Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZOA-05-06INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WOMBLE Council Bill No. 08-2006 Ordinance No. 1357 Series of 2006 TITLE: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 26-707 A 1 OF THE WHEAT RIDGE CODE OF LAWS PERTAINING TO NONCONFORMING SIGNS BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1. Section 26-707 A 1 of the Zoning and Development Code is hereby amended as follows: A. Nonconforming signs. The lawful use of a sign existing at the effective date of the ordinance from which this article is derived may be continued, although such use does not conform to the provisions of this article, subject to the following provisions: 1. Rebuilding, ems, Relocation, extension, or replacement of reeenstruct~ of a nonconforming sign is not permitted unless such sign is brought into conformance with this article. Enlargement or extension of a nonconforming sign is permitted so long as the nonconformity is not increased. Rebuilding or reconstructing a nonconforming sign is permitted only if the rebuilding or reconstruction is limited to installing a new sign cabinet on an existing support structure. Installing a new sign cabinet together with a new support structure shall constitute replacement of the nonconforming sign and shall require conformance with this article. Section 2. Safety Clause. The City Council hereby finds, determines, and declares that this ordinance is promulgated under the general police power of the City of Wheat Ridge, that it is promulgated for the health, safety, and welfare of the public and that this ordinance is necessary for the preservation of health and safety and for the protection of public convenience and welfare. The City Council further determines that the ordinance bears a rational relation to the proper legislative object sought to be attained. Section 3. Severability; Conflicting Ordinances Repealed If any section, subsection or clause of this ordinance shall be deemed to be unconstitutional or otherwise invalid, the validity of the remaining section, subsections and clauses shall not be affected thereby. All other ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed. Section 4. Effective Date. This ordinance shall mite effect 15 days after final publication. INTRODUCED, READ, AND ADOPTED on first reading by a vote of 6 to 0 on this 13th day of March, 2006, ordered published in full in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Wheat Ridge and Public Hearing and consideration on final passage set for March 27, 2006, at 7:00 o'clock p.m., in the Council Chambers, 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. READ, ADOPTED AND ORDERED PUBLISHED on second and final reading by a vote of 5 to 2 , this 27th day of march 1 2006. SIGNED by the Mayor on this 4th day of April 2006. JE 9TUL, MAYOR Pame a Y. An erson APPROVED AS TO FORM BY CITY i 2" K I GERALD DAHL, CIT AT ORNEY 1st Publication: March 16, 2006 2nd Publication: March 30, 2006 Wheat Ridge Transcript Effective Date: April 14, 2006 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 27, 2006 Page -3- Item 3. COUNCIL BILL 08-2006 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 26- 707 A 1 OF THE WHEAT RIDGE CODE OF LAWS PERTAINING TO NONCONFORMING SIGNS (Case No ZOA-05-06) Mayor DiTullio opened the public hearing Council Bill 08-2006 was introduced on second reading by Mr Womble Clerk assigned Ordinance No 1357 Alan White, Director of Community Development, presented the staff report. Notice of the public hearing was provided as required by the municipal code Mayor DiTullio closed the public hearing Motion by Mr Womble to approve Council Bill 08-2006 (Ordinance No 1357) on second reading and that it take effect 15 days after final publication, seconded by Mr Schulz; carried 5-2, with Councilmembers Adams and Berry voting no Ms Berry does not believe an Ordinance should address specific situations but should be a comprehensive policy ELECTED OFFICIALS' MATTERS Consensus carried to bring the Senior tracking system to a study session Meeting adjourned at 7 43 p m amela A derson, City Clerk APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL ON APRIL 10, 2006 BY A VOTE OF ~7 to Mike Stites, Council President The preceding Minutes were prepared according to §47 of Robert's Rules of Order, i e they contain a record of what was done at the meeting, not what was said by the members Recordings and DVD's of the meetings are available for listening or viewing in the City Clerk's Office, as well as copies of Ordinances and Resolutions of w„EqT ITEM NO: a V m REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION OORA00 `ry !,WE9T{ 'O COUNCIL MEETING DATE: March 27, 2006 TITLE: COUNCIL BILL 08-2006, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 26-707 A 1 OF THE WHEAT RIDGE CODE OF LAWS PERTAINING TO NONCONFORMING SIGNS (CASE NO. ZOA 05-06) ® PUBLIC HEARING ❑ ORDINANCES FOR 1 ST READING (Date: March 13, 2006) ❑ BIDS/MOTIONS ® ORDINANCES FOR 2ND READING ❑ RESOLUTIONS Quasi-Judicial: ❑ Yes No Community Development Director City Manager EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: In December 2005 City Council directed staff to prepare an ordinance amending Section 26-707 A of the Code of laws dealing with non-conforming signs, specifically to clarify how terms used in the section apply to non-conforming signs. The intent is to not require signs to be brought into conformance with other sections of the sign code if the only change is the replacement of a cabinet on top of an existing structure. The proposed ordinance was not recommended for approval by Planning Commission at a public hearing on January 5, 2006. The proposed ordinance affects Council's strategic goals of developing I-70 as a major commercial corridor and redeveloping the Wheat Ridge City Center since signage is an integral part of development in these subareas of the City. As with any amendment to development regulations, the ordinance also prepares the City for growth and opportunities. COMMISSION/BOARD RECOMMENDATION: Planning Commission recommended the proposed code change not be adopted. STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES: Planning Commission was concerned that the proposed ordinance would perpetuate the existence of nonconforming signs; that old nonconforming pole signs would continue to dominate the City's streetscapes. It was felt that the sign code should be examined in its entirety and not in a piecemeal fashion. The sign code should be looked at in relation to the Comprehensive Plan, NRS, Streetscape Manual, and the Strategic Plan. This code change will apply to all nonconforming signs throughout the City and its impact will not be isolated to one section of the City. Pole signs tend to clutter the visual environment and detract from any streetscape or landscape improvements, unlike monument signs. Street trees, required by the Streetscape Manual, can block the visibility of pole signs once the trees reach a mature height. Allowing the continued use of pole signage will tend to perpetuate the cluttered environments we see on many of the City's streets. The hardest thing to deal with in a community that is mostly built-out is effecting changes that will be good in the long run, but which create some hardship in the interim. One part of a comprehensive program to improve the image of the City's streets (a goal in the NRS) would be to require that all signs be converted to monument signs. The current code only encourages this. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED: 1. Provide additional incentives to convert pole signs to monument signs. (Currently the code allows a waiver of permit fees to bring a nonconforming sign into conformance.) 2. Reduce the required setback for signs, thereby eliminating in many cases the creation of the nonconformity. 3. Do not approve the ordinance. FINANCIAL IMPACT: The code change will not have a financial impact on the City. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve Council Bill 08-2006 on second reading and that it take effect 15 days after final publication." Or, "I move to table indefinitely Council Bill 08-2006." Report Prepared by: Alan White, Community Development Director Attachments: 1. Planning Commission memo 2. Council Bill 08-2006 1AComdev\AWhite Files\wning amendments\Sign Code\Nonconforming Sigs CAF 2nd.doc of w„E ITEM NO: o U oRPOp m REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION COUNCIL MEETING DATE: March 13, 2006 TITLE: COUNCIL BILL 08-2006, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 26-707 A I OF THE WHEAT RIDGE CODE OF LAWS PERTAINING TO NONCONFORMING SIGNS (CASE NO. ZOA 05-06) ❑ PUBLIC HEARING ® ORDINANCES FOR 1 ST READING (Date: March 13, 2006) ❑ BIDS/MOTIONS ❑ ORDINANCES FOR 2ND READING ❑ RESOLUTIONS Quasi-Judicial: ❑ Yes No Community Development Director City Manager EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: In December 2005 City Council directed staff to prepare an ordinance amending Section 26-707 A of the Code of laws dealing with non-conforming signs, specifically to clarify how terns used in the section apply to non-conforming signs. The intent is to not require signs to be brought into conformance with other sections of the sign code if the only change is the replacement of a cabinet on top of an existing structure. The proposed ordinance was not recommended for approval by Planning Commission at a public hearing on January 5, 2006. The proposed ordinance affects Council's strategic goals of developing I-70 as a major commercial corridor and redeveloping the Wheat Ridge City Center since signage is an integral part of development in these subareas of the City. As with any amendment to development regulations, the ordinance also prepares the City for growth and opportunities. COMMISSION/BOARD RECOMMENDATION: Planning Commission recommended