further comments from the Comnission regarding the proposed Bill for Ordinance. VI . PUBLIC FORUM. No memb r of th Commission. udi nee indict d a desir to addr s th VII. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE. M . Pow rs r f rr d to a map indicting areaa wher adult n- tertainm nt uses could locate in th City baaed on the 500-foot rule en ct d by th City Council. The Bookstore on South Sant F Driv would not b in violation of the ordin nee; the Adult C nt r on South Broadway is in violation of the ordin nc b - cau i is within 500 f t of a r 1idential diatrict . Th Adul Cent r on South Broadway wa 1 given notic that they ar non-conformin , nd muat terminat th ir buain 11 t that lo- cation by Nov mber 30, 1981. • I • • • • - -10- Ms. Powers stated that the Colorado Springs litigation upheld the distance limitations imposed on the adult entertainment uses; it did not, however, uphold the termination of such uses within 120 days. She pointed out that the Englewood Ordinance requires termination of such non-conforming uses within 180 days, and does give the right of appeal to the Planning Commission for an extension of time up to two years. Ms. Powers stated that Prowswood is moving ahead with the con- struction of the marketing building on this site. A representa- tive of Prowswood had talked to Mrs. Romans in the past week to determine if the accessory commercial uses they had proposed could be located in a separate structure rather than within the high-rises. This is permitted in the R-3 Zone District. They are preparing a model to be used for marketing purposes . She noted that they will be bringing in plans for discussion . Mr. McBrayer noted that the name of the development has been changed from "The Lakes" to "Waterford ." He corrmented that he felt the construction on this site was "going slow on pur- pose." Ms. Powers reported on the proposed hotel in Cherry Hills Village. The developers of this hotel have asked for sewer service from the City of Englewood. They are proposing, in addition to the hotel, about 200 luxury condominium units. Ms. Powers stated that she understood the proposal was presented to Cherry Hills Village officials, and that the reaction was favorable. Ms. Powers reported on the Downtown Plan . The members of EDDA would like to make a presentation of the Plan to the Planning Commission at a special meeting on September 15th, at 7 :00 P.M. This would be to bring the Coumission up-to-date on progress since the presentation on July 21st. A Public Hearing on the proposed plan before the Planning Commission is tentatively sc heduled for October 13th. Mike Haviland, Executive Director of the EDDA, has scheduled public hearings on September 16th and 17th which are open to the general public ; members of the Commission were urged to attend one of these meetings, if possi- ble. Ms . Pow rs stated th t th consultant and staff are in the process of working on a zone district for the downtown area, which would be differ nt than th existing B-1 and B-2 Zone Districts which the City has. It is hoped that it would be completed shortly so that the Commission can consider it . Ms. Powers stated that the Co'lllllission will be asked to consider am ndm nt of th Compr hen iv~ Plan to include the downtown plan at the Public Hearing t ntativ ly scheduled for October 13th; th re will b as t of polici s that would be presented to the Coumission for their consideration befor the Hearing . t Mr . H viland i tt pting tog t v ry- ct d by th implement tion of the propos d pl n involv din th public h rings th EDDA is holding on mb r 16th nd 17th . Th EDDA Bo rd will ct on the Pl n it ia pr ant d to th Commi sion for their conaid r tion . • I • • • - -11- Ms. Powers stated that further consideration of the Special Permit System has been put off for a while because of time constraints of the staff in working on the Sign Code, Zoning Ordinance revision, and the Downtown Plan. The proposed follow- up seminar for members of the Commission, Board of Adjustment and Housing Authority who could not attend the session on July 10th has been tentatively rescheduled for November 10th . The staff has done nothing further on the Permit System than con- sidering a possible area, and crystalizing the goals and standards. Ms. Powers stated that it would not become a part of the Compre- hensive Zoning Ordinance at ttis time, and there must be a number of meetings and Public Hearing~ before this would become a part of the Ordinance. Ms. Powers stated that the staff has completed work on the "use variance" section of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, and are now working on revision of the administrative section of the Ordinance. A problem that has arisen is that when the Building Code was revised and adopted last year, the section pertaining to the Board of Appeals was eliminated. This issue has to be resolved before the administration section of the Ordinance can be brought to the Planning and Zoning Commission . The staff is working with the City Attorney's office to rewrite the ap- propriate sections. Ms. Powers stated that there is a conference on the Urban Pedestrian, which will be held in Boulder October 12 and 13; if any member of the Commission is interested, please let the staff know. Ms. Powers also noted that there is a conference on the Colorado Front Range on September 11th, and asked if there was any member of the Commission interested in attending. Ms . Powers presented Mrs . Pierson with a five-year award for her s ervice on the Commission . VI I I. COMMISSION'S CHOICE. Mrs . Pierson suggested that the ColllDission should write a letter o f appreciation to Ms . Barbara Young, who recently retired from the Department of ColllDunity Development. She stated that she would draft such a letter . Mr . McBrayer stated that he had recently started building his own home in Englewood, and discussed some of the problems and exp nses that he has encountered in this endeavor. He noted that the building permit for th house, estimated to cost $65,000+, cost him in excess of $1,300. The City also collects U Tax, which is estimated at 37. of half of the valuation of th structure; this is collected at the time the building p rmit is obtained. He also found out that his property is in th South at Engl wood Sanit tion District, and that to tap o n t o this line which runs down the centerline of South Huron S er t directly in front of his property, would cost $1,400, • I • ...... • • • - -12 - plus a $700 application fee to the Board of the Southeast Engle- wood Sanitation District. The Attorney for the Sanitation Dis- trict, Mr. Walter Irwin, demanded $20 cash to even fill out the permit. Mr. McBrayer noted that just to tap onto the sewer line will cost him over $2,100. The sewer line is only 6'2" deep in the street; he will have to install a $1,900 pumping system in the basement to pump the sewage from the basement level up to the level of the line. Mr. McBrayer stated that the Coumission has, in the past, discussed means of encouraging rehabilitation of homes, and construction of new homes . He stated that in light of his recent experiences, he felt the fees charged should be reviewed to see if there is some way to reduce the cost of building a house in Englewood. Mr . Draper stated that the company installing Cable TV in back of his property had dislodged the electric service to his prop- erty, and that they had to have it repaired . He noted that they will attempt to get the Cable TV Company to reimburse them, but that citizens should be aware that some of the equipment the Company uses can cause this problem . Mr. Tanguma submitted a lette~ to Mayor Otis and members of the City Council explaining his delay in submitting a written re- port of his trip to Boston. He asked that this letter be for- warded to the Mayor and City Council. The meeting adjourned at 9 :30 P.M. • I • • • • • - ( MEMORANDUM TO THE ENGLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGARDING ACTION OR RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION DATE : September 9, 1981 SUBJECT : RECOMMENDATION : Barbre moved: Tanguma seconded : Cottonwood Village Subdivision The Planning Commission approve the Final Plat of the Cottonwood Village Subdivision , and refer said Plat to the City Council for their approval. AYES : Carson, Draper, McBrayer, Pi~rson, Senti, Tanguma, Barbre, Becker NAYS: None ABSENT : Allen The motion carried . By Order of the City Planning and Zoning Commission . I • • ST AFF REPORT Pa ge -1- STAFF REPORT RE: • • - ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT Case #9-81 Amendment to Section 22.7 of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, the Sign Code. DATE : September 9, 1981 PRESENTED BY: The Planning Division. DESCRIPTION: The Planning Division proposes an amendment to Section 22 .7 Sign Code of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. This revision will add guidelines and regulations not presently c overed in the current code . BACKGROUND: The revision of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, which is the section involving the Sign Code, has come about b ecause of interest in upgrading signs within the City . The Englewood Downtown Development Authority and the Downtown Business Association have expressed concern with signs in the do wntown area, and contacted the Planning staff to see what co uld be done to upgrade signs . The Planning staff conducted a survey of the sign codes of the various jurisdictions within the Denver-metro area . The survey results were compared to Model Sign Code s and sign code standards developed for a street graphics system . Staff then made revisions to the Sign Code s ction, wh i ch reflected changes that should control signage in the downtown and other reas of the city . Som of the major changes between the present Sign Code and the proposed Sign Code i nvolve sign area , height of signs, sign face and signable area. t he principal changes proposed in the amended Sign Code are shown on the attached sun:mary sheets. • w I • • • STAFF REPORT Page -2- RECOMME NDATION: • • • ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT CASE {;9-81 The Planning Division staff recommends that two public meetings be scheduled for review of the proposed amend- ments. The first meeting could include members of the City Council, Englewood Downtown Development Authority, Downtown Business Association and Board of Adjustment. The second meeting could be publicized and be an open public meeting. This should give the Commission members good back- ground material for the required Public Hearing. • I • • • • • • GROUND SIGNS . Signs other than Temporary and Political signs which are within the maximum permitted square foot area and do not exceed the number permitted in any Zone District. -~ ~;; t:N GLEVif OOD Present Sign Code : Proposed Sign Code : Low Density Residential(Limits): Residential: Only for Church, religious and educational institutions or public buildings. 6 ft. high, 10 ft. setback or 20 ft. if within 55 ft. of an inter- section. May be illuminated except between 11:00 P.M . and 6 :00 A.M. High Density Residential: For all permitted uses except single-family. 15 ft . high, 5 ft. setback, must maintain a clear area of 6 ft. within 55 ft. of an intersection . May be illuminated except 11:00 P.M. to 6 :00 A.M . CollUllercial and Industrial : For all permitted uses, only one face of the sign included in determining sq. ft. allowed, 32 ft. high, 6 ft. clearance within 55 ft. of an inter- s ection. May be illuminated. Other Communities: All legal permitted uses in Residential Zones except for Single-family or Medium Density may have ground signs. Same limits as the Low Density Resi- dential in the present sign code. 15 feet high, and no signs within a triangle of 30 feet along two streets of an intersection . Conunercial and Industrial : 20 ft. high and all faces of a sign shall be counted in deter- mining allowed sign area. 75 ft. distance between signs on the same lot; distance between signs on ad- joining lots equal to the height of the tallest sign. Auror , Lak wood and Littl ton h ve similar limitations on ground signs except for these differences : hight in C0D1Dercial areas to 12 ft . next to ts, nd 8 ft . next to a collector street. Two (2) ft. may b add d to hight of joint identification signs . S tb ck r 10 ft. for 11 sign. L k wood p rmit hight of 12 ft. in Low Density Residenti l; 20 ft. in Multi-family or Transitional areas, and 25 ft. in Comm rcial . • I • • I - • • • • ------~-- • GROUN D SIGNS (Cc inued). Li ttleton prohibits ground signs in Single-family areas; limits signs to 12 ft . high with a 10 ft. setback in Multi-family or Transitional Zone and 25 ft. high in Commercial Zone. Boulder : Signs permitted in Residential areas are similar to Englewood's code. In Commercial Zones, signs are limited to: One (1) sign per street front, the lesser of 25 ft. or 1.25 x the building height; the distance between signs on adjacent sites is equal to the height of the taller sign and signs on the same site (with two (2) fronts) must be 75 ft. apart. Setbacks for all areas are 10 ft. for signs up to seven (7) ft . high; otherwise setbacks are governed by the abutting streer: 25 ft. setback from major (listed) streets, and 15 ft., 20 ft., or 25 ft. for other streets according to Zone District. There is a provision for clearance of signs within a triangle of 30 ft . along two sides of an intersection. Aurora, Boulder, and Littleton count both faces of a sign in determining sign area; Aspen and Lakewood count only one side . • I • • n • • • ------~· --- HOME O CCUPATION SIGNS or signs permitted for Single-family, Medium-Density or Low-Density uses . {j EN GLEWOOD Present Sign Code One (1) Wall sign per lot 100 sq. inches in area, unilluminated. No permit required. Other Communities: Proposed Sign Code No Change. (The Commission may want to consider permitting Home Oc- cupation signs to be displayed on low ground signs not to ex- ceed the maximum permitted area.) Aspen, Aurora, Boulder and Littleton allow only one (1) sign per lot of use; Lakewood permits two (2) signs per street front for an Occupant sign. Aspen, Boulder and Lakewood permit two (2) square feet of sign area; Littleton permits three (3) square feet for an Occupant sign. Aurora does not have a Home Occupation or Occupant category, but allows 20 square feet or two (2) square feet per 1,000 square foot of lot area for all permitted uses in Residential Zones. Aurora, Boulder and Lakewood allow wall , window and ground signs; Aspen allows wa ll and ground signs; Littl ton allows only wall and window signs in Residenti 1 Zon Auror , Bould r nd Lakewood requir 10 foot ground signs; Asp n and Littleton requir etb those required in the Zon District wh r th us ck for to match is locat d. Only Aspen and Aurora permit illumination by a conce l d light which cannot interfere with traffic. No permits are required by any co111Dunity except Aurora and Asp n. I • • I n • • ,· • \ _jARQUEE~ CANOPY, A W NING SIG N S Pe~mitted only in Commercial or Industrial Zone Districts. Present Sign Code : Proposed Sign Code : Canopy, marquee signs listed as permitted sign types along with arcade and plaza signs. Treat ed as projecting signs in most respects. "Except for suspended signs, all signs (are) parallel to .. face of marquee, canopy or awning ... not above or below the face ... They shall be limited to the name and address of the business. Other Communities : Aspen treats canopy and awning signs as projecting signs which must have City Council approval, if extending into public right- of-way. Aurora defines "Marquee", but does not permit signs over a public right-of-way or mention these as permitted signs in any area. Boulder allows signs on marquees to exceed maximum area of 150 sq. f t . by special exc eption. 150 sq. ft . allowed for canopy or awning signs . Signs cannot project above or below or 12 ·nche s beyond th face of the marquee, canopy or awning. Litt l e ton permits marquee and arcade signs, treated as sign s : limit of three (3) foot projection into public way , 20 f eet high , but not higher than the roof line. of c anopy or awning sign . projecting right-of- No definition Lakewood defines all of these as projecting signs but permits o nly "perpendicular signs" which project no more than three (3) feet from building and does not extend in the public right-of- way . • ' I • • • • • 0 .[ MARQUEE CANOPY AWNING • • • n -. • I ' • • • PO L IT ICAL SIGNS Temporary Signs; these do not require permits in most Communities . Boulder requires a permit. (~ E NGLEWOOD Present Sign Code Proposed Sign Code Low Density Residential:, (limits) Residential: No change. ~ signs per lot, i2 9 total sign area , Wall, Window and Ground signs. 6' high . 45 days prior to election and mu~t. be removed 15 days after. Signs may not be illuminated. High Density Residential: same. Comme rcial and Industrial: . Commercial and Industrial: 2 signs each front line , 329 per face. Wall, Window and Ground signs. 25' high. 90 days prior to election; must be removed 15 days after. May be illuminated by concealed light. Other Comm unities: No change. Aurora. Complies with regulations of Zone District but is limite d to 6 * ; 45 days prior to election; removal in 15 days. Uuulder. Permits 20 i;i sign ar a in trani,;itional ~ones residential), 50 ~ in Commercial and Industrial zones. and must otherwise conform to limits permitted in :!.one ~u days prior to election and 10 days to remove. (none in 8' high district. Lakewo od. Permits 4 ~ sign area in all areas, 12' high .for 45 days prior to election, 15 days after for removal. Littleton. Permits signs in windows of businesses; requirei,; removal 10 days after election. Otherwise signs are subject to height and area restrictions of Zoned Area. • I • • • • • - PRO JECTING SIGNS ::ZG· ::NGlE\iVOOD ,2)(/ Present Sign Code: Residential Areas : Not permitted. Commercial and Industrial: Maxim um 26 ft . high but not above the roof line; 10 foot clearance from the bottom of the sign to the ground level. Maximum projection is 30 inches from the building. May be il luminated. Not permitted for Temporary, Political or Joint Identification Signs . 25 sq. ft . per face . Other Communities : Proposed Sign Code : Residential Areas: Same Con1nercial and Industrial : Same, except both faces are counted in determining allow- able sign area. Allows 25 sq. ft. per face. Maximum height shall be 20 feet, and must be located in signable area. Aspen, Littleton, and Boulder permit projecting signs in Com- mercial areas . Aurora does not mention "projecting signs" as being permitted in any area. Lakewood permits "perpendicular signs" in Coimnercial areas which are defined as those not more than three (3) feet from the building, but which do not project into required setbacks . Aspen permit four foot proj ction and six square foot maximum sign area per face. Boulder permits six foot projection, but only four foot into a public right-of-way; requires eight foot clearance and sign cannot be higher than 15 feet on a multi-story building or to the roofline on a single story building. Boulder permits one square fo ot of sign area per linear foot of building front, but not more than 12 square feet per fac or 24 square feet per sign. If the end panel is more than 12 inches, it muat b counted as sign area. One sign permitted per building face . Littl ton : Allows on sign per uae, only for with nos tback from the public right-of-way. mor th n thr f t, must hav an i ht foot h i~h of 20 fe t, but not bove th roof lin • those busineaaea May not project clearanc , maximum I • • n - • • • • SUSPENDED SIGNS Permitted only in Commercial or Industrial Zone Districts . ENGLEWOOD Present Sign Code : Does not mention sus- pended signs. Other CoDDDunities: Proposed Sign Code: Shall not exceed four (4) square feet per face in area and shall have a minimum clearance of seven (7) feet to grade level. Fifteen (15) feet distance between signs required. Boulder : Defines signs as suspended from the ceiling in an arcade, marquee or canopy. Limited to five (5) per face or ten (10) total sign area. Must have a horizontal distance of fift een (15) feet between signs and an eight (8) foot clearance. Cannot project beyond the arcade, marquee or canopy to which they are attached. o other co11m1unity surveyed mentions these signs as permitted. • I • • • • • TEMPORARY SIGNS Permitted Contents: Construction, remodeling, rebuilding, development, sale, lease or rental . Permits required . Twelve (12) month limit with one (1) renewal for period of twelve (12) months except as noted. ~j ENGLEWOOD Present Sign Code Low Density Residential: (limits) 1 sign per lot, 12 sq. ft. plus 1 sq. ft. per acre total sign area, 50 sq. ft . maximum for 1 sign. Wall or Window -12 ft . high or 18 inch projection, 10 ft. setback from property line. No illumination between 11 :00 P.M. and 6:00 A. M. High Density Residential : Same as above except 2 signs per lot, 24 sq. ft. plus 1 sq. ft. per acre and 100 sq. ft. maximum for 1 sign. Cormnercial and Industrial: Wall, window and ground signs. 2 sign each front line 32 sq. ft. per sign in area and 64 sq. ft. total sign area. 20 ft . high, or 18 inch projection for wall sign. 5 ft. setback. May be illuminated. Other Communities : Prop osed Sign Code Residential: (limits) Same except 24 sq. ft. plus 1 sq. ft. per acre, and 100 sq. ft. maximum for 1 sign; 6 inch projection. Cournercial and Industrial: No change. Aurora and Lakewood allow wall and ground signs in residential zones; wall, window and ground signs in other zones. One sign is permitt d each lot; 200 sq. ft. sign area; 12 ft. high and 10 ft . s tback. Lakewood's Interim Sign Code requires Temporary Signs in Commercial and Industrial areas to comply with the same square footage, height and setback requirements as permanent signs. 8ould r allows wall, window and ground signs in all areas; 32 squ r f t for construction signs; 8 feet high . Other t mporary i n my b 100 sq. ft . maximum area per use and must comply with hi h nd setback of zon where they are loc ted . • I • • • • • • • TEMPO RAR Y SIG NS (Cont i nued) Aurora has six month limit ; may be renewed. Boulder allows two-year period, or 30 days after a project is 75 % developed. Littleton has a six month limit, with four additional six month period extensions allowed . • I • • r_ • • - WALL SIGNS Signs other than Temporary or Political Signs, within the square foot area and number allowed f or a Permitted Use or by Zone District . ENGLE WO OD Present Sign Code: (limits) Low Densit~Residential: For all pe tted uses except Single-family or duplex. 20 ft. high, 18 inch projection. May be illuminated except be- tween 11 :00 P. M. and 6 :00 A.M. Proposed Sign Code : Residential : Wall signs may be 20 ft. high, and shall not project more than 12 inches . Commercial and Industrial: 407. of the signable area , that portion of the building facade Residential R-3 : between openings on the ground ame as a ove except ing e-amily level and the roof line or is limited to Home Occupation sign. the sill of the windows on 25 ft. high, 18 inch projection, the second level; 18 inch may be illuminated from a con-projection limit . Must meet cealed light source. square foot requirements and Commercial and Industrial: For all Permitted Uses, to height of building , 24 inch projection. May be illuminated . Other Comm unities : illumination limits of the Zone District . Aspen : Within limitations of Residential or Commercial Zone District . Cannot exceed 10 sq. ft . on any one building wall , exclusive of cut out letters. Signs painted on buildings, if over 10 sq. ft. require a graphic design permit approved by City Council. Signs may be illuminated. The Graphic System allows 407. of "signable area" and 12 inch projection. Boulder: Limit of 257. of total wall area of a building facade . No more than 25 ft. high, may project above the roof 1/3 of the total height of the sign or 24 inches, whichever is less . 15 inch projection and if on a mansard roof, no more than 45° from roof. Aurora, Lakewood and Littleton have similar limitations to the present Englewood Sign Code . I • • • • - WINDOW SIGNS Signs other than Temporary or Political signs within the square foot area allowed for the Permitted Use or by Zone District. Pr esent Sign Code (limits): Low Density Residential: For all permitted uses ex- cept Single-family or duplex, 20 ft. high, 18 inch pro- jection. May be illuminated except between 11:00 P.M . and 6 :00 A.M . High Density Residential fR-3): Same as above except Singe- family is limited to Home Oc- cupation sign . 25 ft. high, 18 inch projection ; may be illuminated from a concealed light source. Corranercial and Industrial : For all Permitted Uses, to h eight of building; 24 inch proj ection. May be illuminated . Other Co mmunitie s: Proposed Sign Code : Residential, Commercial, and Industrial : May cover 25% of total window area at first floor level. Letters of 4 inches or less are not counted in determining sign area allowed . Must meet square foot requirements and illumination limits of the Zone Districts. Aspen : Does not define "window signs"; limits would be th same as for wall signs or graphics. Aurora, Lak wood nd Littleton h ve used the Model which is also the basis for Englewood's Sign Code . tions for Window Signs are similar. Aurora limits 12 ft. high for lots abutting arterial streets and fo r thos e on collector streets. Sign Cod The limit - all signs to 8 ft . high Boulder : Limit d to 25% of total window area at the ground floor nd 257. of total allowable sign area. The second floor limit ed to signs of four (4) sq. ft. or less; no signs in windows bov s cond l v 1. Gr phic Syst m. Limited to 257. of any window re on th ground floor . Signs in upp r windows allowed only if the buain • occupi a that floor ar a . Letters 3 inches or leas are not con- aid red "it ma of information" in total ai&n area allow d. ) I • • - • • • • CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION SEPTE~ER 22, 198 1 7 :00 P. M. LIBRARY CONFERENCE ROOM I. Call to Order . II . Approval of Minutes : September 9 , 1981. III . Sign Code -Case #9-81. Public Me e ting . IV. Public Forum . V. Director's Choice . VI . COlllldssion's Choice . VII . Adjourn . • I • • I • • - September 15, 1981 In 1979, the Englewood Comprehensive Plan was adopted as a guide to orderly and planned growth within the community . An important aspect of the Plan was the goals which were adopted and the identification of guidelines for improving the visual and aesthetic quality of the City . The purpose was that, with a visual climate attractive to residents and the business co111111unity alike, young families would be at- tracted to the City , thus off-setting the declining school population, and new business would locate in the City, im- proving the tax base . One concern that was expressed by persons working on the Comprehensive Plan review co111111ittees was the proliferation of signs. With minimal control on signs as to design, size and location, they determined that the visual quality of several commercial areas was declining. The Englewood Downtown Development Authority, Downtown Business Association and several other individuals and groups have also stated their interest in increased enforcement of signs and more restrictive regulations. In addition, there are several discrepancies in th present sign code and some sections are difficult to interpret. This ne d to clarify the present Code and the request for im- prov d sign regulations has prompt d the Planning Division to revis the Sign Code, incorporating the suggestions that have be nm de. This revision has been submitted to the Planning Commission and, wanting to inform as many people as possible, they pl n to hold two public m etings prior to a public hearing. The first pr sentation of the propo1ed Sign Code will be on Tu d y, S pt mb r 22nd, at 7 :00 P.H. in th Librarr Conference Room . Members of th Board of Adjustment and Appea a, Chamb r of Coam re . Engl wood Downtown D velopment Authority, Down- own Bu in s Associ tion and th former ign cod co111111ittee, r bin invit d . I • • • • ( September 15, 1981 Page -2- • • • We would very much appreciate your attendance at this meeting on the 22nd of September in order that we can receive your co111Dents on the proposed amendments. Please plan to attend. ~-L Susan Powers ~ Director of Co111Dunity Development gw • I • • • • • • September 22, 1981 To Interested Citizens: SUBJECT : Proposed Sign Code The purpose of the September 22nd public meeting is the review of the proposed Sign Code. This is a preliminary draft which was prepared based on a review of other cities sign codes, and a thorough examination of the existing Englewood code . Prior to the Planning and Zoning Commission consideration of a new Sign Code for the City, we are interested in hearing what the citizens of Englewood feel should be in the Code. Attached is a packet of material which swmnarizes the proposed Code and compares it to the City's existing Code. There is also information provided about how other cities in the region handle the specific issue. I encourage you to submit written comments to the and Zoning Commission at 3400 South Elati Street, Colorado. We would like the revised Sign Code to interests and needs of the citizens of Englewood. ipation will help reach this objective . Sincerely, l ierson, Chairman ~ & Zoning Colllllission Dir ctor of Communi y Dev lopm nt gw • Planning Englewood, reflect the Your partic- I • • • • • j/ ,/ ~/ ~I L I lii/.N REVIEW MEETING COMKITTEE. _________ ,--____ DATE ~~.::/f/ NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE -;:-r ~/· 7 I r I //'"' / / -( , I I _, -- _6 .. /7+-. f/,y ·': l.2.1 ~)u_ 7 S/-Ji: ::/· '·_/,,,.. -~. -I ).f, i' ; : I I fr t/')t/ 171 ' · I'-,~::_. ~ d-;;.t? H /cVrcL r 7ol-f-3 '! 3/.P~ c)o ~nl""- -:y/ ~£) -f/f?/,t_ :-4. ~ / ~,.?-/~~7 / r L/ ~-'7 ,, ' . : :_t-!A , , t..17 s.. •/" -; I / .:_ .. : '. IY,, ..... ·, . I ·" . ,-• > I r 1 ·/ I I ~ I ~~I ..--•r 'r.) t i '.-~ ' I ,-,/ . ··-·. ,'. t,;:; ct-,r<7? ,---'--• ' I I~ f. \l. +-\1 ·; J.~j ~ 7 (04 l l,,A~-l. ·o,r~ (JlZ!, .P l'..1. '~· ·-r:-·1-:,..... -11, ) / ,, ' ' -?. t-1 .-1 .. ;~ ?...-,,,...,,~,,.,~ 7 r I -'-1<.f/ro ,lA .• t.1.•, . //,) f:7;;/, . .I.:// 3 .,t,. /. 'I.! I-::; (. ;'.,(, ~ , ., ' ' I . . • • • - • - NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE r /dGhn p,," ·'' I 3 1 f ·, )-. '! /t c. l"t ,' ~ .... ~ .. ,,r,•/·7~'7/ ?#A-~...,..._..,...//.l't ~ -, .... ;"/ ,I r,·:,,~,<,4-#/ r,;,,-, -,,/,; y.,~; // ,/f'/ ' . , I / • t' / J, /:-/ Af A l? f, /?,. 1?,!') J 1/.A,l ~.,! / ;./ -,/, J~ J.. V A \ rr vi -:, ?~1 -I { 2 ,1.>{-~ lJ(', ,;, l ,I <-, ~;, {,n ( ·" /_,, 71;,......,, ..... ,, // /. ~ a ,, t .../ . ..£ (.;."',(,/ ~,1,.: ,,C.,_ ~2.A J.~ d-Af ;!,,, I.'.., l 71 I . . ().., -v A:/. .... /,...., .. ' g/. .