Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-04-17 PZC MINUTES• • • CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION April 17, 2007 I. CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:03 p.m. in the City Council Chambers of the Englewood Civic Center, Chair Roth presiding . Present: Brick, Krieger, Knoth , Roth , Mosteller, Fish, Bleile (entered 7:19 ) Calonder (altern ate) Abs e nt: Di ekmeier, Welker St aff: Darren Hollingsworth, Economic Development Coordinator Tricia Langon , Senior Planner Nancy Reid, Assistant City Attorney II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES March 20, 2007 Ms. Krieger moved: -d:-> 1 b ' Mr. Knoth seconded: TO APPROVE THE MARCH 20, 2007 M INUTES AS WRITIEN . A YES : NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Brick, Knoth, Roth, Krieger, Mosteller, Fish None None Diekmeier, Welker, Bleile Motion carried. Ill. PUBLIC HEARING Case #200 7-06 South Broadway District Identification Banners Ch air Roth stated the issue before the Commission is Case #2007-06, South Broadway District Identification Banners. Chair Roth asked for a motion t o open the public hearing. Ms. Krieger moved: Ms. Mostel ler seconded: THE PUBLIC HEARING ON CASE #2007-06 BE OPENED . AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN : ABSENT: Brick, Knoth, Roth , Krieger, Fish, Mosteller None None Diekmeier, Welker, Bleile Motion car ried . • Mr. Hollingsworth, Economic Development Coordinator, was sworn in. Mr. Hollingsworth stated the issue before the Planning and Zoning Commission is an Amendment to the Unified Development Code (UDC) to allow City authorized business identification banners on street lights along the South Broadway corridor. Mr. Hollingsworth stated notice was published in the Englewood Herald on March 30, 2007. Th is was done in accordance with Section 16-2:3G of the Englewood Municipal Code. The publication was officially entered into the record. Last year the Business Improvement District was formed. The District is a group of 125 business and property owners along the South Broadway corridor from 285 north to Yale. The group has expressed an i nterest in installing banners on the street lights along the South Broadway corridor to serve as brand recognition of the area. Currently the UDC does not allow this . The Business Improvement District collects a special assessment for things such as marketing and public safety. One of their primary objectives in the coming year is to install District identification banners . If the Amendment is considered this would allow City approved business districts to install banners along the South Broadway corridor. Mr. Hollingsworth asked if there were any questions. Ms. Krieger said the Commission does not have anything to accept so how can we approve something that is so vague. Mr. Hollingsworth deferred to the Assistant City Attorney, Nancy Reid, to answer that question . • Ms. Reid stated that normally when you make a recommendation to Council it is usually discussed beforehand. The Charter requires that the City Attorney draft any legislation. At this time what Staff is asking the Commission to do is to proceed with the idea of whether or not you are going to allow banners and whether or not there will be certain conditions attached. It needs to go forward as a suggestion and then the City Attorney's office will draft it. She stated the City Attorney's office has not had time to do the drafting and has not compared it to other sections of the existing code for conflicts . She asked the Commission to not recommend any particular verbiage, only whether or not authorized banners will be allowed and if you have any conditions, what those would be. • Mr. Fish asked if the Amendment would come back to the Commission. Ms. Reid stated it would not. Mr. Brick expressed a concern as to who would be responsible for the maintenance and cleaning of the banners . Ms. Reid stated that is a question for Community Development. Mr. Hollingsworth stated that the Business Improvement District, which would be a City authorized District, would install and maintain their banners through the licensing agreement. Further discussion ensued regarding the cleaning and maintenance of the banners. Ms. Mosteller asked who would approve the design of the banners. Ms. Reid stated that would be by whoever you designate . 2 • • • Mr. Brick asked if Mr. Hollingsworth had any pictures of the proposed banners. He stated he does, but did not bring them to the meeting. The BID is proposin g banners that would be on each side of the light pole, approximately 2 feet wide by 6 feet high, with a 1 7 foot clearance. The banners will not advertise any particular business. They do require an Xcel permit. After obtaining City authorization, the BID would have to obtain the appropriate Xcel permit. The permit describes how large the banners can be. Ms. Mosteller asked what the boundaries are of the Business Improvement District. Mr. Hollingsworth stated they are from 285 north to Yale. Ms . Krieger stated the Commission is actually authorizing any approved district to install banners. What this specific District is looking at installing does not really pertain. Mr. Hollingsworth stated that was correct. Tricia Langon , Senior Planner was sworn in. She stated she would try to clarify what is being asked of the Commission tonight. Ms. Langon stated any proposed changes to the Code are not specific to any group or district. The Amendment would include the whole length of Broadway and would be for any City authorized group or district. City authorized