Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-11-06 PZC MINUTES• • • • CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION November 6, 2007 I. CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:02 in the Community Development Conference Room of the Englewood Civic Center, Vice Chair Bleile presiding. Present: Absent: Staff Present: Brick, Bleile, Diekmeier, Fish , Knoth , Kr ieger, Welker, Calonder Myers (a lternate) Roth (excused) Tricia Langon, Senior Planner Brook Bell , Planner Nancy Reid, Assistant City Attorney Gregory Tan, Greenberg Traurig II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Minutes of October 16, 2007 Ms. Krieger moved: Mr. Diekmeier seconded: TO APPROVE THE OCTOBER 16, 2007 MINUTES AS WRIT- TEN . AYES: NAYS: Brick, Fish, Diekmeier, Bleile , Krieger, Knoth, Calonder None ABSTA IN : Welker ABSENT: Roth Motion carried. 111. ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING Request for one 1 year Extension for the Englewood Estates Planned Unit Develop- ment CASE #2007-011 Mr. Welker moved: Mr. Brick seconded: THE ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING ON CASE #2007-011 BE OPENED. AYES: NAYS: Brick, Knoth, Calonder, Welker, Diekmeier, Krieger, Fish, Bleile None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Roth Motion carried. • • • .. Vice Chair Bleile asked staff to present the case . Planner Bell was sworn in. Mr. Bell provided the Commission with background information on Case #2007-011 . It is a request to extend the Englewood Estates PUD District for one year. The PUD was originally approved by the Englewood City Council on August 2, 2004 through Ordinance No. 47, Series of 2004. The PUD was applied for on April 4, 2003 and under Title 16 of the Code at that time, it was required that a PUD District revert back to the previous zoning three years after approval if no substantial progress had been made. On August 2, 2007 three years had passed since Council had originally approved the PUD. As of that date no building permits had been issued for the site. However, as that three year reversion date passed the PUD remained in effect because an Amendment to the original PUD had been applied for and was being actively pursued. On August 7, 2007 the Planning and Zoning Commission conducted a Public Hearing on the proposed Amendments and recommended the pro- posed Amendment go to Council for conditional approval. On September 28, 2007, prior to the Amendment being moved on to Council, WSM Properties, who was the applicant for the PUD Amendment, withdrew the application. With the passing of the three year timeframe and the subsequent withdrawal of the PUD Amendment application the zoning for the property is set to revert back to an R-1-C based zone district. Per the Code, which governs the original PU D application, an applicant may request a single one year extension of the substantial progress timeframe for the PUD District. In this case, it would be a re- quest to extend the PU D to August 2, 2008 . Mr. Bell stated this request has nothing to do with the Amendment that was before the Commission last August. That Amendment has been withdrawn. This request does not make any other changes to the original PUD. Mr. Fish asked if there were any criteria for extensions. Mr. Bell stated there is not. How- ever, there is a definition of substantial progress. Substantial progress means approval of a PUD site plan, which did occur, and issuance of a building permit, which did not occur. Mr. Welker stated if the Commission approves this extension, the Commission is approving the conditions, site plans, etc. for the original PUD. Mr. Bell stated that was correct. The Commission would be extending the PUD District to the date of August 2, 2008 with all the original conditions on the original PUD. Mr. Diekmeier asked if the applicant could apply for another extension on August 2, 2008. Mr. Bell stated he could not. The Code states it is a one-time one year extension . The build- ing permit has to be issued by August 2, 2008 for them to continue on with the project past that date. Mr. Bell asked if there were any further questions. There were none . Mr. Mike Duggan was sworn in. He thanked the Commission for allowing him to speak with the members. He provided background on Englewood Estates and as to why the pro- ject is not further along at this time. He stated the planning stages began in 2001. Due to 2 • • • the illness of a partner and a downturn in building the project was not able to get off the ground and the property was put on the market. WSM placed a contract on the property about a year ago. He stated he thought they were acting in good faith with WSM and the City to complete the project. Through a real estate issue WSM decided to back out of the contract and walk away from the property. He respectfully requested a one year extension on the PUD and he offered to answer any questions the Commissioners might have. Mr. Calonder asked Mr. Duggan what his intentions are for the land. Mr. Duggan said he is looking at both options, developing it or selling to another party. He is currently in negotia- tions with two interested parties. At this time he does not know which direction he is going to go, but does want to see the property built up. Mr. Calonder asked if he had funding secured to build. He said he is looking at bringing in another partner and is personally working on securing financing. He said initially to get the project off the ground it will cost in the neighborhood of $350,000. Mr. Welker asked Mr. Duggan if built out now, would it be built out as the PUD is ap- proved today. He stated that was correct. He said he felt the detached single-family homes are a better fit for the property. Vice Chair Bleile asked if there were any further questions. Mr. Welker stated he had a question for Mr. Bell. He asked Mr. Bell if they were to obtain a permit for the site work, would that fulfill the requirement for a building permit. Mr. Bell stated he did not have the exact definition of building permit in front of him, but believed the definition of a building permit would require a building permit for a structure be let. Ms. Krieger said she would disagree with that. If they are putting in roads and utilities they are actively moving forward. Mr. Welker asked what is the threshold of meeting the re- quirements for maintaining the PUD in force. He said he felt it would help the owner un- derstand what he needs to do. Ms. Langon provided a copy of the Code under which the PUD was granted. Ms. Langon and Mr. Bell referred to the Code for a definition. Mr. Bell stated there was not a specific definition of building permit in the original Code. He read a portion of the General Notes of the PUD District Plan that was approved. It stated "Prior to the issuance of any building permit, installation of the following infrastructure shall be completed: utilities, but not lim- ited to water, sanitary sewer, gas, cable, private drive and a bottom lift of asphalt, curb, gut- ter and sidewalk along the private drive and fire hydrants." Mr. Bell noted all of the above would have to be in place and a building permit issued prior to August 2, 2008 in order to fulfill the requirement. Ms. Krieger moved: Mr. Knoth seconded: THE ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING ON CASE #2007-011 BE CLOSED . 