>-/.,_,,,_ • • ....... • • - CITY OF ENGLEW OOD PLAN NI NG AND ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMB ER 2 2 , 19 81 I. CALL TO ORDER . The Regular Meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Cormnissi on was called to order at 7 :00 P .M. by Chairman Judith B . Pierson . Members present : McBrayer, Pierson , Tanguma, Allen, Barbre, Carson , Draper Powers, Ex-officio Members absent: Sent i, Becker Also present : Susan T. Ki ng , Senior Planner Harold Stitt , Planner I Larry Yeng l in, Planner I J er i Linder, Plann i n g In t ern Thomas V. Holl and , Assistan t City At t orney II . APPROVA L OF MINUTES. Chairman Pierson sta ted that t h e Minute s o f the mee tin g of September 9, 1 98 1, we r e to b e con sidered f o r approval. Carson moved : Tanguma seconde d: Th e Minut e s of the meeting of Sept emb e r 9, 1981, b e approv ed a s writte n. AYES : Pi erson , Tanguma, Allen, Barbre , Carson , Dr ape r , Mc Brayer NAYS : None ABSENT : Senti, Be c ker The mo tion carr i e d. III. SIGN CODE REVISION CASE 49-81 Mrs. Pierson stated that this is a Public Meeting to discuss proposed revisions to the Sign Code. She stated that the oro- posed revisions to the Sign Code are the result of several things, among them being the spirit and intent of the Compre- hensive Plan which was adopted in 1979. The Compr e hensive Plan urged beautification and pride in the community. The staff has also been reviewing sign codes from othe r cormnunities, as well as reviewing the existing Englewood Sign Code which was adopted by Ordinance ,o. 18, Series of 1974, in an effort to come up with an equit ble, workable Sign Code. Mrs. Pierson stated that the Cormnission invited membe r s of the Board of Adjustm nt, the Englewood Downtown Dev e lopment Authority, th Downtown Business Association, the Chamb r of Comm rce, members of th 1973 Sign Cod Committ , nd members of the Englewood City Council to at nd this meting to discuss the proposed Sign Cod , and to invi h ir comm nts and uggesting regarding th propo d chang • I • • • • - -3- restrictions in the residential areas remain the same, except that in determining the maximum sign area, the proposed Code would require that all sign faces are to be used in calculating sign area; the existing Code requires that only one sign face is used to calculate the sign area . This would result in a reduction of the total sign area allowed in the residential classifications. The height of wall and window signs in low density districts remains the same; ground signs in low den sity districts are not permitted . Wall and window signs in the high density districts would be reduced from the permitted height of 25 feet to 20 feet in the Proposed Sign Code, and ground signs in high density districts would remain at a permitted 15 feet in height . Ms. Powers then discussed the proposed restrictions for signage in the cotmnercial and industrial zone districts. The existing Sign Code allows a commercial or industrial establishment to have a maximum number of five signs regardless of the size of the ownership, or a maximum of three signs per front line; if a business was situated on a corner lot, they could have three signs per each street frontage, or a total of six (6) signs. The proposed Sign Code would relate the maximum number of signs to the size of the street frontage, but allow no more than five signs . The proposed Sign Code will allow the same type of signs as the existing Sign Code, and in addition, will allow Suspended Signs, which are not presently mentioned in the Sign Code. The maximum Sign Area is proposed to change ; in the existing Sign Code, a use is guaranteed 80 sq. ft. of sign area, OR 1-1/2 sq. ft. of sign area for each linear foot of lot frontage up to 100 feet, plus one square foot for each linear foot of frontage thereafter. The propo ed Sign Code wou ld delete the 80 sq. ft. guarantee, but would adhere to the 1-1/2 sq . ft . of sign area for each linear foot of lot frontage up to 100, plus one sq. ft. for each linear foot thereafter. Wall signs are limited to a maximum of 40'7. coverage of the "signable area", and window signs are limi ed o a maximum 25% coverage of the window in which they are displayed . The maximum area per sign is decreased from the presently permitted 200 sq. ft. to the proposed 100 sq. ft., and the maximum total sign area is de- creased from the presently permitted 600 sq . ft. to the proposed 300 sq. ft. The height of signs permitted in the colllDercial and indu trial districts was then discussed by Ms. Pow rs. The height of wall signs would remain the sam. bing allowed the height of th building, but not above the roof lin. Height of window sign would be limited to signs on the first floor; window signs are presently permitt d to the height of th building, but not above the roof lin . Ground signs hav a presently permitt d hight of 32 fe t; this is propos d to decrease to am ximum of 20 feet. Projecting signs hav a pr s ntly permitted hight of 26 fe t; this is proposed to b r duced to 20 f t maximum hight. Ms. Powers discuss d th propos d m thod of d aling with xist n signs which do not conform, uch as hazardous, abandon d, and • I • • • • • -4- illegal/prohibited signs. Owners of signs which are deter- mined to be hazardous or abandoned by the staff will be so notified within 48 hours of such determination, and will have 30 days to remove such sign. If the owner of the sign or property fail to have the sign removed within the specified 30 day period, the Department of Community Development will do so, and a penalty fee would be assessed in addition to the cost of the removal of the offending sign. Ms. Powers stated that on abandoned signs, the existing Code requires that the sign be "abandoned" for 90 days; the proposed code would shorten that time span to 30 days. Alli l e gal and/or prohibited signs would be required to be removed within 60 days from the effective date of the proposed Sign Code. Other non-conforming signs would have to be brought into compliance with the proposed Sign Code within three years, or whenever one of the following conditions occur, whichever is earliest : l. Whenever the sign is damaged more than 50% of its total value, or destroyed, from any cause whatsoever, or becomes obsolete or substandard under any applicable ordinance of the municipality, to the extent that the sign becomes a hazard or a danger. 2. Whenever the ownership of the property changes on which the Non-conformin Sign is loca ted . 3. Whenever there is a change in the leasee, ownership of the business or use to which the sign pertains . 4. Whenever ther is a request made for a permit to change the sign. 5. Whenever there is a request for a permit to make improve- ments to the exterior of the principal building. Ms . Powers poin ed out that a stay on the termination of non- conformin s igns may b granted by the Director for six months if substantial a empt at compliance is proven. Mr . McBrayer th n presented a slide show, which depicted various types of signs, contr st of signage that exists in Englewood and other parts of them tro area, and examples of good signage nd signage that is undesirable. ,lr. Sentient rd them ting at 7:45 P.M. during the abov lid pres ntation. A refreshm n br k was called t 8:05 P.M., and them ting reconv ned at 8 :15 P.M. Mr. McBray r stat d th t th floor was now op n for qu ationa th t had pr vioualy b n writ n and submit d to h staff, and for questions nd cotlml nts from h loor • ) I • • • • - -5- Mr. McBrayer stated that a written question which was submitted was whether restrictions could be written prohibiting requests for variances on hazardous and abandoned signs. Ms. Powers reiterated that there is a provision in the proposed Sign Code allowing a six-month extension on the removal of non- conforming signs, which extension request would not go to the Board of Adjustment and Appeals. Appeals regarding hazardous and abandoned signs may be made to the City Manager. Ms. Powers asked Assistant City Attorney Tom Holland whether it could be written into the proposed Code that the appeals could not be submitted to the Board. Mr. Holland stated that the right to appeal is written into the Municipal Code, and that the Code would have to be altered; it could not be done in the Sign Code alone. Mr. McBrayer stated that another written question that had been submitted concerned the recent Supreme Court decision on the Lakewood Sign Code; was that code too vague, and what im- pact would this have on the Englewood Sign Code? Mr . McBrayer noted that Lakewood had attempted to limit the content of the sign, which the Englewood Code does not. Assistant City Attorney Holland stated that the Supreme Court decision was announced on September 21st; he does have a copy of the decision , which is very comprehensive. Mr . Holland stated that some of the provisions of the Supreme Court decision will have an impact on the existing Englewood Sign Code as well as on the proposed Sign Code. He stat ed that he has not had an opportunity to fully review the decision, but that he would do so. He stated that he felt the City can get guidance from this decision to do the type of Sign Code that we want . Ms. Powers asked if Mr. Holland could have an outline of the implications of the Court Decision prepared by the next meeting of October 6th. Mr. Holland stated that he would have a memorandum to Ms. Powers by that date . Mr. John Maxwell agreed that abandoned signs are unsightly and should be terminated. He pointed out that if signs are licensed, it should b sufficient to cover the removal of the sign, if the property owner/busin ssman removed the sign, the mon ys could be refunded, but if th sign is left and the City has to remove th abandoned sign, the property owner/businessman would forfeit the licens f eon the sign. Mr. All n t ted that he was Cod ; the to tha h propos d Sign Cod would r quir d for r mov 1 of abandon d sign rs further discussed h proc as ha mus xiating Cod in n tt mpt tor mov n I • • • - -6 - abandoned sign. Ms. Powers noted that even with the time- consuming process that now has to be followed, six abandoned signs have been removed in a two-block area of South Broadway recently. She emphasized that the proposed Sign Code would decrease the time frame to 30 days rather than the 90 days which presently exists. A member of the audience asked how the 30 days was determined -- from what point in time? Ms. Powers stated that the Department would be working with Sales Tax Division, and it would be figured from the date the s ales tax license would expire. It was pointed out that many businesses may not have a sales tax license, and yet have a sign. Or a business may move across a street, and retain the sales tax license, yet abandon a sign at the former location. Discussion ensued. Mr. McB rayer stated that he felt there were several ways to determine the date a sign is abandoned, and that the staff and Corranission would further explore this question. He stated that he had previously sugges ted that on properties on which a non-conforming sign is located, a formal statement of the non-conforming status of the sign be filed against the property; this would reflect on the record of that property, and would put new property owners on notice that the sign must be brought into conformance upon purchase of the property. Mr . Roger Robohm stated that he felt the three-year amortization time on non-conforming signs would be e xtremely expensive for some businessmen, and could put some of them out of business. He stated that he was also concerned about the proposed size of signs permitted under the proposed Sign Code . He stated that he is awar of the need for aesthetic appeal, but asked who determined th aesthetics of a sign. Ms. Powers stated that at the time the existing Sign Code was approved, 32 feet in height for a sign was permitted ; now, it is a question of whether another set of standards are appropriate. In reviewing the Englewood Sign Code and contrast ing it to Sign Codes in adjoining and other municipalities, the Englewood Code is really very lenient. Ms. Powers stated that in reviewing the existing Sign Cod , it may be determined that these standards re still pplicabl nd should not be changed. Ms. Powers pointed out th ta letter from the DBA was sent to Mayor Otis, which communic tion xpressed concern over the condition of signs in th downtown rea. This was one impetus for reviewing th exiting Sign Cod and coming up with the proposed changes. Havil nd, xecutiv director of the Englewood Downtown lopment Authority, st ted that they had recently held ral public m ting on the proposed development plan for downtown r a; h had asked participants to fill out a qu stionnair , nd som of the recurring concerns that cam from th s p rticipants was that of a sth tics nd in th down own r . He stat d th ta lot of people improv d si nage in th downtown busin ss area. n down ) I • • In ( • • • -7- to view what busines ses are along Broadway. He stated that it is the feeling of the DBA membership that a great par t of the problem is the clutter and antiquity of the exist ing sign- age that is in the downtown area. It is their feeling that a lot of signs in the downtown area should have been removed a long time ago. Mr. Close discussed the "clutter" of the exist ing signage, and noted that some of the larger signs obstruct view of smaller signs. He stated that the DBA would like to see ~o me conformance in the signs in the downtown area. Mr . Clo se stat d that he felt the businessmen should take a long look at the existing signing along South Broadway. Mr. Close al so comment d that he didn't think the idea of "grandfathering" signs in when a new Code is adopted was proper. Mr. McBrayer stated that he felt the group of individual s who support the development of malls and greenbelts a re also in support of improved signage; all these improvements are done with aesthetics in mind . Roger Robohm stated that he had talked with a former Boulder businessman, who went out of business because of the ma ll. He stated that this attempt at beautification has cause d problems for these bus i nessmen . Mr . Robohm stated that he is willing to make changes, but within limits . Mr. Leonard Robohm stated that they have invested $23,0 00 in improving the front of their building, and received a plaque from the Chamber of Connnerce connnending them for their improve- ments; he stated that it a ppeared they would have t o g ive the plaque back to the Chamber because their sign isn't liked Mr. Robohm stated that he also felt the size of the sign s which would be permitted under the proposed Sign Code woul d not be large enough to be legible from a vehicle traveling at 30 mph, and that in support of this he would defer to Mr. Grimm who is in the Sign business. Mr. Grinnn stated that he did not feel the existing Sign Code "was that bad", but that the problem is with en forcement. He stated that there was no enforcement power in the ex isting Cod e . Mr. Grimm stated that he felt a lot of businessmen and property owners will b willing to work with the sta f on h matter of signage. Mr. Grimm questioned the deletion o he 80 sq. ft. guarantee for each business; he stated th th does not feel this is too much signage. Mr. McBrayer stated that the Connnission and staff want o come up with a Sign Code that is fair, but still r duce th clutter and poor signag ht has proliferated in th C ty. Mr. McBrayer stated that possibly a new fort:rula for determ n n the number and squar foot ge of signs should be devise . Mr . Grimm poin t d out that the xisttng Sign Cod sonly years old ; many signs that wer installed and conform tot existing Cod would becom non-conforming under th propo Sign Cod if i w re to b approv d as it is pr n tl write Discus ion nsued on id n ific tion signs on th r r o 0 I • • • - -8- businesses; Ms. Powers pointed out that identi f ication sign s at the rear of business establishments wo u d not be count e d toward total sign area . Mr. McBrayer discussed the termination of non-conforming signs within three years; he suggested that possibly a formula cou ld be devised using the three-year ime limita ion, and givin g additional time or "credit" on the age of the sign. Ms. Powers pointed out that there are not very many new sign s on South Br oadway in the downtown area. Mr. Cordova, owner of Flash Tai lors, stated that h e di dn 't think there was much problem wit~ the present Sign Code . He stated he did feel there is a need for more enfor cement . The matter of lowering signs as would be required un der t h e proposed Sign Code was discussed. Mr. Grimm stated tha t h e did not think the 20 ft . height will have that much eff ect on the over-all appearance of the signage . Ms Pow er s stated that she felt a decrease in permitte d h eight would have a positive effect on the over-all app e arance . She pointed out that it is not the intent of the st aff or the Com- mission to write a Code that is so restrictive tha t businesses would move out of Englewood. The staff and Commission do want the comments and suggestions from interested citiz en s a nd busine ssm e n. She stated that she was still of the opin i on that a guarante ed sign area of 80 sq. ft . p er bu s iness --no matt er t h e size of t he buildin g --is too much , and that the amount of sign age should be b ased on th amount of street frontage. The amortization of non-conforming signs was further di s cussed . Ms. Powers discussed the enforcement of the Sign Code, and noted that at the present time the Code En f orc ement officers are responsible for e n forc e ment of the Sign Code . During the summer months, there are so many problems with weed and litter complaints that enforcement of the Sign Code cannot be t op priority . It is proposed that enforcement of the Sign Co de would beco th responsibility of the Planning Division, and that am mb r of h st ff woul d b working full-time o n t he enforc m nt of th Cod . Further discu ion ensu d. Mr . Cordov ted that the prop rty own r ne ds to be brought into thi . H sugg std tha p rh ps a clause could b put into the 1 as betw en the property owner and busine ss- m n ch t wh nth pr is re vaca d, th ign is to go with h busin s v c ting . on on th on of • s further th propos d may have ch a ddre as I • • r • • - -9- Mr. Grimm reiterated his op1n 1on that the remova l of the 80 sq. ft . sign area which is presently guaranteed every business is out of line. He suggested that possibly the "signable" area as proposed would be ample for those busines ses that might have 12 foot front age . Mr. Don Ensign, Design Workshop consultant for the EDDA, st,ted that he felt the Sign Code should be more restri ctive ; he stated that the signage is something that needs to be looked at by the community --the size of the signs that are allowed, and the competition i n the size of signs . He pointed out t hat the businesses will not be competing exclus ively with the businesses within the block, but with other communities within the metro area . Mr. Ensign stated that appearance does have an important impact on the choices people make on where to live, shop, etc . Mr. Al len stated that he has read both the ex isting Sign Code and the proposed Sign Code; the entire Code suggest s to him that it is so restrictive that it cannot be enforced, and it is counter-productive. He stated that there is no way the detailed insp ections could be enforced the way the Codes are written . Ms . Powers stated that she also found the existing Sign Code to be very difficult to interpret, but that the s aff had simplified the Code in the proposed version . Mr . Roger Robohm stated that he felt the Sign Code was writ en for a "new city"; he pointed out that Englewood is no a new city wi h nice, new buildings; we must deal with th e istin buildings . He stated that he would agree that cleanin -up in the downtown area is needed . He pointed out, howev r , tha h e did not f el this clean-up is needed in ev ry sector of he downtown . Mr. Gril!IO sta ted that he felt the main prob l mis a mat 1 of enforcemen ; som e of the signs have been erec ted ill gally . Ms . Powers stated that a lot of signs were pu in before h existing Sign Cod was in effect ; she felt a big qu s ion how to d al with th t rmination of the signs . Ms . Power asked Mr. Grimm if he objec d to the propo d 20 t. limit tion on signs? Mr . Grimm point d out tha just or eighty ars go, wh n the existing Sign Code w do th 32 foot height limitation was approved, now it i that ah ight of 20 feet be pprov d, and hos sign of th t would becom non-conforming . He cit d th si Bur c rd 1 rships, which pol signs ar approxim t in high . H stat d th h did not f el th er w with the pr I nt h ighc of th pol ins . Mr . Don th on th Collllli sion and restrictions. af uld tr at nd on h n approv d bv • 0 I • • - • • • • he had b n norm d by he Assistan rney that this could b d alt wi h in a couple of 1) 'rhey could remain becaus hey ob ained variances ,oard; or (2) They could be termed no -conforming and d to conform or be removed within the determined tation. yer thanked the members of the audience for their , and reminded them of the next public meeting on b r th, which will also be h ld in the Library Conference m. Ms. Powers asked that if members of the audience knew the pers ons who would be interested in this matter, to vite them to attend the meeting on October 6th. She out tha t this meeting on October 6th would be open to r 1 public, and that sign companies, auto dealers r busin e ssmen would be notified of this meeting . . Pierson also thanked members of the audience for their t nd nee. Sh e stated that they were welcome to r emain for th re t of the Commission business meeting. l' . PUBLI C FORUM. Mr Pierson asked if any member of the audience wished to ress the Commissi on on any matter? No one responded . V. D RECTOR'S CHOICE. Power as ked if members of the Boa rd of Adjustment would r ain foll ow ng the meet ing for a brief time . V CO MMISSION'S CHOICE. Th r was nothing brought up for discussion under Commission 's oice. Th m t ng adjourned at 9:10 P.M. • I • • - • • • • ( CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION October 6 , 1981 7:00 P.M. Library Conference Room I. Call to Order II. Approval of Minutes -September 22, 1981 III. Public Hearing on the Proposed Sign Code IV. Public Forum V. Director's Choice VI. Conmission 's Choice VII. Adjournment • I • • - • • • • • September 28, 1981 Dear Interested Citizen : As y ou know , the second public meeting of the Planning and Zoning Conmi.ssion on the proposed Sign Code will be held on Tuesday, October 6th at 7:00 P.M. in the Englewood Publ i c Library Conference Room. I would encourage you to attend this meeting since we will be discussing the revisions that many of you suggested at the September 22, 1981, meeting. Please feel free to invite other business owners and/or residents of Englewood who you feel would be interested . Since.+ely, J ~\__;J OJV\ -(~1 Susan Powers Director of Comnunity Development gw • I • • • • - September 28, 1981 Dear Interested Businessman: On Tuesday, October 6, 1981, at 7:00 P. M. in the Englewood Public Library Conference Room, the Englewood Planning and Zoning Commission will hold a public meeting for the purpose of discussing the proposed revisions to the Sign Code. Be- cause your business is located in Englewood and might be affected by a revision in the Sign Code, we felt you might want to attend the meeting. In 1979, the Englewood Comprehensive Plan was adopted as a guide to orderly and planned growth within the community. An important aspect of the Plan was the goals which were adopted and the identification of guidelines for improving the visual and aesthetic quality of the City . The purpose was that, with a visual climate attractive to residents and the business co1m1unity alike, young families would be at- tracted to the City, thus off-setting the declining school population, and new business would locate in the City, im- proving the tax base . One concern that was expressed by persons working on the Comprehensive Plan review committees was the proliferation of signs . With minimal control on signs as to design, size and location, they determined that the visual quality of several cot:1111ercial areas was declining. The Englewood Downtown Development Authority, Downtown Business Association, and several other individuals and groups have also stated their interest in increased enforcement of signs and more restrictiv r gulations . In addition, there are several discrepancies in the present sign code and some sections are difficult to interpret . We would very much appreciate your attendance at this meeting on the 6th of October in order that we can receive your com- ments on the proposed amendments. Please plan to attend. Sincerely, \ R'l.~'W} Sus h Powers / Dir ctor of Co111DUnity Dev lopm nt • I • • • • - MEETING: DATE: Si6Al c7QJ; ~ ?JB?1~ /b;~a/6 .qff, t/L7T {:. I !1M NAME ADDRESS /,'' J ---~· '/ < .. ,4. -\'/ ·/' .Ld , __ /~ c· ,,..-. ' . ... -., (j /,-{/,.( I .'. ,/:-~· tjJ-., s·_ Cf1:. //,, ~ ... -) ~ I 7~ /' . f',.., { ~/. .5'~,,;.,1 ., /,,. '.-d-~-r' . -· L/'r, . -ti... t -,-,-: = ; I v ;;:,, t. 1 r /l 1 ,, ' 0 ,· 1 -r 5 . ./((' ' .I',..' / ' / /~ / (' \ ; ,;., I f:.' 1°/I • I'/ '1· I . -I / /. (//,N._ I ,.. d"_.,.,;-,,, ~ ,; ... ~, .... /1'1,. 1,.·;., I ~ (' _.........;.. _I . 7 / / \ !1/ \ ~.~ 1 I 1 1· ' , , , o , /I II f / I // -,;,,, .. ' I •', 1/ I ,. 71/ 'i /?/ I .,/ /1 ~ '/j ;;/;.,,,.;) ' /-" ,,; / /f./ y,.. / . -, r .i .,I/ l ' -/l-,,(.... ., ,-•. ~/ / '-· _, ~ ,-;,{,.., '-f", ·-.5 J'; ( J A£.,,4Jo/A1 ;),, ~I '/;{ !1 '/ I V ,/l /, '•, I-J l /'n.,/,_ ,,. -~ Ji, I / r,) ),., 1,/ I , A 'Jy/ I ,-), (fl/,: f r I/ 111 7 r ·.,,, l '/ <• , -' ' J I .:.., t __.· ·-;,., .. / I: !, -·f }. "'/ 1 ,~J /,, -·I ._;;,? /~/),..., / / ?;/ /,~ ,t"f '"-/. L,/-f /t ·/-1<#' r·/,P • TELEPHONE / /. / , ) (. ' -) -I - 7 0 / -/ / ·;(_. -7,..,;-) r'Y t, -//. / / -; 7.). I. l/•/·1(. -; t I I .-~ ;( _) ... / ,. ..., ?' . -/'"·-/ ,.._,-.., 7 '7(,/-{r c, "7:--./ ' --i! I I· I /JI Ir• 6,_'!'/-0/?/ ,'-J-'1' ' / '/ ,... N I . COMMENT: RESPONSE : COMMENT: RESPONSE: COMME NT: RESPONSE : COMMENT: RLSPO SE: COMMENT: RESPO NSE: • • - CITY OF ENGLEWOOD ISSUES AND ANSWERS IN RESPONSE TO THE SIGN CODE MEETING ON SEPTEMBER 22, 1981 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES ON PROPOSED SIGN CODE How would advertising on individual vehicles at automobile sales lots be handled? This type of advertising will be dealt with in one of two ways; either as signs not subject to permit (22.7-4), or as an exclusion to a particular definition such as portable signs (22.7-14). Should the requirements for maximum sign area in commercial and industrial zones be modified to allow for a minimum sign area regardless of lot frontage? After review of this and similar comments on sign area, it has been determined that Sections 22.7-7 Cl and 2 unfairly penalize owners of small frontage lots. For this reason, the guaranteed minimum sign area of eighty square feet has been reinstated into the code. How can the termination date of a business or industry be deter- mined for purposes of the 30-day sign abandonment period? Several sources are available from which this information can be obtained, such as applications for building permits, teraination notices from utilities (gas, electricity, telephone, sewer and water) and the termination of sales tax licenses. All of the sources will be used. Should the twenty foot height limitation on ground signs be revised upward? Aft r studying sign codos from tl.roughout th ar a, reviewing th go ls of th comprehensiv plan and considering suggestions s ubmitt d to th Planning ec-ission, it appears that the tw nty foot hight limitation is comparable to that in &djac nt cities nd r fleets th sires of the coaaunity. Sho uld th re b t lilllitation placed on garage sale signs? Garage sale signs will be regulated under the City's proposed we d and litter ordinance, and are therefore not addreaHd by th sign code. Garage sale iteaa will be excluded froa regu- lation under outdoor display of .. rchandiae (22.4-10(c)(2)). ~--------------~------ I • • I COMMENT : RESPONSE : COMME NT: RESPO NSE : COMMENT : RESPONSE: COMMENT: RESPONSE: COMMENT : RESPONSE: COMMENT: RESPONSE: • • • Do signs such as "Helping Hand" s igns or religious signs in residential areas count towards the maximum sign area? The se types of signs will not be counted toward maximum sign area and will be treated as a sign not subject to a permit (22.7-4). Under the regulations for permitted illumination in resi- dential zones (22.7-6e ), will the permitted uses that operate 24 hours a day be required to turn off their signs between 11 P.M. and 7 A.H .? This section will be revised to permit medical facilities and public fac ilit ies such as Police and Fire Stations that are located in residential zone districts, to maintain continuous sign illumination for the convenience of the public. To insure that signs are not abandoned by their owners in the future, could the permit fee be set to cover the City's cost of removal of such signs? This suggestion would appear to offer at least a partial so- lution to the problem of removing abandoned signs, and will be discussed with the Finance Director and City Attorney rela- tive to its feasibility. This procedure would, of course, be a policy decision made by the City Council. can the power of the Board of Adjustment and Appeals be limited relativ e to granting variances for time limit extension on hazardous signs? No; an avenue of appeal must be provided so that the .eight of due process of law is not denied. Is one year too long to have a temporary sign up? After study of this requirement, it has been determined that a six month time period would be acre appropriate for tellpOr&ry signs. Is th thirty f oot triangle regulation (22.7-Sb) reaaonable for traffic safety? Upon revi-ing thie • ction it baa ~n altered to allow for ground eigne that have a clear epan of eewn fNt froa grade to the bottoa of the eign, or u approwd by the City 'tr&Ltic Enga .. r. -2- ___ ;.;;;,:,;;;;;;;;===;;=;;:;;.;-.--·-..;;..;..._...;;;......; ..... · ... -:----------• • I • • - .I COMMENT : RESPONSE: • • • • Will the Lakewood sign code case have an effect on the definition of political signs? Yes; political signs have been redefined as election signs and ideological signs. Election signs carry the same definition set forth for political signs and ideological signs are defined as any sign expressing a religious, political, social or other philosophical stance . -3- I • • - • • • • • CITY OF ENGLE WOO D PLANNING AND ZONING COMM!. ·ro . OCTOBER G, 1981 I . CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting of the Ci Ly Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p .m. by Chairman Judith B. Pierson . Members Present,: Pierson , Ba r i.Jr~, Carson , Mcl:lrayer , ·eriLI , Tanguma , Becker Members Absent : Als o Present : Po wers , ix -officio Allen , Draper Romans , Assistant Director -Planning King , Senior Planner Stitt , Planner I Yenglin , Planner I Linder , Planning Int,ern IJ . /\P PROVAT. OF MTNlJ'm:-; Chairman Pierson stated that the minutes of September 1,, 1981 , were to be considered for approval . an11:uma moved : fl:,r·IH·,• .;, ,:on<l,•d: AY 'S : NAYS: Nono 't'l1t• mi nut.e.: uf' 1..11,· ::t•p\,,•1111,.,,. ue uµpl'oveu a:.: wclt,ten. ABSTAIN: B cker, Senti AB'EN : Allen , Dra~ r The motion c rri 'l'anr;urna move I' ' I 'J/l I , 111, •, l i I w B rbre second d: 'h min t of th Je1 temu 1• tl , 1981, ,,le t II lt appr·ovcu 11.., w 1· Lt.. t. t n. • I • • ( • • • • -2 - AYES: AYS: Pierso n , Barbre , Ca rson, McB rayer, ?anguma No ne ABSTAIN: Becker , Senti ABS ENT : Allen , Draper The motion carried . III . SIGN CODE REVISION Chairman Pierson noted the City has been operatinr, nder the 1973 Sign Co de and the Public Hearing tonight wa.; to get further lnput into the various revisions that are proposed by the City . Ed McBrayer , Planning Commission Member, outlin d the var ious chan~es to the existing sign code . Mr . McBrayer howed a film , depicting various types of signs and their impact on the comm unit y . In addition , a slide presentation was given showing sign usage through the Denver Metro area . He then out ined the types of signs that require permits and those that do not . Mr. Mcl3raycr lndlcatcd the revlslon ... to tile .;lr~n c·o • would be 111 line with the proposed redevelopme nt of downtown Englewood . He noted the proposed sign code wou ld encourage businesses to maintain existing signs and erect new ones that would be pleasing to the area . Ms . Susan Powers , Director of Comm nity Development , reviewed the types of si~ns allowe in both resi ential anct commerical zon ~. ::tH.: rlCJtcd tl1L· muxlmum .;J"" :t1·c a ,lllowL·d , 111 :, <'1J1t11111 ·1"i :1l ,.011v , would be r·educed from 600 square l'eet t;o 300 :.iquarc r 'Pl , <1dcll t lonuJ Ly, the commercial properties would be allow d a maximum of flve (5) signs . S he s tated the new sign cod would on y allow ground signs to a maxim um height of 20 feet , furthermor , th code addresses som area.; thut have been left out c~· tht: c.