Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-02-20 PZC MINUTES• t> CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING Englewood Civic Center City Council Chambers February 20, 2014 I.CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers of the Englewood Civic Center, Chair Brick presiding. Present:Roth, Knoth, Brick, Kinton , Townley, Fish, Freemire, Madrid (alternate) Absent:Bleile (Excused), King (Excused) Staff:Alan White, Director, Community Development Chris Neubecker, Senior Planner • Dan Brotzman , City Attorney • Chair Brick added election of officers to the agenda. II.APPROVAL OF MINUTES February 4, 2013 Fish moved; Fre emire seconded: TO APPROVE THE FEBRUARY 4, 2013 MINUTES Chair Brick asked if there were any modifications or corrections. Mr. Fish requested that the attendance record be modified to remove Mr. Welker and reflect that M s. Townley and Mr. Knoth were in attendance. AYES :Fi sh, Kinton , Knoth , Roth , Townley, Freemire NAYS:None ABSTAIN:Brick ABSENT:Bleile, King • • Motion carried. L--> Ill.PUBLIC HEARING 2013-06 NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURES Fish moved ; Knoth seconded: To open public hearing for Case #2013-06 Non-Conforming Structures AYES:Fish, Kinton , Knoth, Roth , Townley, Freemire , Brick NAYS: None ABSTAIN:None ABSENT:Bleile, King Chris Neubecker, Senior Planner, was sworn in. Mr. Neubecker reviewed the history of Case #2013-06 Non-Conforming Structures. The issue was raised when the Community Housing Development Association (CHDA) contacted the City in August, 2013, requesting a zoning text amendment. The existing UDC contains language which prohibits non-conforming structures from being rebuilt to the same size and scale as they currently exist if that element of the design is not conforming. CHDA purchased and renovated properties in the MU-R-3B district that are over the allowed density for that site (21 and 22 units each) based on the lot area . If the buildings were destroyed or incurred damage of 60 % or more based on cost, the buildings could only be rebuilt at 11 and 12 units respectively. The entities financing the properties are concerned because of the potential loss of value. The UDC was reviewed and revised language is being proposed to allow the buildings to be rebuilt. Language has also been revised to allow voluntary redevelopment in the event that a property owner would want to demolish and rebuild , even when there is no damage to the building. A time limit is also proposed that would require the applicant to obtain a building permit within one year from the time the building was damaged or destroyed. Staff recommends that the text amendment be submitted to City Council for First Reading. Questions from the Commission: Ms. Townley requested clarification that the issue is the non-conforming structure or the • land use. Mr. Neubecker responded that this ordinance does not address the • • nonconforming use of the land, only the structure. Mr. Knoth asked if the density could be increased; Mr. Neubecker responded that the structure could be rebuilt to the current allowed density for that zoning area or the previous density of the non -co nforming structure, whichever is greater. Mr. Freemire inquired as to what the remedy would be for an aggrieved party who did not agree with the changes made by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Mr. Neubecker responded that the decision would be made by staff and would not come before the Planning and Zoning Commission. Appeals of administrative decisions go to the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. Mr. Roth commented on the actual number of structures in R-1-A, of which 5 are known, and the desire of City Cou nci I to preserve the standards for R-1-A. He expressed that in C (1 )(b) of the proposal , he was concerned with the language in the last sentence regarding "undue burden on the owner" in regards to meeting the zoning standards. Mr. Neubecker explained that the intent is to determine the impact of the redevelopment in the area and the rights of property owners, seeking a balance between the two. Mr. Roth asked who makes the determination of undue burden and Mr. Neubecker responded that the staff is responsible for the administrative decisions regarding redevelopment. Mr. Fish asked how it is determined if a property is deemed to be non-conforming in light of the fact that there is no accurate list of properties. Mr. Neubecker replied that the list that the Community Development department has is a list of non-conformities based specifically on lot size and existing density. The list is created using information from Arapahoe County Assessors office, which contains information regarding the number of units in a structure. Dan Brotzman, City Attorney, was sworn in to address the issue of "undue burden" as it relates to property development. Mr. Brotzman explained that "undue burden" will always be defined by discussion between Staff and the property owner. Mr. Brotzman agreed to supply the Commission with a document defining "undue burden." (7 Chair Brick verified that the City Attorneys office would like "undue burden " to not be tied to economic factors. !'.,.