the proposed code change not be adopted. STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES: Planning Commission was concerned that the proposed ordinance would perpetuate the existence of nonconforming signs; that old nonconforming pole signs would continue to dominate the City's streetscapes. It was felt that the sign code should be examined in its entirety and not in a piecemeal fashion. The sign code should be looked at in relation to the Comprehensive Plan, NRS, Streetscape Manual, and the Strategic Plan. This code change will apply to all nonconforming signs throughout the City and its impact will not be isolated to one section of the City. Pole signs tend to clutter the visual environment and detract from any streetscape or landscape improvements, unlike monument signs. Street trees, required by the Streetscape Manual, can block the visibility of pole signs once the trees reach a mature height. Allowing the continued use of pole signage will tend to perpetuate the cluttered environments we see on many of the City's streets. The hardest thing to deal with in a community that is mostly built-out is effecting changes that will be good in the long run, but which create some hardship in the interim. One part of a comprehensive program to improve the image of the City's streets (a goal in the NRS) would be to require that all signs be converted to monument signs. The current code only encourages this. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED: 1. Provide additional incentives to convert pole signs to monument signs. (Currentlythe code allows a waiver of permit fees to bring a nonconforming sign into conformance.) 2. Reduce the required setback for signs, thereby eliminating in many cases the creation of the nonconformity. 3. Do not approve the ordinance. FINANCIAL IMPACT: The code change will not have a financial impact on the City. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve Council Bill 08-2006 on first reading, order it published, public hearing set for Monday, March 27, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. in City Council Chambers, and that it take effect 15 days after final publication." Or, "l move to table indefinitely Council Bill 08-2006. \\srv ieng-002\users$\awhite\All Files\zoning amendments\Sign Code\Nonconforming Sigs CAF Ist.doe Report Prepared by: Alan White, Community Development Director Reviewed by: Attachments: 1. Planning' Commission memo 2. Council Bill 08-2006 \\sr -cicng-002\users$\awhite\All Files\zoning amendments\Sign CodMonconfoming Sigs CAF Ist.doc City of Wheat Ridge of WHEgT p Community Development Department ° Memorandum ~~~oRP~~ TO: Planning Commission FROM: Alan White, Community Development Director SUBJECT: ZOA 05-06, Change to Nonconforming Signs Provision DATE: December 30, 2005 Council directed staff to prepare an ordinance which would clarify Section 26-707 A 1 of the Zoning and Development Code, specifically to clarify what the terms rebuilding and reconstruction mean with regard to nonconforming signs. The intent of Council's direction is to allow new sign cabinets to be installed on existing support structures (usually poles) without meeting height and setback standards. Currently the code provision reads as follows: "Rebuilding, enlargement, relocation, extension, replacement, or reconstruction of a nonconforming sign is not permitted unless such sign is brought into conformance with this article." This provision has been in the Zoning and Development Code for decades. The provision has consistently been interpreted to include the placement of a new sign cabinet on top of an existing structure as either "rebuilding" or "reconstruction." Current Regulations The code changes in 2001 required setbacks for freestanding signs of a certain height as follows: Setback from adjacent properties: Ten (10) feet where adjacent to residential-zoned properties; no setback in all other cases with other than residential (including PRD) zoning. Where a sign exists on an adjacent property and that sign is within twenty (20) feet of the proposed location of a new sign on the adjacent property, an offset, either vertical or horizontal, shall be required such that the existing sign is not visually blocked by the new sign. 2. From street right-of-way: Five (5) feet for signs under seven (7) feet high; ten (10) feet for signs seven (7) to twenty-five (25) feet high, and thirty (30) feet for signs over twenty-five (25) feet high. Maximum height of a free-standing sign is fifteen (15) feet; provided that signs for retail and service businesses within one-quarter (1/4) mile of an interstate highway, that are oriented to the interstate highway, are permitted one (1) freestanding sign up to fifty (50) feet high. Any other permitted freestanding sign shall not exceed fifteen (15) feet. Most of the nonconformities today are a result of signs not meeting the new setbacks required by the height of the sign. ATTACHMENT 1 