<i..;tine si1;11 cu c , ..;uch a..; alley igns . r . McBrayer also indicted the code would h ve provisions for removal of h zardous and abandoned signs within a thirty (30) ay time period . Non -Conforming use signs would be llowed thre (3) ye rs from adoption of the code to remove th sign or bring it into conrormanc . Th· time pcrio may vary dcpenclint~ on the con ltlon of th sign or if o wn ership of the bulling wou ld chun e. Mrs. Pi rson d clared a recess at 8:20 p.m. Th Comm i ssion r - conv nc d at 8:45 p.m. • I • • ( ( • • • • -·3 - Ms . Becker stated her concern wit h oversize state flags uclng u~c for commercial advertising . She questioned whether this should be counted as sign area or not. Tom Holland, Assis tant City Attorn ey , noted the Lakewood s i gn code did not address these as signs . Phil Grimm , Freeman S i gns , noted with an extremely large commercial property , the maximum sign area allowect , may be too small for proper us e of signs . He questioned whether additional sign area should be allowed for additional square footage on the property. Fred Kaufman e xpr essed his concern wit h advertising benches and wh at type of control the City has over the advertisements on the benches . Additionally , he questioned whether temporary sale signs wo uld be c onsidered part of the sign area and could they co ver move than 25 percent of the window area . Barry Coleman suggested that temporary sale signs be allowed for a period of 20 days . He noted the code should also have a provision for maintenance of existing signs. Discus ion ensued regarding what segmen counted ln he :;lgn a r ea wh en the .:ilgn Po wers note she would look into the po of he si~n should be l " or an n" lar .;llaµc. ibi i y ors uarlng off he sin area . M .. w . he 1 ers and coun ting this portion as V. PUBL~C FORUA I o m e r o f t.11 • • uulcncc lnuicat ed a c cslr.., t o u1•eww \.tac Gornrnl ·..;lon . CHO c;i,: tt taff wou d be in conta c t with the member~ the next meetinc on the s i cod r visions . Public Hearinc 1 tentatlv ly .,ch l ed on '1r . 1 r.,on expr h r thanks to th udi nee for rticlpatlng in the sig cod discussions ar:d noted th taff would be consid ring the input and put together a reason bl sign code that would b workable. • D I • • - ( • The meeting was adjourned at 9:~0 p .m . _,,) I Marion Reco rd • • • I • • • - • City of Englewood October 7, 1981 Mr. Bill Harrison, Manager Brookridge Shopping Center 47 East Centennial Avenue Englewood , Colorado 80110 Dear Mr. Harrison: • • • 3400 S. Elati Street Englewood, Colorado 8011 O Phone (303) 761-1140 Attached is a copy of the proposed sign code with a summary sheet of revisions that will be incozporated as a result of the first public aeeting in Septeaber. 'nl.ere are other revisions vhich were suggested at the session last night that are not reflected in this aaterial. I would like to discuss any suggestions you have about the code a.s soon &a you have had the opportwiity to review it. Th nk you. Sincerely, Susan Powers Director of C~unity Dewloi-nt SP:cla Attachment • D I • • - • • • • • ,,~-a~ Sl.2.'-( S. fi?ro&l..tu ol 51/i" ,{ .J/{J 4 "' s11, • 7 e:; r-~ o .)-; 76(-;)/ r-~ ,t 7-4Y4l 7,p 9--9yf?L_ /.f-? (l'.5¥'/ '7~/, f~Pl ? ~/ ;,(f..f-~ \ ~ (-~~-, \ ;>~/-7~9~ '7!/-~o'l?o 7~2--1512- I . • , • • • - October 14, 1981 Dear The Department of Community Development is in the process of drafting a new Sign Code. To insure that the concerns of the business community are addressed, we are inviting you to a meeting on Monday, October 19, 1981 at 2:00 P.M., in Conference Room A in the Englewood City Hall. In preparation for this meeting, we are enclosing, for your review, a copy of the proposed Sign Code and a list of Comments and Responses which were received at a meeting with the Planning Com- ~~ssion on September 22, 1981. Sinc e the proposed Code i s not yet in its final form, we feel that your comments and suggestions will be of value in aiding us to meet the needs of the City as a whole. We are looking forward to seeing you on Monday, at which time we will discuss issues that were raised at the last public meeting on October 6, 1981. Sincerely, Susan Powers Director of Comaun ity Deve lopmen t SP:cla En c losure • I • • • - • - i-lEETING: SIGN cam , NEW GAR DEALERS DATE: October 19. 1981 I . . • • - • •' • • • - October 14, 1981 Dear The Department of Community Development is in the process of drafting a new Sign Code. To insure that the concerns of the business conmunity are addressed, we are inviting you to a meeting on Tuesday, October 20, 1981 at 9:00 A.M., in Conference Room A in the Englewood City Hall. In preparation for this meeting, we are enclosing, for your review, a copy of the proposed Sign Code and a list of Comments and Responses which were received at a meeting with the Planning Com- mission on September 22, 1981. Since the proposed Code is not yet in its final form, we feel that your coaments and suggestions will be of value in aiding us to meet the needs of the City as a whole. We are looking forward to seeing you on Tuesday, at which t.tme we will discuss issues that were raised at the last public meeting on October 6, 1981. Sincerely , ~VWY\r~ Susan Pa,.,ers Director of Community Development SP:cla Enclosures • I~ I • • • • • I . . • • • • • • CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION November 4, 1981 7 :00 P.M. I. Meeting Called to Order II. Approval of the Minutes of the October 20 , 1981 -•ting III. Public Hearing on the proposed amendment of Section 22.7 (Sign Code) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance IV. laaolution approving the Policies for the Down - town Development Plan V. Public Forum VI . Director'• Choice --EDDA. Report --Provavood Report --Other VII . C~• a ion Member'• Choice VIII . Adjournaent • I • • ~ , ~ NAME D. ~1i A.&7- • / f/~;;J<; ..:l;,~-~L.'.!..,',. / . . _t ,,- S<.:h 0£ I') £-<-Kt -I -: j , l. ··-' ""· . ADDRESS ,..., "' , . ( PUBLIC HEARING Before The - CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION on (c, dL ~ q?/ TELEPHONE OBSERVER rJ(p/-J' o 7 -:S v--- 3 21-U'{.GJ --i: .. i .-~-.. , ..,., 'P ! r ,/,.• i { -'' '- I • ":t,t ~ //1'-:.::__.c.., ' \ ~,, c~,,q J 1 -I .17 1),,, ~ . . .. ... 4 , ,• _rt"_ :C J I ;;). I ;-) ., (' 79-/-·/ -'-- ..... ' I\.'·- </ ): " ..._ ~ c__--- • • - I WISH TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COIOUSSION IN FAVOR IN OPPOSITION • .,- .:.--~ • • _,.,. l ' '- -• • PUBLIC HEARING Before The CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION on TELEPHONE OBSERVER ,--- 779 -oH4- at/ !Cl-t/o (} ) 'l(J , )J. I J/1t,v1~ ,u I ~~ · ..,,' <f'l<'-1 .. .J. r~ r,/v './ \ ~/ -/. <; / 7. - ']/ I WISH TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COWISSION IN FAVOR IN OPPOSITION ~ V c./. • ~ ~ {--- ~ • • NAKB "< •' Di •. ""'"' ADDRESS PUBLIC HEARING Before The CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION on 0/..-H «de ;Jn.,., .f i'fdlt? ? /1 t r //M-m du i;, <5q,P'/ TELEPHONE OBSERVER rr .. f.,, 1 . :J' -)t ' f ~ ..... i lr "'. I' 1. ::Jc ;::." .Jc· 7C.-l ·,;4 "L2 I.) ~ ,, . , • \ '\-:, O l\ .. \. '(... I I/till Et( ,J: i c.' I:'/ ;_, I : /~ I -c ~2-. Ac --7~1 ,6 &.3 ' /,-"" ., I I J "~· / .r ( • ~l_\~:.:..)J • • • ..3 I WISH TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION IN FAVOR IN OPPOSITION v J • v :..-I L. v • • • CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4, 1981 I. CALL TO ORDER. The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning CollDllission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Judith B. Pierson. Members present : Draper, McBrayer, Pierson, Senti, Barbre, Becker , Carson, Tanguma, Allen Powers, Ex-officio Members absent : None Also present : Assistant Director D. A. Romans Associate Planner Susan King Planner I Larry Yenglin Planner I Harold Stitt Planning Intern Jeri Linder EDDA Director Mike Haviland II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES . Chairman Pierson stated that the Minutes of October 20, 1981, were to be considered for approval . Carson moved : Tanguma seconded: The Minutes of the October 20, 1981, meeting be approved as ..ritten. AYES: Draper, McBrayer, Senti, Barbre, Becker, Carson, Tanguma, Allen NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Pierson ABSENT : None The motion carried. III. SIG CODE CASE 19-81 Th Public H Compr h nsiv ring on th propo d revi ion of §22.7 of th Zoning Ordinanc , th Sign Cod , wa op n d. Director of Community D velopm nt, mad presentation d Sign Code. Sh at d th t ff has r vi w d th Cod along with Sign Codes in oth r citi a. M. Pow r indict d th c r de 1 rs and shoppin h public m in a spon Ms. Pi raon ask di h w n d o addr hlin, O\ilT\ r o propo d Si oh r p rsona in the udienc iaaion, or h d qu ationa? • voiced his on- h rdahip for his I • • • - -2- business. He noted the proposed Code prohibits marquees from projecting over the City right-of-way. Mr. McLaughlin requested the Commission to take into consideration the amount of time and money involved in bringing the sign into conformance and possibly the loss of the business. Ms. Powers stated any appeals to the Sign Code would be heard before the Board of Adjustment and Appeals. She questioned whether or not Mr . McLaughlin's sign was in compliance. Harry Arkin, attorney for Burt Chevrolet, expressed his concern for making the City of Englewood more attractive . He indicated the 30-day period for removal of an abandoned sign may not be a feasible time period . There are instances where the owner may not have a new tenant within that 30-day period . He stated in some instances, the owner would be removing the sign one week and erecting it within the next week simply because it surpassed the 30-day time period . Mr. Arkin urged the Commission to consider the cost to the businesses to bring existing signs into conformance . He indica- ted that many businesses have signs that conform to the existing Code, yet would not conform to the proposed Sign Code. The cost to bring these signs into conformance could be staggering; it could, in fact, cause many smaller businesses to close their shops. Mr. Arkin indicated that in some instances third party signs should be allowed . He noted the car wash adjacent to Burt Chevrolet does not front on Broadway, and the sign on the Burt property is the only effective exposure that the business has . Mr . Arkin stated that the proposed Sign Code is too restrictive, and again urged the Commission to consider the cost to the business . Mr. Arkin stat d th concep of amortization is not unfair, but questioned the time period that is proposed. He noted that many signs are 1 ased for a period of five (5) or more years. The signs may no conform to he proposed Sign Code, but this factor would not rel h business from th obli ations of the lease. In ummary, Mr . Arkin t d th propo d Sign Code contains in- suffici nt d finitions, is ov rly broad, over tough nd unf ir o the businesse in h community. G or All n 1 ft h 8:30 P.M. Tim Ausfahl, 4509 South Bro dw y, question d whether the out- door displ y of m rchandi would includ hem rch ndis th t is a or d wi hin fenc d Ma Pow rs indic d d ini ion of outdoor adv r iaing should b includ din h propo d Cod . Sh not d th int n of h Cod ia to prohibit any outdoor display of m rch ndise th would a tr c p opl o h bu1in 11. M . Pow re sta ed th r do an d oh aom work on h d ini ion of outdoor adv rtising. Th iaau of 1cr nin r quir m nta for outdoor • I • • -• • • -3- displays is not related to the public hearing tonight, nor is there a requirement in the proposed Sign Code. Ms. Powers sug- gested that the Code should prohibit public displays of merchandise on City right-of-way . Steve Uhl, representative from Gordon Sign Company, noted the natural attrition rate would take care of many of the signs that would be non-conforming under the proposed Code, which could replace the amortization clause in the Code . Mr . Uhl indicated that 100 square feet of sign area per not a very large amount when the sign is placed outside feet in the air . He stated that the existing Code is a Code, and expressed his desire to have it enforced . face is and 30 workable Mr. Uhl stated the cost to lower a sign to within the 20-foot height requirement could start at approximately $1,500 and could be a financial burden to some businesses. Mrs. Pierson declared a recess at 8:45 P.M . The Co1m11ission reconvened at 9 :00 P.M . with the following present: Conunissioners Draper , McBrayer, Pierson, Senti, Barbre, Becker, Carson, Tanguma. Absent: Commissioner Allen. Sue Nuce, representative from McDonald's informed the Commission that a new McDonald's restaurant was to open soon and that the existing building would be removed. She indicated the new signs would conform to the present Code, but some would be in violation of the proposed Code. Ms . Nuce stated it was too late to guess at what type of sign will meet the proposed Sign Code . She indicated the signs will be installed within the next few weeks. Earl Reynolds, representative from Cinderella City, indicated the roof signs at the center will be removed, but not within the 60-day time limit as required by th proposed Sign Code. Mr. Reynolds stated the removal of the signs in the center will be done within a six (6) month time span. Addition lly, th c enter ha s proposed to provide directional signs on the p rk ing area and the ize allowed by the Cod would not b sufficient to allow for proper viewing by the motorists . Jerry Feath r , own r of the Dart Board, 3467 South Bro dw y, voiced his concern that the sm ller businesses will be put in a financial h rdship wi h the cost of replacing their xi tin signs . Jeanette Bush, part own r of th Dry Creek Shopping C nt r, indicated th existing sign at th c nter doe s not met th pres nt Sign Code, nd noted h pr vious own r w snot notifi d that th sign was not in conformance with th presen Cod . Sh question d wh ther th own rs would be notifi d that their ai ns r no conformin h propos d Cod . Sh wa told tha they would b notified . • I • • • • • -4- Mi ke Haviland , EDDA Executive Director , stated as Director, he was very concerned with the signage presently in the downtown area . He indicated there is a need for a more stringent code a nd a s olu tion to some of the problems existing in the communit y. Mr . Hav i land noted the Commission must make changes t o the Si gn Code tha t are reasonable and are not going to i mpos e a ma j or hardship upon the businesses in the community . Mr . Hav i l a nd noted the present Code is not giving the City a good qual ity or character, which is why the present Code needs t o be revised . He urged the Planning and Zoning Commission to support the revised Sign Code . Phil Grimm , Freeman Signs, noted the present Sign Code is a good Code and very workable. He indicated the number of signs should be increased as well as the area of the sign. He noted that in many cases, the square footage of both sides of the sign may still be in violation of the Code . He no ted l owering the signs ma y not be the answer to bringing the s ign i nto conformance . Additionally, Mr . Grimm noted the Sign Code is approximately seven years old, and still a very wo r kable Co de t hat does not need to be revised . Greg Ireton, Pr e si dent of First National Bank of Englewood , voiced his concern that the present Sign Code has not been e nfo r c e d sufficien t l y and questioned what the outcome would b e if it were e n forc ed properly . Mr. Ireton asked if a sur v e y h ad b een done to determi ne the cost t o the businesses to bring t he i r s i gn s i n to con fo rman c e with the proposed Sign Co de . Mr. Ireton noted the roof sign at Firs t Nat i on al Ba nk is a e sthetically pleasing to the colllllun i t y and removal of the sign would destroy the "landmark". Brad Sharp, manager of Showbiz Pizza, stressed his concern that the proposed Cod is too vague in its definitions such as the definition of outdoor adv rtising displays. B ck r mov d : McBray r cond d : Th Public Hearing be closed. AYES : McBray r, Pierson, Senti, Barbre, B ck r, Carson, Th motion c rri d. Discu11ion nu d. T n um mov d : C r1on • cond d : To abl th d ciaion on th Sin Cod until D c mb r 1, 1981. • I • • - ( • • • • • -5- ! AYES : Draper, McBrayer, Pierson, Senti, Barbre, Becker, Carson, Tanguma NAYS : None ABSENT : Allen The motion carried . IV. PUBLIC FORUM. No member of the audience indicated a desire to address the Couunission . V. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE. Ms. Powers informed the Commission that on November 17th, there will be a presentation on the Cherry Hills Hotel, and on December 8th , the Adult Center will be asking for an extension of time to cease operation . VI. COMMISSION'S CHOICE. Mrs. Pierson requested that the December 8th meeting be the last meeting of the year unless something arises that requires an additional meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 9 :50 P.M. MARION CONLEY ~, RECORDING SECRETARY PRO TEM • I • • • • - ST AFF REPORT Pae -1- ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT Case #9-81 Amendment to Section 22.7 of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, the Sign Code DATE: November 4, 1981 PRESENTED BY: The Planning Division DESCRIPTION: The Planning Division proposes an amendment Sign Code of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance . will add guidelines and regulations not presently current code. BACKG ROUND : to Section 22.7 This revision covered in the The revision of Section 22.7 of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, which is the section involving the Sign Code, has come about because of interest in upgrading signs within the City . The revision was initiated due to a stated concern by EDDA and OBA with signs in the downtown area. The Planning staff, based on a survey of other codes and a comparison to Sign Code standards, made ~hanges in the Sign Code. Major changes included sign area, height of signs, sign face, and signable area. The revised sign code was presented to the Planning and Zoning CoU1Dission on September 9, 1981. As a result of questions r ised by the Commissioners, furth r revisions were made to the Code. The proposed code was then presented at a public me ting held on September 22, 1981. The purpose of the meeting was to solici t comments from EDDA, DBA, the Chamber of Ccimnerce, the Bo rd of Adjustment and Appeals and the former City Sign Code Co mmittee members on the new changes . Because of the number of obj ctiv comments which wer made, it was felt that another public meeting should be held which would incorporate addition 1 chang s. Am ndm nts wer m d to th Sign Cod b s don th n w is u a. Then w chang a were preaent data second public me ting on Octob r 6, 1981. The p rticipants w r xpand d to includ • ) I • • • STAFF REPORT Page -2 - • • - ZONING ORDI NANCE AMENDME NT Ca se #9-81 sign companies, auto dealers, shopping center businessmen and other businessmen throughout Englewood . Again , comments were made b y those attending which indicated that additional revisions were needed in the proposed Sign Code . It was felt, however , that tho se i n attendance did not represent a majority o f the busines s c onunu- nity and that businessmen who were not present would not real i ze the impace of the proposed Sign Code . As a result, three additional meetings were scheduled with the staff and the major automobile dealers, the shopping centers and specifically Brookridge Shopping Center. The working sessions i nformed them of the new Sign Code changes and gave the staff additional opportunity to incorporate changes in the proposed Si gn Code . These changes addressed specific concerns of the businessmen who had studied the proposed code . Because of the suggestions and c omments made during the previous public and g roup meetings, the fol lowing list of revisions have been proposed f or t he Bl , B2, I l an d I 2 zones . Each revision will be presented by the staff at the publ i c hearing on November 4, 1981 . 1. Allowance for additional ~ign area based on bui lding set back . 2. Increase in total sign area based on street or building frontage . 3. Se c ondary signs f o r r e a r e n tran ces not c ounted a g a i n st maximum sign area . 4. Add i t i ona l window sign area f or promo tiona l sign s. 5 . Increas e in n umbe r a n d size of traffic a n d direc t i o nal signs . 6 . Allowance for additional sign rea based on building height. 7 . Addition of identification igns for drive thru facility. 8. Extension of amortization ch dule. As a r sult of a memo from th Assistant City Attorn ey to the Dir ctor regarding the legality of t h e Lakewood Sign Cod e, revisions in th p roposed Sign Code hav e be en made to ad dre ss those issues. The staff has not receiv d a ny f urther opi nion from the Attorn yon those revisions and th re may b some revi- sions mad ddr ssing oth r is us b for the Cod is pprov ed by City Council in final form . • I • • ....... STAFF REPORT Pa e -3- PROCEDURE: ( • • • ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT Case #9-81 The Planning and Zoning Co11111ission will hold the public hearing on November 4th and after considering the evidence pre- sented at the hearing, the Commission may refer the proposed Sign Code to City Council for its consideration or direct staff to make further revisions which the Couunission feels necessary RECOMMENDATION: The Department of Community Development reconunends that the revised Sign Code be approved and referred to the City Council subject to any changes involving legal issues which may be re- quested by the Attorney's office . • 0 I . -• • • doing ,··'business as GLEWOOD Business Association March 19, 1981 Mayor Eugene L. Otis and Council Meat>ers City of Englewood 34 00 So. Elati fnglewod, CD 80110 Mayor Otis and Council Matbers: One of the main n.nctions of d. b. a . /fnglewood is the revitalization of business in the C'.entral Business District of Englewood. This a1·ea is zoned, by the Planning and l.oning Catmi.ssioo, B-1 "*1ere it is necessary to i dentify businesses, services or other activities by the use of signs. Stated t.nder 22 . 7-1 of the Conprehensive Zonin~ Ordinance r.eneral Statement are goals and regulations which are applied to ... protect the p\blic ... ", '' .. encourage sil!ilS which are well designed ... ", and "to provide a reasonable balance ... " to restrict the proliferation of discordant signs and similar devices . l.hder 22. 7-10 Abaldoned Si s A. Termination of Aba-idoned Si . " The · sp ay o any sign toge r wi it s supporting structure) • now or hereafter existing.which, 90 days or ioore after the premises on which it is located have been vacated. advertises an activity, business, product or service no longer produced or oon11Jeted upon the premises upon which such sil?P is located, shall be tenninated a1d such SiE,l reuoved". Signs of this nature create a "typical" look to dcM\town &l."ea&, mcared for vacant buildings, usually with 1.nattractive, a\tiquated s~e. In the process of i.trproving business it is necessary to provide a clea-i fresh. inLeresting look to attract business and hoppers to the ar . ~lerrbers and the Board of Directors for d .b.a./Engl.ewood realize this i s an on going problem which l!LISt be constantly supervis d . In the case of t property it is neces ry that City Ccx.acil .ind St f be notif of problem<i of this sort to pr cipitate the necessary actions to lleviate th probl . Thi lett r is specifi lly ddressing the property at 61 South Bro cw y, "Leo ond Le ' J lry . " To fo with t Sign <:ode Ordinatce &1d not caus a1y mciue ex to small b ine s and property OW'\ers. f l it is necessary to "nip t problem in the hud" before aiother buaineas novea in, thereby 1 viating t problem step by step 1nd iq>~ our C.B.D. ing you, in advan , for your praq>t attenticn to chis Sin ly your , 535 <Mith IW'rmon "'" 116 • ~~ Pr i t En,lailood,. C.... IOI JO • tter. • - I • - Page 2 City 0:nncil <l::ps • • • . , d9 ~I Secretary/ ~r =----.=~~<.;;.;; 9• tea,,,-L • I . . - • • • • 10<"'1 1.0 l(~.1;·1 ,1)-=10,t.._,.,., .. _ . s ...., j • / i' S I ;>,, • ,1 .:,,-, t.J.-•/ M, /)ON,W..D'~ C...l&P 6011/ S7N> s . 4"6MC trr~ Stk;tsw60..0 r,€e?~"4/M.J Sl!,(}S /P ,r e,,, w ,,..1LP ....... f'J . c.C. .r A"T;-.f ;-; ~v~r-J:I# ~..e'~.#A4-1.&7 • N N I . . - • • • • • ( CI TY OF EN GLEWOOD PLANNIN G AND ZO NI NG CO MM ISSION SPECIA L MEE TING December 1, 1981 7:00 P. M. City Council Chambers I. Call to Order. I I. Propoaed Sian Code: Caae #9-81. III . Adjourn. • N I,.) I • • • • • CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION DECEMBER 1, 1981 I. CALL TO ORDER. The Special Meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairman Judith B. Pierson at 7:00 P. M. Members present: Becker, Ca r son, Draper, McBrayer, Pierson, Se nti, Tanguma, Allen, Barbre Members absent: Also present: Powers, Ex-officio None Assistant Director Dorothy A. Roman s Assistant City Attorney Thomas V. Holland Susan King, Senior Planner Harold Stitt, Planner I Councilman Bilo Councilman Neal Councilman-elect Weist II. COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE §22.7 --Sign Code CASE 9-81 Chairman Pierson noted that this is a special me ting t o be devoted to discussion of the proposed Sign Code. Ms. Susan Powers stated that ther r i ed H"aring , hich ,ddr ·,d indl- Commissi n for • w r en top r on Public H arin on th v nin • "landmark" what • or pr - Jn r d I • • • • • -2- State and Federal Government have in c luded on th e State and National registers as historic buildings . Ms. Pow e r s s tat ed that this ques t ion arose in relation to th e Gothic Theater, which the owner had stated was a lan dmark building in Englewood . The Gothic Theater is not on the State or Federal registers o f historic properties . §22.7-11, Non-conforming signs, was discu ssed. Ms. Powers stated that it is felt there should be some kind of registrat ion of non-conforming signs; this reg istration would be free for tho se bu sin essmen and property owners who have signs that would become non-conform ing under the p r oposed Sign Code. The purpose of t he regulation is to establish a record of the date the sign would have to be removed or conform to th e standards of the Code. The matter of amortization was then discussed . Powers s tated th at the s taff has proposed the following eight options for the consideration of the Commission on the amortization of non -con forming signs : 1. Maintain amortization schedule as presented in th proposed Code. 2. Develop two amortization schedules: A five-year ptriod for signs which conform to the e xis ting Code, but would b come non-conforming under th e proposed Code; a three-year period for signs that were grandfathered in under th e present Code . 3. An amortization schedule wh ich grants five year, to ill signs . 4. An amortization schedule which grants three year or a p riod qual t o the length of the sign leas as of Nov mb r 1, 1981. s. An amortization sch dule which g r an s five-ye r pt·riod from datl' of ins t llation. 6. An aao rt ization schedul which grantH at n-ye r p rtod if sign was e r ected/installed from 1977 on ; if r cted prior to 1977 , o three- yea r period would b granted . 7. An amortization sch dul which would "gr ndfatlH•r" ar in conformance with the pr ent Cod , nd gr nt for all oth rs. 8. Grandf th r 11 1 n in. th n n Hr. T b th flt Option I would b er in of th lon -t rm ln qultl s th • 11 sign th, hr ve rs l ·:n ult. ) I • • _n • • • • -3- expressed concern o n the way to handle tho se signs that have been purchased by the owner. Mr. Tanguma suggested t he use of a depreciat ion schedule for those signs that ar e owned by the businessman/property owner. Mr. McBrayer spoke in opposition t o Op t ions #4 and #8, stating that he felt neither should be considered by the Commission . He expressed the concern that #4 could lend itself t o frad ule nt paper work . Mr. Allen s t ated that he felt whatever amortizat ion provision was a dopt ed should be simplified s o that the business people could easily unders tand it, and that it could be easily e n forced . Mr. Allen re commen ded that Option #3 be adopted; h s tated that i t wa s simple to understand, and would be easy to enfor ce . Mr. Draper questioned the e xperience of th City in enforcem nt of the existing Sign Code? Ms. Powers s t ated that some provision s in the present Code are difficult to enforce; the provisions governing elimina- tion of abandoned signs is particularly unclear . Enforcement on signs where a permit is obtained is done; however, wher permits are not ob- tained , on ce the sign is e rected th e property owner is cited. On signs that were "grand fa t he r ed" in under the present Sign Code , there is nothing that can be done. Ms. Power s discussed the reassignment of r sponsibilitv for enforcement of the Sign Code to the Planning Division; this has been the responsibility of the Co de Enforcem e nt Division. This reassignment of responsibility will not require the hiring of additional pe r sonnel , and Mr. Harold Stitt, a Planner I in the Planning Division will be given the primary responsibili t y of Sign Code e nforceme nt, even though th e field inbpec ors in Code Enfo r ce- me nt Divi sion will s t ill assist. Disc u ssion of th mortization options n ued. It wa the d termination of the Commission that Alternate #8 hould b• ~limlnatcd from con idera- tion. It was also the d termination that Option #2 h uld b elimlnat d. The Co mmi ssion d termined that Options ill ,tnd 113 hould b r in d for forth r consid rat ion . Mr . Tanguma again spok • in support o Opt lcn 1 th d pr elation time on t recovery is u ually thr to fiv y~ r n Sl n , t t d that it was 10 ye r und r. Drap rs ated Phil Grimm cf pr SPnt t X ~. O pr cl tion nd cost recovery f ctors w 1 dtscu ,d. Furth r discu sion fro consid ration. h lp to th bu in Th Co ia Ion d tton. ptl 17 th r c n Id r - • I • • • • • • -4- Assistant City Attorney Tom Holland stated t ha t amortization is to allow the recovery of cost and i nstallation of a sign. A ce rta in period of time is required by the Courts for the amortization of signs if they are "non-conforming". The Courts have up-held a five-year amortization time on replacement of signs; it was det e rmined that fiv years wa s a s uf ficient time for a sign to be brought into conformance with a Sign Code . A sign does not have to be reduced to no value b f o re it has to be brought into conformance with a Sign Code. Mr . Holland stated that he felt proposed Amortization Option #3 wa s valid, and that any amortization schedule that would allow a minimum of five years would be valid. Discussion ensued. Ms. Powers stated that the intent of Option #6 is that every sign would have a ten-year life period. Mr. Draper point ed out that this would be tying a time period to a date of permit; he asked the pro- cedure if there was no permit on a sign? Ms. Powers stated that if a sign was installed prior to 1977 , or if there was no permit on file for that particular sign , it would have three yea r s to be brought into conformance. Mr. Carson stated that he did not want to see anyone penalized by the new Sign Code , and suggested that an appeal procedure be written into the Sign Code. Ms. Powers stated that th y have the option of appal to the Board of Adjustment at the present tim , nd this would ('Olltinue . Ir . Ca r son suggested that the appeal p r ocess b directed to he Planning Commission. Assistant City Attorney Holland s tat ed that this could b~ don• if it is so determined by the Col!Ullission and City Council. '!be oth r Commission members indicated that th e appeal procedure shou ld remain with the Board of Adjustment. Mr. Draper inquired as to the procedure nd penalty entailrd in removal of a non-conforming sign. M.