Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-03-04 PZC MINUTESEl CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING City Council Chambers -Englewood Civic Center March 4, 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 Fish presiding. Present: Brick, Fish, Freemire, King , Kinton, Knoth, Roth, Townley, Madrid (alternate) Absent: Staff: fill Bleile (Excused) Alan White, Director, Community Development Chris Neubecker, Senior Planner Brook Bell, Planner II John Voboril , Planner II Nancy Reid , Assistant City Attorney II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES February 20, 2014 Knoth moved; Roth seconded: TO APPROVE THE FEBRUARY 20, 2014 MINUTES Chair Fish asked if there were any modifications or corrections. Mr. Freemire requested that the minutes be modified to reflect City Attorney Brotzman's statement that he would supply the Commission with legal definitions of substantive burden and undue burden. AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Brick, Freemire , Kinton , Knoth , Roth, Townley, Chair Fish None King Bleile Motion carried. fill Ill. PUBLIC HEARING CASE #2013-02 AMENDMENTS TO SMALL LOT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Knoth Moved; Pag e 1 of 9 Freemire Seconded: TO OPEN PUBLIC HEARING FOR CASE #2013-02 AMENDMENTS TO SMALL LOT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: e Brick, Freemire, Kinton, King, Knoth, Roth, Townley, Chair Fish None None Bleile Assistant City Attorney Reid advised the Commission that her office was asked to provide a memo on substantive due process regarding appeals and Small Lot Development Standards, but the memo has not yet been prepared. She suggested that the Commission may want to continue the hearing until the information has been provided to them. Chair Fish stated that the Commission chooses to continue the hearing with the Staff presentation. e Brook Bell , Planner II was sworn in. A Staff report has been submitted and the Public Hearing was posted in the Englewood Herald and the City of Englewood website . The history of the case was reviewed. Following the initial Public Hearing on November 19, 2013 , Staff worked with the City Att!Jrney's office to prepare a bill for ordinance for Council consideration at first reading. The City Attorney's office advised staff that the review criteria. for consideration was insufficient and required additional language . It was also recommended that Planning and Zoning Commission's decisions on non-conforming Small Lots should be final and that any appeals to the decision should be directed to the court of record. At the study session February 4, 2014, the supplemental and revised appeal process was reviewed by the Commission . The consensus of the Commission was that the proposed changes were acceptable as written. Appeals of decisions regarding non-conforming lots would be brought to the court of record. The additions to the review criteria are outlined in the Staff Report for 16-9-4: Nonconforming Lots. Mr. Knoth expressed that there is confusion between the appeals process for Non- Conforming Structures, for which appeals are directed to the Board of Adjustments and Appeals and Nonconforming Lots , which appeals are directed to the court. Mr. Bell deferred to Director White. ~ Alan White, Community Development Director, was sworn in. Director White stated that the difference is that the decisions for Nonconforming Structures is an administrative or Staff decision and under the UDC any appeals of administrative decisions go to the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. The decision of the Planning and Zoning Commission , as this issue has been drafted, would be appealed through court. Mr. Knoth asked why the decisions for nonconforming lots could not go through the BOAA rather than the court. Director White responded that there is another provision in Page 2 of 9 the code that states that appeals to Commission decisions go to City Council; however this proposed amendment preempts that procedure with the court requirement. Mr. Bell added that the BOAA is prohibited from reviewing cases that would result in an additional residence being added on a lot where there was not sufficient lot width or lot area. A decision by City Council or the court would be the best way to resolve an appeal on a nonconforming lot. Chair Fish asked if it is a legal requirement for the appeals to go to court. Mr. Bell referred to the UDC regulation concerning variances to the zoning code that states "The Board shall not consider a Zoning Variance Application to allow additional dwelling units in residential districts above the maximum number permitted by zone district standards for lot area and lot width." The cases that the Commission would be reviewing do not meet the standard lot area and lot width. ~ Mr. Freemire asked for clarification of the reference to the "Board"; Mr. Bell stated that he was referring to the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. The BOAA cannot make a determination relative to the number of residences on a particular parcel. There are other zoning variances that they cannot rule on as well. Mr. Freemire asked if there is anything in the code stating that the Planning and Zoning Commission are under the same obligation and restriction and/or freedom that the BOAA has. Mr. Bell replied that the Planning and Zoning Commission can hear appeals to subdivisions, interpretations and conditional use cases. (Staff Clarification: The UDC specifies that the Planning and Zoning Commission is the appeal body for Administrative Land Review Permits, Limited Use Permits , Minor Subdivisions, Temporary Use Permits , Unlisted Use Classifications, and Zoning Site Plans. The Planning and Zoning Commission is the decision-making body for Title Interpretations, Conditional Use Permits , and Landmark Sign cases.) ~ Mr. Freemire asked if there is any other provision in the code that states that if an applicant is not satisfied with the determination of the Planning and Zoning Commission 's decision that they should go to court and there is not an opportunity to go to an elected official. ~ Mr. Bell responded that there is a prov1s1on in the appeals section 16-2 -18; there are appeals to administrative decisions they go to the BOAA, and if they wish to appeal the decision of the BOAA further, they may then go to district court. ~ Appeals to the Commission will go to City Council unless this title specifies that the appeal shall be to another party . Further appeals from the Board or Council would go the court of record . ~ Mr. Freemire asked if there is a provision in the code for appeals from the Commission to be sent to court without the opportunity to appeal to an elected official. Mr. Bell replied that there is not. Mr. Freemire asked why Staff would recommend that this particular item would not be given the opportunity to be vetted in a Council setting with elected officials Page 3 of 9 for due process and equal treatment under the law. He questioned the motivation for the recommendation and Mr. Bell deferred to the City Attorney's office. ~ Staff recommendation in the first draft of the amendment and the first Public Hearing was to direct app.eals to City Council. Mr. Freemire asked if the current draft of the amendment represents what was recommended by the City Attorney 's office, Mr. Bell responded yes. Mr. Freemire asked if there was any other influence and Mr. Bell responded no. ~ Mr. Knoth asked if it was true that BOAA cannot rule on cases where density would be increased on a site. Mr. Bell responded that is correct. Mr. Knoth asked if the issue of nonconforming buildings refers to more density than code allows, Director White responded that situations where zoning may have changed and the lot area per unit was increased thereby lowering the density were grandfathered to the existing density. It is not a BOAA decision but will be allowable should City Council adopt the ordinance. It would not be an appeal to BOAA for a density issued. Should an applicant disagree with an administrative decision, the appeal would go to BOAA. ~ Ms . Townley asked if an applicant would provide a site plan for a nonconforming lot, Mr. Bell responded yes. The applicant would provide a site plan and it would be reviewed internally not only by the Community Development Department but also by six other departments in order to incorporate those comments into the Staff Report. The Planning and Zoning Commission would receive the Staff report just as they would a PUD and a Public Hearing would be held in order for the Planning and Zoning Commission to make a decision. ~ Mr. Fish stated that for the record, he is examining table 6-2-2, which does lay out the various review, appeal and decision processes in the City. Conditional Use Permits and Conditional Use Telecommunications process are review by Community Development Department, decision by Planning and Zoning Commission and appeal to Council. There are different processes in the City for various reviews, decisions and appeals. He stated that it is important for the Commission to know that these different avenues exist. For example, for Administrative Land Review permit the decision is by the Community Development Department and appeal is to the Planning and Zoning Commission . ~ Mr. Bell responded there are some cases where Planning and Zoning Commission hears the appeal as a result of a Staff decision. ~ Mr. Fish requested counsel in light of the changes that were made upon the suggestion of the City Attorney's office to explain the rationale behind the changes that were made between the first and current version of the proposed amendment. ~ Assistant City Attorney Reid responded that she would not testify in a Public Hearing but can give legal advice. She recommended that the Public Hearing be continued and have the information included in the next meeting packet for the Commissioners. The Page 4 of 9 Commission can make a decision without the input from her office if they choose to do so. Q Mr. Fish noted that no public was present at the Public Hearing and asked if Staff had any additions to th ,eir presentation. Mr. Bell responded that he had nothing further to add. Q Mr. Freemire moved; Ms. Townley seconded: Discussion: To continue the Public Hearing for Case #2013-02 AMENDMENTS TO SMALL LOT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS until the next regularly scheduled meeting March 18, 2014. Mr. Knoth questioned why