means it would be through a License Agreement that would be approved by City Council. That is where the approval comes from, not come from within Community Development or any staff member. The License Agreement is the area in which to address maintenance rather than within the zoning code. Each License Agreement would be specific to the request. All Mr. Hollingsworth is looking for this evening is authorization to pro ceed with the concept of allowing banners as the current Code does not allow banners other than the banners that were approved in the mid-90 's for the South Broadway Action Plan District. Chair Roth asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to address the Commission. There was no one. Ms. Krieger moved: Ms. Mosteller seconded: THE PUBLIC HEARING ON CASE #2007-06 BE CLOSED . AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Ms. Mosteller Brick, Knoth, Roth, Krie ger, Fish , Mosteller None Bleile Diekmeier, Welker Motion carried. Chair Roth asked if the re was any further discussion . There was none. Ms. Mosteller moved ; Mr. Fish seconded CASE #2007-06, SOUTH BROADWAY DISTRICT !DENT/FICA TION BANNERS, BE RECOMMENDED TO CITY COUNCIL AND THAT THE MUNICIPAL CODE BE MODIFIED 3 • TO ALLOW CITY AUTHORIZED BANNERS TO BE INSTALLED ON SOUTH BROADWAY LIGHT STANDARDS SUBJECT TO LICENSING. Mr. Brick stated he finds it imperative that the License Agreement contains stipulations for maintenance and cleanliness of the banners and that some entity is appointed to judge that. Ms. Krieger stated she felt the banners would be good for the City as some form of identity for Englewood is needed, provided they are maintained and attractive. Mr. Fish said he agrees, but also it has to be noted the issue of advertising is not part of this , it is to identify the district, not a particular business. Ms. Krieger asked for a friendly amendment to include "district identification banner" in the motion. AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN : ABSENT: Motion failed. Fish, Mosteller, Bleile Brick, Krieger, Knoth, Roth None Diekmeier, Welker • Ms. Krieger asked for clarification from Ms. Langon. Ms. Reid informed Ms. Krieger since the public hearing was closed she could not speak to Ms. Langon, only to her. Ms. Mosteller asked if the Commission could reopen the hearing . Ms. Reid stated they could and at that time Ms. Langon could respond. • Mr. Bleile moved: Ms. Krieger seconded: THE PUBLIC HEARING ON CASE #2007-06 BE REOPENED . AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Brick, Knoth, Roth, Krieger, Fish , Mosteller, Bleile None None Diekmeier, Welker Motion carried. Ms. Langon stated for clarification this hearing and Amendment is not specific to the Business Improvement District nor is it for a business district, it is for South Broadway districts. The request is for modifications to 16-6:13-El 7 in the Code. That citation is for South Broadway District Identification banners, not specific to any group, business or business district. Ms. Krieger moved: Mr. Knoth seconded: THE PUBLIC HEARING ON CASE #2007-06 BE CLOSED. 4 • • • AYES : NAYS: ABSTA IN: A BSEN T: Brick, Knoth, Roth, Krieger, Fish , Mosteller, Bleile None None D iekmeier, Welker Motion carried. Ms. Mosteller moved; Mr. Knoth seconded CASE #2 00 7-06 , SOUTH BROADWAY DISTRICT /DENT/FICA TION BANNERS, BE RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL TO CITY COUNCIL WITH A FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION FOR ADOPTION ANO THAT THE MUNICIPAL CODE BE MODIFIED TO ALLOW CITY AUTHORIZED SOUTH BROADWAY DISTRICT IDENTIFICATION BANNERS TO BE INSTALLED ON SOUTH BROADWAY LIGHT STANDARDS SUBJECT TO LICENSING. Ms . Mosteller said she believes this is a good thing and she appreciates the Business Improvement District coming forward with this request. It meets a lot of the intent with what the City is trying to do with the South Broadway Action Plan and is good for the City. She said she is hopeful that it passes . Mr. Bleile stated he agreed with Ms. Mosteller . AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Fish , Mosteller, Bleile, Brick, Krieger, Knoth , Roth None None Diekmeier, Welker Motion carried . IV. STUDY SESSION Minimum Frontage Requirements in Multi-Unit Zone Districts Ms. Langon stated tonight's discussion is a continuation of a previous discussion on the minimal lot width or frontage requirements in the multi-unit districts . Mr. Brick expressed concern over whether design and development standards should come first and then based on those the decision on whether the 25 foot would then be generated by the design and development standards . He feels it is very important that the quality of properties such as those in northwest Englewood be at a high level because of the area itself. Ms. Langon said she believed that the concept was again that the Commission would move forward and by moving forward you would consider some type of development or site standards. The consensus from last month 's meeting was to move forward to consider 5 • • • changing the lot width. She asked the Commissioners if that statement was correct. They agreed that is was. Mr. Fish said since the last meeting discussion he toured many parts of Englewood to view the multi-unit zone districts and is not sure the Commission should make any changes. When he toured the northwestern area he saw a lot of units with nothin g but double car garages and concrete slabs in front. In other parts of the City he doesn 't remember seeing that type of construction at all. Ms. Krieger stated just because they are not there