CITY OF COLORADO SPRINGS PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD … · april 15, 2010 page 9 city of colorado...

April 15, 2010 Page 9

CITY OF COLORADO SPRINGS PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD-OF-DECISION

NEW BUSINESS CALENDAR

MEETING: APRIL 15, 2010 ITEM: 4 STAFF: MEGGAN HERINGTON FILE NO: CPC CA 08-00155 PROJECT : CODE AMENDMENT REGARDING TEMPORARY BANNERS

Ms. Meggan Herington, City Planner II, presented code amendments with PowerPoint slides (Exhibit A). Ms. Herington distributed a copy of Oklahoma City’s law regarding temporary banners prior to this Planning Commission meeting (Exhibit B).

STAFF PRESENTATION

Commissioner Cleveland inquired if for example City Parks and Recreation Dept. holds a movie night, finish line race banner or similar. Ms. Herington replied the finish line banner is allowed through a special event permit reviewed by the Colorado Springs Police Department (CSPD). A movie night would be reviewed under the same special event banner criteria. Commissioner Gonzalez inquired of a proposed special fee and if that fund would provide a full-time position? Ms. Herington replied the stakeholders felt that fee could fully fund a full-time position if it were 100% cost recovery, but this process not going forward with that idea at this time. Commissioner Cleveland inquired of educational programs for retailers that currently wallpaper the front of their buildings with banners. Ms. Herington replied staff is working on an educational process and newer and older businesses would be provided banner criteria information through that educational outreach. Existing banner displays that are illegal would fall under CSPD’s Enforcement. Commissioner Magill inquired why we cannot address those staffing issues? Ms. Herington replied there aren’t cost estimates for staff to review a cost recovery or increased fee program as of yet. Commissioner Magill felt a code could sit useless due to personnel changes, reorganization, and leave a code that’s not enforceable. Mr. Anderwald stated the last enforcement staff member was transferred to CSPD Code Enforcement. The next step is to implement enforcement of this banner code.



Commissioner Gonzalez stated that that Planning Commission is only concerned with policy and not the details of implementation. Mr. Anderwald stated that is correct. Commissioner Butlak stated she would like to see something in implementation to give the City authority to remove banners in the right-of-way. Commissioner Gonzalez needed clarification on what qualifies as an event. Ms. Herington replied the Special Events Ordinance states if a police escort, closing of streets, or the closing or use of public property would require a special events permit approved through CSPD. Commissioner Suthers inquired if a special event application were not approved would these regulations still apply. Ms. Herington stated if a special events banner permit were not approved, that event and banner would not be allowed. Commissioner Gonzalez asked Ms. Herington to review the possible risks to the City. Ms. Herington stated numerous cities have implemented this type of code. Mr. Smith stated the risk is not quantifiable, especially in the First Amendment realm. It must meet the highest level of scrutiny. The analysis needs to be that there is a governmental interest in limiting the content or speech. A banner program would need to show compelling reason to allow some types of signs and not others.

1. Ms. Herington distributed a letter from Colorado Mountain Reclamation Foundation prior to the meeting (Exhibit C).

CITIZEN IN FAVOR

2. Mr. Fred Veitch, representative of banner stakeholder committee, stated issues were

clutter and blight. He encouraged a strong user base and fee control for enforcement capability.

Commissioner Butlak inquired of, for example, a summer’s worth of concerts that could rotate throughout the city. Ms. Sue Matz, City Revocable Permit Coordinator, stated the America the Beautiful Park was issued a months-long permit that the former Planning Director chose to approve for that civic event. 3. Mr. Rick Hoover, stakeholder representing Council of Neighbors and Organizations

(CONO), appreciated Ms. Herington’s efforts to prepare and keep all involved. He agreed with Commissioner Magill and felt this code is a “dog without teeth.” The stakeholders desired a simplified code to allow fines and enforcement. He recommended Council’s review of this code in six months to one year.

4. Mr. Hal Ward, Lamar Outdoor Advertising, stated though he was not an active participant in the stakeholder group he felt this code amendment would improve appearance of our city.



5. Mr. Larry Barrett, Scenic Colorado, supports this code amendment. He stated only 1% of banners within the city obtain permits. He hopes this code amendment would reduce the clutter of banners.

6. Mr. Ron Butlin, Downtown Partnership, explained the downtown banner program. He supports downtown banners, but felt there should be some rational application to limit content. Commissioner Gonzalez inquired what content is restricted in the downtown area? Mr. Butlin replied currently the Downtown Partnership restricts political and religious content.

Commissioner Butcher inquired how revocable permits affect downtown banners. Mr. Butlin stated revocable permits will still be issued for one year with a one-year extension for a banner in good shape. He doesn’t believe this would limit the ability to post downtown banners. Ms. Herington confirmed that portion of the revocable permit code would not affect the downtown area’s banners. Commissioner Cleveland inquired of the legal risk for content? He stated that if the Klu Klux Klan wanted banners downtown, can they put them up? Mr. Smith stated the downtown banner program is not enforced by the City, and the issue arises when the City is trying to decipher which banners are offensive, and which are not. 7. Ms. Barb Van Hoy, Citizens in Organization, spoke in favor of staff’s

recommendation. She stated her interest was the banners in public spaces and wanted to ensure the diverse community was taken into consideration. She stated that when discussions began, she was open to less restrictive regulation of content, but as discussions continued she decided it was in the community’s best interest to limit content.

