The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2010-05-18 PZC MINUTES• • • I Plannjng and Zorung Commission Study Session Case #2010-04 Interpretation : Outdoor Recreational Ramps Case #2008 -04 Landscape Amendments May 18, 20 10 Pa ge I of 5 CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING May 18, 2010 I. CALL TO ORDER ~ Th e regular m ee tin g of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was ca ll ed to order at 7:05 p.m . in th e Council Chambers of the Englewood Civic Center, Chair Knoth presiding. Pr esen t: Absent: Staff: Bl eile, Roth, Kri ege r (entered 7:0 7), Knoth, Fish, Brick, Ca londer Kinton (a lternate ) (entered 7:07) Welker, Kin g Tricia Lan go n, Senior Plann e r Brook Bell , Planner II II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES May 4, 2 010 ~ Bleile moved: Roth seco nd ed: TO APPROVE THE MAY 4, 20 10 MINUTES Chair Knoth asked if there were any modifications or corrections. Th ere were none. AYE S: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABS ENT: Bleile, Roth , Knoth, Brick None Fish , Calond e r, Krieger Welker, King Motion carried. Ill. TITLE 16 CODE INTERPRETATION: OUTDOOR RECREATIONAL RAMPS ~ Mr. Bell rev iewe d the procedures for an interpretation . Ms. Krieger asked if th e Commission cou ld also w rit e reg ul at ion s to go along with th e interpretation. Mr. Bell said no, not at this time. Toni ght, th e Commission is b eing asked t o make com m ents and render a yes or no decision . • • • ' Planning and Zoning Commission Study Session Case #20 I 0-04 illterpretation : Outdoor Recreat ional Ramps Case #2008-04 Landscape Amendments May 18, 2010 Page 2 of 5 He said Staff requests that the Planning and Zoning Commission review and interpret Englewood Municipal Code section 16-5-4:A.4.a ., which states: 16-5-4: Accessory Uses A. General Provisions. 4. General Conditions: All accessory uses shall comply with the followin g general conditions: a. Be clearly incidental and customarily found in connection with the principal use; b. Be conducted and /or located on the same lot as the principal use; and c. Be operated and maintained under the same ownership, or by lessees or concessionaires thereof, and on the same lot as the permitted principal use. The Commission will tonight be focusing on 4.a. above. The other portion of the Code to take note of is in Chapter 11, which deals with use classifications and definitions of terms. That section has a description of characteristics of "Household Living". This interpretation has to do with the consideration of outdoor recreational ramps as an accessory use to Household Living. Historically, the Community Development Department has not regulated "recr eational activities" such as basketball goals, swing sets, trampolines and play sets. Those do not require zoning approval or a building permit. It is assumed those recreational activities and their equipment are commonly found in connection with residential uses and to be clearly incidental and customarily found. The question becomes whether outdoor recreational ramps are clearly incidental and customarily found in connection with residential uses. Mr. Bell reviewed the current Code. He stated the purpose of this request is to interpret if the use of outdoor recreational ramps is "incidental and customarily found in connection with the principal use ", which in this case, is residential. The term "o utdoor recreational ramps" is commonly used to describe quarter pipes, half-pipes and similar devices for skateboards, trick bikes, rollerblades, etc. This request is being made so that zoning inquiries regarding outdoor recr eat ional ramps associated with residential uses can be handled in a consistent and efficient manner. Mr. Brick asked how many currently exist in residential areas of Englewood that Staff is aware of. Mr. Bell said up to now the Department is not aware of any recreational ramps, but there has been a request for one. Mr. Brick asked if the City would incur any liability issues. Mr. Bell said he was not an attorney and could not answer that question. Mr. Brick asked if the ramps could be placed in the front yard. Ms. Langon said th e definition of a • • • 1 Plannin g and Zoning Commission Study Session Case #2010-04 Interpretation: Outdoor Recreation al Ramp s Case #2008-04 Landscape Amendments May 18 , 2010 Page 3 of 5 setback in the front yard is that it is clear from ground the sky, so other than living plants, fence, driveway, sidewalks, etc, manmade structures would not be permitted. Mr. Fish asked how Staff came to the statement that this is an accessory use. Ms. Langon said because it