Proposed Code Changes The changes to subsection 1 are intended to clarify what can be done to nonconforming signs Signs being replaced or relocated (meaning new support structure and new sign cabinet) should be required to meet the provisions of the new code. The new requirements should apply to what is essentially a new sign. The legality of the nonconformity shouldn't carry over to the new sign. Enlargement or expansion would be allowed as long as the nonconformity was not increased. For example, on a sign with a nonconforming setback, a larger sign could be put on an existing support structure as long as the setback wasn't reduced. (Setback is measured from the leading or streetside edge of the sign.) The terms rebuilding and reconstructing would not include placing a new sign cabinet on top of an existing support structure. If both the support structure and sign cabinet were being replaced, the sign would be considered a replacement sign, which would have to conform to the new provisions. Planning Commission reviewed the nonconforming sign provisions while reviewing the sign code re-write brought forward by staff. Your concern was more directed at how to treat signs that were damaged. Your recommendation was to allow nonconforming signs to be rebuilt unless damaged by more than 50% by any means or if a business increases in size by 20%. An additional recommendation was to include an amortization period of five years for all nonconforming signs. Attached are minutes from the hearings at which you dealt with nonconforming signs. Issues The hardest thing to deal with in a community that is mostly built-out is effecting changes that will be good in the long run, but which create some hardship in the interim. One part of a comprehensive program to improve the image of the City's streets (a goal in the NRS) is to require that all signs be converted to monument signs. (The current code only encourages this.) Pole signs tend to clutter the visual environment and detract from any streetscape or landscape improvements, unlike monument signs. If anything, the existing code isn't strong enough in requiring pole signs to be converted. Allowing the use of pole signage tends to perpetuate the cluttered environments we see on many of the City's streets. An alternative is to reduce the setback requirements. Suggested Motions "I move to recommend approval of the ordinance amending subparagraph 1 of the nonconforming provisions of the Sign Code as presented by staff." Or, if you make changes: "I move to recommend approval of the ordinance amending subparagraph 1 of the nonconforming provisions of the sign Code with the following changes: 2" INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER Council Bill No. 08-2006 Ordinance No. Series of 2006 TITLE: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 26-707 A 1 OF THE WHEAT RIDGE CODE OF LAWS PERTAINING TO NONCONFORMING SIGNS BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1. Section 26-707 A 1 of the Zoning and Development Code is hereby amended as follows: A. Nonconforming signs. The lawful use of a sign existing at the effective date of the ordinance from which this article is derived may be continued, although such use does not conform to the provisions of this article, subject to the following provisions: 1. Debellaing, enlafgemen4, Relocation, extensienr or replacement or r-eeenstmetion of a nonconforming sign is not permitted unless such sign is brought into conformance with this article. Enlargement or extension of a nonconforming sign is permitted so long as the nonconformity is not increased. Rebuilding or reconstructing a nonconforming sign is permitted only if the rebuilding or reconstruction is limited to installing a new sign cabinet on an existing support structure. Installing a new sign cabinet together with a new support structure shall constitute replacement of the nonconforming sign and shall require conformance with this article. Section 2. Safety Clause. The City Council hereby finds, determines, and declares that this ordinance is promulgated under the general police power of the City of Wheat Ridge, that it is promulgated for the health, safety, and welfare of the public and that this ordinance is necessary for the preservation of health and safety and for the protection of public convenience and welfare. The City Council further determines that the ordinance bears a rational relation to the proper legislative object sought to be attained. Section 3. Severability; Conflicting Ordinances Repealed. If any section, subsection or clause of this ordinance shall be deemed to be unconstitutional or otherwise invalid, the validity of the remaining section, subsections and clauses shall not be affected thereby. All other ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed. Section 4. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect 15 days after final publication. ATTACHMENT 2 INTRODUCED, READ, AND ADOPTED on first reading by a vote of to on this day of , 2006, ordered published in full in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Wheat Ridge and Public Hearing and consideration on final passage set for , 2006, at 7:00 o'clock p.m., in the Council Chambers, 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. READ, ADOPTED AND ORDERED PUBLISHED on second and final reading by a vote of to , this day of 2006. SIGNED by the Mayor on this day of 2006. JERRY DITULLIO, MAYOR ATTEST: Pamela Y. Anderson APPROVED AS TO FORM BY CITY ATTORNEY GERALD DAHL, CITY ATTORNEY 1st Publication: 2nd Publication: Wheat Ridge Transcript Effective Date: N O U O w ❑ o V V O C LJ ~J 4-J ca a--) 4- O N i (a U 0) N ra N V C fQ N ro ~o C: CD cn ° o Ln Ln cn _ E - U r , y 0) r a c (n L J ~ 4- O i O a a 0 n 1.6 N cv N Lr) f0 U O uj V) >1 N u C 0 U c~ C O N p U N o j V v O~ n 'i o O u OO O 4 O -tz C C C N C 6 ~ O O Z Q C ,O OO 0 ~ o o i ~ o i C ~ C U O, O ~ C Q O V ~ O L dl t,)) '4. O O O O C O V-4 N L a-+ - L ~ - O N J 72 4- o 4-J O 61 p . L O _ N m J L. LL C O C7 L L H yam.. C N U) = C C O 0) O L C U ) u -a l0 L p 'O C cUn 16 C 4-J O v a N cn O 0 4-J fu fu (n O V1 p O u 4 _ O ~ C ~ L O C (n U O C • _ • ' O Q z V ro C ro t pl u L/i O O N Q. Q O a--~ N .0 ro ro 0- E O V u i N C N U 0) c .Q Q O ro 7- Qu\ is t U c ro ce U) c L dl N L U 0) c .Q Q O LO c O N ry, V ARTE, ro +1.+ £ ' V t .4 T W O O L 0 y z fu w 7 1 l -J w a S fir." r a ~y ~P Wv S rvY i <iS$ ~ GB :~e iA.. / Y rx 4~ ' a~ ro N a~ c Q d- C1 :0 w 4-J ro a~ I a 00 M Q U 0 U L ru U L 4O a~ c Q) E ro a) V) ro U c ~ O O can 0) L O U I c O c 0) c E a~ L L O c U c h-I a~ O al c E L c O U -1--I c 61 E L c O I c O c m a) U f6 Q L O a--1 L Q O Z 0) d--1 E c c O L U (O N V O 'O 6.- City of Wheat Ridge of ""EqT Community Development Department ° ~ m Memorandum ~~CORADO TO: Planning Commission FROM: Alan White, Community Development Director SUBJECT: ZOA 05-06, Change to Nonconforming Signs Provision DATE: December 30, 2005 Council directed staff to prepare an ordinance which would clarify Section 26-707 A 1 of the Zoning and Development Code, specifically to clarify what the terms rebuilding and reconstruction mean with regard to nonconforming signs. The intent of Council's direction is to allow new sign cabinets to be installed on existing support structures (usually poles) without meeting height and setback standards. Currently the code provision reads as follows: "Rebuilding, enlargement, relocation, extension, replacement, or reconstruction of a nonconforming sign is not permitted unless such sign is brought into conformance with this article." This provision has been in the Zoning and Development Code for decades. The provision has consistently been interpreted to include the placement of anew sign cabinet on top of an existing structure as either "rebuilding" or "reconstruction." Current Regulations The code changes in 2001 required setbacks for freestanding signs of a certain height as follows: 1. Setback from adjacent properties: Ten (10) feet where adjacent to residential-zoned properties; no setback in all other cases with other than residential (including PRD) zoning. Where a sign exists on an adjacent property and that sign is within twenty (20) feet of the proposed location of a new sign on the adjacent property, an offset, either vertical or horizontal, shall be required such that the existing sign is not visually blocked by the new sign. 2. From street right-of-way: Five (5) feet for signs under seven (7) feet high; ten (10) feet for signs seven (7) to twenty-five (25) feet high, and thirty (30) feet for signs over twenty-five (25) feet high. Maximum height of a free-standing sign is fifteen (15) feet; provided that signs for retail and service businesses within one-quarter (1/4) mile of an interstate highway, that are oriented to the interstate highway, are permitted one (1) freestanding sign up to fifty (50) feet high. Any other permitted freestanding sign shall not exceed fifteen (15) feet. Most of the nonconformities today are a result of signs not meeting the new setbacks required by the height of the sign. Proposed Code Changes The changes to subsection 1 are intended to clarify what can be done to nonconforming signs. Signs being replaced or relocated (meaning new support structure and new sign cabinet) should be required to meet the provisions of the new code. The new requirements should apply to what is essentially a new sign. The legality of the nonconformity shouldn't carry over to the new sign. Enlargement or expansion would be allowed as long as the nonconformity was not increased. For example, on a sign with a nonconforming setback, a larger sign could be put on an existing support structure as long as the setback wasn't reduced. (Setback is measured from the leading or streetside edge of the sign.) The terms rebuilding and reconstructing would not include placing a new sign cabinet on top of an existin support structure. If