8. Ms. Jody Alyn, owner of consulting business in organizational development and

diversity strategies, stated that she believes the recommendations set forth here today are in support of and represents the entire community.

1. Mr. Jeff Cahill, sign manufacturer, stated that he is opposed to the amendment. He was a stakeholder with the inception of the original code. He was not included in the code amendment process. Every client is against the sign code amendment. His concern is that the people most affected were not involved in the amendment process. He stated if this process goes on to City Council, all of the sign business owners will go to City Council and express their concerns regarding the prohibition of banners and the impact that will be faced on the viability of their businesses. He requested additional stakeholders and business owners involved, or at least extend the timeline to allow comments from additional business owners without a vested interest in the amendment.

CITIZENS IN OPPOSITION



Commissioner Butlak inquired of the stakeholder involvement and process? Ms. Herington stated there were three gentlemen that were involved in the stakeholder process from the sign industry, and the remainder of the sign industry were invited to the larger stakeholder meeting. She made follow up calls to the sign industry as well. 2. Pastor Paul Peel, First Lutheran Church, inquired how many churches were

involved in this process? He also inquired about how the timeline was decreased and how is the new amendment going to impact church events?

Ms. Herington replied a church is going to be considered a business in whichever zone district they fall within. The decrease in timeline was a direct result of the stakeholder process. She stated there was one representative from churches in the smaller group, and the larger group represented additional ministers including Pastor Peel . Pastor Peel inquired of the church’s ability to display a sign? Ms. Herington stated that the church can place a banner on the building or place a banner on the poles within the parking area or the other light poles on the private property. Pastor Peel also inquired if the City would be restricting the message a church could place on the banner? Ms. Herington stated if the banner is on church property there is not a restriction. 3. Mr. John Tubiolo, Colorado Springs Charter Academy, stated that the banners

are used to encourage enrollment. He stated banners are a major form of advertisement not only for schools but also small businesses. Stated there is minimal revenue generated from events held by the school and adding a tax or fee to display a banner is an additional cost that the school is not equipped for.

Commissioner Hansen provided clarification of the 90-day period. Mr. Tubilo stated that because there are so many different events throughout the year it would be a hindrance to limit the banners to a 90-day period. He felt it’s not in the school’s best interest to approve this code amendment. Commissioner Butlak inquired of the ability to purchase additional permits for 90 days? Ms. Sharon Robinson, City Sign Specialist, stated that schools or businesses have the ability to place permanent signage on their property. She also stated the items being discussed here are temporary signs. There is the ability to advertise various activities and events throughout the year. Commissioner Gonzalez inquired if there is the ability to have permanent signs and temporary banners or signs as well? Ms. Robinson stated yes.



Commissioner Gonzalez inquired of the fines that may be imposed? Ms. Herington stated that at this point she is unsure what those fine amounts are. The fines should be based on the current violation system. She stated the stakeholder group was in favor of immediate fines for violations.

APPLICANT REBUTTAL

Commissioner Gonzalez inquired of the venue for setting the fines? Ms. Herington stated she is not sure who will set or recommend the specific cost, but the cost would be based on recovering 100% of staff time. Commissioner Suthers stated that she is concerned of the approval of something that is not enforceable due to the lack of an enforcement officers? What are we approving? Commissioner Magill needed clarification if a recommendation could be made to City Council regarding fees and process? Commissioner Suthers stated she still feels this is too general and that there is a lack of a follow-through plan. Ms. Herington stated that she would like to start with this as a community standard and would like to follow up with stricter enforcement in the future. Commissioner Butcher inquired of the 1% approval and regulated banners. Ms. Robinson stated currently there are approximately less than 1% of approved banners hung throughout the City. Commissioner Magill stated that throughout the City there is a high amount of clutter, would like the City to be more visually appealing, does not feel there is a clear cut system to resolve this issue, but feels that this is a good first step in the process. Commissioner Magill feels comfortable with the stakeholder group and their involvement. Commissioner Cleveland stated that for the greater good of the community he will support staff’s recommendation.

Motion by Commissioner Cleveland to approve Item No. 4- File No. CPC CA 08-00155, amendments to the City Code, seconded by Commissioner Magill with the addition of the following recommendation:

DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION

Council direct Staff to return in 90 days with an enforcement and fee program in place.

Commissioner Gonzalez stated he would be in support of motion with the exception of the section approving changes to Chapter 3. He would like to approve a recommendation to Council on both Chapters 7 and 3, but not an approval. Motion was amended to replace the word “approve” with “recommend.”



Commissioner Butlak was initially concerned with the impact that this may have on small businesses, but later discounted the remarks because with too much sign proliferation, the businesses next door are negated. Applauded the effort and congratulated Ms. Herington on her knowledge and details with this amendment. Commissioner Suthers stated she will be supporting the motion in hopes that City Council will put some teeth into the amendment to allow enforcement. She thanked Ms. Herington, Ms. Matz and Ms. Robinson for their knowledge. Commissioner Butcher will be supporting the motion, and wanted to commend everyone for their efforts. Motion Carried 7-0 (Commissioner Hartsell absent and Commissioner Stroh excused).

April 15, 2010 DATE OF DECISION PLANNING COMMISSION VICE CHAIR

CITY OF COLORADO SPRINGS PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD … · april 15, 2010 page 9 city of colorado...

Documents

Transcript of CITY OF COLORADO SPRINGS PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD … · april 15, 2010 page 9 city of colorado...