<.. Power:, tatecl the bu in• man/i,ror rty own r would have to be c1 Ltd into Court; th t th~ Ci cy nno r r.iov a sign its lf jut bee u e it 1 non-onforminA. Ph i l SU g compli~n c with th< h llist1n C0de B ck r st tt..'t'.! this would iv no Mr. Allen stat d th 1 gn. in the for t rmin t ion. if . i ns mu t b th th th t ompli on-·oing d h f lt lt w ct mpt to d com ly. uld b ur Is • d lot of rto about d wntnwn writt n to '/ il bl nd d •lre f'T nt cod 1r I • • - • • • • -5 - not objectionable . Ms. Nuce stated that Amortization Option #7 would be most acceptable to McDonald's. Mr. Allen asked how man y signs Burts on Broadway have that do not comply with the existing Code? Mr . Chavez stated that all th signs comply with the existing Code; 90 % would not comply with the proposed Sign Code . Mr. Draper ques tioned the need for separat sign standards; one for the downtown business area , and another for the r mainder of the City. Ms . Powers stated she f e lt areas further south on Broadwav, for instance, had as many sign problems as the downtown area, and qu stion d the advisabili t y of sepa rate signage standards within th e City. M,;. Powers point d out that, while the DBA encouraged r evision of the Sign Cod , it had been a Goal set forth in th e Comprehensive Plan to improve th visual quality of the entire community, and the need for improved signage is part of this Goal. Mr. Allen pointed out that most signs need to be chang d whether they are worn out or not; he s tated that the City cannot hav an effective Code if businesses are allowed to keep signs for 20 -30 ve rs. Becker mov ed: Tanguma seconded: An amortization cit<' ulc which rints JO y,ars to all signs from date th~ Sign Code i p.is ,d by City Council be written into tl,t proposPd Si •n Cc,d,. Discussion ensued. Mrs. Pierson s t ted it should b that the Commls ion is, t thh, point, document, Sh stated the Pl.inning Public Haring in J nuary. Mr. Tangum st t d h did n t Jik rh id lgn; h f lt thl!i 1,:ould d at the purpo Mr. McBray r stat d hu ould n t p,rt igns . Th voe wa c 11 d. YES: AYS: Cr on Dr, p r, ... tlr, y Th motion s d f McBr yr IDOV d: B rbr • cond d: ne t , d. in ·1 ndanc s to a draft a second t n y ars for ev r y n Cod revi ion . mortization for 11 Ufflll , All n, B r r , • th with nfona I • • • • • • -6- AYES: McBra yer , Pi e rson, Se nt i , Tan guma , Allen, Barbre, Becker, Ca r son NAYS: Draper The motion carr ied. Messrs . Ta nguma and Allen s t ated they had vou·d in favo r of t his mo t i on "reluctantly ." Ms . Pierson aske d if th r e we r e o t he r co ncerns th• Commission wishe d t o discus s? Mr. Tanguma questioned t he need f o r §2 2 .7-5. H ~t a t ed he did not feel the City n eeded to impose on co ntractor s o r real estate c omp a nles the need t o r e g ister all their signs ever / year. Ms. Powe r s s t a t e d t ha t t his i s a new requ i r e me n t proposed t o comply with t he Sup r em Cou rt decision. Mr. Holla nd d iscussed t he Supre m Co urt ruli n g t hat all c omm e r cia l signs should be treat e d i n t he same mann e r; th is p r ovision wo uld seem to mee t the ob jectives of t he Co ur t. Discussion ensued. Tanguma mov e d: Sec t ion 22.7-5 of the p r oposed Sign Co de be elimin a t ed . There wa s no second t o th e mo t ion. Mr. Gr i mm i n qui r ed about s i gning in a .30-foot triangular a r a a t inter- sect i ons ? Ms. Pow e r s s tat d t ha t t h presen t Sign Code res tric t s s ign ing in a 5 5-foo t tr iangular ar ea ; this restriction is lowe r ed t o 10 fe e t in the pro po sed Code . Mr. Ta ngu ma qu stion d th t ha t sandw ich b oa r d 1re p0rtab pub lic r ight-o f -way. Ms . Pie r son s t a t d t h l'l nning Co 1 "por port Hear i n g on t h pro po d Si •n Co ,,n J 11111 rv Mr. Tom Mag billbo rds in Mr. Dr p r no t d th his r qu a t f o r t h Th Ill tin d }011rn ~ I C rtrud r 0 P.M. t Ms. Powe r s s t a ted 1r lacPd i n t he on<! Publi~ i ng i n nd ' t t d h V r d vie r I • • ST AFF REPORT Page -1- STAFF REPORT RE: • • - ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT Case 119-81 Amendment to §22.7 of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, the Sign Code. DATE: December 1, 1981, a special meeting to discuss the proposed amendments to the Sign Code. DESCRIPTION: At the suggestion of the Downtown Development Authority and the Downtown Business Association, an amended Sign Code, §22.7 of the Comprehen- sive Zoning Ordinance, has been under consideration. The proposed revision will add guidelines and regulations not presently covered in the current code. BACKGROUND: The present Sign Code was adopted by Ordinance No. 18 of 1974, upon the recommendation of a committee which had worked on the development of the code for almost 18 month!'. 1-;uch new rlevelopment and redevelopment has taken place since that time, and persons on both the Englewood Downtown Development Authority and Downtown Business Association boards have re- quested the City to consider amendments to the code, being of the opinion that it no longer provides the necessary controls to assure good signage. The proposed Sign Cod revisions includ major changes in sign ar , h ights of signs, sign face, and signable ar a. Several public meetings have been held sine th revised Sign Code w s initially presented to the Planning C011111iasion on September 9, 1981. As a result of those public m etinga, further revia ona wer made tor fl ct so of th criticisms which were raia d by local buaineaa n. Th n w r viaiona w re th n pr aent d by th Planning Division taff ta Public Haring h ld by th City Planning and Zoning Coaaiaaion on ov mb r 4, 1981. Several iasu aw r raised at th public hearing. Th following ia a liat of thoa iaauea nd queationa which wer raised. 1. How would 1 ndaark ai n which do not confora to th n Sign Cod b handl d. 2. Do a th Sien Cod apply to aerchandia which ia ator d outdoors on priv t prop rty? What 1f build n h Thprodot. nd prohibit d ,1gn1 la ar a? to 1 don d igna, roo • I • - • ST AH REPORT Pa ge -2- • • • ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT Case 119-81 5. The time allowed to amortise a sign based on the "life" of the sign or the leasing of a sign, is not long enough. 6. Height, number and size of signs are too restrictive. The Planning Division has contacted many of the businessmen who raised the issues which are summarized above. Attachment "A" is the list of issues and includes the responses which the staff has discussed with those businessmen. The most important concern of the businessmen was the proposed amortization schedule. Attachment "B" is a list of amortization options which the Planning and Zoning Commission should consider. Becauae of the landmark decision on the Lakewood Sign Code by the Colorado State Supreme Court, the Planning Division has revised the structure of the proposed code. An outline for the new structure is included in Attachment "C". All of the revisions have ~ome about based on the evidence heard at th Public Hearing held on November 4, 1981. PROCEDURE: The Plannin& and Zoning Commission is to hold a work session on December 1st to diacuss the most recent revisions which are included in Attachment• "A", "B", and "C". All of the persona who have attended pre- v i ou s meetings have received notice of this study s ssion. After considera- tion of the propoaed reviaions, the meabera of the Plannin& and Zooin& Com- mission may want to hold a Public Hearing aft r the first of 1982, possibly on January 19, 1982. • , I • • -• • - ATTACHMENT "A" The followin g is a list of questions generated at the November 4th Public Hearing on the proposed Sign Code and responses developed by the staff. COMMENT: RESPONSE: COMMENT: RESPONSE: COMH ENT: RESPONSE: CO MMENT: RESPONSE: What provisions are made if no "Signable Area" can be identified? A provision has been added to §22.7-9a 3 "Signable Area", which permits the Department to allow for signage in another suitable area if no "signable area" exists. * * * * * Is the thirty day period for abandoned signs too s~ort? Under the provisions of 122.7-14a, a sign/structure will be considered a nuisance if it is found to be abandoned for a period of thirty days. After this thirty day period, the owner or lessee of the sign and the owner of the property will be notified within~ working hours after the sign/structure has been declared a nuisance. They then have thirty days from the time they receive the declaration to remove the sign/structure. In effect, then, sixty days are provided for the removal of abandoned signs/structures. * * * * * Have other amortization schedules been considered and how does th IRS view depreciation of signs? Yes; sev ral sch dules have been examined and are presented in Attachm nt "B". Prior to 1981, th IRS provid d two methods for depr ciation; the first is based on a judicial decision in which the Court would specify a depreciation period. Th s cond method allowed the tax payer to choos cla s lif of ight, ten, or twelve years. In 1981, an ace lerat d coat recovery ayst m waa institut d which pro- vid a for thr or five-year d pr ciation period. * * * * * How will outdoor display of merchandi e be regulat d? Th prohibition of outdoor display of aerchandi ia in- tended to prevent the uae of or encroachaent into th public ri&ht-of-way. Thua, display of urchandia on private prop rty for coamercial purpoa i1 not r &ulat d, * * * • * • I • • ATTACH MEN T "A" Pa ge -2- COMMEN T : RESPONSE: COMMENT: RESPONSE: COMMENT: RESPONSE : • • • Are the nU111ber, size, and height of signs too restrictive in the proposed Code? The staff has studied sign codes from other metro co1DJDunities, and based on comparisons with these other codes, feel that the proposed Code iB consistent in terms of height, size and number with most of the neighboring co111111unitie&. The intent is to develop an effective Sign Code that is fair and equitable and works for Englewood. * * * * * la the permitted size of parking and traffic direction signs too .small? The area for this type of sign has been increased from two square feet per face in the first draft of the Sign Code to the present six square feet per face. The number of such signs, two per curb cut, has remained the same. * * * * * ls the 60 days for the removal of a prohibited sign too short a time period? After reviewing the termination period for prohibited signs, the staff has revised the time period upward to 180 days, sine prohibited signs pos a 1 sser thr at to health, safety, or public welfare than do hazardous signs, for ex-pl. * * * * * • I • • • • • ATTACHMENT "B" AMORTIZATION OPTIONS: 1. Maintain amortization schedule as presented in the proposed Code. 2. Develop two amortization schedules: A five-year period for signs which conform to the existing Code, but would become non-conforming under the proposed Code; a three-year period for signs that were grandfathered in under the present Code. 3. An amortization schedule which grants five years to all signs. 4. An amortization schedule which grants three years or a period equal to the length of the sign lease as of November 1, 1981. 5 , An amortization schedule which grants a five-year period from date of installation. 6 . An amortization schedule which grants a three-year period if s ign was erected/installed prior to 1976; after 1976, amort i zat i on schedule would grant 10 years from the date of erec tion/installation. 7 . Grandfather all signs in. • ) I • • • • - /\'J"J'/\CI IMENT "C" §22.7 SIGN CODE 22.7-1 22.7-2 22 .7-3 22.7 -4 22.7-5 22. 7-6 22.7-7 General Statement. Scope and Application of this Section. Permit for Group Signs . Signs not Subject to Permit. a . Bulletin boards . b . Election signs . 1. Residential Zones . 2 . Commercial & Industrial Zones. c. Flags of Nations, Organization of Nations, States or Cities. d . Holiday decorations . e . Identification signs. f. Ideological signs. Illuminated buildings . Memorial signs. g . h. i. j. k . 1. Merchandise, pictures, or models of products or or services incorporated in a window display. On-site informational signs . Private parking or traffic directory signs . Professional signs. m. Public signs. n. Scoreboards, time and temperature devices . Special event signs. Street banners . 0. p. q. Symbols or crests of religious, fraternal, pro- fe11ional or civic organizations . r . Vehicle consumer information signs. Signs Subject to Yearly Registration . a . Contractor signs. b. Real Estate signs . Sign s Prohibited in all Zone Districts. a. Any sign not permitted in the designated zone district . b. Any sign within a 30' triangle of an intersec tion. c. Animated signs . d. Banner s, pennant s, valances, and wind -powered devices. e . Flashing or blinking signs, except scoreboards nd tim nd temper tur. f. Portabl signs. Outdoor display of m rch ndis on public right-of- w y. h. Roof signs. i. Se rch lights. j . Signs p inted o~ f nc s. k. Strings of light bulbs for commerci 1 purpo l. Third-p rty signs or billboards. m. Wheeled advertising devices . Signs Perm itted in Residential Zone District R-1-!, R-1-C, R-2, R-2-C, R-3, nd R-4 . P rmitt d cont nt . b. Permitt d tuximum number. 1. aid nti l us• -l ign. 2 . Non-raid nti 1 u s -2 igns. c. P rmi t d ximum ign r • R-l-A, I • -• - 1. l, 2, and 3 family residential -one home occupation sign o f one square foot, in addition to the area permitted by §22 .7-4b , c, d, f. 2. Religious and educational institutions , public buildings and residential uses between 4-39 dwelling units . 3. Hospitals, clinccs, professional offices and residential uses of 40 or more dwelling units . 4. Other lawful non-residential uses. d. Permitted sign classes . 1. Ground signs. 2. Marquees, canopy or awning signs. 3. Projecting signs. 4. Suspended signs. 5 . Wall signs . 6 . Window signs. e. Home occupation signs -not more than one (1) square foot in area; may be a wall or window sign. f . High-rise building identification sign . g . Permitted illumination . 22 .7-8 Signs Permitted in Commercial and Industrial Zone Districts : B-1, B-2, I-1, and I-2. 2 2.7 -9 a. Permitted contents. b . permitted maximum number. c. Permitted maximum sign area. 1. For all permitted uses : (a) For a lot having one permitted use : Street Frontage Si~n Area/Foot of St. Front. 1' -100' 1. sq . ft./foot 101' -250' 1.0 sq . ft ./foot 251' + 0.4 sq . ft./foot (h) For a lot having two or more permitted uses : Buildine Front l 1 -lQ I Si~n Area/Foot of Bldg . Front. 1 . sq. ft./1 foot 101' + 1.0 sq. ft./1 foot d . Permitted sign types. 1 . Ground signs . 2. Marquees, canopy, or awning signs . 3 . Projecting signs. 4 . Suspended signs . 5 . Wall signs. 6 . Window signs . e. Drive thru identification signs . f. High -rise building identific tion wall g . Joint identification signs . h . S condary signs . i . Short-t rm advertising signs. j . Signs setback from public right-of-way. k . P rmitted illumination . Sign Area M asurement . Ar a to b m asur d . 1 . S ign with backing . 2 . Sign• without backing . 3 . "Sin bl r a". 4 . I rre ular outlin b. Numb r o f s igns. • ign . I • - • 2 2.7 -10 22.7-11 22.7-12 22 .7-13 22.7-14 22 .7-15 22 .7-16 • • • Maintenance Non-conforming sign s --Th o signs which, on the effective date of th is Ordnance, do not conform to the limitation estab lished by this Ordinance; or which does not conform to the limitation established by any amendment hereto . a. Termination of non-conforming signs . b. Non-conforming signs in newly annexed area . c. Extension of time for cause . d. Registration of non-conforming signs . Prohibited signs . a. Termination of prohibited signs -removal within 180 days. b . Penalty . Hazardous signs Signs declared by the Department to be a nuisance or a hazard to safety, health or public welfare , by reason of inadequate maintenance, dilapidation, obsolescence, shall be removed. a . Abatement of hazardous signs. b. Penalty. c . Appeals. Abandoned signs --Signs and/or their supporting structures abandoned for a period of 30 days shall be declared a nuisance by the Department. a. Abatement of abandoned signs. b. Penalty. Permita. a . Application for permit. b. Revocation of permit. 1. Revocation of permits for non-use . 2. Forfeiture of fees. c . Plans, specifications and other data requested. d . Permit fees . e . Identification and marking of electrical signs. f. Licensing and insurance requirements . Definitions . • I • • ~n - • ( • • • • CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNIN G AND ZONING COMMISSION I . Call to Order January 19, 19~2 7:00 P.M. II. Considerat ion of a Us Not Mentioned: Case 02 -82 Freedom Scooter Repair 1008 East Hampden Avenu En g lewood , Colorado 80110 Eugene Anderson III. Public Rearing: Case 19-81 Concerning an Am ndm nt to th Sign Code , Section 22.7 of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance IV. Public Forum V. Director's Choice Downt wn uevelopment Plan Prowswoo d Topics of dis u sion at me ting with the Littl ton Pl nning Commission VI . Commis sion rs' Chllicc VII. Adjou rnm nt • I • • p- • • • • MEMORANDUM ---------- TO: FROM: Persons Interested in the Revised Sign Code Susan Powers, Director of ColIIIllunity Development DATE: January 8, 1982 SUBJECT: Revised Sign Code for Englewood As you know, the Planning Couinission and Planning staff have held several meetings with representatives of the business com- munity over the past several months to consider a revision of the 1974 Sign Code . As a result of these meetings, several very important changes have been suggested in the proposed Sign Code --each of the changes being made in response to issues raised during the meetings . Since the draft of the Sign Cede which is now being considered is so very different from the proposed Code which was cor•sidered at the Public Hearing on November 4, 1981, the members of the Planning Colllllission have decided that a second Public Hearing should be held. This Public Hearing will be held in the City Council Chambers on Tuesday, January 19, 1982, at 7:00 P.M . Because of your expressed interest in the revised Sign Code, the CoU111ission has asked that you receive a copy of the Code which will be considered at the January 19th Hearing, in order that you will have an opportunity to review the changes which are suggested . If you have any questions or comments about the proposed Sign Code, pl ea se contact Harold Stitt at 761-1140, extension 427, or m t 761-1140, ext nsion 407. We look forward to your participation in the Haring on January 19th . w • I • • -• • - CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 19, 1982 I . CALL TO ORDER. The regular meeting of the City Planni ng and Zoning Coounission was called t o order at 7:00 P. M. by Chairman Judith B. Pierson. Memb ers present: Draper, Mc Brayer, Pierson, Senti, Tanguma, Alle n, Barbre, Becker, Carson Powers, Ex-officio Me mbers absent : None Also present: 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 Moto r cycle Repair i n B-2 Zone District Ms. Pierson asked for the s taff report on this case. CASE 112 -82 Ms . Susan Ki ng stated that the application, filed by M-. Eugene Anderson, is for interpretation of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for a use not mentioned i n the 8-2 Zo n e District. The subject site is at 1008 East Hampden Avenue. Mr. And r son leases this property, and has s tated that he wants to operate a motorcycle repair business which is not specifically m ntioned as a principal permitted us in ei ther the B-1 or B-2 Zone Dis trict s. The subj ct property is zoned n-2, Business; there is a frame building on the sit , which ls conside red by the Code Enforcem nt Division to be in "poor" condition. There are no variances on the subject property. Ms. King stated that to th north of the subject site is a mixture of car-related busin ss s, greenhouses, apartments and single-fallily homes. Directly east of the site is a two-story offic b uilding of r cent con- struction . To th south of th site is a residential d v lopm nt, with ingle-family nd two-family uses. A gas station is 111111 diately to the w s t of th subj ct ite, and th r ar oth r car-relat d busin ass and rt il uses along H mpden Avenu both to the ast and w st of th sit under consideration. The 1979 Co mpr h nsiv Plan indicat s th t this ar a should be a "mix d u " cl ssification , ori nt d mor toward the III dical-a rvic bus in sa. rtm nta. Chief Building In- t t d that to ccommodat a motorcycle r pair shop, r claBsifi d to an H-4 occupancy. Ther to be xt nsiv r od lin& and improv nt of the 1tructur 1979 Uniform Building Cod , s uch a1 fire reaiatant xt rior pt walls on th xt rior o the building, and floor 1urfac w uld h v to b of non-o u tibl , non-abaorb nt 111at rial. It ii Hr. Pitt n's opinion that th buildin will not met th 1979 Uniform Building Cod r quir n H-4 occup ncy. I • • • • • -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 Hr. 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 storage 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 Hr. Anderson, the applicant, is present this evening. Ms. Pierson asked Hr. Anderson if he wished to address the Commission? Hr. 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, Hr. Gleason, but that he would doubt that either of them would want to invest that much mon yin the building to bring it up to Code. Mrs. Pierson asked if the Commission were to approve the reque st for interp retation, wheth r a time limit could be placed on the approval? Assistant City Attorn y Holland s tated that the Commission can attach conditions to approvals of this type, and could place a tim restriction on the approval. Mr. Allen asked Hr. Anderson if he understood what would be involv din bringing the structur up to Code, and whether he would want to make that investment in the building? Hr. Anderson stated that he might make the investment if h own d the building. Mr. Tanguma ask d for furth r clarification on th reclassification to H-4 occupancy. Ms. King xpl ined that und r th Uniform Building Cod , motorcycl r pair shop would be n H-4 occupancy, which requires more string nt fir nd building coder quir m nts b caus of th hazardous natur of the us Ms. Pi rson st t d that sh und rscood if this particular us w s d teriain d to b p rmitted in th B-2 Zone District, this would apply to th entir B-2 Zone District, and not just to this location. Hr. HcBrayer stated that this request is for an int rpretation, and he also felt it would apply to other rea th th v B-2 Zon d signation. Mrs. Pi rson not d that th Compr h nsiv Pl n collRitt th t studi d th strip co11111 rcial ar • w re very iapr ss d with the revitalization of this ar a th t wa1 takin pla , and that a lot of this revitalization se d cob • dical support• rvic ori nt d. Sh qu stion d that a aotorcycla r p ir busin •• would b coapatibl with th type of r dav lop nt that h • I • • I -• • • -3- been taking place in the area, and that the Comprehensive Plan Review Com- mittee felt s hould be e ncouraged. She suggested that the motorcyclE· re- pair s hop 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 Co mprehensive 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 s trip comme rcial 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 reconnnend that this use be in- cluded in the I-1 or I-2 industrial districts? Discussion ensued. Becker moved: McBrayer seconded: TI1e Planning Commission, upon consideration of the application filed by Hr. 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? Hrs. 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 s pecific location; other uses have also applied, and been disapproved at at specified location. Vehicular repair in conjunction with filling s tations has been considered a secondary use in conjunction with the primary use of sale of gasoline and oil products. Hrs. Romans pointed out that the uses that have been approved by the Planning Coanission in the past have been on an individual basis; it ha not been a "blanket approval" pplicable to th entir district. Hrs. Pi rson r it rat d that h did not w nt to se thi n ighborhood; s h did not f el it w s ppropriat Cent rd velopm nt. us of thi round th typ in H die 1 Hr. HcBr yr ask d if th busin as a that h d com befor the Planning Co m111i aaion nd w r approv d for a ap cific location wouid b consider d nonconformin inas1aJch aa thy wer pproved on the basis of a specific ta sp cific location? Hra. Ri..'llarls cited 122.4-11 b (16), which "Any aiailar lawful us which, in the opinion of th Coaaiuion, obj ctionabl ton rby prop rty by r aaon of odor, dust, smoke, , g , hat, lar , radia ion or vibration, or ia not hazardous to th h alth nd prop rty of th surrounding ar throu h dang r of fir or xplosion." Furth r dis u aion na u d. Hr. All n atat d ht d t rain that "w d to h • th th of aotorcycl Coaaiuion w r pair ahop "; • trying to h point d I • • • • • • -4- out that there are several in the area, and that if the st ructure 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 motorcycles 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 th Comaission 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 pres ntly in business? Mr. Holland s tated that those repair shops that ar in business would have the right to continue until they cease operation. Further discussion followed. The vote was called: AYES: NAYS: Pierson, B cker, Carson, Dr per, HcBrayer Senti , T ngum, All n, Barbr Th motion carri d. would appr ciat mor inforaation specifically nd v hicl repair shops in th buain aa zon d that it waa tim to look into this matter. M. B ck r stat d th t sh ddre sing motorcycl shop districts. Ha. Pi raon gr III. COMPREHENSIVE ZO ING ORDINANCE Sign Cod 122. 7 Pi rson stat th t th aattar of th eo .. 1ssion, and a Public H arin h b All n IIOV d: CAS 13-2 (9-81) propos d Slan Cod n sch Jul d for thia 1a b or v nina. th B rbr • ond d: Th Public H rin on Ca 13-2 b 0 d. • I • • • • - -5- AYES: Senti, Tanguma, Allen, Barbr~, Becker, Carson, Draper, McBrayer, Pierson NAYS : None ABSENT: None The motion carried. Ms. Pierson reviewed the format that would be followed in conducting the Public Hearing. Ms. Pierson then asked for the staff presentation. Ms. Susan Powers was sworn in, and testified that she is the Director of Community Development. Ms. Powers presented for the record a copy of the public notice of the public hearing which was published in the Englewood Herald Sentinel on December 30, 1981. Ms. Powers stated that work on the r e vision of the Sign Code began in early 1981. The Comprehensive Plan, which was approved in 1979, set forth several goals, one of which is im- provement of the visual quality of the City through improved signage. The staff has also found, in working with the existing Sign Code, that there are many ambiguities that make enforcement difficult. Ms. Powers testified that complaints had also been receive d from some of the down- town businessmen regarding abandoned signs, or signs that were in poor repair. Ms. Powers discussed the procedure followed in the review of the Sign Code and the drafting of the proposed revisions. In drafting the proposed r e visions to the Sign Code, the staff reviewed specific problems that have been experienced in attempting to enforce the exis ting Sign Code and reviewed sign codes of other jurisdictions. A series of meetings with business men who might be affected by new restrictions and the general public wer held by both the staff and the Commission. Tile Planning Commission also held a public hearing on November 4, 1981, at which hearing testimony wa s received from persons in attendance. Ms. Powers s tated that th Lak wood Sign Code was declared unconstitutional, and th s ta ff and City Attorney's office reviewed this court decision and have made every effort to assure that the propo3ed Sign Code is written in compliance with this l gal decision. Ms. Powers stated that there have been several drafts of the proposed Sign Cod , and that changes have been made throughout, to met the concerns xpressed by individuals in the many public me tings and previous public hearing. r view d th provision of the propos d Sign Cod notin r non-com rcial in n tur ar classifi d as "S igns t to P raits." Signs subj ct to ye rly r gistration, such as r stat ai ns nd contractor signs w r point d out. • Pow rs r - vi wed th• 11st of sign th t r propos d to b prohibit d, nd st t d that of th a signs, such as billboards and third-p rty adv rtising in , h v b n prohibit d since th 1974 Sign Code was adopted. Til maximum h lght of igns w discuss d by Ms. Pow rs. She point d out that th r no aubat ntial ch ng s 11, these provisions as th y apply to signs aid ntlal zon districts ; h ow v er , signs in th coai rcia::. nd in- districts ar propoa d to aav a maximum hight of 20 fe t, which ls 1 w r th n pr ntly p rmitt din th 1974 Sign Cod. d t th numb r of aigna permitt d i n th h also b n chan d. A ac 1 and numb r of sign p naitt d unt o atr t ront that particular buain • dd d to d al with "auap nd d aisn . " • Powera • I • • -• • - -6- pointed out that the maximum square footage of sign area has been raised back to the 600 sq. ft. because of concerns expressed at the public meetings; the maximum area per sign face will be 100 sq. ft. Ms. Powers stated that there are several different signs which are allowed and do not count against the total sign area; these include drive-thru signs, joint identification signs, high-rise building identification wall signs, secondary signs, short-term advertising signs, 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 issued, but in no case less than three years from the date the proposed Sign Code would be adopted, would be a reasonable amortization period. The staff would notify the owner of a nonconforming sign and that property owner will have 30 calendar days to register the nonconforming sign. Ms. Powers emphasized that the burden of notifying the owner of a nonconforming sign of the requirement for registration is on the staff. There is an appeal process written into the proposed Code by which sign owners may appeal to the Board of Adjust- ment for a variance. Ms. Powers then discussed prohibited signs. She noted that there is no way to deal with them at the present time. Signs that are prohibited would have 180 days to be removed or to be brought into conformance with the Code; billboards would have to be removed within three years of the effective date of the ordinance. Again, an appeal process is written in whereby the sign owner may appeal to the Board of Adjustment for a variance. If the owner does not remove a prohibited sign, the City ma!' remove the sign, and costs incurred by the City, plus an administrative cost, would be charged against the real property and its owners. Ms. Powers then reviewed the section on Hazardous Signs. o.mers of signs that have been declared hazards will be notified of such determination, and will have 30 days to remove the hazardous sign. Tile sign owner does have the right to appeal, and the City may remov the hazardous sign and bill the owner if it is not removed within th given time period. Th pr s nt Sign Cod r quires 90 daya, but it ia felt that th th day aign 1a d train d b for th ign is d clared to of this 30-d y p riod, a lett r i is ant to sign must b remov d within 30 days. Thia s, in reality, giv ign own r 60 d ys within which tor IDC>ve th s ign. Th City may also r mov th sin if th own r does not coaply with th notic of r movsl, nd costs incurr d by th City in the removal of th in my b bill d to th property own r. H • p ha b th t th City may not r mov a sign just b c us it nonconforming; to b r aov d by th City, a sign prohibit d, hazardous, or abandon d. th sta fr port for this h ring, th at ff r ports a nd m tings b for th Coaaiasion, and th Minutes b aad a part of th r cord for this• tin&, Ha. I • • -• • - -7- Po we r s asked that th e Conmi ssion als'l take no t e of a memorandum fro1n Fi r e Mars ha ll Walt Groditski c oncerning problems caused by roof signs, and a memorandum from Traffic Engineer Plizga r e garding p roblems that specifi c t ypes o f signs cause with traffic flow. Ms . Pow e r s then read into the record the f ollowi ng l e tt e r from the Cente nnia l Chamb e r o f Commerce. Ms. Powers noted that the Englewood and Little ton Cha mb e r s of Commerce have merged, and have b ecom e the Centennial Chamb e r of Co mm e r ce , with h e adquarters at 180 Wes t Gi rard Av e nu e in Englewood. (ENTE 'NIAL CHAMOER OF COMMERCE 1eow u oro En3lc\"".rOo d C ity Council 340() South EJ.1h ~t rc c t Englewood, CO 801 10 JOJJ 7&1 743& January I <), 1982 The Ccntenn,~l Chamber o( Cum.me re c 1• vitally 1ntere~t ed m all aapecta of t he bu1 i ne •• e nv i ronment ln the ;).r e a which 11 lta pram~ ar~a of respon1i.b1hty. T h1 1 newly f o rmed Ch mber ia and wlll conttnut-to b e co n cern ed w it h mary 1a1uca ,mpaclln:; that total cnv,ronmt.>nt. One.-r.u c-h u,:mr ,u t ho «Jn<> 1><:foro you o t thu .. ltmc. t hal o f ..1 un1vora,3l 010.!l ro de . The Chamber h.a.u reviewed the propot.ctl cudc , comp.i rc<l ,t with other c:>.ast1ng t..Od :., and d i1c,.11ucd 1t w1.th LOU1v, .. dual • rnvolved m 1ta prepa r a tion. The Chamber reco;n &ea the myrh11 d of problem , a11oc tat ed wtth attempt• to e1t.abluh a uo1.ver- •.a.l C'O df". Lut ho rccognti.e1 th n c•••lty of overcomioa th••• dtfllcuhh·• and adopt ln& 1uch a c.ode. The propoaed code, ,n ta preaent form, LI the result of untold ho\lre or work and much lo:OOl?TOffllle , J. ht• \...,~11lt:1HU.l Chan11>cr ot t. • .u1uncr\:. onuratul.;itca. wll lhuGc u1"ulv<"d Lil t m.• prcp.ir~hon ot \nu prupo•cd uo,vc r &:. 1 u,,:n CO U\! ..in uru:e • 1ta adopllo n as a pos ,ttve contributton to the buame 1a. cnv1ron. ment w luch ta o! conce rn to ue all. • I • • n • • • ' -8- Mr. Tanguma asked that "vehicle consumer information signs" be explained. Ms. Powers stated that i n 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 eve.