both the support structure and sign cabinet were being replaced, the sign would be considered a replacement sign, which would have to conform to the new provisions. Planning Commission reviewed the nonconforming sign provisions while reviewing the sign code re-write brought forward by staff. Your concern was more directed at how to treat signs that were damaged. Your recommendation was to allow nonconforming signs to be rebuilt unless damaged by more than 50% by any means or if a business increases in size by 20%. An additional recommendation was to include an amortization period of five years for all nonconforming signs. Attached are minutes from the hearings at which you dealt with nonconforming signs. Issues The hardest thing to deal with in a community that is mostly built-out is effecting changes that will be good in the long run, but which create some hardship in the interim. One part of a comprehensive program to improve the image of the City's streets (a goal in the NRS) is to require that all signs be converted to monument signs. (The current code only encourages this.) Pole signs tend to clutter the visual environment and detract from any streetscape or landscape improvements, unlike monument signs. If anything, the existing code isn't strong enough in requiring pole signs to be converted. Allowing the use of pole signage tends to perpetuate the cluttered environments we see on many of the City's streets. An alternative is to reduce the setback requirements. Suggested Motions "I move to recommend approval of the ordinance amending subparagraph 1 of the nonconforming provisions of the Sign Code as presented by staff." Or, if you make changes: "I move to recommend approval of the ordinance amending subparagraph 1 of the nonconforming provisions of the sign Code with the following changes: 1. 2." INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER Council Bill No. Ordinance No. Series of 2006 TITLE: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 26-707 A 1 OF THE WHEAT RIDGE CODE OF LAWS PERTAINING TO NONCONFORMING SIGNS BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1. Section 26-707 A 1 of the Zoning and Development Code is hereby amended as follows: A. Nonconforming signs. The lawful use of a sign existing at the effective date of the ordinance from which this article is derived may be continued, although such use does not conform to the provisions of this article, subject to the following provisions: 1. Rebuildi", enlarge ::ent, Relocation, extension, or replacement or reeenstraetiea of a nonconforming sign is not permitted unless such sign is brought into conformance with this article. Enlargement or extension of a nonconforming sign is permitted so long as the nonconformity is not increased. Rebuilding or reconstructing a nonconforming sign is permitted only if the rebuilding or reconstruction is limited to installing a new sign cabinet on an existing support structure. Installing a new sign cabinet together with a new support structure shall constitute replacement of the . nonconforming sign and shall require conformance with this article. Section 2. Safety Clause. The City Council hereby finds, determines, and declares that this ordinance is promulgated under the general police power of the City of Wheat Ridge, that it is promulgated for the health, safety, and welfare of the public and that this ordinance is necessary for the preservation of health and safety and for the protection of public convenience and welfare. The City Council further determines that the ordinance bears a rational relation to the proper legislative object sought to be attained. Section 3. Severability; Conflicting Ordinances Reuealed. If any section, subsection or clause of this ordinance shall be deemed to be unconstitutional or otherwise invalid, the validity of the remaining section, subsections and clauses shall not be affected thereby. All other ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed. Section 4. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect 15 days after final publication. INTRODUCED, READ, AND ADOPTED on first reading by a vote of to on this day of 2006, ordered published in full in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Wheat Ridge and Public Hearing and consideration on final passage set for 2006, at 7:00 o'clock p.m., in the Council Chambers, 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. READ, ADOPTED AND ORDERED PUBLISHED on second and final reading by a vote of to , this day of 2006. SIGNED by the Mayor on this day of 12006. JERRY DITULLIO, MAYOR ATTEST: Pamela Y. Anderson APPROVED AS TO FORM BY CITY ATTORNEY GERALD DAHL, CITY ATTORNEY 1 st Publication: 2nd Publication: Wheat Ridge Transcript Effective Date: 6. PUBLIC FORUM There were none present who wished to address the Commission during this portion of the meeting. 