A bill for an ordinance relating to the Denver Zoning Code, to improve clarity and usability. Approves a text amendment to the Denver Zoning Code to clarify what constitutes a “sign” for purposes of zoning regulation and correct a code drafting error that may cause confusion regarding permitted setback encroachments for one-story porches and similar features. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 8-21-18.
I'm Madam Secretary. Please close voting. Announce the results. 1109 accountable 877 has passed. Councilman Brooks, will you please vote council bill 886 on the floor. I thank you, Ms.. President. I move the council bill 866, eight, eight six be placed upon final consideration and do pass. It has been moved and seconded. Thank you. The public hearing for Council Bill 886 is open. May we have the staff report? Yes. Good evening, Mr. President. Members of the city council. I mean, it's just Matthew Stoiber with community planning and development. I'm just trying to get the slide show up here. And yes, this is a proposed zoning code, text amendment, text amendment number two to the Denver zoning code, which would remove the word colors from the definition of sign. And it's also a correction regarding one storey porch encroachment as a result of the made this your slot home text amendment. So I'll just briefly go over the purpose of the amendment summary of the changes review of the public engagement process. I'll go through the review criteria and the staff recommendation at the end. The purpose of the amendment is the clarification of what constitutes sign for purposes of zoning regulation, and then also a correction of a code drafting error that may cause confusion regarding permitted setback encroachments for one storey porches and similar features. I'll take the first part of the amendment first. The current definition of sign in the Denver zoning code. It's it's rather lengthy, but it's basically a device or object that advertises by any means, including words, letters, fixture figures, colors, designs, symbols, fixtures, motion, illumination or projected images. So let's take a look at that word colors. What does that mean? This is a question that our reviewers are faced with in community planning and development. The gas station canopy, if there's just a red band on the gas station canopy or a green band, depending on the gas station, is that a sign in and of itself ? Obviously, that Conoco is a sign. But what about just that red band? What about the beige color that is used in corporate architecture, franchise architecture such as the Olive Garden restaurant? What about the public storage facility, which has orange doors and they've actually trademarked that color orange on their door? Are they each are each of those individual doors a sign? Again. From that definition I just read you signs are words, images, designs, etc. that advertise colors was included in the definition of sign as part of the 1971 sign code update. And certainly colors are part of sign designs, but zoning historically has not considered color alone. To be a sign and sign committing sign permitting by staff regarding color has not been applied consistently. Exterior colors are not limited by zoning. Sometimes design guidelines may give guidance regarding color. These are not in the zoning code and this will not be changed by the zoning amendment and would continue to apply. So how did how did we get here tonight? There were questions raised recently by the Colorado Wyoming Petroleum Marketers Association regarding if color the use of color alone on a building should be regulated as a sign. And again, as I mentioned, regulating color alone as signage is not consistent with historic press practice among staff. So as a result of this question from from the Petroleum Marketers Association and others, the zoning administrator issued a determination or an interpretation of the zoning code in November of last year that would have limited colors as signs to trademark or trade dress. However, the Board of Adjustment overturned this interpretation in May of this year. The effect of this Board of Adjustment decision is back where we started, which is that color as a sign is not limited to trademark. As a result of this, there's a lack of policy direction and a need for clarity and consistency in regulation. The question keeps still still comes up is color alone a sign? And so that is what has led us to this amendment. The amended definition of sign will read the same as before, but the word colors would be stricken from the amendment. I would, however, note that the definition says by any means, including so this is a non-exclusive list of what constitutes a sign, and this still gives staff some flexibility in determining what exactly is a sign. However, it will it would give us some clear direction, I think, and the questions I raised earlier. So these are examples that I pointed to earlier of building colors that would not be considered signs post amendment, the public storage orange doors. So those I think there's 16 or so orange doors. Those are not 16 signs. The sign that says public storage is still a sign, of course, and colors that are used in franchise architecture, for example, these colored shapes on the on the facade of the Taco Bell restaurant would not be considered signs. Of course, the Taco Bell logo and the bell itself is still a sign. So what's the impact of this? Practically speaking, it will reduce ambiguity and the possibility for subjective code. Administration and enforcement among staff. Staff will be able to enforce this consistently and there will be no difference on the ground. What's a sign and how signs are regulated will continue consistent with the typical I wouldn't say exclusive practice, but typical practice since 1971. I just want to recap some questions we received at the alumni committee hearing regarding future steps in the sign code that were raised at that at that hearing. So the city is planning to undertake a bundle of sign focused text amendments to ensure efficient and legal code administration. The kickoff to this bundle will begin early next year, and CPD will host stakeholder meetings to gather public input on this. The bundle process typically takes 9 to 12 months. The city also intends a larger scale effort to rethink and update this update to sign code within