~ing. 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 ne 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 llfelihood 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 busin ssmen who are in Englewood not be hurt by this process. Mr. Johnson stated that he has paid tax s for the 10 years he has been in business in Englewood, and wants to remain her • He stated that he feels a Sign Code for new businesses locating in Englewood is on~ thing, but to impos new standards nd restrictions on existing businesses is not fair. Mr. Draper inquir d as to th ag of th sign t Mr. Johnson's place of business, and the approximat cost of that sign? Mr. Johnson stated that the sign is 10 years old, nd cost approximately $20,000 at th time it was purchased and installed. He st t d th th had recently had it re- painted at a cost of $3,500. Mr. Johnson reit rated that he feels new businesses coming into Engl wood should conform to th Sign Code, but th exis ting busin ssm n whos signs may not conform to th propos d Cod hould not b discriminated against. Mr. John on emphasized that he felt th 180 d y removal time is too short, Mr. McBray r point d out th t if th sign is not illeg 1 or prohibited, but is nonconforming, the sign own r would b giv n thr years to bring lh sign into conformanc or tor mov it. Mr. Tom McC wa s worn in, nd s t t that h has oper ted H.E. Outdoor Pot rs sine 1955. Mr. McC est t d th the had signs which w r 1 &al • I • • - 1 , • • • - -9-( in Englewoo d until 1974, when the ex~sting 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 organizations such as United Way, the March of Dimes, etc., and he did not feel that this business "deserves to be wiped out." Mr. Allen inquired wh e ther 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 in 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 they 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. Hr. Youel acknowl dg d that while the Chamber of Commerce has submitted a letter supportin th proposed Sign Code, he stated he would suspect that many individual busin men who would be affected by the Sign Code would not be in favor of th of this Code. He urged that a "grandfather" clause b written into th pro- posed Sign Code. Mr. Andy Hadler, Gannett Outdoor Company of Colorado, was sworn in, and stated that his company would have probl ms with th proposed Sign Cod . Mr. Hadler stated that he felt the section on Prohibited Signs, Pag 30 of the proposed Code, was unnecessary, and has a question on th 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." Hr. Hodl r r vi wed previous court cases and d cisions r garding th elimination of billbo rds, noting that Arap ho County had att mpt d legislation r - g rding billboards, and th Colorado Supr m Court ruled that th billboard could c ontinu • 'lbe City of D nver 1 tr att mpted to h ve billboards pro- hibi t e d within th City limits, nd this cs was thrown out of court. Mo s t r ec ntly, the Lakewood Sign Cod wa ruled unconstitutional, and thy a r now op rating und ran interim Sign Cod • Hr. Hadler stated that all Supr m Court d cisions say that busin sses cannot b prohibited from ad- v rti ing; er ction of new dverti&ing structures may b prohibited, but r mov 1 of xisting adv rtising stn•ctur s cannot b required without c omp n tion for that structur • Hr. Hadler t stifled that the City of D nv r h s r cently paid Gannett Outdoor Company of Colorado $16,000 for th r mov 1 of sign, nd th t th D nv r Urban Rn wal Authority p id $62,000 to hav G nn tt dv rtising 11 n r mov d. Hr. Hadler 1tat d th t if th City of Englewood pprov I th propo1 d Sign Cod , that "litigation y b only r cours ", and that th litigation would b on th basis of th d r mov 1 of pr s nt structur a, and also to sk th t outdoor nci s be all d to r ct new atructur in th City of Hr. Hodl r took i11u1 with th memorandum from Hr. Jo Plizga, • I • • • • - -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. Hodler 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. Hodler 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 propos d elimination of this fonn of advertising. Mr. Hodler stat d that he did not feel the outdoor advertising businesses had b en consult d and considered in the drafting of the proposed Sign Code, and that h is offended by that. Pierson tated that this is the second person who has testified that they w re not notified or aware of the proposed revision of the Sign Code. Sh a ked M. Pow rs to again review them tings and publicity that has b en att ndant on this revision. Hs. Powers review d th process by which th proposed Code has been drafted, and th subs quent me tings with the Commission, automobile deal rs, hopping c nter owners and downtown businessmen that would be affected. otic s w r also s nt to various sign companies notifying them of specific Mr. and notices of this hearing were sent to everyone who had attended tings. the st rt d employment with Gann tt Outdoor Company of th sign cod r viaion in Nov mb r. H rsonnel chang s within his company, and that n nearlier contact with someon els in Mr. Allen sked the verag siz and hight of th billboards that Mr. Hodl r's comp ny h sin th City? Mr. Hodler stat d that th averag siz ia 12' x 25', nd are of diff rent h ights up to 31 f et. Mr. Hodl r not d that if thia Cod 1 approved, the billboards would have to b r moved within three yeare. Ms. Pow re point d out th t billboards hav not b n permitted in th City inc 1974. Mr. Hodl r st t d that the present Sign Cod, while not pr- mittin r ction of new billboard structur 1, do• not r quire th removal of th xi ting billbo rds. Mr. Hodl r stat d that th company do• aak y b llow d to k p th billboar~• thy pr a ntly have within th En 1 ood, but ar not eking for p rai11ion to er ctn 1tructur I • • • • - -11- Mr. Ra ndy Cordova, Midland Federal Savings, was sworn in. Mr. Cordova stated that replacement of signs within either three years or ten years would be e xpensive 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. The Commission reconvened at 9:00 P.M., with the following members present: Tanguma, Allen, Barbre, Becker, Carson, Draper, McBrayer, Pierson, Senti. No members were absent. Mr. Don Seymour was s worn 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 SO years, and has paid his taxes; he would like to see the City go forward and improve its visual quality. He feels the pro- ~osed Sign Cnde is the first step to take, and urged that the Code be approved. Ms. Rachel Owen s, 3460 South Broadway, was sworn in. Ms. Owens stated that she is heartily in favor of the propo. ed Sign Code. Ms. Owens stated that she is a memb r of the Englewood Downtown Development Authority, and is a local realtor. Mr. Mike Haviland, 3535 So uth Sherman Street, was sworn in . Mr. Haviland testified that he is director of the Englewood DowntO'wll Development Authority, and is in favor of the proposed Sign Code. Mr. Haviland stated that he would hope the Connission would make a decision on the matter this evening. He stated that he felt th Coaaission and staff hav mad every effort to be fir to th busines community in th compromis sand changes that have b n made in the propos d Code since the initial draft was considered. He stated that he f els th r h s been a mor than r asonable effort made to contact businessmen and sign company representativ s to notify them of th propos d changes. He agreed that the issue of a "grandfather" clause is an important issue, but he flt th Commission h d come up with a comfortable resolution to this probl m with the recomm ndation of the proposed amortization schedul Mr. Haviland stated that he felt the Commis ion should "step forwatd as a Planning Commission and create som policy." H stated that there is a need for a good Sign Code, and stated that h is "emphatically in support" of the propos d Cod. t th to South Acoma Str t, was sworn in, and t stifled s ry to hav this Sign Cod approved. Hr. Close flt it would b good for th community. Hr. Clos stat d n ny m tings t which oppon nts were giv n opportunity obj ctions and cone rns. Hr. Clos tated the propos d I • • • • - -12- Sign Code will not be acceptable to everybody, but that it is needed to improve the City of Englewood. He stated that he supported passage of the Sign Code as presented. Ms. Becker asked Mr. Close how he, as a businessman, expected a new customer to find his store; by signs, or what other form of advertising did he rely on? Mr. Close stated that it is important to have a good product or ser- vice to offer to the public, and it will become kn own by word-of-mouth. It is important for a business to create an image that will attract persons to the stor e . Mr. Close stated that the signing is also important, but that the sign does not need to be large . He s t a t ed t ha t he felt that "class and good taste in a sign" is most important , a nd that he felt every store could be located by a customer without a problem regardless of the number of signs or the size of the signs. Mr. Close stated that in his particular block, 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. Fran 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, clean building and is not impressed by gaudy Rigns or lots of lights. Ms. Jo Ellen Turner, 4630 South Cherokee, was sworn in, and urged passage of the Sign Code. Ms. Turner stated that she feels this is a vital first step in the revitalization of the business area, and is important to the economic health of the community. Ms. Becker inquired of Ms. Turner how she would find a business that she was not familiar with? Ms. Turner stated that word-of-mouth or newspaper advertising, or just walking along an area she might notice an attractive place and stop in. Mr. Michael Amuri, Arapahoe Signs, was sworn in. Mr. Arouri stated that he would agree that required removal and replacement of signs could create a hardship on som businessmen. He noted that this provision could well drive som businessmen out of Englewood. Mr. Amuri expressed the opinion that registration of real estaLe signs would be difficult to enforce, and question d that the six square feet per face was a realistic size. Mr. Amuri stated that he has some arguments against billboards, but would hav to gree that they do have the right to exist, and he urged that the Com- mi sion give dditional thought to the requirem nt that billbo rds must b removed within three years from the date the Code is approved. Mr. Amuri asked if outdoor display of merchandise on public right-of-way, which is prohibit d under the proposed code, would preclude sidewalk sale in th future? He stated that he felt "billboards" and "third party signs" are applic ble to the same type of sign and that this cod prohibit th m twice. Mr. Arouri stated that he felt the inclusion of a "grandfather clause" should also be consid red furth r by the Co11111ission. Hr. Amuri also question d why both faces of a ground sign should b measured in determining the area of th sign. Hr. Arouri discussed th provision dealing with maint nanc of nd qu stion d whom d th d termination th ta ign was inn d of nc ; h st t d h flt this should b sp 11 d out. Hr. Amuri th n s ction of th propos d Cod p rtaining to Permits. H not d ign pint r, h h d r c ntly h d to ren w his liens in th nd paid $50 for th t 1~c na . Howev r, other p opl I • • • • • - -1]- co uld 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 CoUD11ission 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 special 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 communities 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 sec tion of the Code, it is written into this section that "The 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 3igns. 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 hav a license. Mr. Ed Cordov , 3431 South Bro dway, Mr. Cordova stat d that he owns Fl sh Tailors , and that to that location, th building was dil pidated warehous structur • atat d that they have gone through th xp n of ch nging the f cad of th building, changing th signag , nd had to remov a marqu n old sin , and ant nn s from the roof of th building. Mr. Cordov stat d thst h beli v s i .n th Sign Cod as it i now writt n, and urged that it b pas d, particularly a it concerns th Downtown Engl wood business ar a. Mr. Cordova stat d that h generally agr es with the proposed 5ign Code as it ia written for th r - mainder of th City of Eng lwood. h r commended approval be given to th proposed Cod , and that it be impl mented illlD diately. Mr. Phil Gri1111 , Fr m n Signa, was sworn in. Hr. Gri.mll ask d if two contiguou str ta ar consider d as a tr t frontag? • Pow rs at t d th t not f 1 thia ia writt Division at ff nd Pl pos d cod , but th r thia ia corr ct . n into th Cod • nnin C01111iaaion h ar a point• h Mr. Gr11111 atat d that he did Hr. Gri1111 ata t d that th Pl nnin& v don a lot of work on th pro- wiah d to 118k. Hr. CrilD atat d I • • n • • • • -14- that he felt the proposed size of signs could hurt some people; for in- stance, if the maximum square footage for a ground 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 revamp d, it is possible that different signage could be used at that tim. Mr. Johnson again pointed out that the "grandfather clause" would b very important to his business. Hr. Johnson stated that basically, the Sign Code is a good id a, but should be rewritten. Mrs. Becker stated that if she understood Hr. Johnson's t stimony correctly, he feels that 85% of his patronage comes from p ople driving through the City of Englewood who stop becaus of his sign. Sh a ked if p ople didn't come into his place of business because of the typ of business he has? Mr. Johnson reiterated that 85% of his business com s from r sidents out- sid the City of Englewood. Hr. 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 ? Hr, Johnson tat d that U.S. 285 carries heavy traffic, and that a sign is needed to notify motorists of his business location. H tat d that if shopping c nters are going to b built wher peopl can drive at 10 mph, it'• fine; but h urg d th t th busin ssmen who r not locat din a shopping c nt r nd who ar in busin ss in th area not b penaliz d. Mr. All n a k d wh t Mr. Johnson consid rd to b th optimum size of a sin nd the optimum hight? Hr. Johnson stat d that hie sign ia probably 30 f tin height • • I • • • • • • -15- Mr . St e v e Youel of Gordon Sign Company again addressed the Commission. He stated that he has been involved with si gn ordinances for e leven y ears. He s tat e d 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 ad e quat e , and that if it were to be e nforced , it could upgrade the area. Ms . Becker asked Mr. Youel if he was familiar with the Fo rt Collins Sign Code ? Mr. Youel stated that he was familiar with some of the newer areas of Fo rt Collins, and that the ordinance is applicable to the new areas. Ms . Becker stated that th e Sign Code mu st also be applicable to the older downtown area, and discussed her favorable impression in driving through the main business area of Fort Collins. She stated that what Fort Collins has achieved is very much in keeping with what she envisions the City of Englewood is tryi ng 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 size of signs to 100 sq uare feet, the Fort Collins Code permits signs up to 150 square feet in s ize. Mr. Youel stated that he felt there were two issues that really need further consideration by the City, those issues being that of the "grandfather clause", and the issue of optimum size of signs. He coounented that he felt the majority of the signs that are of concern to the Commission and staff have been up since before the 1974 Sign Code was adopted. Mr. McBrayer took issue with the argument that large signs are needed on streets which carry high-speed traffic, and cited Havana Street which carries considerable traffic, but the signs along this thoroughfare are smaller than those which are along South Broadway or U.S. 285 through Englewood. Mr. Yo uel suggested that the staff should talk to Mr. Janssen in Denver regarding the attrition and amortization of signs. Mr. Youel stated that signs are removed voluntarily by some businesses and sign companies when leas es e xpire or businesses cease. Mr. Yo tt el stated that he fe lt the Sign Companies and businesses that put signs up unde r a legitimate permit have the right to maintain those signs. Mr. Jim Klein , 630 West Hampde n Avenue, was s worn in and stated that he h a d j u s t gone into business in Englewood, so his sign would have a 10-year lif span b fore it would have to be removed. However, he stated that he would f el "chagrined" if he were to be allowed to keep his large sign for 10 y a r s and e v ryon around him had to replac their signs within three y rs . Mr. Kl in s tated that new bus inessmen want to b come a part of t h communit y and thy are part of th community 's conomics; he pointed o ut t h t bu in ss supports cities, and that the businessmen are residents a nd ci t izens of th e city nd should enjoy privil ges of that c ity. He s t a ted that he flt the businessmen are asking the staff and commission to work with them. Tho s V. Holland, Assist nt City Attorney, was sworn in. Mr. Holland tated that h flt there were three issues which had been raised before th Coaaission that re legal issues, and that he would like to address th Mr. Holland stated that the first issue is wh e ther or not the pro- po d Sin Cod compli s with th Colorado Supr m Court decision on the Lak wood Sin Cod. Mr. Holland stat d that th Coanunity Development staff a nd th City Attorn y 's staff have worked togeth r to make sure that the Cod is wrltt n to comply with th t Supr m Court d ciaion, and that he f ls omfort bl that th City of Engl wood has proposed Sign Cod that d o a comply with this Court d cision • --------~-------~------·-------- I • • • • • - -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 ma y 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. Hodler 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. Pi rson asked the Commission's choic on this matt r? Ms. B cker 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 testiaony have be n hard by the Comnission; there have been compromises made on concerns that have been express d by the businessmen and general public, and he felt it was tim to 1118k a decision. Hr. Tanguma stated that he would gr e with Mr. McBrayer that it is tim to mak ad cision. Ms. B cker stat d that sh v r, sh tated that sh agr d th t th City d s rv d d cision; how- felt th C011111iasion needed to carefully review • I • • -• • • -17- the testimony and concerns that have been pre sented at this meeting, and noted that it is now 10:00 P.M. She was c oncerned that this might not result in as "careful" a decision as s hould be made. Mr . Allen stated that h e also felt a d ecision should be made at th is meeting. The vote was c alled on the motion to table: AYES: Barbre, Bec ker, Draper, Senti NAYS : Carson, McBrayer, Pierson, Tanguma, Allen The motion failed. McB r aye r moved: Ca r son seconded: The Planning Commission recoounend that the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, §22 .7, be amended by repeal of the existing Sign Code, 522.7, and adoption of the proposed Sign Code dated January 19, 1982. Mr . Allen s tated that h e 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 h e feels the existing Sign Code is s ufficient to t ake care of th e problems and con cerns 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 dat e . Ms. Becker r ei terated h e r favorable impression of the signag e in Fo rt Collins. Ms. Becke~ stated that she did not feel the size of sign had that mu ch to do with ability to find a particular place of business; that if one really wanted to find a particular business it can be don without larg signs. Ms. Becker stated that she felt the proposed Sign Code was appropriate. Mr. McB r aye r 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 consid r is the Sign Cod • He stated that he did not feel new businesses and revit liz tion fforts hould b concentrated around old signs. Hr. Mc8rayer noted that many thousands of dollars have been sp nt on the downtown r vit liz tion effort to this d te. Hr. HcBrayer stated that the Commission and st ff have compromised on th matter of amortization of signs to grant every sign a llf of 10 y ars, and thac he did not feel a drastic hardship is bing createJ for anybody. H urged that the first step be taken and that pprov 1 b ~iven to the propos d Sign Co d e. Mr. All n stated that r vit tion efforts for downtown Englewood have b en going on for 22 y ars, but n verb fore has g tting rid of signs been th first thing that had to don. H stat d th t the size of a sign h n v r b nan issu befor • Mr. All n stat d that he thinks Engl wood is bing r vitallz d, and h dos not f 1 it is proper to i mpo se hardships on th busin ss p opl Hr. All n d that h is very much in favor of revitaliz tion, but c no s g of th propos d Sign Code. Th VOt w s 11 don th • tion: • I • • • • r -18- AYES: NAYS: Becker, Carson, McBrayer, Pierson, Senti, Barbre 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 comp leted 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 th 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 Coneission has be n postponed. The staff has met with Mr. HcMinimee, the Director of Co1m111nity Development in Littleton, and agree that there are many cannon problems facing both municipalities. Ms. Powers suggested that the Co11111ission consider matters which might be discussed prior to the meeting with the Littleton Co11111ission. Brief discussion ensued. Hatters which were mentioned as being of cOIIDOn 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. Pi rson tat d that s h would nt rtain a motion to approve th Minutes of J nuary 5, 1982. B rbr mov d: Carson a cond d: Th Minut s of January 5, 1982, be approv d aa writt n. AYES: HcBray r, Pi raon, S nti, Tanguma, Allen, Barbr , Becker, Carson, Dr p r NAYS: Non Th mtoion carri d, Hr. Orap r xpr d concern th t p rhaps th Coau.ssion h d exce d d th ir scop of r sponaibility in the decision regarding th r pair of aotorcycl s I • • - • • • • -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. I • • In • • • • MEMORANDUM TO THE Fl'IGLEWOOD CITY COUNC IL REGARDING ACTION OR RECCMMFl'IDATIOO OF TIIE CITI PLANNING AND ZOOING COMMISSION DATE: January 19, 1982 SUBJB::T: Amendment of Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: Mc Brayer moved: Carson seconded: The Planning Commission recommend that the Comprehen- sive Zoning Ordinance, 122.7, be amended by repeal of the existing Sign Code, 122.7, and adoption of the proposed Sign Code dated January 19, 1982. AYES: Becker, Carson, McBrayer, Pierson, Senti, Barbre NAYS: Draper, Tanguma, Allen The motion carried. By Order of the City Planning and Zoning Commission • I • • • • • - STAFF REPORT Page -1- ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT Case 1/9-81 STAFF REPORT RE: Amendment to §22.7 of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, the Sign Code. DATE: Code. January 19, 1982, a Public Hearing to consider revisions to the Sign DESCRIPTION: At the suggestion of the Downtown Development Authority and the Down- town Business Association, revisions to the Sign Code, §22.7 of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, have been under consideration. The proposed revisions will add guidelines and regulations not presently covered in the current code. BACKGROUND: The present Sign Code was adopted by Ordinance No. 18 of 1974, upon the recommendation of a committee which had worked on the development of the code for almost 18 months. Much new development and redevelopment has taken place since that time, and persons on both the Englewood Downtown Development Author ity and Downtown Business Associat ion boards have requested the City co consider a- mendments to the code , being of the opinion that it no longer provides the necessary controls to assure good signage. The proposed Sign Code revisions include major changes in sign area, heights of signs, sign face and signable area. The r vis d Sign Cod was presented to the Planning and Zoning Com- mission on S pt mb r 9, 1981. As a r sult of questions raised by the Commission rs, further r visions wer mad to th Code nd it wa s then presented at a public me tin h ld on S pt mb r 22 , 1981. Th purpose of the meeting w s to solicit co nts from EDDA, OBA, th Ch b r of Comm rce, th Board of Adjustm nt nd Appe la and th form r City Sign Cod Committ m mb re on th new ch ng s. B cau of th number o obj ctiv comment which w re d , it wa s flt that noth r public tin hould b held which would incorpo rat additional changes. Amend A made to the Sign Cod b don th tin • w r th ahoppin c ntera . Shoppin C nt r • • not th sta f and h ld juat ave th I • • - ' • • • STAFF REPORT \ Page -2- ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT Case i/9-81 • businessme n a chance to hear about the new Sign Code c hanges and gave the staff additional opportunity to incorporate changes in the proposed Sign Code. These changes addressed specific concerns of the businessmen wh o had studied the proposed code. Because of the suggestions and comments made during the previous public and group meetings, additional revisions were made in the B-1, B-2, I-1 and I-2 zones. Also, as the result of a memo from the Assistant City Attorney to the Director regarding the legality of the Lakewood Sign Code, revisions in the proposed Sign Code have been made to address those issues. As a result of the connne nts received at the November 4, 1981 Public Hearing, additional revisions to the proposed Sign Code were made. These include: 1. Allowing Department to designate an alternative area for signage if no signable area exists. 2. Increase the time period for removal of prohibited signs from 60 days to 180 days. 3. A reordering of the format of certain sections of the proposed Sign Code. On De cember 1, 1981, a special meeting of the Planning and Zoning Connnission was held to consider the revisions to the proposed Sign Cod and amortization options prepared by the Planning Division staff. The r sult of this meeting was to approve the revisions and choose an amortization schedule for nonconforming signs. This schedule would grant thr e (3) years to signs for which no valid permit exists and for signs for which a valid p rmit exists that have been in existence for seven (7) or more years prior to th dat th proposed Sign Code is enacted. Signs with a valid permit and that have b n in existence for less than seven (7) years prior to the dat th propo d Sign Code is enacted, wou ld be grant d 10 years minus the number of years th ign has been in existence. Signs, by an appal prohibited from the n Attorn y's "A". Att nd mos an outlin Furth r revisions w re made to th S tion 22.7-11, Nonconforming adding a section to provid for th r gistration o( such sins and pro dur • Slmil r r visions w re mad for abandon d.hazardous and igns in S ction 22.7-12 , 13 and 14. Th se r visions w re dapted w wed nd litt r ordinance b sed on th r co ndation of th City Office, Th staff findings of fact and conclu ion chm nt "B" includ s 1 tt rs r c iv d r l tiv from th Traffic Engin rand Fir Mar shal. of th propoa d Sign Cod . • r pr s nt din Attach nt to th propos d Sign Cod Attach nt "C" contains I • • n - • • ATTACHMENT "A" • • • DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO STAFF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION IN THE MATTER OF CASE NO. 9-81,) FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS ) AND RECOMMENDATION RELATING TO) THE REPEAL OF SECTION 22.7 OF ) THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORD!-) 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 THE ) ENGLEWOOD SIGN CODE, ) The Planning Division staff, 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 foll owing 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 Compr h nsiv Plan, the City Council adopt d c rt in goals for th City, which go ls affirm the desire of the citiz ns of Englewood to, inter alia: 3. Th To encourag and support the vitality and the xistin vari ty of establish d busin sse1; To provid th cli te for attractin n w busin 1s a, thus increasin our tax ba1 ; and To upgrade marginal us a and tor plac or r habili- tate d teriorating atructur a. To improv th 1e co mu1t b lotl th viaual a1p eta of bu1in a1 a alon rcial atripa. To this nd, att ntion iven to aign control , landacapin of parkin nd public ar a1, nd oth r a nitie1. Toi prov th viaual u lit th City. a 1tated proj ct oal o th ln l wood Downto • I • • -• • • -L- Development Authority is to: Create an attractive downtown as a focus for community activity and pride. 4. 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. 5. That the present Sign Code was adopted by Ordinance No. 18, Series of 1974, and has remained unchanged since its adoption while conditions in Englewood have changed with substantial new development and redevelopment. 6. That evidence demonstratea 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 at- tainment of the stated goals. 7. That c ertain signs, because of their noncommercial nature, should not require a permit, those being: Bulletin Boards, Elec tion Signs, Flags of Nations, Organization of Nations, States or Cities, Holiday Decorations, Identification Signs, Ideological Signs , Illuminated Buildings, Memorial Signs, On-Site Information 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 . 8. That certain signs should be prohibited in all Zone Districts, thos bing: Animated Signs, Banners, Pennants, Va lances, Wind-Powered Device s , Billboards and Flashing or Blinking Signs, wh ich signs tend to dist r act the driver's attention from th roadway to th sign , which caua s n sp cially h zardous situation in the business district with traffic signals , cross traffic, turning v hicl a, vehicl a pulling into and out of parking pac s, nd esp cially with th d strian mov nt at inters ctiona nd mid-block. Portable Signs nd Wh led Adv rtising D vices which are not a fix d location and often b com pla d ao a1 to b an obstruction to motorist• or pd 1trian1. Additional probl ms occur wh n Portabl Siana are inadv rt ntly kno k d ov r by th wind or a roup of pd strians. Outdoor Di1play of K rch ndi on Public Right- of-Way whi h ould blo k or d tract rOII traf i 1i n1 and int rf r with pd 1tri n IIOV nt • • I • • - • • • • -3- Roof Signs which can pose significant problems to firefighting operations if a fire has mad e significant headway inside a building or i f tactical roof operations are required. Ad- ditionally, these signs can obstruct water application, interfere with efforts to venti- late smoke and toxic gases, increase the danger of roof collapse and present possible electric al hazards. Because of height, motorists looking at such signs may lose proximity perspective with traffic. Flashing or Blinking Signs and Search Lights which can be mistaken for an emergency signal o r a traffic control device. Signs on Fences, Third Party Signs and Billboard s which have a distracting effect on motorists and causes them to remove their attention from traffic conditions. Strings of Light Bulbs used for commercial purposes which can cause glare and temporary blindness to the motorist. 9. That certain signs should be s ubject to annual regis- tration, those being: Contractor Signs and Real Estate Signs. 10. That s igns 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 a nd quality of neighborhoods in Engl wood. 11 . That signs permitted in residential zone districts for nonresidential uses should be limited in number, size , height and type so that the appropriate and necessary information is transmitted in a way compatibl with th r sidential nature of the area in which such uses are located. 12. That signs p rmitted in commerc ial and industrial zon districts should be limited in numb r, size, height and typ so a to• ford all commercial and industrial int rests an quitable opportunity to adv rtis and met th go ls set out in th Compr h nsiv Pl n. 13. Th t th number of ign p rmitt din commercial and industrial zon districts should b b s don system that r lats th number of signs p rmitt d to th frontag of the lot on which such us re locat d. 14. vi u 1 clutt r, improve Compr h n iv Pl n. That maximum ign rea should be reduc d to leas nth dverti ing opportunity nd help met th oal of th 15, That p rmitted sign typ • should b regulated as to location so as to incr s visibility of th si na nd liminat pot ntial h zarda to th public h alth, saf ty nd w lfar • 16. That c rtain typ • of ai na, b caus o circum t nc a und r which thy r utiliz d, should not cou nt a • th uniqu in at 111Aximu I • • • • • -4- sign area or maximum sign number, those signs being: -Drive Thru Identification Signs which are necessary to convey consumer and traffic safety information. High-Rise Building Identification Signs which are for buildings in the commercial, industrial and R-3 zone districts, should be permitted for identi- fication at a scale consistent with the height of the building. Joint Identification Signs which are necessary to provide 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 infor- mation. Signs Set Back from Public Right-of-Way which provide compensation for businesses located at a substantial distance from the public right -of-way. 17. That to improve and enhance the aesthetic character of the City, met the goals of the Comprehensive Plan, and protect the residential, f'. coamercial, and indu trial areas in the City, it is necessary to seek the removal of signs which detract from the aesthetic standards of the conmrunity or which pose a threat to the public health, safety and wel fare, in the most expeditious manner po sible, those signs being: I • Nonconforming Signs which currently exist in th City of Englewood; the removal of which signs requires the development of a pro ess which wi ll allow for an equitabl return on th investment in such signs wh il providing for th ir removal in a reasonable period of time. Prohibited Sign currently existing in the City of Engl wood; which, in ord r to t the goals of th Comprehensiv Plan and to provid a mor attractiv and aaf co rcial, industrial and re idential environ nt, should be remov din• r asonable period of time, -Abandoned Signs which curr ntly exist in the City of Englewood and thos which will be abandoned in the future; which signs are misl ding to th public, unattractiv and poa a potential hazard nd should th refore b r mov dinar aaonable p riod of time. z rdou Siana which curr ntly xist in th City En 1 wood, which ai na poa a thr at to th public 1th, aa aty nd lfar nd th r for at b v din th ahortaat ti poaaibla • • I • - • • ' • • • • -5- CONCLUSION Therefore, it is the conclusion of the Planning Division staff that the proposed Sign Code should be approved as written and referred to the City Council for their consideration and approval • • I • - r • • • • ATTACHMENT "B" The following attachments are letters and memos received by the Department of Community Development which are relative to the proposed Sign Code. • I . • • - - d oing b usiness a s ENGLEWOOD Business Associati.on March 19, 1981 Mayor Eugene L. Otis and Council t1eni>ers City of Englewood 3400 So . Elati Ehglewood, CD 80110 Mayor Otis and Council Merrbers : Che of the main nnctirns of d .b .a . /Fnglewood is the revitalization of business in the Central Business Di.strict of Englewood. This area is zoned, by the Planning and Zoning O:rmri.ssion, B-1 where it i $ necessary to identify businesses, services or other activities by the use of signs . Stated tnder 22. 7-1 of the rehensive Zonin Ordinance C,eneral Statement are goals and re ations which are app ie to ... protect e p ic . . . , " .. encourage signs which are well designed ... ", and "to provide a reasonahle balance ... " to restrict the proliferation of discordant signs and similar devices. lhder 22 . 7-10 Abandoned Si s A. Termination of Abandoned Si " The · splay of any sign together with it s supporting structure), now or hereafter existing, which, 90 days or more after the premises on which it is located have been vacated, advertises an activity, business, product or service no longer produced or conducted upon the premises upon which such si!!Tl is located, shall be terminated aid such sil?Jl re!IOved". Signs of this natur create a "typical" look to downtown areas, uncared for vacant buildings, usually with mattractive, antiquated signage . In the process of i.Ir()roving business it is necessary to provide a clean fresh, interesting l k to attract busin ss and sroppers to the area . rs and the ard of Di.rectors for d. b . a. /F.nglewood realize this is an on oin pro 1cm which must be cons antly supervised . In h case of vac t prop rty it is necessary that City Council and Staff b notified o pro lC!llS o this sor to pr cipitat th necessary actions to allevia th problerm. This 1 tter is specifically ddressing &e property a }~61 uth Broadway, " and Lee's Jewelry ." To ha c fonnmc with Sign Code Ordina,ce and not cause any un expense to small busines s and pro rt:y OWl rs, fee l it is necessary co "nip c problan in th hud" b fore moth r business moves in, thereby alleviating the problem step by step and ~roving our C.B.D. ing you, in advan , for your prcrnpt atten i to this matter . Sincerely yours, 535 ' uth ·Mrman 'ui 175 • E • .7 2 151 • I • • - Page 2 City Coi.ncil ( C:X:: P6 • (, • • • • Ifu-1r1 Qiltaker Board Mmt>er 7&~~ Board Heuber --·-~tdLL C: JSm~ . Board Mmt>er • I . • - • --,_ ... .._A ..... o.iw-~-tt D2·1111 .. 30,Sowtt ........ t.~.c.i.,.--110 a,.a11 1 , .. .__ ............ .......... o..r.-••• 232 2111 IMIOIIMffl'I ,.._ -c:.,.--1)2 2111 1' ,~,.,. a,.. Clillll ... ..,, -1-.. --,.,.~c.w ... ...,, H71l'OI ·-.. _ .... -c--••• t»JIJI 1:,00 W- -~-1 1)12111 ( .. C:0,,0-•• ,,. c-oa ... I 1111 Jl101.-M -_0.-... 1111121 • • • • fnt rad1ral $amgB and loan AssoaabOO 215 South Wadsworth Blvd./ L.akewOC>d, ColOl'ado 80226/ (303) 232-2121 ...... r 2, 1911 Ma. lua&D l'Vll9r• Director of C e1tJ oavelopaallt CltJ of 1 .. 1.-ocl 3400 ,. n,u n. 1 .. lnoo', 00 IOllO Dear Ma. ro-ra, •• ha-rMine• tbe OotONr 27, ltll draft of tbe propo .. d a11a ao4a •• a11pport its,. ...... laatrlctloaa OD aad con• foraitJ of al&u la 1,alawoocl abould be bemflcial to tbe City a8' all of ua ,01• bllaiDaH tbanla. If JCN ha•• aay queatlou, pla&M call at any U•. 11-..nlJ, l'DIT l'lmML MVDCI A11D LOUI illOCIAflm CII IIIIIVD ca : Carel aa-l•J, NaU&•r 1 .. 1~ Office _.,. __ _ ·----- I • • In • • • • , . ;_., , . '\ '. .. : . i .. .. Valley Motors ! 4550 South Br oadwa y Englewood. Co lo ra do 801 10 . Telephone (303) 761 7092 Ci TY r.,1\t,,,.,:, . -i~ ... :· E~GlFWQOO }JOVE ber 9 , l'.)81 City of '""ng lewood '.:400 S . ,lati ~na l c~ooc , co 80110 ')e:1r Honorable nayor and City Counc i l Members , As th-= mmcr of wo retail bus ir.csses in -:ngle,:ooc , Valle~' ~1otors Co . and Auto Boe:, und Paint Center , I ar.1 intercstec in the proposef revi'"ion in the City 's si~ coce . I 3t endef the> City Co1mcil r.1ceting Novrr.1ber 4 , 1981 , a which hi£ ?roposal •·1us pu:)lirly niscussec1 . l'ne to the 1 nath of t hP 11eet:i ng I was 1,n'l.ble o adclrec;s th" Council , but I ~:ish to e::z:-rc'"'" --.y personal v iew" on thir si~ roposal no·. Bo ' o: ::,,r busirec,c:es have c;isns th a t '-'Oulc comr>lY ,Ji th he propor.cf sign c~fe , ~t hat meet·na , a phot o of on of ~y_si:ns •:n"-:·rec: r1 0~ a"" ~n e~·1;'1plc cf ,1hat 1:rovlc mee t ew sign coc.e T0c::ui1 n"n r., ,\'" a b t '"incssnan •::hose signs ·:1ou1c· compl~·. I , ror.'"ibl/ uble to o"f<'r he> Covrcil a more nevtral v i0·u:-,oin h 111 thOSI"' who ·. 11..,l( be ad v Prc;ly affected finar.cially by the prop " 1 • I o ,,nry, th tir ,i h the intrn or the e.ign coce rroposal . /111 J • erchant~ n'.lturally ·~·L nt a rac i.vc c:igns in their ,1 ,·hich arc blc to <'raw cur,tom0r'". However , a 1 ca" t •JO thi nc" can be done ~· he City o i~ cor'.e , 1 . \ Jr nc.f h r cl2.t '"f' c;h-,uld be ;:,ar of he new cod This cli'\u'"e ~houlc' ul low <in incefinate ;,c~ioc or irre t or ,li'lCC r.on -corr.plvinn $lrns c;.it' to h'?iSh , ,.·~, brichtncs~. n ' loc; i;n , ~ ~. C11rrcr. c-irn coce: -. ovision"" r.houlc' bf' r-r."o~ceC:. uain ss-in r.:y n~iah oraoo( ha"" had -b 9 dli , mi'lgec "l '.Jl"• "or 11r.:o \/O y0.arc:, but no .:ip rer.t ff r h :. been 1,at' to re 1ecc it . ndentty o .. Md and QPetll~ • I • • I r., - • • • • , Please consic.er the f inancial hardships that certa in prov isions of this proposal could cre a te among the Ci ty 's existing businesses . '';_~ ~ Bahne Valley Motors Co . and Auto Bod y and Paint Center • I • • - • \ • TO: FROM: DATE: • • • Sue Powers, Director Conmunity Development Walt Groditski, Fire Marshal December 3, 1981 SUBJECT: Effect of Roof Signs on Fire Protection ., f I discussed the issue of roof signs with the Fire Depart:aent staff at our December 2nd staff meeting. It was the unan!-,us opinion of the staff that roof signs can pose significant problems to firefighting operations if a fire has made significant headvay inside a building or if tactical roof operations are required at a fire scene. Problems which may be caused by roof signs include obstruction to water application, interference with efforts to ventilate smoke and toxic gases through the roof, extra weight which increases the danger of roof collapse, possible electrical hazards in the vicinity of the sign, etc. I would concur with your proposal to remove existing roof signs for the above-mentioned reasons. Respectful ly, r Groditski WJ G/dm • I • • -• • • MEMORANDUM ---------- TO : Susan Powers, Director of Con111unity Development FROM: Joe B. Plizga, Traffic Engineer ,J{/1 DATE : December 29, 1981 SUUECT : §22 .7-6, Signs Prohibited in All Zone Districts Following are my comments regarding this section of the proposed Sign Code. §22 .7-6 b : Jlecolllllend substituting the Intersection cross-corner visibility chart from the Traffic Safety Plan (Table 7-1 , Page 7-5). f22 .7-6c : Tend to distract the drivers' attention from the roadway to the sign, especially hazardous in a central buainess district area with traffic signals, croas traffic, turning vehicles, vehicles pulling into and out of parking spaces , and especially pedeatrian movement at intersections and mid-blo ck s. S22 .7-6d : S22 .7-6e : S22 .7-6 f : S22 .7 -6g : S22 .7-6h : 122 .7 -61 : 12 2 . 7-6j . 12 2 .7-6k : Same as "c". Same a s "c". Same as "c" a n d might be mistaken for an eme r gency s i gnal or a traffic control device. Th e s e are not fixed and invariably become placed a a an ob s truction to motorists or pede strians . Additional problems occur when portable signs are inadv e rte ntly knocke d over by the wind or a group of pedestrians . Could b lock or de tract from traffic signs , interferes with pedes tria n movemen ts, a n d same as "c". He i f ht is usua lly s uch that it cauaes motorists to ook awa y from t ra ffic and los e proximity per- ape ctive with traffic . Also, roof signs do not h ave an a de q uat e back drop and motoriats might b - c oae t emp ora rily blinded by the sun. Sae as "f". Sign• ahould be placed uniformly and at anticipated I • • - • • • • • Susan Powers December 2~. 1981 Page -2- §22 .7-61 : §22.7-6m: §22 .7 -6n: gw locations to minimize the amount of time motorists must remove their attention from traffic conditions. Unexpected signs should be avoided because of their distraction effect on the motorist . Refer to "c". Any direct lighting could cause a glare to the motorist resulting in temporary blindness. Same as "k". Same as "g". • • I • • - • • • • • ATTACHMENT "C" §22,7 SIGN CODE §22.7-1 General Statement. §22.7-2 Scope and Application of this Section. §22.7-3 Permit for Group Signs. §22.7-4 Signs not Subject to Permit. a. Bulletin Boards. b. Election Signs. 1. Residential Zone. 2 . Commercial and Industrial Zones. c. Flags of Nations, Organization of Nations, States or Cities. d. Holiday Decorations. e. Identification Signs. f. Ideological Signs. g. Illuminat ed Buildings. h. ~emorial Signs. i. On-Sit Informational Signs. j. Private Parking or Traffic Direction Signs. k. Professional Signs. 1. Public Signs. m. Scor boards nd Time and T mperatur D vices. n. Sp ci 1 Ev nt Signs. o. Str t B nn rs. p. Syinbol1 or Cr st1 of Reli iou1, Fraternal, Prof asional or Civil Organization. q. V hi le Con1um r lnfonaation Sin • r. Works of Art • I • • - • • • • • §2 2.7-5 SIGNS SUBJECT TO YEARLY REGISTRATION a . Contractor signs b. Real Estate signs §22.7-6 Signs Prohibited In All Zone Districts. a. Any Sign not Permitted in the Designated Zone District. b. Any Sign within a 30' Triangle of an Intersection. c . Animated Signs. d. Banners, Pennants, Valances and Wind-Powered Devices. e. Billboards. f. Flashing or Blinking Signs, except Scoreboards and Time and Temperature. g. Portable Signs. h. Outdoor Display of Merchandise on Public Right-of-Way. i. Ro of Signs. j. Search Lights. k. Signs Painted on Fences. 1. Strings of Light Bulbs for Commercial Purposes. m. Third-Party Signs or Billboards. n. Wh eled Adv rtising Devices . §22.7-7 Signs Permitted in Residential Zon Distric ts: R-1-A, R-1-B, R-1-C, R-2, R-2-C, R-3, R-4. a. P rmitted Maximum Number. 1. R id nti 1 Uses -l Sign. 2 . Non-Residential Uses -2 Signs. b. P rmitt d Maximum Sign Ar a. 1. l, 2 and 3 Family Reaid ntial -Addition to th Ar a P rmitt d by S ction 22.7-4b , c, d, f. 2. R lig i ou s and Edu ational tnatitutiona, Public Buildin a nd Raid ntial Us a B tw n 4-39 0v llin Units. ). II pil 18, Clinics , Prof uional Offices and R sidential U es o f O or more 0v llin Units. 4 . 0th r lawful non-residential uses . • I • • I n - ( • • • • • ( -3- c. Permitted Sign Ty pes. I. Ground Signs. 2. Marquees, Canopy or Awning Signs. 3. Projecting Signs. 4 . Suspended Signs. 5. Wall Signs. 6. Window Signs. d. Home Occupation Signs -not more than 1 square foot in area, may be a wall or window sign. e, High-Rise Buildin~ Identification Wall Signs. f. Permitted Illumination. §22.7-8 Signs Permitted in Commercial and Industrial Zone Districts: B-1, B-2, I-1 and I-2. a. Permitted Maximum Number. b. Permitted Maximum Sign Area. 1. For All Permitted Uses: (a) For a Lot Having One (b) Fo r a Lot Having Tvo c. p rmitt d Sign Types. I. Ground Signs. Permitted Use: or More Permitted rqu a, Canopy or Awning Signs. 3. Proj ctin Sins. u p nd d Signs. 5. all Si na. 6. Windo Sina. d. Driv Thru ld ntification Signs. Hi h-iae Buildin Id ntification Wa ll Sina. f. Joint ld ntification Sina. ndary Sign,. h. Short Tena Advertising Signs. • Uses. I • • In n • -• • -4- i . Signs Set Ba c k from Public Right-of-Way . j. Pe rmitted Illumina tion. §22 .7-9 Sign Area Measurement. a. Area t o be Measured. 1. Signs with Backing. 2. Signs without Backing. 3. "Signable Area". 4. Irregular Outline. b. Number of Signs. §22 .7-10 Maintenance. §22.7-1 1 Nonconforming Signs. a . Reg i st ration of Nonc onforming Signs. b. Termination of Nonconforming Signs. c . Noncon fo rming Signs in Newly Annexed Areas. d . Appeals . §22 .7-12 Prohibit ed Signs. Notificat i on of Prohibited Signs . b. Appeals. c. F ilure to Comply with Notices. d. Notice of Costs. Asses m nt. f. Assessments: A Lien . g. 0th r Rm dies. 122.7-13 H z rdou Signs. I • • •• otif !cation of Hazardoua Signs. b. Appeal c. ilure to Comply with Notices. • • • • • -:,- d. Notice of Costs. ( e. Assessment . f. Assessments: A Lien. g. Other Remedies. §22.7-14 Abandoned Signs. a. Notification of Abandoned Signs. b. Appeals. c. Failure to Comply with Notices. d. Notice of Costs. e. Assessment. f. Assessments: A Lien. g. Other Remedies. §22.7-15 Permits. a. Application for Permit. b. Revocation of Permits. 1. Revocation of Permits for Non-Use. 2. Forfeiture of Fees. c. Plans, Specifications and 0th r Data Requested. d. Permit Fees. e. Identification and Marking of El ctrical Signs. f. Lie nsing and Insurance R quir menta. 122.7-16 D finitions. • I • • • • • n ~ NAME ADDRESS :z..~ ';!...., ~ J c' lN' JI !J 1 y J)t ,,Y LF l3YJS L"'?tcJ f f ~J 30 ,--- PUBLIC HEARING Before The CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION J ea~-y ~~~ lft.2 Ou -y-,L;,a/ (,l~r.,,, TELEPHONE OBSERVER /l, ~·· .. (<!._ l: z q -&/.ell /?'! -c,c, /!.- 7J J-/If 7 '7?/. 'lttf; I SfEAfr'ER / ( 1/ I I '-..,. -/ I ~ .• -::. jJ -~ i 1 .... · '-·~ ,._/ l l 1,.\. (" ) • I -·. . 1-; . \' ...... , . \ . _........,·1 ;·..1,·"1J ,_ ..-Z,,·L.-<-7--,, 7 ~~rx, 5' 7; 7;;-:J _; J"J,....-:~' ,-~, . . / ,I l • ;" ~ ,; /--, ,,,. ;t • • • I WISH TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COIIIIISSION IN FAVOR v 'r, r- ~--,;:..//-,,.:, ·1 , ...... ' -) IN OPPOSITION I NO POSITION y • • • ...;..., ~ . / • I ' /, I -,: ~ ,1• '-'t-~"-- I PUBLIC HEARING Before The CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COIIIIISSION on r,,..,o/ /9 d/'-'?c __ / ' .L ~ -,.<3 '/ ~ 50'()/ s" ~12tii/Dw-+!d J :: ~ ~· ::. "\ '::?,,c, ' , . . -~ --·---·------ /; ·'//'"~ .// ", ,!.'. )' "";" -# ,./ -. , ... , 3 ~'>I .,,£c. /00~~,l., (-";tJ',,J,rn. .J<t'i~ f ~ __,CJ 3} w ' 1 ( ,,..:, i I TELEPHONE OBSERVER "7/', I -I 7 .;a e o&S\,4?.v~ (' ') '.,., ,-> J , ) \ , ~ ~~"'- b;J 0 -6 /). / -; ---- 7 <i i-J YJ t I ,A,r A- C,/;,, '.,) ~ J-\, ,:. ,::__ • • • I WISH TO ADDRESS THB PLANNING COMMISSION IN FAVOR IN OPPOSITION I NO POSITION • )< )( • L _ ~----~--~--~-•----~~---------~---- I NAME I JJ (} tv' s Gj 171 iJ v "-. I .:}) • ~ ~ y.£) &. ~ #,,9J/tQ rJ;;;j{ f<i?rJt [/(_ l., 1---l,· /-r \/ -J j./l,, <k..'-L -;f!c t1~/)·q__ / I l u I PUBLIC HEARING Before The CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COIIMISSION r:t;i,:::~ ADDRESS TELEPHONE OBSERVER lf ,;51J .t, f_ ///;/V 7,9/-77-2-7 5/ 151'-/t _5~P~ S g_ '7~/-~JJ.3 ., ;; ~-'.£)'-v/ -" t.j3oo J( JJ ,.:, Jr,r""fzt 7 f;-li,,. ,-3 J. q 3<? Id q /!-, /lv e.. b;?-1 -(, J ~ I / 3 13 I .J~ ,1-/;r /J 7g1. 31/f v , .. • • • I WISH TO ADDRESS THB PLANNING CCIDlISSIOJlf IN FAVOR IN OPPOSITION NO POSITION x • / • 0 • • • PUBLIC HEARING Before The CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COIOllSSION a on &V/.4-:&.(; ~ d.rre ' /~ .4-,~ ~ - I WISH TO ADDRESS THB PLANNING C01111IS8I0ll I NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE OBSERVER IN FAVOR IN OPPOSITION NO POSITION I Kach a/ nu )Q)'75 3L/to o S 13,o,--1dv.JaJ.f JC:,;}-/ f'/7 X ~ • -J • • .. 0 ----I • • • PUBLIC HEARING Before The CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION a on ~z: I WISH TO ADDRESS TUB PLANNING COMIUS8ION NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE OBSERVER IN FAVOR IN OPPOSITION NO POSITION . \~ ~ .~,'+-..--Lfo'ii'i ~~ C:i:il/"nAc,, ,x~ .71c::,/ / • • U\ I '\ \ I • I - • • • • • CITY OF ~GLDIOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION February 2, 1982 7:00 P. "!• I. Call to Order. II. Approval of Minutes: January 19, 1982 III. Findings of Fact: Case #3-82. IV. Review of Motorcycle Repair in B-2 Zone District. Case #2-82. V. Reorganization of Commission. VI. Public ForUIII. VII. Director's Choice. A. Downtown Development Plan 8. Prowswood C. Agenda for Englewood/Littleton Planning COlllllission meeting. D. VIII. Coaaissioner's Choice. IX. Adjourn. • -- • I • • n - • • • - 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: Pow r s, 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 Cotmnission. Mr. Stoel was appointed for a four-year term by City Council, and will fill the seat vacated by Mr.&! Draper. Mr. Thad Carson was reappointed to the Planning Cotmnission for a four-y ar 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 Commis ion 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 Februar y 23rd. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. Mrs. Pierson stated that the Minutes of January 19, 1982, were to be con- sidered for approv 1, Carson mov d: T ngum s cond d: Th Planning Commiesion approv th Minutes of January 19, 1982, as writt n. AYES: McBray r, Pi r a on, S nti, Tanguma, Barbr , B ck r, Carson NAYS: Non ABSTAIN: Sto l ABSENT: Allen The motion carri d. III. FINDINGS OF FACT Sign Cod CASE 13-82 Ch irman Pi raon stat d that Findings of Fact on th propos d r vision of th Sign Cod w r ob consider d for approval • • I • • n • • • - -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 Connnission 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 Connnission 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 hi s feeling that, taking into consideration the mann er 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 sit e specific basis, and that the Connnission 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 motorcyc le repair businesses should have the option to apply to the Planning Connnission for approval. Ms. Beck r expressed concern that the action of the Commission would pre- vent th individuals wishing to do motorcycle repair from locating in the B-2 Zon District. Ms. Becker stated that she was not really comfortable with the ramifications of the Commission decis ion. Ms. Pi r son pointed out that the buildin which had been proposed for use s a motorcycle r pair hop was in poor condi tion, and would not be brought up to Code by the applicant and/or property own r. Mr. Holland suggest d that th Comprehen iv Zoning Ordinanc should be nd d top rmit th approval of th Us a ot M ntion d s a conditional u within a p cific zon district. H not d th t thi woulds m to be th b st way, in this instance , to protect the B-2 Zon District in general from this typ of u , but still p rmlt motorcycl repair shops in sp cific location. Ms. Pow rs pointed out th t mendm nt to the Compreh n iv Zoning Ordinanc would r quir Public H arings b for th Pl nning Commis ion. M. Pi rson st t d that Di cuaaion nu d. M. B ck r or th motorcycl r pair shop , naid ring th possibility of n nt to th • basis. iv bl nk t or B-2 Zon ndm nt to th U1 s Not pplicant iuion h Zoning Ordin nc • I • • -• • • -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 wh e ther this should be referenced in the Findings of Fact? Ms . Pow rs s tated that this is addressed in the Sign Code, and is mentioned on Pag S of the Findings of Fact . Mr . McBrayer then questioned whether the Findings of Fac t specifically mentioned th e 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 wa s the determination of the Planning Commission at the close of the last meeting of January 19th, that their d cision re- garding motorcycl repair shops in B-2 should be r consider ed. Sh asked if the staff wished to make any comments? Ms. Romans stated that Senior Planner KJng has review d th records of Use s Not Mentione d beginning in 1964 through th pr sent date; ther have been 40 cases that hav been consid red by th Commission as Uses Not M ntioned, 17 of whi c h have b en auto-relat d. The majority of th d cisions rendered have been on a "si t sp cific" basis , rath r than a blanket approval for th entire zone district. Ms . ss d cone rn th decision r nd rd by th Commis ion would preclud motorcycl r pair hops in the entire S-2 nd not ju t at th ubj ct ite on E st Hampden Av nu • d that th r may b loc tion in th B-2 Zon Di trict r p ir sho p mi ht b ppropriat cone rn w s th condition of th , which Mr. And r on propo d to us th th did not f zatt r; h n of th ordin nc If th building could be brought up ff cone rn. The Planning COlll- that hould not b p rmitt d • p rmitt d in ss throughout r con ider d. Hr.Snti'1. H t th rulin 1h uld Zon Oietric t. n had that pr rog iv nt d to th Coaai1 ion IP Hie lite. I • • n - • • • • -4- Mr . Stoel stated he understood that Mr. Anderson had come to the City asking for approval of a motorcycle repair s hop . 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 &.lilding 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. Roma n s 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 "scoot e rs", 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 th staff became concerned about the building not meeting the Fire and a.Jilding Codes; the Building Division and Fire Department were asked to check out the s tructure, and it was their opinion that the structu r e would not met ither the Fire or a.Jilding Code, and tha the motorcycle repair should not be done in that structure until it wa s brought up to Co de. Mrs. Pierson stated that the reconsideration has been b rought before the Commission by motion at th 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. Mc Brayer sugg sted that perhaps the matter should be tabled until the s taff could compl t res arch on the proposed amendment . Dis- cussion e nsued. Mr. McBrayer stated that he was against making motorc ycl repair shops a permitted us in the B-2 Zone District. Mc Bray r moved: Carson conded: The Pl nning Commis ion r confirm the decision on Cas #2-82 to not allow motorcycl r pair as a permitted use in the B-2 Zan Districl. Mr. thi trict. noted that if th decision of the matt r confirmation of 19th would prev sit Th AY AYS: A F. T: w s call d: k r, nti, T All n n • st th m ting, to handle flt I • • • • • • -5- Assistant City Attorney Holland stated that at the meeting of January 19th, the Commission 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 wa s 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 repair businesses in this area if the Com- prehensive Plan is followed. She stated that if the Commission 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 Cbmmission is whether or not they want to consider motorcycle repair as a similar lawful use in the B-2 Zon District. He suggested possible wording on a motion if the Commission wanted to approve the motorcycle repair use. Further discussion ensued. Mr. Holland pointed out that the use is not permitted at the present tim, and unless the Commission votes to permit motorcycle repair in the B-2 Zon District, it will not be permitted. Mr. Holland reiterated that the issu before the Commission 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 p rmitted? Ms. Pow rs 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. Furth r discussion ensued. Mc Brayer moved: Carson seconded: The Planning Commission not allow motorcycle repair as a permitted use in the B-2 Zone District. AYES: T nguma, AYS: on A~ENT: All n rbr , The motion c rri d. Ms . Pi rBon Bk d th t th Zoning Ordin nc nabling on a Bit sp cific ba i. V. REORGANIZATION OF C ck r, Carson, Sto 1, M Bray r, Pierson, S nti ISSION. n am ndment to the Compr h nsiv B Not M ntioned to b con id rd fir t m ting in F brusry, th Coaaiadon Ms. usu n nd Vic -Chairman for th neuin y ar. k d for n011inations for Chairman. • I • • I - • • • • -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? TI,ere were no further nominations for Chairman. Carson moved: Barbre seconded: Nominations be closed, and Mr. McBrayer lected chairman. AYES: Barbre, Becker, Carson, McBrayer, Pierson, Senti, Stoel, Tanguma NAYS: None A BS ENT: Allen The motion carried . Ms. Pierson turned the Chair over to Mr. McBray r. Mr. McBrayer then asked for nominations for Vice-Chairman. Mr. Senti nominated Mrs. Marjorie Becker as Vice-Chai nnan of the Commission. Mr. Tanguma seconded the nomination. There were no further nomination s for Vic -Chairman. Carson mov d: Barbr econded: Th nominations be closed and Mrs. Vice-Chairman. cker b 1 cted AYES: Barbre, NAYS: None ABSENT: Allen cker, Carson, McBray r, Pierson, Sen ti, Stoel Th motion ca rried. VI. PUBLIC FORUM. o on was pr s nt to address th Commission und r Publi c Forum. VU. DIRECTO 'S CHOICE. • p th V Cr ion with cour th public nd Commission is bing put to- information on the ughlin h b n chos n to do k, th contra t with that fira will M. Pow rs stat d that Wri ht-M Lau hlin nt t ion on Lit tl Ory Cr probably possibly this could don with th t r int r t din Li tl Ory H • P that h und n ood • ) I • • - • • • • • -7- Wright-McLaughlin were to present three alternatives for consideration for the downtown section of the improvements, those alternatives being: (l) 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 02 , 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 s hould 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 s ubmitted 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 availabl at this time. Sh stated that the Commission could meet the evening of th 16th even though the City Council is also meeting, because neither of the items requir s a Public Hearing and there would be no need to use th Council Chamb rs. Sh 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 th met i ng were to be held on Wednesday, the 17th. Mr. McBrayer stated that the Commission should plan to meet on February 16th as originally sch dul d. Ms. Pow r stat d that them eting with th Littl ton Planning Commission has been sch dul d for F bruary 23rd. Discussion ensued regarding items of mutual concern to both En l wood and Littleton. Matters which were suggested for inclusion in th discussion were: 1. Bicycl Trail/Cre nwa y lt. 2, South Oriv -in Plan . 3. Cent nni 1 Ra ce Track. 4 . Ann xation Policy. 5. Sign Code. 6. S nta F Corridor. 7. Littl ton City H 11/Solar Syat II, Ma. Pow r 1 stat d that thi1 Room, nd would b an infonaal would probably b gin at :00 o r VIII. Hr. Barbr di xp ri n in • tin would b in th Library Conf r nc 1 ion with sandwi ch 1 , tc. Th II tin 0 P.H. nta alon out Clar ar all w d to ro • on ar in o I • • • • • -8- Englewood and they knock over the trash c ans 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 s taff could investigate the poss i bility 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 adjourn d at 8:15 P.M. • I • • - ( • • • - -9- ME}fORANDUM TO THE ENGLE\oOOD 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 Commission. • I • • • • • - -10- DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO FINDI NGS, CONCLUSIONS, A'/D RECOMMENDATION IN THE MATTER OF CASE NO. 3-82, ) FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS ) AND RECOMMENDATION RELATING TO ) THE REPEAL OF SECTION 22 .7 OF ) Tl:IE 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 THE ENGLEWOOD SIGN ) CODE. ) TIie Planning Commission, after a review of evidence tak en during a Public Haring and during public and special meetings, tog th r with a surv y of other metro ar a sign codes , a comparison to sign cod standards , mod 1 ign ordinanc sand general and technical sign r fer nc wo r ks , mak s th followin finding of fact: Fl 'DI."GS OF FACT 1. TI!at upon th r coma ndation of th Ci t y Planning nd Zonin Comm ission, th City Council adopted a Comp r hensive Plan for th City of Englewood by Resolution o. 49, Seri a of 1979 , on December 3, 1979 , and that 113 Englewood citiz n activ lv participated in th dev lopm nt of that Plan. 2. That in pproving th Co prehen iv Plan, the City Council dopted c rtain go ls for th City, which goals affirm th d air of th cltiz ns of En 1 ood, int~r alia: To ncour g vari ty of To provid thu incr and support th st bli h d busin d th exiting for attracting n w busin 8 X b 8 ; nd To upgrad margin l us 8 and tor plac or r h bilit t d t rioratin atru tur 8. to ar buain 88 alon nd, att ntion ust b iv n of parkin lots nd public To iapr v th vt u 1 qu lity o th City . • ) I • • ( • • - -ll- 3. That a stated project goal of the Englewood Downtown Develop- ment Authority is to: Create an attractive downtown as a focus for conununity activity and pride. 4. That the Planning Conunission 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 conanunity purposes of being beautiful, healthy, spacious, clean, well-balanced, and safe. 5. That the Planning Conunission 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 Cod was adopted by Ordinance No. 18, Series of 1974, and has remained unchanged sine its adoption while con- ditions in Englewood hav changed with substantial new developm nt and re- development. 8. That the City of Englewood is one of the major c nmerclal activity centers s rving the metropolitan area; properly r gulated signage is vital for the maintenance of th is conanercial function upon which city revenu s depend. 9. That evid nee demonstrates that signage in Englewood has not bend veloped and maintained o s tom t th goals of the Compre- h n iv Plan and revisions to the Sign Code re n c saary to xp dit the attainm nt of the stated go 1 . r b t 10. signs, thoa Bull tin B • igns to lea is ubject oci t 1 in- ntwin d with cod ar nd numb r con- 1 •• p- of Sin ho~- , I • -r • • • -12- tion Signs, Private Parking or Traffic Direction Signs, Professional Signs, Public Signs, Special Event Signs, Street Banners, Symbols, Crests of ational, 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 ar not at a fixed location and often becom placed so as to be an obstruction to motorists or pedestrians; additional problems occur when Portable Signs are in- advertently knocked ov r by the wind or a group of p destrians. Outdoor Display of I rchandise on Public Right-of-Wa y which could block or detract from traffic signs and int rf r with pd strian mov m nt. Roof Signs which can pos significant problems to fire- fighting op rations if a fire has made significant had- way inside a building or if tactical roof op rations re requir d. Addition lly, the signs can ob truct water application, int rf r with efforts to v ntilat mok and toxic ga , increase the dang r of roof col laps nd pr s nt po aibl 1 ct rical hazard . B c use of h tght, motori ts loo in t uch signs may lo e proxim- lty p rapectiv traffic. Blin ing for an ign nd S arch Ligh t which c n rgenc ign 1 or tr ffic control Str1n of Light Bulb u d or c r cial purpo s which c n caua gl r nd t mporary blindn aa o th motoriat. • I • • -• • • -13- 12 . That the Planning Commission finds that Billboards, especially, and excess signag e, substantially contribute to the problem of traffic safety by drawing motorists' attention. Excess signage and billboards significantly detract from the City's c omprehensive commitment to making its physical en- vironmen t in commer cial 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 c ommunity, which Englewood is. Excess si gnage and billboards also detract from the ability of comm e r cial enterprises to present a pleasing, balanced, well-proportioned commercial message t o con s um e rs a nd ma y confuse and misdirect consumer s in their effo rt s to find suitable goods and services. The Commission finds and determines that th e 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 subjec t 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 zon districts for non- residential uses should be limited in number, size , height and typ so that th appropriate and n cessary information is transmitted in a wa y compatibl with th residential natur of the area in whi ch such us s are located. 16. That signs permitt din comme rcial and industrial zone dis- tricts should be limit din number, siz , height and type so as to afford all commercial and industrial int r ts n quitable opportunity to ad- vertise and met th goals set out in the Comprehensiv Plan. 17. Th t th zone di tricts should p rmitt d to th front g rcial and industrial th t relat th numb r of igns uch us s ar locat d. 18. That maximum sign ar should b r duced to clutt r, improv adv rtising opportunity and h lp met th Compr h n iv Plan. th visual of th 19. That p rmitt d o to incr vi ibility to th public h alth, 1 f ty 20. That C und r which thy r or maxim 1ign nUlll Drtv c nv • b b r gulat d s to location limin pot ntial hazards au, of th untqu a ain t uximu circW1Btanc s sign ar which ar n c I ry to ty 1nfot"lll8tion. I • • • • -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 a r e 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: th 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 threat to the public health, safety and welfar , in th most expeditious manner possible, those sign bing: onconforming Signs which currently exist in th City of Engl wood; the remov 1 of which signs requires th d v lopm nt of a process which will allow for n quitabl r turn on the investment in such signs whil providing for th ir removal in a r a on bl p r iod of tim Prohibited Signs curr ently Englewood; which, in ord r tom C pr h nsiv Plan and to provid ands f comm rcial, industrial should b Abandon d Sign which curr ntly Englewood nd thos which will b futur : wh ich signs ar aisl din of th xist in th City o abandon din the to th public , un- • I • • -• • • -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 Ci ty Planning and Zoning Commission 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 recoDll!lendation of t he Planning and Zoning Commission that they be adopted . BY ORDER OF THE CITY PLAN I G AND ZO'ING COMMISSIO . I • • • • • INlll~IE JWlotlANDUM TO. Susan Powers, Director of Cornmuni ty DAT'I: March 12, 1981 Development l'llOM: Tom Holland, Assistant City Attorney IUallCT, Validi ty of Methods for Termination of Nonconforming Signs You have indicated that in connection with a redrafting of the Comprehensi ve Zoning Ordinance, you intend to review and rewrite the Sign Code. Specifically, you have inquired concerning various methods for the termination of nonconforming signs. You have asked: 1) May nonconforming signs be terminated? 2) May nonconforming signs be terminated by amortization? 3) Does the Code currently provide for termination of abandoned signs? ANSWER: The answer to each question is Yes. Nonconforming signs may be terminated by various permissible methods. One permissible method of termination of a nonconforming sign is "amortization." The Sign Code currently provides for the termination of "abandoned" signs at Section 22.5-10. ANALYSIS: The e nactment of a general zoning ordin nee (including provisions r e lating to signs) containing methods for termination of noncon- orming uses is often describ d s within th proper exercise of th po lic pow r of th muni c ip li y. 5 Art Non Comp~ v. Ci:}'._ nd County of D nv r, 488 F.2d 118 (lOEri Cir. l9"'71T. Quoting th .s. Supreme Court, th T nth Circuit th rein pointed out: " ... And att mpts to d fin (th police power's) r ach or trace it out r limits is fruitless, for each cas mu t turn on its own f cts ... "Public nd qui pplic Thy m do not lity, p ac so of of th tradition l in municip l dff ir of th pow r nd • I • • Susan Powers , C .D. Page 2 March 12, 1981 • • - Article 8, Part 2, of the Home Rule Charter of the City of Englewood, Color ado, provides the authority for the City to prepare a compre- hensive zoning ordinance . Comprehensive zoning contemplates that noncon forming uses will exist. To effectively accomplish zoning, it is inherent that reasonable means must be afforded to terminate nonconforming uses. That is, the power to zone cannot be effective without the power to ultimately, under reasonable conditions, termin ate that which does not conform. Service Oil Company~· Rhodu s, Colo. , 500 P.2d 807 (1972). The municipality ma~en act:a"comprehensive zoning ordinance, including a sign code, and the rein provide for the termination of nonconforming uses. Nonconforming signs may be terminated if such termination meets the te st of reasonableness. Certain appropriate methods to terminate nonconforming uses have been held to meet the "reasonableness" test. The City may terminate the right of the owner to continue the use of a nonconforming sign for a variety of reasons including, but not limited to, abandonment, destruction, and "amortization." Service Oil Company~-Rhodus, supra. Thus, "amortization" has specifically been recognized and approved as an appropriate method to terminate a nonconforming sign. In order to terminate signs for abandonment, the owner's intent to abandon the sign is required. There is no specific rule as to what evidence constitutes abandonment. Each case must necessarily be decided on its own facts. Service Oil Company~-Rhodus, supra. It is important that the method of termination of nonconforming signs meet the test of reasonableness. If the test of reasonable- ness is met, the termination of the nonconforming sign does not offend the constitutional prohibition against taking property without just compensation. The Tenth Circuit has pointed out that ind termining reasonableness, courts have used a variety of factors. Thes includ the nature of the nonconforming use, the character of the structure, the location, what part of the individual 's business is concerned, the tim periods, salvage, depreciation for incom tax purposes, and depreciation for other purposes, and the monopoly or advantage , if any, resulting from the fact that similar and new structures are prohibited in the same area. Where signs are con- cern d, th us of the public street may b a factor. • I • • Susan Powers, C.D. Page 3 March 12, 1981 • • - Some more specific guidance may be helpful. The amortization of nonconforming signs over a five -year period was specifically approved by the Federal Appellate Court in Art Neon Company~- City and County of Denver, supra. There the court also felt that a flashing, blinking, fluctuating, animated, or portable sign could be terminated within thirty days after such sign became nonconforming . The court pointed out that the apparent movement created by the sign can be stopped and signs brought into conformity without entirely destroying the usefulness of the sign. The court also pointed out that when the loss to the sign owner was compared to the extreme character of the signs, with the demonstrated relationship to safety, that thirty days was a reasonable time within which to terminate those signs. The court also stated the termination need not be delayed until the nonconforming property has no value. In Art Neon, the court also held that the legislative determination to terminate signs for nonconforming uses was a valid factual determination of the legislative body. The court pointed out that the decision to terminate and the method thereof is to be made by the appropriate legislative body. The decision is reached through a comparison or balancing the burden or loss which would be placed on the individual by the ordinance with the public good sought to be achieved. The Colorado Supreme Court has held that failure to commence a new structure within 180 days after destruction of the premises con stituted sufficient evidence of abandonment to support a legis- lative determination and ordinance to that effect. The Colorado Supreme Court has also held that an ordinance which would have the effect of prohibiting all outdoor advertising in the City was un- reasonable and, therefore, unconstitutional. The court has upheld th r quir m nt of removal of signs that extended over three feet into public property. V.F.W. ~· Steamboat Springs, 195 Colo. 44, 575 P.2d 835 (1978). The court has upheld a limitation on the number of signs. Williams v. Denver, Colo. , 622 P.2d 5 42 (1981). The Colorado Supreme Court (dissenting opinion) has indi- ca ted that included within the concept of public welfare (and therefore r gulable by zoning) may be spiritual as well as physical values, esth tic as well as monetary. It is within the power of the legis- 1 tur to determine that the community should be beautiful as well • I • • • Susan Powers, C.D. Page 4 March 12, 1981 • • - as carefully patrolled. Some state courts have recognized that aesthetic considerations alone may for the basis for the valid exercise of zoning. CONCLUSION: As pointed out above, a nonconforming sign may be terminated by the specific methods mentioned. I might suggest that a noncon- forming sign may also be terminated if the owner of the sign installs an additional sign which carries to the public the same message as that conveyed by the nonconforming sign. See Service Oil Company~-Rhodus, P2d at 813. The time for "amortization" of nonconforming signs will vary. That time will be related to the intrusional impact of the sign upon the purposes for which the Sign Code has been enacted. Those purposes can include traffic safety, community balance, and other factors including those pointed out in the body of this memo. The definition of "abandoned" i n Section 22.5-10 of the Code seems narrow enough to meet the Colorado Supreme Court's requirement that intent of abandonment be shown prior to termination of a sign for abandonment. Should you wish to discuss the contents of this memo, contact me. bb Approved Form and Content Torn Holland As sistant City Attorney • I • • • • • • ,, MEMO RA N D UM TO : FROM : Rick DeWitt , City Attorney Susan Powers, Director of Couununity J'" Development lf ,j)d" DAT E : March 9 , 1981 SUBJECT : Amortization of Non-conforming Signs The Planning Division staff will be spending a considerable amount of time this year rewriting the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. I have asked them to also review the Sign Code since it seems confusing and difficult to interpret . In addition to the specific requirements of the Code for new signs, I am interested in exploring methods to terminate non-conforming signs . Our question is : can we terminate a non-conforming sign? Can we amortize the termination of non-conforming signs? It is my understanding that the Code does allow termination of abandoned signs . Than ks f o r your assistance . gw • I • • • • • • MEMO TO : s:~~Powers, Director of Community Developme nt FRO M:~ Holland, Assistant City Attorney DATE: October 6, 1981 Jill : Affe ct of Lake wood vs. Colfax Unlimited (Colorado Supreme Court No. 28478 - September 21, 1981) on Englewood Proposed Sign Code Th e Colorado Supreme Court passed the decision in this c a s e ap proximate ly two we eks ago. In their decision t h e Cour t i nvalidated the Lakewood Sign Code because they concluded that ma ny of the Code's provisions violated the First and Fourteenth Am e ndments and they could not be severed from the rest of the ode . Th e r e!ore , the en t i r e Code was d e cla r e d uncon s t itu tional. '!'h is case f rom t h e Colorado Sup r e me Court j oins a r e c e nt c ase f rom the Un i ted States Supreme Court, Metro Media , Inc. v. San Diego , wh ere the Un i t e d Sta t es Supre me Court decl a r ed the S ign Code of the City of San Diego unconstitutional. Judicial activity of bot h Un i ted States Supreme Court and the Colorado S u p r e me Court has bee n heavy i n these areas and resulte d i n several significant cases in the l a s t two yea r s . I . Th e plaintiffs in t h e ac t i on we r t he o wners anu us rs of comm e r cial on -p r emises adv ert is i n g s ign s. This is important becduse with uch challenge raised t o the Sign Code, the Suprem Court addressed the iss u e of wh e the r o r not t h ese particular plaintiffs were sufficiently affected to challenge certain pro- visions . In some instances they determined they were affected. In som instances thy determined there were not. II. Th Court, whil not directly addressing the issu , cited wi h cpprov 1th Dis ric Court upholding a 5-y r amortization period for nonconforming signs. It is to be not d that th other c ses in Colorado in this area have upheld amortization provisions of five ye rs but not of less than five years except in specially ff cted circumstanc s . III . Th plaintiffs first contended th definition of sign was ov rbro db cause it was virtually limitless . The Cou rt r jected Lhis cont n ion nd h ld ht i w s p rmissibl tor gul L h type, number, loc tion , height, nd oth r physical charact ris- Lics of sign in diff r nt zoning districts. S condly, th Court • I • • Susan Powers Page 2 October 6, 1981 • • - upheld the requirement of a permit for the construction of a sign. The Court pointed out t h at all signs are subject to r asonable time, place , und manner regulations if (1) the restric- tion is without regard to content , (2) the regulation serves a significant governmental interest , and (3) there are ample alternative channels of communication available. Plaintiffs alleged the definition of "sign" was vague and therefore unconst itutional. The Court replied that these plaintiffs were people who were fairly covered by the definition. Plaintiffs alleged there was an unconstitutional delegation to anministrative authorities to determine standards. The Court held that the definitions were clear and precise and there was no actual or threatened injury to the plaintiffs. The Court also held that the provisions relating to illumina- tion and to the Plan Review criteria could not be attacked by the plaintiffs because they were not affected by them in this particular case. IV . The Court addressed challeng es to the reg ul ation of content by the Code. Fi rst the Court addressed those signs defined as political by the Code. The Court redefined those signs as idealogical. An idealogical sign is relating to or concerned with ideas and is a shorthand reference to all non- commercial speech. Commercial speech is speech proposing a commercial transaction. The Lakewood Sign Code limited the content of political (idealogical) signs to candi dates and issues at election , limited the tim of posting to 45 days b efore and 15 days after election, forbid those signs in residential , agricultural, and conservation districts, and on public rights- of-way, and exempted some of the signs from permit requirements. The Court reiterated that idealogic l signs are subject to reasonable tll1l, place and manner regulation but noted that few inter sts Justify any cont nt regulations of idealogical signs. Th r for, th Court held th t insofar as th Sign Code limited m ssag s to 1 ctions, it was unconstitutional. The Court then applied the Cod provisions to idealogical signs as it had d find th m. Ith ld durational limitations and exclusion from c rtain zoned reas to be unconstitutional. The Court specifi- cally said thy xpressed no opinion if th 45 days before and 15 d ys after an election wasp rmissible for "election" signs. Th Cour sp cific lly said that it cannot cone ive of a per- missibl tim limit on idealogical messages. It further sp cifi- cally did not ddress the number and siz of id logic l signs which could b erected on one lot. How v r, th Court did not h th r would b nothing obj ction bl in th siz , typ nd s tb ck of id alogical signs. • I • • S us an Powers Page 3 October 6 , 1981 • - V. (A) The Court then turned to the important issue of whether a Sign Code may restrict the contents of onsite commercial advertising signs of a legal use of the lot. The Court noted that commercial speech may be regulated: (1) it must concern a lawful activity and not be misleading; (2) there was a substantial governmental interest in regulating; (3) the regulation advanced that governmental interest; and (4) the regulation was not more extensive than necessary to serve the governmental interest. The Court then went on to indicate that it was not sure what information was prohibited but the prohibition of any informa- tion was not justified as being necessary to serve what was a sub- stantial governmental interest in traffic safety and aesthetics. Therefore , the Court invalidated restrictions on the contents of on -s ite commercial advertising. Th next issue raised was whether they could prohibit the c h a n in the content of the messag of a non c onforming sign. Th Co urt a gain stated that this may b s u s 1n d but that Lakewood h d s hown no sufficient reason for that con en limitation and th r f o r invalidated that section of th ord1n nc xl ttacked was the requirem nt o pr 1 b fore "alteration" o a s ign. The Court said that this was permissible as long as al t e r a tion meant a modification of the physical characteristics of a ign a nd not a change in the content of h ssage conveyed . I mu s e mphasize here that many of the distinctions drawn b tween different types of commercial advertising could have • b n upheld as constitutional. However, the city failed to j ustify the substantiality of its interest in enacting the regula- tion and ensuring that it was narrowly drawn to serve those pa rticular interests. The Court did, and I will emphasize, that "lhe burd e n i s on _!-h e municii,:iality to nffirmalivel~ adv nee ~ substantial interest j ustifying each provision of its zoning o rdina nce ~ d monstrably impiriges on~ Amen ent freedom." Every provision of the Sign Code probably impinges upon First Am e ndment freedoms. Therefore, it is extremely crucial that we c omply with this standard set forth by the Court. Th Court then addressed an attack on the regulation of bus bench advertising. That advertising prohibited idealogical as well as ads for alcoholic beverages and tobacco products. The Court indicated that idealogical limitations were unconstitutional. Th Court r fused to address the other issues but, again, in addr ssing those issu s the Court would h v gone back to the s nd rd which w s set forth. On import nt statement which cm out of this p rticular section of the Court's opinion is that a ci y my cl arly prefer idealogic l advertising to commercial • I • • Susan Powers Page 4 October 6, 1981 • • - advertising and give greater freedom and less regulation to idealogical advertising. Again, however, certain justification is needed for that preference. The difference in treatment was given by exempting idealogical messages or all of the regula- tions applicable to otherwise identical commercial signs. The Court next addressed the problem of giving preferential treatment of certain subcategories of commercial expression. For example, contractor signs and "For Sale" signs were, not required to have permits. The Court noted that under recent United States Supreme Court decisions it was permissible to distinguish between on-site and off-site commercial signs. Off- site commercial signs could be prohibited. The Court noted that the Lakewood Code distinguished between real estate for sale signs, signs naming the contractor, financ- ing age ncy, a nd realtor engaged in connection with a building, grand opening advertisements, professional signs. The Court then held that one could not make a content based distinction to not include certain kinds of commercial signs in regulations and to not require them to have a permit, unless those distinc- tions were justified . The Court indicated that it could SP.e a j ustification for real estate for sale signs and for garage sa le signs but that it could not see any justification, and Lakewo od had failed o adv ance a sufficie nt j ustification, for e xclusion of other types of commercial messages from permit and regulatory provisions of the Code. The Court further indicated that an exemption to signs within buildings was justified . • However, because no sufficient j ustification was given for exempt- ing 20me signs from regulation and some signs from the permit requirements, the Court struck down those provisions . The next probl m th Court addressed was the preference of some subcategories of idealogical speech . The Court pointed out that the problem was that the provisions submitted different subcategories of idealogical e xpres sion, identified by content, to different degrees of regulation . The subcategories included the flags of nations, states, cities , and fraternal, religious and civic organizations; national, state, religious, fraternal and civic symbols and crests ; scoreboards on ath letic fields nd, in several locations , announcements of charitabl nd public service functions. The nature of the preference was that these particular idealogical expressions were excluded from the defini- tion of sign and thus unregulated. Secondly, some idealogical signs were xempted from the permit provisions but s ub ject to • I • • Susan Powers Page 5 October 6 , 1981 .. • • - h e i g ht, size , setback and durational restrictio n s. Those i n clud e bulletin b o ards , ca u tiona r y wa rn i n g sign s, holiday dec0rations , memorial s i gn s , some religious symbols, o ccupant s ign s and some "po liti c al" s igns. Finally, other large r politica l s ign s n e e d ed a per mit . The Co urt s truck down the p r eference of certain s ub- categories by exempting them f rom the definition of sign , by exempting them from permi t req uirements, and other preferences . Th e Co u r t stated: "While the exclusion, f o r e x ample, of announce- ments of charitable or publ ic service events from the definition of s ign might be justified, we perceive no subst~ntial specific goal which might justify the exempt i on , f o r example, of fraternal organizations, symbols , c r ests, and flags or religious symbols , crests and flags from the height, size and setback requirement s for those signs which this section regulates, and Lakewood has not articulated a justification for this preferential treatment . The fault in the Code is not that it has enacted such restrictions, but that, without a plain and cogent justification, it has exempted several types of idealogical expression from the place and manner regulation required for other idealogical signs." VI . Finally, the plaintiffs argued that Lakewooc lacked the power to regulate the number and type of signs permitted on lots in various zoning districts. The Court thought that argu- ment without merit. Therefore, the cities do have the power to regulate the number and type (for example, "roof," "wall," "ground") of sign p rmittcd within its bound rics. CONCLUSION I appreciate the foregoing mays em to hav somewhat compre- hensive relationship to the proposed Englewood Sign Code. I would agree and would caution you that th t ata set out in this case must b ddr ssed or the Cod is in dang r o! meeting th same fate ffiet by the Lakewood Cod. I b li v th t the part of the type of r gul tion proposed by th Code, i .. , size, height, setback, number, etc., can clearly b regulat d. In addition, in those reas wh re r gulation is compl x, th t regulation can • ) I • • n • Susan P ow ers Page 6 October 6 , 19 8 1 • • • be accomplished by sufficiently j ustifying a particular regula- t i on. Finally, the common sense distinction between idealogical a nd conunercial signs can be observe d and can obviate many of t h e problems which caused the entire Code of Lakewood to be stru ck down. bb cc: Rick DeWitt , City Attorney I • • • • - Nta()MCf fWlDIIANDUM _.,.,,_, ____ , __ TO: Susan Powers, Dir. , Community Devel. DATI: l86i v t . '. November 4, !981 Planning, Zoning Commission P1eOMo Tom Holland )U Wll0100 ·c,, • "• ' ' • .IJGIWOl~ ' ~. PROPOSED SIGN CODE -----------·-------·------ I have reviewed the proposed sign code for confo rm ity with con- stitutional and legal requirements. There are a few somewhat significant problems with the code which are outlined below. Because of those issues it is my recommendation that the Planning and Zoning Coanission not adopt the code until necessary correc- tions are made. Those corrections may include changes in the substantive provisions of the code, poss ible additions to the code, and appropriate factual finding to support certain code sections. 1. Section 22.7-4 exempts some signs from the require- aenta for permits under the code. This type exemption of some "connercial" signs from permit requirements and other regulations was held unconstitutional by the Colorado Supreme Court . Here, in order for such exemptions to be valid, the comm ission must identify specific legislative purposes for exempting such signs and those lawfully a cceptable purposes must be pro- moted by the exemption. As the section now stands, it is unconstitut ion al under the Lakewood case. 2.a) Section 22.7-6a regulates the contents of on premises coaaercial signs in residential zones. The Colorado Supreme Court held unconstitutional the regulation of content of conwnercial signs by Lakewood. Lakewood's regulation was substantially similar to our proposed regulation. The court disfavors any content regula- tion of camnercial signs. For it to be permitted, it must directly advance the City's interests in esthetic s or traffic safety (or other legislative data upon which the code is based) and must not be a more extensive regulation than is necessary to do so. b) 22.7-6 c.l seems to contain an error (1 "22.4d" .•. ) 3.a) Section 22.7-7a also regulates the content of on-premis s coaaercial signs in business and commercial districts. Thia regulation has the same infirmity as 22.7-6a. which i a described above. • I I t;: I • • - • Susan Powers Planning Co11111ission November 4, 1981 Page 2 • • - 4. In both 22.7-6 and 22.7-7 a legislative justification should be stated (in findings of fact, etc.) for allowing more signage area to different structures. 5. In section 22.7-14 the definition of sign excludes five categories of "signs." The Colorado Supreme Court held such exclusion an unconstitutional preference for poli- tical or ideological signs over other such signs. The court stated it was unconsitutional to do that without advancing an adequate justification. This issue is addressed more fully in my memo of October 6, 1981, on the Lakewood case. 6. I noted that although ideological signs are defined, they seem not to be specifically permitted in any of the zone districts. And they seem to be subject to no size, type, number, or setback regulations. It would be constitutionally precarious to subject those signs to content, tiae, place, and manner unless such a regulation aeets the const i tutionally required test. I would be happy to discuss these points with you or your staff to give a fuller explanation, if necessary, or to determine what corrective aeaaurea should be taken. It is the request of the City Attorney's office that the sign code not be forwarded to City Council until the necessary c orrections have been made. Assistant City Attorney TH /lllh • • I • • - • • •• • M E M O R A N D U M TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Planning and Zoning Commission Susan Powers, Conununity Development Director March 26, 1982 STUDY SESSlON WITH CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING ANO ZONING COMMISSlON ON THE PROPOSED S!GN CODE Attached ls a s unwmry of the pruposc<.I slgn co<.Jc an<.J a comparison wlth other conuuunities as well as a letter from the City Attorney to the Council on the subject. Please bring your copy of the sign code to the study session on Monday night. We will be meeting in the Library at 5:00 P.M. Thank you. c l.J ALLachmcnt • • I • • - • • •• • \ I PROPOSED SIGN CODE~~ COMPARISON AND SUMMARY~ r Department of Community Development City of Englewood 17 February 1982 • I . • • ~ • - • • 0 RESIDENTIAL low denelty high denelty COMMERCIAL I. INDUSTRIAL Ma x. Number Max . Area Max . Height Max . Number Max . Ar•• Me x. Height Me x . Number Max . Ar•• Max . He i ght of Signe of Signe of Signe of Signe of Signe o f Signe of Signe of Signe of Signe -Wall, win-20 s. f. Wall, win-Wall, win-C or a • 2 20 s. f. dow -20' 2 2 s.f./1000 dow -25' 5 600 s.f. dow to roof • 0 • Ground -6' s. f. of lot Ground -15' line. 0 ~ i: L area. Ground -32' w .J C, 'a Wall -20' 20 s. f. Wall -20' Ba sed on Wall -Roof z • or Ill • 1 1 s. f. Window -2 2 s.f./1000 Window -Frontage. 600 s . f. line. 0 A First Floor s. f. of lot First Floor Maximum -Window-First 0 ~ area. Ground -15' 5 Floor. L Ground -20 ' z w 1 2 s. f. 8' 1 2 s. f. 8' 2 20 s. f. To Eaves. L • C C 32 s. f. or a: 0 1 20 s. f. 20' 1 2 s.f./1000 25' 5 600 s. f. 25' a: s. f. of lot ::::, C area. Based on ( a: Front ge; w Wall, win-a l us -1'1sf .J 1 4 s. f. dow -20' 1 25 s. f. 6' foot 25' ::::, Ground -6' per 0 2 uses-2'1 f • 'n"r foot. a Wall, win-Wall -300 ~all, win-0 0 dow -25' s. f. dow to roof- i: 1 20 s. f. 20' 2 20 •• f. Ground -2<1 5 W 11 nd lin ; w Ground -Ground -25 ' ~ • C 200 s. f. .. z 0 ~all, win-8 s don ~all, win-.. d w -20' Front g ; 300 s. f. ~ow -25 ' w 1 3 f. 12 ' 2 20 s. f. .J !Ground -12' Maximum -Jround -2<:I .. .. 5 -.J • • • •• - Ground Signs A sign supported by poles, uprights or braces extended from the ground or an object on the ground; but not attached to any part of any building. PRESENT SIGN CODE RESIDENTIAL ZONE DISTRICTS: PROPOSED SIGN CODE RESIDENTIAL ZONE DISTRICTS: Residential Uses -Allowed for multi- family dwellings of four or more units only. 1 Low-Density Residential Uses -Only fo r c hurch, religious and educational institutions or public buildings. Six feet high, 10 foot setback or 20 feet if within 55 feet of an intersection. May be illuminated except between 11 p.m. and 6 a.m. High-Density Residential Uses -For all permitted uses except single- family . 