7. STUDY SESSION A. Case No. ZOA-03-18: An ordinance amending Chapter 26 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws pertaining to signage. At an earlier meeting, the Commission requested more research on how other communities address the following items: nonconforming signs, balloons/pennants/flags, off-premises and political signs. Meredith Reckert reviewed the staff report that contained the requested information. There was discussion regarding a time limit on the display of political signs, especially after an election is over. It was moved by Commissioner WESLEY and seconded by Commissioner McNAMEE that political signs for ballot issues, primary and general elections be allowed to go up 90 days before the election and be required to be taken down 15 days after the election. Commissioner McMILLIN did not agree that the 15-day time limit should apply to primary election signs. Commissioner STEWART expressed concern about the necessity and enforcement of time limits. The motion failed 3-3 with Commissioners CHILVERS, McMILLIN and STEWART voting no and Commissioners SCEZNEY and WITT absent. Replacement of nonconforming sign issues was discussed. Amortization issues were discussed. Alan White will discuss these issues with the city attorney and will also survey other cities to see if they have amortization for nonconforming signs. There was a consensus that nonconforming signs can stay unless there is damage of more than 50% or a substantial increase in square footage of the business. There was a consensus to accept banner regulations as outlined in the staff report; however, there was discussion about limiting the size of a banner that stays up all the time to one-half the size allowed for a permanent wall sign. Milton Tedford Mr. Tedford, owner of 42 West, stated that he appeared-in municipal court and paid a hundred dollar fine for having an off-premise sign for his apartment complex. The sign had been in place for over twenty years and Mr. Tedford thought it was legal until he recently received a notice from the city telling him it was illegal. In checking his files, he did find evidence of Planning Commission Page 2 December 2, 2004 payment for a 3-month renewable off-premise sign in 1985. The sign is his main source of advertisement for his apartments. He stated that he was not asking the city to change the sign 1 code but wanted the city to make an accommodation for him to keep the sign via variance, grandfathering or applying a statute of limitations to allow his sign to remain where it has been for twenty years. He mentioned that the property owner who allowed the off-premise sign may request a rezone to commercial so that the sign would be allowed. There was discussion about the problem of setting a precedent if this sign is allowed. Alan White mentioned that other off-premises signs have been cited and removed. He also explained that variances cannot be allowed for something that is prohibited in the code. While the Commissioners were sympathetic to Mr. Tedford's situation, they did not believe the sign was legal just because code enforcement action was not taken until recently. It was moved by Commissioner McMILLIN and seconded by Commissioner WESLEY to reaffirm the city's ban on off-premise signs. The motion passed 6-0 with Commissioners SCEZNEY and WITT absent. 8. OLD BUSINESS Commissioner MCMILLIN stated that he would like to see the proposed lighting ordinance address commercial issues only and not address single family and duplex lighting (front porch lights) at this time. 9. NEW BUSINESS There was no new business to come before the Commission. 10. COMMISSION REPORTS There were no commission reports. 11. COMMITTEE AND DEPARTMENT REPORTS There were no committee and department reports. 12. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner CHILVERS and seconded by Commissioner STEWART to adjourn the meeting at 9:00 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. Phil Plummer, Chair Ann Lazzeri, Recording Secretary Planning Commission Page 3 December 2, 2004 the recently installed city lighting, such as along 38"' Avenue, illegal and cause a financial burden to the city for lighting replacement. Commissioner MCMILLIN commented that the ordinance won't require replacement of the lights, but any new lighting would have to conform to the ordinance. Mayor Cerveny stated that she would like to see any new lighting look the same as that already installed. Chair PLUMMER commented that shields could be placed on existing lights without a great deal of expense. New lighting could look the same and still conform to the new lighting standards. There was discussion about giving direction to staff to research and report on options for retrofitting existing street and pedestrian lights It was moved by Commissioner McMILLIN and seconded by Commissioner WESLEY that the ordinance be amended under Section E,1 "Parking Lots" to read: Maximum foot-candles shall not exceed ten (10) foot-candles for parking lots measured as an average of readings taken directly