-> Chris Neubecker, Senior Planner, stated that when applicants seek remedy with the • Board of Adjustments, the result is generally a variance. He read the standards that • apply to variances, and suggested that similar criteria would be used to determine "undue burden". He offered that the language in 16-9-3:C(1 )(b) can be amended to delete the statement "a nd where meeting such zoning standards does not create an undue burden on the owner." v Jo Ellen Davidson , Director of Community Housing Development Association (CHDA), 325 Inverness Drive South , Englewood, was sworn in. Ms. Davidson thanked the Commissioners for their co nsideration of CHDAs request for amendment. Ms. Davidson described the mission of the CHDA and its history in Englewood. She supplied the Commissioners with information regarding the financial investment CHDA has made in the buildings comprising the Canterbury East and South apartments and the Presidential Arms apartments in Englewood . One objective of CHDA is to make a significant improvement in the community. Their funding is from a variety of both public and private resources. She expressed that they are concerned over the potential loss of the properties in light of the fact that all improvements are completed up front when CHDA acquires the property. They have a long term commitment to the properties and make improvements for long term use. v • The Commissioners did not have any questions for Ms. Davidson. • Staff did not have a rebutta I to present. Mr. Knoth motioned; Mr. Fish seconded: To close the public hearing for Case #2013-06 Non-Conformin g Structures AYES:Fish, Kinton , Knoth , Roth , Townley, Freemire , Brick NAYS: None ABSTAIN:None ABSENT:Bleile, King Motion to approve staff recommendation for Case #2013-06 Non -Co nforming Structures Knoth moved; Roth seconded: TO APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR CASE #2013-06 NON CONFORMING STRUCTURES • • Mr. Roth offered a friendly amendment to strike language from 16-9-3 C(1 )(b) "a nd where meeting such zoning standards does not create an undue burden on the owner." Mr. Brick commented that in line with the Comprehensive Plan, it is important to support organizations both private and public that are interested in improving the housing stock in the City of Englewood and it is important that the Commission support these efforts, particularly for buildings such as CHDAs to promote the health and welfare of the community. Mr. Fish agreed with the exclusion of the language due to the fact that the property owner does have recourse if they disagree with the decision of the staff. Mr. Knoth commented that the amendment would protect the income of the property owner by insuring that they could continue to receive the same income from the property if they are allowed to reconstruct the building with the same number of units. Mr. Fish added that the Board of Adjustment and Appeals does not rule based on monetary issues, but strictly deals with variances which are exceptions to the code regarding safety issues. His experience with the Board of Adjustment and Appeals is that they would not rule based on financial impact. Mr. Roth reiterated that the intent of the change in the zoning code is to allow the owner to rebuild to the original density. ~ Vote: TO APPROVE CASE #2013-06 NON CONFORMING STRUCTURES AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF WITH FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO STRIKE LANGUAGE IN 16-9-3 C(1)(b) "AND WHERE MEETING SUCH ZONING STANDARDS DOES NOT CREATE AN UNDUE BURDEN ON THE OWNER ." [;,,,.- Mr. Fish -We have series of non-conforming buildings that will continue to degrade and as a community need to seek a mechanism to maintain and improve these buildings. As evidenced by testimony received , at least one situation has occurred in which these buildings that were non-conforming have not only been maintained but improved. This is something that needs to be encouraged by the city as it pertains to the Comprehensive Plan. Higher density exceptions have been granted through th e PUD process as exceptions to the underlying zoning structure and this is a trend for the • City of Englewood and may be included in a future Comprehensive Plan to align with • the trend not only in Englewood but nationally. • • Mr. Kinton agreed with Mr. Fish that anything that can be done to improve the housing stock should be encouraged. v AYES:Fish, Kinton, Knoth, Roth, Townley, Freemire , Brick NAYS:None ABSTAIN:None ABSENT:Bleile, King Motion carries. IV.PUBLIC HEARING 2013-09 ZONING SITE PLAN REVIEW ~ Knoth moved; Roth seconded: TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR CASE #2013-09 ZONING SITE PLAN REVIEW AYES:Fish , Kinton , Knoth , Roth, Townley, Freemire , Brick NAYS:None ABSTAIN:None ABSENT:Bleile, King v Chris Neubecker, Senior Planner, described the Zoning Site Plan Review process as outlined in 16-2-9 of the UDC. The proposed amendment would change the title of 16- 2-9 to Site Improvement Plan Review. The proposed amendment would outline the process staff uses to review an application that is not otherwise going to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Examples are a building permit, review of a landscaping plan, a major site plan and projects that are not large enough to require Planning