15 feet high, 5 foot setback, must maintain a clear area of six feet within 55 feet of an intersection. Non-residential Uses -Allowed for all permitted uses (religious and education- al institutions, public buildings, hos- pitals, clinics and professional of- fices.) May be illuminated except between 11 p .m. to 6 a.m. COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL ZONE DISTRICTS All Permitted Uses -For all permitted uses, only one face of the sign in- cluded in determining square feet al- lowed, 32 feet high, six foot clear- ance within 55 feet of an intersection. May be illuminated. OTHER COMMUNITIES: Maximum height -15 feet. Setback from property line 10 feet. Within 30 feet of an intersection, must maintain seven feet clearance from grade to bottom of sign. Illumination of sign permitted from 11 p.m. to 7 a.m. for medical and public services only. All faces count- ed to determine sign area. COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL ZONE DISTRICTS: All Peru.itted Uses -Maximum height - 20 feet. Distance between signs on ad- jacent lots equal to height of tallest sign. If two or more businesses in one building, only Joint Identification sign allowed. All faces counted to determine sign area. Aurora, Lakewood and Littleton have similar limitations on ground signs except for these differences: Aurora limits hight in Comm rcial areas to 12 fe t next to arterial streets, and eight f et next to collector stre t. Tlolo (2) f t may b added to height of joint id ntifi- cat1on signs. S tbacks are 10 f t for all signs. Lak wood permits or Transitional height of 12 feet in Low D n ity R sidential; 20 f reas, and 25 fe tin Comm rcial. tin Multi-family Littl ton prohibits ground signs in Singl -family areas; limits signs to 12 f et high with a 10 foot tb ck in Multi-family or Transitional Zoo and 20 f et high in Com- m rci 1 Zon • Bould r: Sign p rmitt din raid ntial ar as ar similar to Engl wood's cod • In com- m rci 1 zon , signs ar limit d to: On (1) sign pr front, th less r of 25 f tor 1.25 th building hi ht; th di tanc b tw n sin on adj c nt sites ia qu 1 to th ight of th taller sign and signs on th a site (with two (2) fronts) must b 75 f t apart. S tbacka for all ar as are 10 f et for signs up to s v n (7) f thigh; oth rwia se tbacks ar govern d by th abutting atr t; 25 foot a tback from jor (list d) atr ta, nd 15 fe t, 20 f et, or 25 feet for oth r atr ta according to Zon District . Th r is a provision for cl arance of signs within a trian le of 30 f t long two aid a of an inters ction. • I • • ...... • • • •• - Au r o r a , Boulder, and Littleton count both faces of a sign in determining sign area; Aspen and Lakewood count only one side. • 2 I • • - • • •• • Marquee, Canopy, Awning Signs A sign painted on, or erected against the face of a marquee, canopy or awning. attached to, • PRESENT SIGN CODE All Permitted Uses -Canopy, marquee signs listed as permitted sign types along with arcade and plaza signs. Treated as projecting signs in most r spects. OTHER COMMUNITIES: PROPOSED SIGN CODE RESIDENTIAL ZONE DISTRICT: Residential Uses -Allowed for multi- family dwelling of four or more units only. Non-residential Uses -Allowed for all permitted uses. Signs must be parallel to and cannot project above or below face of marquee, canopy or awning. Can identify uses by name or address only. COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL ZONE DISTRICTS: All Permitted Uses -Requirements same as Residential Zone Districts. Aspen treats canopy and awning signs as projecting signs which must have City Council approval, if extending into public right-of-way. Aurora deinfes "Marquee", but does not permit signs over a public right-of-way or men- tion these as permitted signs in any area. Boulder allows signs on marquees to exceed maximum area of 150 sq. ft. by special ex- ception. 150 sq. ft. allowed for canopy or awning signs. Signs cannot project above or below or 12 inches beyond the face of the marque , canopy or awning. Littleton permits marque and arcade signs, tr ated as projecting signs: limit of three (3) foot projection into public right-of-way, 20 fe thigh, but not higher than th roof line. No definition of canopy or awning sign. Lakewood defin s all of these as projecting signs but permits only "perp ndicular signs" which project no more than three (3) feet from building and does not extend in th public right-of-way. • 3 I • • -• • • Projecting Signs and is supported by a wall. A sign, other than a wall sign, which projects from PRESENT SIGN CODE RESIDENTIAL ZONE DISTRICTS: Residential Uses -Not permitted. OMMERC IAL AND INDUSTRIAL ZONE DISTRICTS: PROPOSED SIGN CODE RESIDENTIAL ZONE DISTRICTS: Residential Uses -Allowed for mult i- family dwellings of four or more units only. Non-residential Uses -Allowed for all permitted uses. 4 All Permitted Uses -Maximum 26 feet high but not above the roof line; 10 foot clearance from the bottom of the sign to the ground level. Maximum projection is 30 inches from the build- ing . May be illuminated. Not permit- t e d for Temporary, Political or Joint Identifica tion Signs. 25 sq. ft. per face. Maximum height -20 feet. Maximum area per face -25 square feet. Sign must OTHER COMMUNITIES: be located in "signable area". Must have 10 feet clearance from grade to bottom of sign. If projection is mor e than 30 inches over public right-of-way must obtain encroachment agreement from city. All faces count to determine sin area. COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL ZONE DISTRICTS: All Permitted Uses -Requirement sam as Residential Zone Districts. Aspen, Littleton, and Boulder permit projecting signs in comm rcial areas. Aurora do not mention "projecting signs" as being permitt din any area. Lakewood permit s "per- pendicular signs" in commercial areas which are de fined as those not more than three (3) feet f rom the building, but which do not proj c t into required setbacks. Asp n permits four foot proj ction and six quar foot maximum sign area per face. Bould r p rm its six foot proj ction, but only four foot into a public right-of-way; r quir eight foot c l r n c nd ign c nnot b high r th n 15 feet on a multi-s t ory building or to th rooflin on a single s tory building. Bould r permits on square foot of sign area pr lin ar foot of building front, but not more than 12 squar feet pr f or 24 f t pr sign. If th nd p n 1 is or than 12 inch a, it must b count d a On ai n p rmitt d p r buildin fac • Littl ton: public righ 1 n pr us , only for tho not project mor of 20 f t, but not abov • s with nos tbac from th t, must hav n ight foot roof lin . I • • n - • • • • 5 Suspended Signs canopy , awning or the ceiling of an arcade. A sign hung or otherwise suspended from a marquee, PRESENT SIGN CODE Not applicable. PROPOSED SIGN CODE RESIDENTIAL ZOE DISTRICTS: Residential Uses -Allowed for multi- family dw llings of four or more units. Non-resident ial Uses -Allowed for all permitted uses. Maximum area per face -four (4) square feet. Two such signs must be separated by a horizontal dis- tance of 15 feet; must maintain seven (7) feet clearance from grade to bottom of sign. Can identify use by nam and address only. COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL ZONE DISTRICTS: All Permitted Uses -Requirement s same as Residential Zone Districts. I • • In - • • •• • Wall Signs A sign attached to, painted on, or erected against a wall of a bu i lding, the display surface of which is parallel to the face of the building to whi c h the s ign is attached. A mansard roof may be considered a wall if the top edge of a s ign a tta ched to it extends no more than twenty-four inches from the mansard roof surface . PRESENT SIGN CODE RESIDENTIAL ZONE DISTRICTS: Low-density Residential Uses -For all permitted uses except single-family or duplex. 20 ft. high, 18 inch projec- tion. May be illuminated except be- tween 11 p.m. and 6 a.m. High-density Residential Uses -Same as above except single-family is limit- ed to Home Occupation sign. 25 ft. high, 18 inch projection; may be illu- minated from a concealed light source. COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL ZONE DISTRICTS: All Permitted Uses -To height of building , 24 inch projection. May be illuminated, OTHER COMMUNITIES: PROPOSED SIGN COD E RESIDENTIAL ZONE DISTRI CTS: Residential Uses -Allowed for all pr- mitted uses. Non-residential Uses -Allowed for all permitted uses. Maximum height -20 fee t . Cannot pro- ject more than 12 inches f r om face of building. Cannot extend abov parape t wall or roof line. COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL ZONE DISTRICTS: All Permitted Uses -Mu s t be placed in 'signable area". Maximum a r ea of sign cannot exceed 40 % of "signable ar a ". Cannot project more than 18 i n ches from face of building. Cannot e xt e nd abov parapet wall or roofline. Asp e n: Within limitations of residential or commercial zone di s trict. Can not e x ceed 10 sq. ft. on any one building wall, exclusive of cut out letters. Signs painted on build- ings, if over 10 sq. ft ., require a graphic design permit approved by Ci t y Coun cil, Signs may be illuminated. The Graphic System allows 40% of "signable ar a" and 1 2 inch proj ection. 6 Bo uld r: Limit of 25 % of total wall area of a building facade. No mor t han 25 ft. high , may proj e c t abov th roof 1/3 of the total height of th sign or 24 i n c hes , whichev r is 1 ss . Fifteen (15) inch projection and if on a mansard roof, no more than 45• from roof. • Aurora , La k ewood and Littleton h ve s imilar limitations t o th pr s ent Engl wood Sign Code. • I • • - • • •• • 7 Window ~igns A sign which is applied or attached to, or located within twelve inches of the interior surface of a window; which sign can be seen through the wi ndow from the exterior of the structure. • PRESENT SIGN CODE RESIDENTIAL ZONE DISTRICTS: Low-densi ty Residential Uses -For all permitted uses except single-family or duplex, 20 ft. high, 18 inch pro- jection . May be illuminated except be- tween 11 p.m. and 6 a.m. High-density Residential Uses -Same as above except single-family is lim- ited to Home Occupation sign. 25 feet high, 18 inch projection; may be il- luminated from a concealed light source. COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL ZONE DISTRICTS: All Permitted Uses -To height of building; 24 inch projection. May be illuminated. OTHER COMMUNITIES: PROPOSED SIGN CODE RESIDENTIAL ZONE DISTRICTS: Residential Uses -Allowed for all per- mitted uses. Non-residential Uses -Allowe d for all permitted uses. Cannot cover mor e than 25% of total window area. Cannot be displayed above fir s t floor. COMMERCIAL AND IND USTRIAL ZONE DISTRICTS: All Permitted Uses -Requ i r e me nts same as Residential Zone Districts. Aspen: Does not define "window signs"; limits would be the same as for wall signs or graphics. Aurora, Lakewood and Littleton have used the Model Sign Code which i s also the basis fo r Englewood's present Code. The limitations for Window Signs are sicilaLAurora limits all s igns to 12 ft. high for lots abutting arterial streets nd eight fee t high for those on co ll ctor sere ts. Bould r: Limited to 25% of total window area at th ground floor a nd 25% of total al- lowable sign ar a. Th s cond floor limit d to signs of four (4) sq. ft. or less; no signs in windows abov s cond lev 1. Graphic System: Limit d to 25% of any window area on th ground floor. Signs in upp r windows allowed only if th business occupies that floor are . Letters thre (3) inch or less ar not considered "it ms of information" in total sign area allowed. • I • • - Maximum Sign Ar ea PRESENT SIGN CODE RESIDENTIAL ZONE DISTRICTS: Low-density Residential Uses -Single- family and duplex are limited to Home Occ upation signs -100 sq. inches. Other Uses -20 sq. ft. or 2 sq. ft. of sign for 1,000 sq. ft. of lot area. Max. 60 sq. ft. total sign area. Max. 20 sq. ft . per sign. High-density Residential Uses -Same as above, but maximum of 96 sq. ft. total sign area and maximum 32 sq. ft. per sign. COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL ZONE DISTRICTS: All Permitted Uses -80 sq. ft. per use or 1-1/2 sq. ft. sign area per ft. of s treet front for the first 100 ft. and l sq. ft. per ft. thereafter; two (2) contiguous street fronts may be count- ed; or for two or more uses on a lot, 2-1/2 sq. ft. per ft . of building front occupied by the use for the first 200' a nd l sq. ft. per ft. thereafter. Only on sid of a ground sign is counted. Maximum ar a per sign -200 sq. ft. Maximum total sign ar a pr u q. ft. -600 Cl Aurora 1ret 11 00 ITIF.S: 20 aq. ft . 1ian rap r u ., or of building ron Cun a on hight with 18" or c pitala. 00 aq. ft. aq. c. p r u r l th n 1/2 aq. ft, r r t. • • • 8 PROPOSED SIGN CODE RESIDENTIAL ZONE DISTRICTS: Residential Uses -One 1 Two and Three family Dwellings : One (1) Home Occupa- tion sign of one (1) square foot. Multifamily Dwelli ng o f Fo ur to 39 Units: 20 square feet, or two (2) s quare feet per 1,000 square feet of lot a r ea , not to exceed 60 square feet total sign area and 20 square feet per face. Multifamily Dwellings of 40 or Mor e Unit s: 20 square feet or two (2) square feet per 1,000 square feet of lot area, not to exceed 96 square feet total sign area and 20 square feet pe r face. Non-residential Uses -Religious and Educational Institutions and Public Buildings: same as mult i-famil y dwell- ings of four (4) to 39 units; Hospitals clinics, and professional Offices -same as multifamily dwellings of 40 or more units. COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL ZONE DISTRICTS: One Use Per Lot 80 sguare f et or - Street frontage Sign Ar ea/ft. str et 1 ft. to 100 ft, 1.5 front g sq . ft./1 ft. 101 ft. to 250 ft. 1.0 sq . ft. /1 ft. 251 ft. to+ 0.4 sq. ft./1 ft. Maximum reap r fac e 100 q. ft., maximum total sign r a 600 sq. ft. o or mor Ua per lot Buildtng Front 1 ft. to 100 f 101 ft.+ (2) ft, of atr t front r 1 • ft. o ign r • or th for n I • • - • • (1) ft . of building front. contiguous street fronts . • •• • Counts both sides of two-faced signs and may use two (2) Same maximum per sign or total sign area as Englewood. Bo ulder permits 30 sq. ft. per use, or 1-1/2 sq. ft. of sign area up to 200 ft. of s treet f r ont, and 1/2 sq . ft . per ft. thereafter. Two or mor e uses are permitted 2-1/2 sq. ft . of sign area per ft. of building front up to 200 ft. and 1/2 s q. ft. pe r ft . thereafter. Counts both sides of two-faced signs. 25% of building facade o r 25% of building between grade and 25 ft. for wall signs; 25% of windows on first floo r; 100 sq. ft. maximum for ground signs per face or 150 sq . ft. tot al for all faces; 12 sq . ft . maximum per fa ce for proj ecting signs or 24 sq. ft. for all faces. Lakewoo d: 300 sq. ft. maximum total area of all wall signs or 25% o f facade or 3 sq . f t. for each ft . of lot or build ing. 200 sq. ft. maximum for t o tal ar a or 1 sq. ft . per foot of street front if both wall and ground signs are used. One side of two-faced signs are counted. Li ttleton : 32 sq. ft. per use o r 1 sq. ft . of sign area per 1-1/2 ft . of street front . Maximum sign area is 200 sq. ft. Counts both sides of two-fa ced signs. Gra phic Sys tem: Allows 10 it ~s of information per use. 11 signs ma y cover 40? of signab le area, window sign s 25% of window a rea, ground signs -25 sq. ft. on two- lane traffic streets , and 40 sq . ft. for four-l an e traffic streets, dependin g on mph of speed limit. EXAMPLE : Lot in a commer cial zone district with one permitted use and 150 feet of s treet fro ntage: Community Englewood: Present Code Proposed Code Asp n: Auro ra: Boulder: Lak wood : Little ton: Sign Area 199 qu3r 199 Squ r 20 quare 75 Squar 225 Squar 300 Sq u r 150 Squar 100 Square • f t F et F t F t Fe t F t (w 11 sign only) F t (w 11 and ground F t 9 l n) I • • - • • Maximum Sign PRESENT SIGN CODE RESIDENTIAL ZONE DISTRICTS: • •• • Number PROPOSED SIGN CODE RESIDENTIAL ZONE DISTRICTS: Residential Uses -One (1) sign . 10 Low-density Residential Uses -Two (2) signs per front line except for single- family, duplex. One Temporary Sign. Non-residential Uses -Two (2) signs. High-density Residential Uses -Same as above. COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL ZONE DISTRICTS: All Permitted Uses -Five (5) signs or three (3) signs for each front line of the lot; all front lines are counted. OTHER COMMUNITES: Residential Zone Districts: COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL 7 NE DISTRICTS: All Permitted Uses - Street Frontage 1' -150' 151' -300' 301' -+ 3 Signs 4 Signs 5 Signs Aspen, Aurora, Boulder and Lakewood allow only one sign per lot in residential areas. Littleton allows one wall or window and one ground sign per front. All connnun i ties ex- clude single-family or low-density residential area uses except for Home Occupat ion signs. Connnercial and Industrial Zones: Aspen permits "free standing" (ground) signs, projecting and wall signs. Each use is limited to a combination of two signs. Graphic designs painted on buildings must have City Council approval. Boulder permits wall, window, "free-standing", marquee, projecting, suspended, vehicle- mounted and wind signs. Number is limited by the type of sign used, and square foot area allowed. One free-standing sign per street front; 25% of building facade, window signs limited to first floor, and 25% of allowable sign area; special permits required fo r low-profile ground igns (under 6 ft.). Li ttleton: Three signs for 150 ft. front or less, and only one ground sign per us . Thre signs for 151' to 300' front, but two may be ground signs. Four signs (three may be ground signs) for 301' to 400'; five signs (four may be ground s igns) for 401' to 600 '; over 600' front is allowed five signs, but any number may be ground signs. Lak wood allows fiv s igns per use . • I • • Andy Hodler 775 Wazee De nver, Colorado 80204 3435 S h Broadway Ke n M~·u t(' Engle ood, Colorado 80110 D borah Brown 4960 South llroadway Englewood , Colorado 80110 Randy Cordova Mid land Federal ~avings 295 West Hampden Avenue lfagl,,•,ood, Colorado 80110 Rich · bault 5001 s9-11 Broadway EngliY'ood, Colorado Steve Youel 80110 80110 Gordon Sign Co mpan y 2930 W st 9th Avenue De nv e r, Colorado 80204 ll owa rd Turne r 4630 South Ch rokee Eng lewood, Colorado 80110 Mi k R gni r 4100 South Windermer Str t l:.n g l •wood, Color do 80110 Rac h l n s 3460 South Bro dw y ~ngl wood, Colorado 80110 Coaipany • • • - Michael Arouri 2823 South Broadway Englewood, Colorado 80110 Dick Johnson 3550 South Inca Street Englewood, Colorado 80110 ' Ed E va 3431 Broadway Engl , Colorado 80110 William Pendleton First National Bank 333 West Hampden Avenue Englewood, Colorado 80110 Roland Muhrer 3333 South Bannock Street Eng lewood, Colorado 80110 Frances Howard 645 East Yale Place Englewood, Colorado 80110 Don Se mour 4 750 ~,. h Lipan Street Eng.J,ewood Colorado 80110 Jim Lil y 2930 Wat 9th Av nu O nv r, Color do 80204 Jay E. HclC.inney 4084 South Calapago Str t Engl wood, Colorado 80110 fr n Si Co11p ny 1920 W a t Corn 11 Av nu En g l ood, Colorado 80110 • James Klein 630 West Hampden Avenue Englewood, Colorado 80110 Joe Walsh 4960 South Broadway Englewood, Colorado 80110 Ed .'erron 775 Waze e Denver, Cvlorado 80204 Tom Magee H. E. Outdoor Posters 6631 South Hill Way Littleton, Colorado 80120 Phil Grimm 648 Washington Circle Englewood, Colorado 80110 Jo Ellen Turner 4630 South Cheroke Street Englewood, Colorado 80110 z oadw y Bro dway Colorado 80110 John K iling 3131 Sou b H!gh Stre t Engl od, Color do 80110 Woody Curtia Oraing r Outdoor 210 Clayton Str D nv r Colorado Adv rtie ing t 80206 C.•nn tt tdoor Adv n i 1n g 77) Waz nv r, Color do 0 204 1~ I • • - • Mr . David Bartnett Sims Tire 300 West Hampden Englewood, Colorado 80110 Mike Kohrs 3460 South Lincoln Englewood, Colorado 80110 Ric h Thibault Crouch Chrysler/Plymouth 5001 South Broadway Englewood, Colorado 80110 Sue Nuce Mc Donalds Corporation 5700 South Quebec De nv e r, Colorado Geo rge Schoenecker 4900 South Fed~ral Boulevard En~lewood , Colorado 80110 B. J. Adams 701 West Hampden Avenue Engl cs,ood, Colorado 80110 Allen Burt 5200 South Broadway Englewood, Colorado 80110 Brad Sharp Show Biz PI zzn 1001 W st II pd n Av nue Engl wood, Colorado 80110 r nk Mulh rn umpf Lincoln rcury 5000 South Broadway Englewood, Colorado 80110 • • • • Frank McLaughlin 1014 Adams Street Denver, Colorado 80206 Tim Ausfahl Gary Ausfahl 4509 South Broadway Englewood, Colorado 80110 Tony Hernandez 4900 South Federal Boulevard Englew0od , Colorado 80110 Earl Reynolds Cinderella City 701 West Hampden Av e nu e Englewood, Colorado 80110 Rob Liley 3247 South Broadway Englewood, Colorado 80110 Bob Weist 4550 South Inca Street Englewood, Colorado 80110 Jerry Feather 3467 South Broadway Englewood, Colorado 80110 Bill Howard 2970 South L<fny ttl? Or. J::nglewood, Colorado 80110 Mr. J. Robbins 5138 South Broadway Englewood, Colorado 80110 • Lloyd G. Chavez Burt Chevrolet 5200. South Broadway Englewood , Colorado 80110 Aaron Mosko AM Motor Company 4050 South !l roatlway Englewood, Colorado 80110 K-Mart Corp. 200 West Belleview Avenu e Englewood, Colorado 80110 CenLury Signs 2227 South ICalamath Street Denver, Colorado 8022) Lloyd J. Dreiling 3247 South Broadway Englewood, Colorado 60110 Harry Arkin 4594 South Akron Str t Aurora, Colorado 80010 Jim ll hne Vally Motors Company 4550 South Broadw y Engl vood, Colorado 0110 ill Hopping 4200 South Pearl Str et Engl wood, Colorado 80110 I • • - Mr . Don Bart l e tt ABM Company 3 398 South Broadway Englewood, Colorado 80110 Mr. Mel Bedore B & B Conoco 3 2 98 South Broadway En g lewood, Colorado 80110 Mr. Dick Owens Broadway Properties 3 4 6 0 South Broadway Englewood, Colorado 80110 Ms. Tracy Laignelot ERA Empress Realty 11 West Hampden Avenue En g lewood, Colorado 80110 Ec onomy Foreign Car Parts 33 65 South Broadway En g lewood , Colorado 80110 Mr. Brent O'Neil So f a Factory 3270 South Broa dw a y En g lewood , Colorado 80110 Mr. Bill Foerster Foers ter Home Furn . Center 3115 South Broadway ,fa :,,l ewo od , Colorado 80110 •:s . Natasha No la :>jr Flair ''3 ~ East Jefferson Av nu .n g lewood, Colorado 80110 Mr . Fred K ufman K ufm ns Mens We r 3395 South Bro dway Englewood, Colorado 80 110 At: n Cr i Th Lock Smith Micha 1 of t h Carlyl 3371 South Br oadway Engl woo d , Co l orad o 80110 Mr . T d Vasilar T d's Cu tom Tailors 3 3 W t Girard Av nu En 1 wood, Color do 80110 • • • Mr. George Allen G. H. Allen Construction 460 South Sherman St. £nglewood, Colorado 80110 Mr . Don Bartlett Bowen's Shoes 3448 South Broadway Englewood, Colorado 80110 Mr . Steve Seay Coumunity Bank & Trust 5050 South Broadway Englewood, Colorado 80110 Mr. Eddie Shearn Eddie's Off Broadway 3370 South Acoma Street Englewood, Colorado 80110 Englewood/United Suburban Chamber of Commerce Attn : Paul Beattie 180 West Girard Avenue En g lewood, Colorado 80110 Mr. Ed Cordova Flash Tailors 3431 South Broadway Englewood , Colorado 80110 Mr. J ohn Od ell Mr . Gatti's Pizza 3 595 South Sherman Englewood , Colorado 80110 Ms. Ma r y J oseph Jeans Dress Shop 3487 South Broadw ay Englewood, Col orado 80110 Ms. Ros mary LaPort Limited Ed itions Art Garry 3422 So u th Broadway En glewoo d, Co lor a do 801 1 0 Mr. L wi Eggl ston Loftu s J w lry 3418 Sou t h Bro dw y En gl wood, Color a do Mr. J .C. M xw 11 M.axw 11 Studio 3356 South Bro dway 8 0110 Engl wood, Colorado 80110 • Mr. Ken Mausol f Mausolf Interiors 3435 South Broadway Englewood, Colorado 80110 Mr. Bob Brundage Bridal Village 3424 South Broadway Englewood, Colorado 80110 Colorado Tool Center 3300 South Broadway Englewood, Colorado 80110 M. J. D. Pierce Englewood Hardware 3427 South Acoma Street Englewood, Colorado 80110 Mr . Bob Evans Evans Coffee Shop 95 West Girard Avenue Englewood, Colorado 80110 Mr. Greg Ireton First National Bank 333 West Hampden Avenu e Englewood, Colorado 80110 Mr . Leonard Rivkin Guys & Dolls 3473 South Broadway Englewood, Colorado 801 10 Mr . Les Jenki n s J enkins & Co . 43 01 Sou th Broadway Englewood , Colo rad o 80110 Dr. Roy Lining r 3 470 South Sherma n Street Englewood , Co l orado 80110 Mr. Dorn Whit k r Mag ic Mi l l Center 3487 Sou th Ac om a Str Englewo od , Co l or d o 80110 Mr. Gordon Clos Melody Music 3451 South Acom Engl wood, Colorado 80110 I • • - Tony Mohn i Mo hni's Cu s tom Tailors 3441 South Broadway :::ng lewood , Colorado 80110 Mr . Bob Wa ddell Percussion Specialties 3450 So uth Acoma Street Englewood , Colorado 80110 Leonard & Roger Robohm Rob ohm App. & TV 3445 South Broadway Eng lewood, Colorado 80110 Ms. Di ana Peterson Second Time Shop 344 9 South Broadway Englewo o d, Colora do 80110 Mr . Na te Burt Burt Ch evrolet 5200 South Broa dway Englewood , Colorado 80110 Mr. Au brey B. Brel sford 300 Ea st Hampden Avenue Englewood, Co lora do 80110 Dr. DeWayne L. Glen n c/o Chamber of CollEl e rce 180 ~est Girard Ave n ue Engl~wood, Colorado 80110 Ms. Jeanette Bush 1660 South Albion Street D nv r, Colorado 80222 Mr . Rob rt F. Leonard 3184 South Acoma Street Cng lewood, Colorado 80110 Mr. How rd Brown 1181 South R c Sr t Engl wood, Color do 80110 Mr. How rd Morrie 3129 South Sh rman Str et Engl wood, Colorado 80110 • • • Mr . Pa t Murphy Mu r phy Corporation 3535 South Sherman Street Englewood , Colorado 80110 Ms. Anna Jean Raggety Ann Clothes Emp. 101 West Hampden Avenue Englewood, Colorado 80110 Mr. Litman Sachter Englewood Mens Store 3463 South Broadway Englewood , Colorado 80110 Mr. Bob Voth Sir Speedy Printing 55 West Girard Avenue En g lewood , Colorado 80110 Mr . Phil Grimm Freeman Sig n s 1920 West Cornell Avenue Englewood , Colora do 80110 Mr . Mike Haviland 3535 South Sherman St . Sui t e 150 Englewood, Colorado 80 110 Mr. Cletu s A. Gasson First I nter state Ba nk 3333 So u th Ban n ock Street En g lewoo d , Colorado 80110 Mr. James A. Artzberger Cinderella City Management 701 West Hampden Avenue Englewood, Colorado 80110 Mr . John Kreiling 3131 South High Street Englewood, Colorado 80110 Mr. Roger Gag 2951 South Em rson Street Englewood, Colorado 80110 -Ms . Ba rb ara Holt h aus Nielson Investment Co . 3483 South Acoma Stree t Englewood, Colorado 8011 0 Mr . Al Re iser Al Re i ser Cl o thi e r 3498 South Bro a dway Englewood , Colorado 80110 Mr. Dick Konecne Sam Hills Barber Shop 3456 South Bro a dway Englewood, Colorado 80110 Ms . Chr is Van Vo rst DBA 3460 South Broadway Englewood, Colo r ado 8 01 10 Mr. Douglas Ander s on 2841 South Broadway Englewood, Colorado 80110 Mr . John D. Neal 2885 South Corona Street Englewood , Colorado 80 110 Mr. Barry F . Coleman 3305 South Broadway Englewood, Colorado 80110 Mr. Donald 0 . Seymour 4750 South Lipan Street Englewood, Colorado 80110 Mrs. Virginia Dawson 4850 South Fox Street Englewood, Colorado 80110 Mr. Chester Hallagin 4412 South Gr nt Sr t Englewood, Colorado 80110 I • • - American Freeman Ind. 1920 West Cornell Ave . Englewood, Colorado 80110 Colorado Sign Company 2991 South Tejon Street ~ng lewood, Colorado 80110 Crescent Star Sign Co. 3850 South Jason Street Englewood, Colorado 80110 Keogh&. Company 1101 West Dartmouth Ave. Englewood, Colorado 80110 Daryl K. Tomslick Gordon Sign Company 2930 West 9th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80204 Firs t National Bank of Englewood 333 \.TP.st Hampden ~venue Englewood, ColoraGo 80110 Co!Tllllunity Bank&. Trust 5050 South Broadway En g lewood, Colorado 80110 Majestic Savings &. Loan -336 West Hampd en Avenue En g l :wood, Colorado 80110 Maj s tic S vings &. Loan 5 095 South Broadway En g lewood, Colorado 80110 Waxm n Cam r c/o Dnnny Mill r ,29 5 South Bro dway En g l wood, Colorado 80110 Albert sons ~175 South Broadway En gl wood, Colorado 80110 • • • - '"."a pahoe Signs d23 South Broadway Englewood, Colorado 80110 Colorado Woodsmiths 3225 South Santa Fe Drive Englewood, Colorado 80110 Fenn's Magnetic Signs 4382 South Broadway Englewood, Colorado 80110 Skyline Industries, Inc. 2705 South Tejon Street Englewood, Colorado 80110 Royal Signs 4901 South Huron Street Englewood, Colorado 80110 Republic National Bank 501 West Hampden Avenue Englewood, Colorado 80110 Avco Englewood Industrial Bank 3575 South Sherman Stre t Englewood, r.olorado 80110 Key Savings&. Loan 3501 South Broadway Englewood, Colorado 80110 ColumLia Savings&. Loan 699 West Hampden Avenue Englewood, Colorado 80110 A&. A Tr ding Post 4509 South Broadway Englewood.Colorado 80110 Brookridg Shopping Cent r 47 East C ntennial Avenue Engl wood, Colorado 80110 • Brand It Decal Company 2650 South Zuni Street Englewood, Colorado 80110 Creative Sign&. Display 3311 South Grant Street Englewood, Colorado 80110 Karl Signs of Englewood 4250 South Fox Street Englewood, Colorado 80110 Vital Signs 2484 West Yale Avenue Denver, Colorado 80219 Centennial State Bank of Colorado 5050 South Federal Blvd . Englewood, Colorado 80110 First Interstate Bank of Englewood 3333 South Bannock Street Englewood, Colorado 80110 South Continental Ind. Banl: 770 West Hampden Avenue tnglewood, Colorado 80110 Midland Federal Savings 295 West Hampden Avenue Englewood, Colorado 80110 Targ t Stor c/o Tom Magill 5450 South Bro dway Englewood, Color do 80110 AAMCO Transmission 3925 Sou h Bro dway Engl wood, Color do 80110 Cov rt Auto Body Shop 3255 South Lincoln En 1 wood,Colorado 80110 0 I • Ral ph Schomp Oldsmobile 2949 3outh Broadway Engl ewood, Colorado 8011 0 Crouch Chrysler/Plymouth 5001 South Broadway Englewood, Colorado 80110 General Iron Works 600 West Bates Avenue ~ngl ewood, Colorado 80110 K-Ma rt 200 West Belleview Ave. En g lewood, Colorado 80110 Ma ssa Glass 416 0 South Broadway Englewood , Colorado 80110 Ragsdale Bros., Inc. 4535 South Santa Fe Drive En g lewood.Colorado 80110 Ki n g Soopers, Inc. Cinderella City 701 We s t Hampden Avenue F.nA lewood , Colorado 80110 All en G~st ction Co. 34 60 Sou herman Street Eng lewoo , Colorado 80110 • • • urt on Broadway J200 South Broadway Englewood, Colorado 80110 Eby Construction Company 2901 South Santa Fe Drive Englewood, Colorado 80110 Hampden Center 750 West Hampden Avenue Suite /,HOS Englewood, Colorado 80110 Mister C's Auto Sales 3935 South Broadway Englewood, Colorado 80110 Safeway Stores , Inc . 125 East Hampden Avenue Englewood, Colorado 80110 Brady Corporation 2900 South Shoshone Street Englewood, Colorado 80110 Cairn's 'Conomy Cars, Inc . Genuine Automotive Parts 4732 South Broadway 3220 South Acoma Eng ltwood, Colorado 80110 Englewood.Colorado 80110 Wins low Construction 3002 South Huron Str En g l wood, Color do 80110 onomy For ign Car P rt s 336 5 South Broadway :n 1 oo d , Co l o r ado 80110 Colorado Auto S rvice 3517 South Li ncoln Str t Englewood, Colorado 80110 H ck's Littl Lot Sports Cr Hus 4480 South Broadway Engl wood, Colorado 80110 • Clearview Lincoln/Mercury 5000 South Broadway Englewood, Colorado 80110 First Federal Savings 4301 South Broadway Englewood, Colorado 80110 Harry's Specialty Cars 4201 South Broadw ay Englewood, Colorado 80110 H. E. Lowdermilk Company 1950 West Dartmouth Avenue Englewood, Colorado 80110 The Murphy Corporation 3535 South Sherman Street Englewoou, Colorado 80110 King Soopers, Inc. 5050 South Federal Blvd . Englewood, Colorado 80110 Wilkerson Corooration 1201 West Mansfield Avenue Englewood, Colorado 80110 Building Systems, Inc . 2700 South Shoshone Stree t Englewood, Colorado 801 10 Rob Roy Construction Co . 3279 South Santa F Dr i v Englewood, Colorado 801 1 0 Pr mi r Motors 4040 South Br o dw y Engl wood, Colorado 801 10 D tro i t Vally Mot o r s 4550 South Broadway En 1 wood, Color do 80110 I • • - Wilcox Auto 4769 South Broadway Eng lewood, Colorado 80110 Englewood Press 308 5 South Broadway Englewood, Colorado 80110 Stainless Equipment Co. 28 29 South Santa Fe Dr . Englewood, Colorado 80110 Kathleen Helm Byron & Jack Frank '· 524 South Broadway Englewood, Colorado 80110 C & L Enterprises 4160 South Broadway Englewood, Colorado 80110 Pester Colorado Corp. P. 0 . Box 39300 Denver, Colorado 80239 Bear frame & Axel S rvic 2946 South Broadway Englewood , Color do 80110 J ste rn St tes Financ Corp. c/o Ralph Schomp 29 49 South Broadway ngl wood, Co lorado 80110 Axl 1 A oci ts, Inc. 1061.1 U.S. llinhwny 85 Littl con, Colorado 80120 Willi W. Haltan1on 3700 fruth Colorado Blvd. ngl w od, Color do 0110 • • • • Englewood Auto Brokers 115 South Broadway ~nglewood, Colorado 80110 B. F. Goodrich 2946 South Broadway Enlgewood, Colorado 80110 Coors 4300 South Windermere Englewood, Colorado 80110 James & Dorothy Findlay 3850 South Broadway Englewood, Colorado 80110 Parker B. Watson 2724 South Broadway Englewood, Colorado 80110 Helen E. Shea 5365 South Logan Drive Littleton, Colorado 80121 Four Fem Co. 2600 16th Str .et Denv r, Colorado 80211 The United Company c/o The York Co. -Suite 2526 Prudential Plaza 1050 17th Stre t Denv r, Colorado 80202 Huron P rtn r1hip P. O. Box 868 0 nver, Color do 80201 • Car Quest Walsh Auto Supply 4960 South Broadway Englewood, Colorado 80110 Scheib Auto Painting 2795 South Broadway Englewood, Colorado 80110 Metal Fabricators 3700 South Windermere Englewood, Colorado 80110 Merchants Oil, Inc. 105 South Cherokee Denver, Colorado 80223 Dwight John 891 Pinewood Avenue Littleton, Colorado 80121 Carl Palmer 2896 South Broadway Englewood, Colorado 80110 Four Corner's Associat s 1720 South Bellair St. Room 1269 Denver, Colorado 80222 3191 South Broadway Corporation 3191 South Broadway Englewood Colorado 80110 Engl wood Plaza Limited P. O. Box 18045 D nver, Colorado 80218 I • •