the next few years. The second part of this text amendment will maintain historical levels and allowances for porches and similar features to encroach that. Encroach into primary. Minimum. Primary. Street setbacks. It will correct a code drafting error that was adopted in the May 2018 slot Home Text Amendment that can cause confusion among reviewers regarding setback encroachment for one storey porches and similar features in some zone districts. What this amendment would do would return the relevant porch encroachment text to the pre slot Home Amendment state to fix this drafting error that appears to allow setback encroachments for multistory porches but not one storey porches in some zone districts. And it will maintain the intended new allowance for one storey porches to encroach into the increased side interior setbacks when using the new townhouse building form. It will also standardize formatting and terminology used for the allowed porch encroachments. Just want to summarize the public engagement process for you. We took this question about the color assigned to the ANC zoning committee in June. A red line draft of the amendment was posted to the CPD website and informational notice was sent to RINOs in July. We had a public hearing and planning board on July 16th and the I'm sorry, July 18th and then a public hearing on the 1st of August. Prom planning board recommended approval. Again, we had a committee meeting at Luti on the 21st and I talked already about the question that came up about the sign code update. There was also a question that was raised about consistency with small area plans, which I'll cover in the next slide. And then you can see the rest of the public engagement process there. So the review criteria, which is covered in detail in your staff report, includes consistency with adopted plans and policies. So I'm not advancing. Here we go. Can't plan 2000. It should be flexible and accommodating of land use needs, supportive of the city's economic strengths and can be fairly administered and enforced, encourages positive change in diversity and development consistent with character of surrounding neighborhoods and applies appropriate controls and assented incentives and encourages porches. These are all recommendations out of current Plan 2000, which the proposal is consistent with. Blueprint Denver 2002. The amendment is consistent with recommendations regarding signs in commercial areas. It's consistent with recommendations for language amendments and areas of stability. And it's consistent with recommendations that encouraged front porches. Again, I mentioned that there was a question at Liberty regarding is it consistent with adopted small area plans as well as the citywide plan. So we looked and this is summarized in your staff report, we looked at all adopted small area, neighborhood station area plans that were adopted as part of comp plan 2000 and any that were adopted sense for references to sign color and these citations are included in the staff report. Removing the word colors from the definition of sign is not incompatible with the direction in these small area small area plans that science should be compatible with and enhance the character of their surroundings . And although it's not technically part of your review review criteria, I just wanted to also mention we looked at the draft Denver Right. Plans, commercial signage is not specifically addressed. So that is to say that the amendment would not be in conflict with the proposed draft. Denver Right plans. Other review criteria including include furthering public health, safety and welfare. So this amendment would provide clarity and predictability and zoning regulations would implement adopted plans through regulatory changes. And then another review criteria is that it results in regulations that are uniform within each zone districts. So regulations that are uniform in application to buildings and land uses within each zone district to help ensure the consistency of zoning regulations and to improve the ability to administer and enforce the code uniformly. So the staff recommendation is based on the review criteria that I've just outlined. Four Text Amendments stated in Denver Zoning Code Section 12 .4. 11 Staff Recommends Approval of Text Amendment number two to the Denver Zoning Code. Are there any questions? Thank you very much. We do have five individuals signed up to speak this evening. So if you've signed up to speak on this item, ask if you please come to the front bench so that we can get through everyone quickly. I'll call your names. Please step up to the podium and then your time will start to elapse. First up, and I do apologize if I get your name wrong career Bailey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Greer Bailey. I serve as the executive director of the Petroleum Marketers Association. I live in Denver in University Hills. I just wanted to briefly thank the extensive work that Director Axelrod and her staff have done over the last year, working with collaboratively work with the industry in order to just provide some regulatory clarity for our station owners as they try to improve their businesses in the city. So that's all. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Jesse Paris. Good evening. Jesse Paris Black Star Action Moment for Self-defense. Denver Homeless out loud in large candidate for 2019. I approve this. I don't see no issue with this. I would like to get some more detail on what this all entails, but from the current presentations I've heard, it makes sense. So I'm approving now. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Richard. Kieran. Good evening. My name is Richard Kieran. Last name again. I am a general contractor. I am one of the owners of Ktc, General Contracting, working with the gas station owners. And I am in favor of this Tex amendment change. And if you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer for them. Thank you. Next up, John Show Horse. Good evening. I'm Jon Snow Horse. And be a. Friend of the agenda. I'm going to pass. All right. And Jeff Sussman. I'm Jeff. Sussman. I reside at 1391 Elk View Road in Larkspur, but I'm with Juneau Services Company. We're a 50 year old family business here in Denver, and I'm here in support of the amendment. I won't take any more of your time, but I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you very much. That concludes our speakers. Are there any questions from members of council? Councilman Flynn. Thank you. Matt Or Abe, maybe you could address this in the presentation. Matt I think you said that that the definition of sign, although we're removing color, the definition of sign characteristics is non-exclusive and that the department would still have flexibility to take color into consideration even though we're removing it as as a specific cited item. Is that is that the case? Yes, sir, that is the case. Thank you, sir. My question is, can did the department envision any particular circumstance where color would now come into play after all the examples of where it does not? We have discussed this and we can't think of anything where it would come into play. Certainly we recognize that color is part of a assign a can be part of a sign or part of a logo, but we can't think of any instance where that would apply. Okay. But we still have a flexibility in case the unimaginable. Right. I think if if the end of the question was really focused on is can color alone be a sign and we can't think of an example, but it's possible. And if that comes up, then we do I think we do have the flexibility to say this is something that advertises that uses a design or something else , and it could be considered a sign in this case, but I think it would be very narrowly focused. Okay. Thank you. And I also want to compliment you in the staff report for using the SIC as ERATO script on when you in the staff report when the one of the Evans station area plan misused the word complement and should have been complement. It's a it's a rare eye and an old editor that would pick that up. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Flynn. I was going to mention that same exact thing, but you took the words out of my mouth. Yeah, right. Councilman Espinosa. Matt, first off, I want to say hello. It's been a very long time. Matt and I worked on the Jefferson Park Neighborhood Plan many, many, many moons ago. So welcome back to the city. Thank you. The question I have is, was there a conversation about, you know, you know, one of the things we've done historically and we sort of got away from but we still do it on transparency is quantify areas. Was there any conversation about saying well if it is a primary color in a in a sign that it would be limited in its application on the structure by a certain percentage? We didn't have that question about quantifying. I think we looked at I think the public storage is a good example of a of a building that if we were to apply this strictly, that each of those doors would be a sign and that the issue, I think then becomes some of these facilities are well in excess of the permitted number of signs if if we count each of these strictly. So I think that was a consideration. I think and I'm not trying to dodge your question, but we didn't discuss it specifically. I think the other example I would point out is that there are so many, particularly gas stations that have this color banding on their canopy that have just been permitted throughout the years. And and it was never applied that strictly to those particular businesses. So it was an attempt to be sort of consistent with what's existing out there already. That's actually why I asked, because there's this thing was being presented. I just kept thinking, you know, gas stations have been sort of the NASCAR of our building for us. Like you can tell which one is the the Texaco versus the Shell versus the Sinclair by whether it's white, yellow or black or red. Sorry. Mm hmm. And they've always done that. Where the the the projection was one thing in the building was a different color. And it would have been consistent with our sort of historic use of awnings. We always did an accent color, you know, typically on a you have building facade and then accent. And so I think we could have articulated that awnings and a limited portion of the building can sort of have a logo in because this is this this was the primary question in the in the stadium issue. Right. It's one thing to label a building the Sports Authority field. You could do that in white letters and it would say the same thing. But why you go after the red is because that's the branding and and in I don't know if we're solving one city do you are you not is is the city satisfied that we're not solving. Or this sort of, you know, historic sort of unique deviation and not opening ourselves up to something else. And Ari, is the city at all concerned when I see something like the public storage example that you showed? Mm hmm. All that does is scream empty building. And where we put those buildings and we brand that thing, and then we put red doors, orange doors or green doors behind a glass facade. It just says, no one's here, and that's not allowed before. Right. So I don't I don't think we thought of that specifically with this. I think that I think we did have discussions. I think it was very it was unclear. So, first of all, I would say, again, that the zoning administrator did attempt to draw an interpretation of this last year that would have limited it to trademark and trade dress that would have applied to something like public storage. But again, the board overturned that. So we were left without the clarity of direction. I think that when we look at something like a gas station canopy, when and a gas station canopy has four sides, but it may have many more because it may have two canopies join together. So then we had a discussion among ourselves. Well, if you're saying each of those is a sign, how many is that? Is that one for each sign or one for each side of the canopy? What if the size of the canopy is articulated now? Do you have eight signs or 16 signs? And it just became sort of it's, I think pointed out that it was very difficult for us to interpret to interpret that consistently. What we could say is if somebody is using a logo or a design, you know, a swoosh or something like that, that's that's a design that we could say that was a sign. But just saying a green band that's in itself is not would not. Be a sign. Interesting. The two items, the porch and the sign come up together, because I do think that we're able to discern what is a porch encroachment and what isn't and what makes a porch versus what differentiates a porch from a building or a porch from a sign. I think we could probably make that same distinction on an awning, a canopy for, you know, over pops. And so maybe that's probably going to be like that one. No vote planning board, just the sort of dissenting vote, because I do think that there's probably something there's probably an exception here we need to look at. Okay. Worry about the one size fits all approach, the nature of sort of the unintended consequences of this. Thanks. Sure. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Espinosa. Councilman, you made a very nice job tonight. I don't want to prolong this very much, but what do you consider the golden arches? I think the golden arches because they are a design. There's a design element to that. I think they would be considered they could be considered design. So for so you don't need to have the word McDonald's on that golden arches to say that's right. Or the target bullseye doesn't have the word target on it, but it is a color and a design, so it is a sign. Thank you very much. All right. Thank you. Councilman knew and it was an 8 to 1 vote at planning board. That's correct. Can you just speak a little bit to the no vote at the no. Vote was from, uh, Commissioner Schulz. And let me just look at my notes here. That's a rookie. Um, pardon me. I just just summarize the discussion. They had some of the questions, same questions that came up today. If if a color design could still be considered a sign, the answer was yes. I will I will say I'm not entirely clear for the reason for Commissioner Schultz's no vote. He did participate in that discussion. And I think he had some questions about the I think he felt that the the branding the ability of the Petroleum Marketing Association to brand the gas stations was was already very strong. I don't want to take the words. I don't want to take it out of context. I was unclear on the reason for the no vote. Okay. Thank you very much. Seeing no other questions at the public hearing for comfortable eight six is closed. Are there comments by members of Council Councilman Espinosa? Yeah, I really explain that analogy of the NASCAR of the of our building forms. And why that matters to me is that if all the NASCAR's going around the oval were were the same color and it just had a generic font and it branded, you know, Valvoline and and STB, I don't know. I'm going back to Richard Petty Days of Furniture Row. That's a pretty generic car actually. You know, there's a reason why they're all brightly colored is so you can identify, you know, where your driver is. And the same thing with horse jockeys, they all were different colored kits. So that, again, they can be identified near and far. And in the case I get, why are our fill filling stations have gone that route? They're all vying for convenience dollars and gas dollars and and some cases liquor dollars. The real problem for me is that these these these facilities do the nature of sort of contamination in soils to failed on underground storage tanks, you know is that they end up being sort of permanent fixtures or very difficult to dispose of a remove once they're there life, you know, the leases up in the franchise is gone . I don't understand the the business. I just know that they sit there when they're when they're contaminated, when they when there's monitoring wells all over the place and when things are spotted and plumes are discovered, no one wants to invest in that land and clean that up. And and so we're to to sort of make it I get why we would want to accommodate the need for something reasonable for the purposes of doing your business. But at the same time, they're not necessarily the greatest neighbors. They have very few agendas with those operators. They have 24 hour facilities. In some cases. I have light leakage with those facilities. And yeah, if it's a modern facility we can address these things. But if it's a historic facility and you're just doing a re skinning of that, a rebranding of that facility, you know, we're doing you a favor by giving you some clarity and saying, hey, plaster our neighborhood with your your logos and your colors and maybe you'll do some other additional things to sort of, you know, pick up. But I have seven elevens that have operators where guys go in with after gunshots and don't call 911. And, you know, and those gas pumps, they don't go you know, they're hard to get rid of because there are fewer and fewer in here and they're more and more lucrative when you get them. And so this is this is my struggle with this specific this specific nature of this ask is one that I think we could come with a specific answer to for this industry. And what we're doing is we're we're trying to do legitimate clean up on any sort of confusion. But I think what it does is it it it creates an interesting caveat that I think other industries might might pick up on. And I and so with that, I'll be voting. No, thanks. Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. See nobody else in the queue. I just want to say thank you for all your work on this. You know, I think that this is a common sense fix to a problem that when people look at it and say painting that door a color is not a sign and leads to 15 signs and a violation of the number of signs. So I appreciate all the hard work that when you dig into it, it gets more complicated than it looks like. It should be at face value and takes a long time. And I appreciate your staff putting so much time and effort into it and I am happy to support this tonight . Madam Secretary, roll call. Brooks. Hi, Espinosa. No. Flynn. Hi, Gilmore. I. Herndon. I. Cashman. I can teach. Lopez. I knew. Ortega. Hi, Mr. President. I am secretary. Please close voting in those results. Are we missing somebody? Councilwoman Ortega. Thank you. Had Ten eyes one day. Ten eyes one day accountable. Eight, eight, six has passed. Seeing no other business before this body. This meeting is adjourned. How does what you do play into the whole wind energy story? Well, very important part of wind energy prediction is trying to tell the folks who run the electrical system when the wind is going to blow so they could take advantage of it. You have to blend wind in with all of the other. Power generation sources like coal and natural gas. So what about a regular weather prediction? Is that.