the Commission would wait to make a decision on this issue. Q Mr. Fish stated that this is the time for the Commission to consider the introduction of a different kind of decision process that does not have precedent and a new process . e Mr. Brick -This is not an urgent case and feels that the Commission should wait for the Attorney 's comment to make a decision. e Mr. King -Questioned why a case coming before the Commission would be better served going to a political entity when the Commission is ahead of the curve . He does not see the advantage of a case going to a political organization. The Commission seems to be favorable to working with people regarding their property. If a case were denied by the Commission it would be a long uphill battle for the individual to have their request approved. e Mr. Knoth -This amendment removes one part of the process (City Council) by sending appeals directly to court. He is not in favor of having to hire an attorney to represent a case in court. e Mr. Freemire -The request for a continuance is not related to the necessary agreement with the City Attorney's office. He does not agree that people should be treated differently and have a different place to go for appeals. Counter to Staff recommendation that appeals would go to City Council , he does not agree with the City Attorney's office that the Commission should change both Due Process and Substantive Due Process under the 5th and 14t h Amendments. He is interested in hearing the motivation behind the City Attorney 's office for making the change. He feels that it is better to be slow to act and long to consider and just in consideration. He is not aware of any other provision that would require discussion but where to go if there is disagreement on the decision. He would like to know what case law justifies the recommendation . e Mr. Roth added that one argument on the other side is that the "waiver or modification" is similar to a variance. If a variance is not approved, appeal is to the court. He can Pag e 5 of 9 understand why an appeal to the Commission would be sent to court. The chance of there being a case for the Commission to hear is small and the chance of an appeal 1s exponentially smaller. fl] AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Brick, Freemire, Kinton, Roth , Townley, King , Knoth, Chair Fish None Bleile Motion passes 5-3 in favor of continuing the Public Hearing . fl] Mr. Freemire requested a transcript of the meeting today due to the fact that Staff was explicit in their recommendations. He was advised that a detailed account would be recorded in the minutes and that the audio recording would be available as well. fl] IV. Light Rail Corridor Zoning Reform Discussion Continued John Voboril, Planner II, presented the remainder of the original presentation from the previous study session. fl] Commercial Parking In Denver, little off-street parking is provided for mixed use developments. Parking needs are expected to be partially or fully met by on street parking on front and side streets. He presented examples with various ratios of parking per square foot of the retail dev e lopment.· Compared to Englewood 's standards , the required parking is c onsid e rably less. The opinion of Staff is that we should retain the current ratios for retail and reduce the restaurant ratio from 1 :200 to 1 :300 . It is also recommended that the available space in front of the building on the street be counted as available space. fl] Ms. Townley -Within the Oxford Station area , is RTD planning to help build a garage or will the light rail users be expected to use on street parking? e Mr. Voboril -RTD is not interested in providing additional parking because of the accessibility of the Oxford Station and also the fare zone that falls within the other stations . Cost of obtaining land would be very high and would require taking land out of private ownership resulting in a loss of tax revenue. Ms. Townley asked if time limits could be imposed on street parking. Mr. Voboril stated that if the parking demand increased substantially, the issue would need to be addressed. e Mr. Knoth remarked that development would be hampered if parking is too limited. Mr. Roth cited the example of East Evans Avenue where the parking is interfering with residents' ability to park near their homes due to the lack of off street parking. fl] Mr. Brick -Adequate parking needs to be provided if the industrial area becomes residential. Pag e 6 of 9 Mr. Voboril explained that there is not a great deal of retail development expected near the Oxford Station. Mr. Roth commented that restaurants that do provide a parking area 1n Englewood are seldom full and that decreasing the ratio would not be a major issue. e Design Guidelines and Standards Guidelines can be provided and the adherence would basically be voluntary. Communicating the values of the community would provide direction for development. There is a variety of materials and designs present in the existing buildings in the district. Mr. Freemire commented that the best way to insure integrity in development is to communicate with the developers and existing businesses so that they are clear on expectations. Some requirements should be mandatory. e Mr. Roth asked if the existing buildings would be used as a standard for future development. Mr. Voboril replied that the focus is on the residential side. The questions is whether the desire is to have new development fit in with what exists or do we want to create something completely different. e Mr. King remarked that most communities have standards for hard surfaces and mixed materials. It is common in newer developments to see an eclectic mix of materials. e Ms. Townley asked if there are similar standards in the PUD requirements for transparency and fac;ade treatments. Mr. Knoth commented that he would support aligning standards with the current PUD requirements. e Mr. Fish is in favor of encouraging variation to avoid having blank spaces and solid walls. e Ms. Townley supports Mr. Freemire's opinion on communicating with the neighborhoods and developers to preserve the integrity of the community. Mr. Madrid commented that we are not as much preserving character as creating it with new development by setting a standard. e Mr. Kinton added that in most cases he would lean toward preservation but the current buildings were built for function and virtually none that cry out for preservation. e Ms. Reid commented that the current PUDs in the district will serve to set a standard for development in the area. A variety of roofs currently exist representing a number of different materials and profiles. It was agreed that roofs are going to be determined by the developer, but that different treatments shou Id be encouraged. Page 7 of 9 0 Ms.Townley suggested a requirement for funding through a fee or performance based system to ensure that common space and/or parks are included in the development. Mr. Voboril stated that the inclusion of parks and open space will be addressed in the Next Steps study which is a way of locating money and the consultant will be tasked with developing a strategy to incorporate public space in conjunction with the development. 0 Mr. Freemire added that the long range cost of "green roofs" would be prohibitive as the technology is still developing and it would not be feasible to include requirements that are not cost effective. e Discussion about how to incorporate green space included possible incentives and ways to eomote green space development voluntarily by a developer. Mr. Voboril presented slides with various architectural styles including Alexan Littleton , Riverton Apartments, Evans Station Lofts, new developments at 1 Qth and Osage and use of color. Mr. Roth commented that unless a true form-based code is instituted , there will be a variety depending on the developer's preferences. 0 Mr. King recently visited a development in Houston that included small lots with detached houses that appear to be popular. 0 Mr. Voboril presented other developments that are designed to fit in with the industrial area or repurposing of the existing buildings such as in the River North area of Denver. e Director White commented that the TOD would be designed to replace the PUD process. Most of the development requirements would be satisfied through administrative review . e Mr. Voboril commented that height restrictions previously discussed are still under consideration as is a means of addressing the transition area between the residential areas ~acent to the TOD and possible high rise development. Mr. Madrid added that amenities are market driven and would not be chosen by City Council and are added to lure a tenant and make a property more desirable. 0 Ms. Townley spoke to creative reuse of buildings and new development should be careful not to disconnect existing buildings. e Additional examples of local developments were presented. 0 Page 8 of 9 Mr. Neubecker added that there needs to be at least minimum standards to avoid blank walls. There are some existing rules in the code to establish architectural styles and design. The Commission can establish additional development guidelines if needed. Mr. Roth noted that the PUD standards contain specifications for materials and articulation but this may be scaled down for smaller properties. e Street Network TOD literature recommends relatively smaller block size to create connections to the station and create visual interest. Oxford station has irregular blocks and larger parcels can benefit from creating a street network within the development. e One consideration is to have the consultant develop a street network within the TOD areas in the Next Steps plan. Feedback from the existing property owners will dictate the direction of the development guidelines and requirements. ~ fill V. PUBLIC FORUM No members of the public were present. ~ VL ATIORNEY'S CHOICE Ms. Reid did not have any topics for the Commission. fill VL STAFF'S CHOICE Chris Neubecker reviewed future agenda items including the PUD review process for the meeting on March 181h and possibly organizing another field trip for the Commissioners. Suggestions for field trip include Golden , Arvada and the redeveloped RINO area where residential areas have been incorporated into an existing industrial area. fill VII. COMMISSIONER'S CHOICE The Commissioners did not have any additional comments. The meeting adjourned at 8:40 p.m . . Page 9 of 9