Commission or Board of Adjustment approval. The majority of the work performed by current planning staff is review of plans against current codes. l--- The proposed changes would allow an applicant to go through the Site Improvement Plan process before moving on to the permitting process which requires a higher level of detail and formal building plans. The process is not always about zoning, but about the actual layout of the site itself. The proposed changes wou Id clarify when the Site Plan Review process is necessary and also the types of application materials that are required to be submitted including the size and the scale of the plans for review. Should a property owner be challenged by these requirements, staff can assist with ' . • • • creating plans containing the information. [,..-: The major changes proposed include changing the title of the code to Site Improvement Plan Review, the requirement of plan review for large site work projects and landscaping over $5,000 in value, alterations of floor area in excess of 10% of the floor area or reduction in the setback to a property line, additional detail on the plans submitted and minor syntax changes that improve the readability and enforceability of the code. Previous recommendations, including language on the ORT (Development Review Team), have been removed from the proposed amendment. Site Improvement Plan Review remains an administrative function and appeals to administrative decisions are made through the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. L,v Ms. Townley asked if this process would apply to any type of property. Mr. Neubecker responded that it would apply to all properties regardless of zone area. He also clarified that the requirement for the process would not preclude a property owner from occupying their home. Mr. Freemire commented on the language in 16-2-9 A(5) and the threshold of $5,000 for the project value. He suggested that some type of multiplier or index be included to account for inflation and increased cost of a project. Mr. Neubecker stated that there is not precedence for including a contingency for inflation, which would be difficult to cal cu late and hard for some people to understand. Mr. Roth questioned the need for the additional language in 16-2-9 (A)(4) regarding residential driveways. The current code does not contain a definition of a residential driveway. Mr. Neubecker supplied the Commissioners with information on the definition of a driveway as it is stated in the City of Englewood U DC as wel I as from other sources. The reason for adding the phrase "residential driveway" is to clarify that Site Improvement Plan Review is not necessary, and to eliminate a conflict with a previous citizens initiative. L,.- Mr. Fish noted a change to 16-2-9 (8)(3) to correct a typographical error "Sites.:::_ 10,000 square feet: Scale 1 ~ = 1 0. Fish proposed changes to 16-2-9 0(1 )(band e) to associate the term "compliance" with standards and policy, and the term "consistency" with guidelines. No pub I ic was present at the hearing . • • • Alan White, Director, spoke about the 180 day time limit as a commonly accepted standard for a time frame for a project to be completed from the time it has gone through the Site Improvement Plan Review process. ~ Knoth moved; Roth seconded: TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR CASE #2013-09 SITE IMPROVEMENT PLAN REVIEW AYES:Fish , Kinton, Knoth, Roth, Townley, Freemire, Brick NAYS:None ABSTAIN:None ABSENT:Bleile, King Knoth moved; Fish seconded: TO APPROVE CASE #2013-09 ZONING SITE PLAN REVIEW AS WRITTEN BY STAFF ~ Mr. Fish requested that the length of the lapse between review and implementation be changed from 60 days to 180 days. Mr. Knoth accepted the Friendly Amendment. The clerical error will be corrected to reflect the proper scale for plans. AYES:Fish , Kinton, Knoth, Roth, Townley, Freemire, Brick NAYS: None ABSTAIN:None ABSENT:Bleile, King Motion passes. IV.PUBLIC FORUM No Pub I ic was present. V.A lTORNEYS CHOICE Lr Attorney Brotzman had no comment. [;:? VI.STAFFS CHOICE • • • Mr. Neubecker announced that the March 4th meeting will be a continuation of the discussion regarding the TSA overlay in the industrial area. Staff members attended the "Safe Routes to School" meting and information received was helpful. He thanked Commissioner Townley and Commissioner Kinton for attending. L--> VII.COMMISSIONERS CHOICE Chair Brick requested a motion for a nomination for Chair. Mr. Roth moved; Mr. Knoth seconded: To nominate Mr. Fish for Chair and Mr. King for Vice Chair of the Commission AYES:Fish, Kinton, Knoth, Roth , Townley, Freemire, Brick NAYS:None ABSTAIN:None ABSENT:Bleile, King v Ms. Townley -Legislation in House of Representatives may allow Planning and Zoning commissioners to receive pay. She also attended a meeting with DRCOG regarding Healthy Spaces in regard to Comprehensive Plan and is encouraging cities to include health and safe routes to school. Mr. Fish complimented staff for the helpful way in which the cases were presented for consideration and for the information provided to the Commission regarding Home Occupations and City Councils opinion. The meeting adjourned at 8:40 p.m. /s/ Julie Bailey, Recording Secretary