under a main lighting standard and directly between two lighting standards in the interior of the parking lot. The motion passed 3-2 with Commissioners CHILVERS and SCEZNEY voting no and Commissioners STEWART and WITT absent. It was moved by Commissioner McMILLIN and seconded by Commissioner WESLEY that Case No. ZOA-03-18, proposed amendments to Chapter 26 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws regarding the sign code, be approved with the amendment to Section E,1. The motion passed 5-0 with Commissioners STEWART and WITT absent. B. Case No. ZOA-03-18: An ordinance amending Chapter 26 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws pertaining to signage. This case was presented by Meredith Reckert. There was jurisdiction to hear the case and Ms. Reckert reviewed the staff report. Time limits on the display of political signs and number of signs allowed per candidate or issue were discussed and whether or not time limits would infringe upon freedom of speech. Commissioner WESLEY suggested that the city attorney research case law regarding such limitations and their relation to freedom of speech. Amortization for nonconforming signs was discussed. Commissioner CH LVERS commented that it is important to reach a long-term solution to nonconforming signs in the city. Commissioner WESLEY suggested defining political campaign signs which would be different than political signs. Chair PLUMMER asked to hear from members of the public. Planning Commission Page 3 January 20, 2005 Gretchen Cerveny 3425 Moore Street Mayor Cerveny asked for more clarification regarding flags, pennants and streamers. She asked if flags on light poles along 38a', balloons such as those on dealership automobiles, and streamers such as on Casey's RV were allowed under the proposed ordinance. Ms. Reckert explained that the 38`s Avenue business district and holiday flags are permitted under the flags for non-profit organizations or holiday decorations categories of the regulations. The streamers similar to those at Casey's RV are allowed up to 30 days per year. The balloon regulations apply to large advertising balloons and not small balloons such as those attached to automobiles at dealerships. It was moved by Commissioner McMILLIN and seconded by Commissioner CHILVERS that Case No. ZOA-03-18, proposed amendments to Chapter 26 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws regarding sign code, be forwarded to City Council with a recommendation of approval for the following reasons: 1. The changes will improve readability and understanding of the sign code. 2. The changes deal more effectively with negative effects of exterior lighting on adjacent properties. With the following conditions: 1. Accept Option B amortizing nonconformities over a five-year deadline and eliminating section (B) of Option B pertaining to discontinued businesses. 2. The city attorney will research case law regarding time limitations for political campaign signs as they relate to free speech. 3. The category for "Pennants, streamers, and similar devises" be expanded as discussed. The motion passed 5-0 with Commissioners STEWART and WITT absent. 8. OLD BUSINESS There was no old business to come before the Commission. 9. NEW BUSINESS There was no new business to come before the Commission. 10. COMMISSION REPORTS There were no commission reports. 11. COMMITTEE AND DEPARTMENT REPORTS There were no committee and department reports. Planning Commission Page 4 January 20, 2005, NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that a Public Hearing is to be held before the City of Wheat Ridge PLANNING COMMISSION on January 5, 2006, at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers of the Municipal Building at 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. All interested citizens are invited to speak at the Public Hearing or submit written comments. The following cases shall be heard: Case No. ZOA-05-03: An ordinance amending Chapter 26 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws pertaining to public noticing. Case No. ZOA-05-06: An ordinance amending Chapter 26 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws pertaining to signage. Kathy Field, Administrative Assistant ATTEST: Pamela Y. Anderson, City Clerk To Be Published: Wheat Ridge Transcript Date: December 29, 2005 Case -NJ0.: App: Last Name: App: First Name: Owner: Last Name: Owner: First Name: App Address: City, State Zip: App: Phone: Owner Address: City/State/Zip: Owner Phone: Project Address: Street Name: City/State, Zip: Case Disposition: Project Planner: File Location: Notes: Follow-Up: OA0506 ! Quarter Section Map No.: Citywide Related Cases: Case History: end code pertaining to - ignage Review Body: - PC: 1/5/06 APN: ' -1 2nd Review Body: C 2nd Review Date: Decision-making Body: OC _ Approval/Denial Date: Reso/Ordinance No.: Conditions of Approval: hite ctive District: A Date Received: 1212012005 Pre-App Date: