Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-10-02 PZC MINUTES• • CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION October 2, 200 7 I. CALL TO ORDER The re gu lar meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:01 in the Community Development Conference Room of the Englewood Civic Center, Vice Chair Bleile presiding. Present: Absent: St aff Present: Guest: Brick, Bleile , Fish, Knoth, Krieger (entered 7:05), Calonder, Welker Myers (alternate) Roth (excused), Diekmeier (excused) Tricia Langon , Senior Planner Brook Bell , Planner Nancy Reid , Assistant City Attorney Tim Stephens II. APPROVAL OF MINUTE S Minutes of August 21, 2007 Mr. Knoth moved: Mr. Brick seconded: TO APPROVE THE AUGUST 21, 2007 MINUTES AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Brick, Calonder, Knoth, Bleile, Fish None Welker Diekmeier, Krieger, Roth Motion carried. Ill. HISTORIC DE SIG NA TIO N U DC AME N DMENTS Mr. Bell stated last winter City Council requested that Staff provide an overview of the City's Historic Preservation Ordinance as it currently exists. At the February 20, 2007 Study Session Staff provided the overview of the history of the City's Ord inance. In 2005 the City went through a similar effort. At that time, several Amendments to the Ordinance were drafted , it came throu gh the Planning and Zoning Commission, was brought up to Council and ultimately the Amendment motion failed so no change to the Code occurred. At the February 2007 meeting Council wanted to start conversation on two specific areas • of the Ordinance. Those two issues are: 1 1. Current requirements that only buildings or structures that have been in exis- • tence for at least 50 years are eligible for historic designation. • • 2. Existing provisions that effectively require the property owner's consent to nominate or apply for historic designation (also called third party designations). At the May 7, 2007 Council Study Session, Staff presented research on four different agen- cies and compared their historic designation requirements to Englewood 's with respect to those two issues. Those four agencies were the National Register of Historic Places, Colo- rado Historic Register of Historic Properties, City of Denver Landmark Preservation Com- mission and City of Littleton Preservation Board . Mr. Bell stated that information is included in tonight 's meeting packet. Staff provided Council with options to provide for third party designations and also to provide some avenues for allowing properties that are less than 50 years old to be designated. Ultimately Council chose two of the options and directed Staff to use those to create amendments. Before you tonight is not only that discussion, but also the specific Amendments, which at this time have been taken to a black-line copy. The Amendments fall into four categories: 1. Revise the Ordinance terminology with respect to historic designation so as to not confuse the word nomination with application. Only the term application would be used. 2. Since Historic Preser v ation is a review process, the language would be in- cluded in the Code under Chapter 2 Development Review and Approval procedures, 16-2- 20, and 16-6-11 Historic Preservation would be repealed. 3 . If the nominated building, structure or district is less than 50 years old, the applicant would be required to show proof of exceptional importance based on the Na- tional Register Bulletin guidelines for evaluating nominated properties that have achieved significance within the past 50 years. 4. The Amendments would revise the UDC to allow third party application or designation of properties without owner consent, while still not placing any restrictions on the development of the property. Mr. Bleile asked what type of posting would be required. Mr. Bell stated publishing would be required now, posting would not. Notice is required to be given to the owner by certi- fied mail. Ms. Krieger asked what the advantage is of having a third party designation. Mr. Bell said there is a potential for more public awareness. Mr. Welker stated he has a problem with not making the Amendment as clear as to what it is and isn 't. Mr. Bell said that was a valid point and Staff would look at the language and be more explicit. Mr. Bleile asked if the State already has historical guidelines on the books, why then does Englewood need one. Why can 't we use the State's? Mr. Bell said Englewood does not 2 • • • have to have one. Englewood drafted the original Ordinance in 1999 when the Skerritt house was being threatened. Ms. Krieger said things like the Skerritt house would be impor- tant to the history of Englewood, but not so much to the State . A designation can allow for funds and prestige . Ms. Reid stated seve ra l homes in Englewood have requested historic designation in order to apply for federal funds. Mr. Welker stated when talking about designation, it can be more than buildings that are typically designated. A site where a significant event happened could be designated and a plaque placed on the site. A broader perspective of what designation might mean is needed. Mr. Bell stated a designation does not have to be tied to a physical thing. It can be a house, building, farm or piece of land that an event occurred at. Mr. Welker said he would like the Ordinance to talk more about the designation of something that isn 't just a building. Mr. Bell said Staff will look at that more closely. Mr. Bell said there are criteria in place for properties, sites or events more than 50 years old and further criteria when you get into properties, sites or events less than 50 years old. He said there are three designations in the City at this time. Arapahoe Acres already has na- tional designations and technically in the Code it states that "those buildings, structures or districts within the City that are listed in the National Register of Historic Places shall be construed as having local historic designation and subject to the same