is not the principal use in a residential zone district it becomes an accessory use just as a garage or gazebo would be. She read the Code definition of "accessory use". Mr. Bleile said as long as the use did not adversely impact safety and hours of the day and night, and the owner is not charging anyone else to use it he saw no reason to not allow the use . Ms. Krieger and Mr. Calonder agreed. Mr. Brick asked what other cities are doing. Mr. Bell said he was not able to find specific regulations regarding this use in other cities. He called several cities and one said it was considered "outdoor storage" and did not have specific regulations regarding ramps. Bleile moved: Calonder seconded: THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION INTERPRETS THE ENGLEWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 16-5-4:A.4 TO DETERMINE THAT THE USE OF OUTDOOR RAMPS FOR "RECREATIONAL ACTIVITY " IS "CLEARLY INCIDENTAL AND CUSTOMARILY FOUND IN CONNECTION WITH " RESIDENTIAL USE. AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Bleile, Roth, Knoth, Brick, Fish, Calonder, Krieger Roth None Welker, King Motion carried. Mr. Roth voted no because he believes size is an issue. Ms. Krieger said she believes it is a recreational use just like any other sports /playground equipment children play on. She noted there may come a time when the size may need to be regulated. Mr. Bleile said he echoes the same sentiment. Children should be allowed to play. The City has the ability to enforce hours, safety, traffic, sight triangles, businesses .... he's fully for it. Mr. Fish said there is one in his neighborhood that is quite large and does not find it offensive . • • • ; Planning an d Zoning Commission Study Session Case #2010-04 Interpretation : Outdoor Recreational Ramps Case #2008-04 Landscape Amendments May 18 , 2010 Page 4 of 5 Ms . Langon said for clarification, does the Commission want to place this use on the list of things to discuss further in the future . The Commission said at this time they did not see any reason to. LANDSCAPE AMENDMENTS UPDATE [11) Mr. Bell distributed a memo regarding the landscape amendments. He said the Commission is coming to an end at l east to the conceptual discussions on amendments to the landscape ordinance. He said after tonight we will have gone through each of the sections and topics in landscaping. All the information will be placed in a draft and brought back to the Commission at a future meeting. The Commission will move forward with refining it as a whole rather than as little pieces. Issues discussed included landscaping in the public right-of-wa y, alternative methods of compliance, fee-in-lieu and incentives for alternative landscape materials. Mr. Bell will make the changes the Commission requested and incorporate into the draft. Several Commissioners congratulated Mr. Bell on doing a good job. IV. PUBLIC FORUM !ll1 Th e re was no public present. V. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE !ll1 Director White was not present. VI. STAFF'S CHOICE fl] Ms. Langon provided an update on future meetings: June 8: Sign Code amendments update June 22: Landscape amendments update and Medical District Phase II update She provided an update on the City Council public hearing held on May 17th on buy-back, second-hand, thrift and consignment uses in MU-B-1. Council had requested separate definitions for each use and those were presented. VII. ATTORNEY'S CHOICE lfll Ms. Reid was not present. • • • Planning and Zoning Commis sion Stud y Session Case #2010-04 Interpretation : Outdoo r Rec reational Ramp s Case #2008-04 Land scape Amendment s May 18 , 2010 Page 5 o f 5 VIII. COMMISSIONER'S CHOICE ~ Mr. Brick asked Staff for an update on the expansion of the King Soopers at Belleview and Federal. Ms. Langon stated, to her knowledge, no p lans have been submitted to the City. Mr. Brick asked if Darren Hollingsworth, Economic Development Coordinator at the City, could attend an upcoming meeting to discuss the King Soopers center at Belleview and Federal. He stated he has seen more vacancies late ly and wanted to know what was happening with the center. Ms. Langon reminded everyone that i s private property. Ms. Krieger said she did not feel that was the Commission's business . Ms. Langon asked Mr. Brick if he wanted Mr. Hollingsworth to attend a meeting or wou ld an update of what he knows be suffi c i ent. Mr. Br ick said an update wo uld be fine. Ms. Langon said the last discuss i ons the owners had w ith the C ity, she knew of, were at l east a year ago . The meeting adjourned at 8:40 p.m . Barbara Kr eck low, R cording Secretary