now, that doesn't mean you could not build them . He agreed. What are we trying to do? He got the impression the Commission is trying to prevent development that has already been on- going for a while. The areas that he drove through are predominately not multi-unit; they have a very strong single-family characteristic to them. Now he is wondering after seeing the areas that maybe by reversing the rule the Commission is going to encourage higher density dwellings in areas that are predominately single-family. He is concerned. Mr. Bleile stated he did not feel that is the case. He believes what the Commission is tryin g to look at is, it used to be 25 feet and was changed to 30 feet and that change has now hindered the 25 foot owners from redeve loping and improving their property. In going back to 25 feet you will actually allow a larger percentage of potential units to be rede velo ped, more than just the few in the northwest area. Mr. Fish asked if Staff could provide the Commission with some kind of measure of where duplexes with or without front garages currently exist and where they could potentially be built in the R-2 zones to determine the impact the change would have on the City. Mr. Brick said he also would like to see the numbers. Ms. Krieger stated that is not the issue, it is just the background of why the change to 30 foot lots was implemented in the first place. The issue is whether people can build a dup lex, not whether they can have a front garage. Ms. Langon stated the majority of properties in the R-2-B and the R-3 districts are all platted as 25 foot lots . A property is usually Lot 1 and 2, for a combined total of 50 feet. There are a few properties that are three lots wide (75'L a few 60 foot lots , some 3 7 112 foot lots and a few 25 foot lots. The vast majority, easil y 90%, are 50 foot lots. In northwest Englewood in the R-2-A district most of the lots are 60 foot wide or wider and they do not have alleys so the garages must be out front. With the change to the 50 foot width requirement essentially every one of the R-2 and R-3 districts functions as R-1. The only properties that could redevelop are the few properties that are la rger than 50 feet, which is estimated to be 10 % or less. Ms. Langon will ask Mr. Voboril, Planner, if he can generate a report showing the number of properties for the Commissioners. Ms. Langon reminded the Commissioners they do not have to change the entire City; they can change all districts or just one district. Mr. Bleile said loosening the restriction would allow more people the opportunity to redevelop and reinvest. Discussion ensued regarding design standards. Chair Roth passed around several pictures of units that he had taken . Ms. Langon asked for a consensus from th e members. Mr. Bleile said he would like to go with the consensus to make the lot size 25 feet contingent upon design standards and 6 • development standards being developed based on garage locations and differentiating between alley and no alley . The Commissioners all agreed. Mr. Fish suggested the design standards be simple and not too constrictive. Ms. Kr ieger suggested if the members have not read the current design standards they should to know what is currently on the books. Ms. Langon stated Staff will work on refinin g the changes more for the next meeting and try to get it to what the Commission is looking for. She also suggested the Commissioners take a ride to various areas of Englewood and Denver to look at properties. V. PUBLIC FORUM Mr. Michae l Dickman addressed the Commission regarding the 25 foot wide change. He stated he does not live in Englewood, but is looking to develop properties in the City. He stated it was perplexing to him to see the R-2 zoning and the 50 foot frontage, but have to have 60 feet to build a duplex. He said he now can better understand what is going on and the thought process that goes behind the change. He said based upon what he is hearing about the proposed Bates Station development, if it is going to be mixed-use, this could be a nice phasing coming out from there and providing some new gentrified housing product that the people who want to move into tho se neighborhoods would accept and be able to hit a price point that would probably be somewhat affordable for those people too. Developers have to try to hit the market at an affordable point where someone will buy it and let it grow over a period of time. • The Commissioners thanked Mr. Dickman for his comments. • VI. STAFF 'S CHOI CE Ms. Langon stated the May meetings will be held on May 81h and May 22n d. Discussion will continue on the minimum frontage requirements. Upcoming meetings will include the Englewood Estates PUD Amendment and Craig Hosp ital's proposal to rezone their property on Clarkson. She asked if the Commissioners have any ideas or pictures of multi-unit dwellings to please let her know. VII. ATTORNEY 'S CHOI CE Ms. Reid stated she had nothing further . VIII . COMMISSIONER 'S CHOICE Mr. Fish reminded everyone of the Kent Place Open House this coming Sunday. Ms. Mosteller asked whether there was anything from the Citizen Sur v ey that would be relevant to Community Development and that the Commission might want to take on . 7 • • • Ms. Langon stated she has not read the entire document, but there probably are some issues. Ms. Langon reminded everyone of Robert Simpson 's farewell reception on Thursday from 4:00 to 6:30 in the Community Room. City Manager Sears is scheduled to speak at 4 :30. The meeting adjourned at 8:55 p.m. Barbara Krecklow, R cording Secretary 8