provisions as any lo- cal historic building, structure or district" . Mr. Bell said perhaps lan g ua ge could be stronger to make sure people understand the broader view of sites versus buildings and events versus structures, stating there are no re- strictions, and being clearer on the use of the words preserve and protect. The Commission agreed. Ms. Krieger suggested on page two of the Amendment under D the words "and owner" be added after the word applicant. The Commission asked who would be responsible for determining a designation . Mr. Bell said the Planning and Zoning Commission would apply the criteria and then make a rec- ommendation to Council. Mr. Brick asked if there is a process to remove a designation. Ms. Krieger stated if some- thing is designated historical, that would not change in the future and there would be no reason to remove the designation. Mr. Fish stated if you have a designation and have used Federal funds for restoration you probably cannot undo that. Mr. Bell said some grants cannot be applied for until you have some type of designation. Ms. Krieger said it may encourage people to keep a structure if the City designates it his- toric rather than tear it down . 3 • • • Mr. Bleile asked the Commissioners if they are all in agreement the Ordinance should be a designation and not preservation and that there should be no constraints by the new Ordi- nance put on the owners of the property. The Commission agreed. Mr. Bell will work on additional language and clarification for the new Ordinance and bring it back to the Commission at the next meeting. Ms. Reid noted it would go to a Public Hearing once the Commission approves the Ordinance. IV. HOME FUNDING CONSULTATION Ms. Langon presented a request by Arapahoe County to review four houses on South Pearl Street for historic value that Community Housing Development Association {CHDA) plans to acquire. The CHDA is a non-profit organization that is looking at acquiring the Presiden- tial Arms Apartments at Washington and Highway 285 and four properties on South Pearl Street directly west of the Presidential Arms. Those four properties are all greater than 50 years old. Before they can app ly for any Federal funding the Federal government requires that any agency that would be giving out money look at historic preservation and whether anything that they do would affect the historic culture of the area. She noted the Planning and Zoning Commission serves as the consulting agency for all reviews. Ms. Langon distributed several sets of the complete packet from Arapahoe County for the Commissioners to review. She noted Arapahoe County has already determined that there is no historical significance to the four properties. A draft of a letter to Arapahoe County was also distributed for review. Ms. Langon explained how the County arrives at a decision us- ing an Architectural In ventory. Ms. Langon pointed out that what the Commission is discussing tonight does not mean that the homes will be removed. They are req uesting Federal funding for the project and part of that will be used to acquire the properties. After discussion the Commission agreed the homes have no historical value. Ms. Langon asked if the Commission would approve the draft letter. They did and Mr. Bleile signed the letter. V. PUBLIC FORUM Mr. Tim Stephens said he lives north of Dartmouth and stated his concern is with the de- velopment of that area with the 50' versus 60' rule for multi-unit housing. He stated devel- opment has pretty much stopped in the area and the area has been deteriorating since the change. Mr. Bleile stated that issue was discussed at the last meeting of the Planning and Zonin g Commission. He said the Commission moved forward to propose to City Council to go back to 50' with no design standards for redevelopment. He asked Mr. Stephens if he was in favor of or opposed to that change. He stated he was in favor of the change . 4 • • • Ms. Langon stated Staff is continuing to work on the wording before bringing the proposed amendments back to the Commission for final review. The Public Hearing has not been scheduled . At the hearing the Planning and Zoning Commission will make a recommenda- tion to Council to either accept or not accept the draft amendments. If they accept, they will go to City Council through three processes (1 st reading, Public Hearing, 2"d reading). Mr. Bleile encouraged Mr. Stephens to attend future meetings of the Planning and Zoning Commission where the 50' versus 60 ' for multi-unit development is on the agenda. VI. STAFF'S CHOICE Senior Planner Langon provided an update on upcoming meetings: • October 16th -Continuation of Historic Designation UDC Amendments • November 6th -Topic to be determined • November 20 1 h -Meeting to be cancelled if no Public Hearing is scheduled Ms. Langon stated the Englewood Estates PUD has been withdrawn by the applicant, Mr. Jim Wishmier. Under the current PUD Ordinance, the original PUD expires at three years unless there is significant progress in development. Significant progress was defined as submission and approval of the building permits. If that does not take place the zoning would revert back to the original zoning. Ms. Langon stated the date of expiration was Au- gust 1, 2007. Since Mr. Wishmier was proceeding through the Amendment process at that time, Staff did not activate the expiration. Since he has withdrawn, Staff is now in the proc- ess of notifying Mr. Duggan that the three year time frame has lapsed and he has the option of letting it go or requesting a one year extension. Mr. Bell stated he will send a letter to Mr. Duggan on October 3'd explaining his options. He will have 30 days to respond. If Mr. Duggan extends the timeframe the Commission would be considering the extension of the original PUD. VII. ATTORNEY'S CHOICE Ms. Reid had nothing further to report. VIII. COMMISSIONERS CHOICE There were no further comments. The meeting adjourned at 8 :07. Barbara Krecklow, Recording Secretary 5