3 • • • AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Brick, Knoth, Welker, Diekmeier, Krieger, Ca londer, Bleile, Fish None None Roth Motion carried. Ms. Krieger said personally she would like to see the project stay alive. She said she felt the people in the neighborhood have gone through a lot of different projects and the more the Commission can do to try to keep this project going and see it to fruition the better off we will be. Mr. Brick said Mr. Duggan's desire to decrease density improves the safety and community welfare of that project. Ms. Krieger agreed. Mr. Welker stated he felt the reasons for requesting the extension were circumstances that led to the inaction and were appropriate as well. Mr. Bleile concurred. He stated he did not believe there was any intent to mislead anyone. All the intentions were there to do the right thing. Mr. Fish said he would like to give Mr. Duggan every opportunity to move forward . Mr. Knoth moved: Ms. Krieger seconded: TO APPROVE ONE 1 YEAR EXTENSION TO AUGUST 2, 2008 FOR THE ENGLEWOOD ESTATES PLANNED UNIT DEVEL- OPMENT AYES: NAYS: Brick, Fish, Diekmeier, Bleile, Krieger, Knoth, Welker, Calonder None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Roth Motion carried. IV. RELATED AMENDMENTS TO TABLE 16-6-1 .1 Ms. Langon provided a drawing of the various zoning districts and what type of residential unit (single unit and multi-unit) is allowed in each. Ms. Langon said along with the previous discussions on the SO foot frontage issue, changing just the SO foot in the chart is a rela- tively simple thing to do, but other areas of the chart need to be looked at. She discussed with the Commissioners several amendments that might help to simplify and clarify the Code. Table 16-6-1.1 was referenced. She stated the R-1 codes are not going to be changing. The multi-unit districts read one unit detached, two units, then back to one unit attached, one unit detached on a small lot. It jumps around. She suggested reordering to put all the ones together and all the twos together so it is easier to follow. The Commissioners agreed . Secondly, Planning receives a lot of calls from people wanting to create a small lot. Small lot is defined as a lot less than the zone district requirement that was established prior to 4 • • the date of the UDC, which was February 2004. Basically, you cannot create a small lot. It has to have been an existing lot that was there for some reason as being less than the dis- trict requirement. She suggested adding a footnote at the end of the chart to define small lot. Mr. Welker suggested using the terminology of zone lot, not just lot. Ms. Langon said since the City does not have the definition of zone lot, one will need to be created. Mr. Welker stated the terminology needs to be described correctly. Ms. Langon said it will be discussed and the terminology consistent. Ms. Langon stated currently the definition of multi-unit is four or more dwelling units within a structure. The Code is meant to discourage single units in commercial districts. In actual- ity, what is happening is discouraging applicants from building a mixed use of first floor re- tail with one or two units above. We are prohibiting and eliminating the possibilities of other development opportunities. Staff's recommendation is when it is a mixed use and the dwelling units are incorporated as part of the mixed use, one, two, three or more units could occur. All the units would still have to be incorporated into the same building as the commercial use, not as a stand alone use and the commercial use must occupy the major- ity of the ground floor. The drawing of the zoning districts and what is allowed in each was discussed at this time. Ms. Langon noted the current Code does not allow three units unless you do three single unit attached. Ms. Langon stated Staff proposes you either have a single unit or anything two units or more is multi-unit. The number of units allowed on a property would be de- termined strictly by the frontage and the size of the property. Multiple buildings of multi- units can only be built in the R-3-B district. Staff will look at what the cut-off will be to allow multiple buildings. Ms. Langon stated in the Code currently there are provisions for the minimum floor area of a structure. There are inconsistencies in the Code. Do we need minimum floor areas? Mr. Welker said if you are going to have defined spaces he believes reasonable minimums are needed. Discussion ensued. Assistant City Attorney Reid exited at 8:12. Ms. Langon will check the building code to see what the minimum residential floor area is and will also check other communities to see if they have a minimum. She said she also be- lieves the Commission needs to differentiate between single units and multi-units. This discussion will be continued at another meeting. V. PUBLIC FORUM • There was no one present to address the Commission. 5 VI. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE • Ms. Lan go n stated there are thr ee members (Mr. Knoth, Mr. Diekmeier and Mr. Calonder) whose terms expire at the end of January. Application forms were distributed to each mem- ber to fill out if they wish to reapply. • • Ms. Langon stated she sent out a test email and everyone received it. It was sent with a re- turn receipt requested .... which told her when the email was opened. Times ranged from within a few minutes to 11 days later. She stated the City's system is working, it is up to Commissioners to open and read emails. The size of packets being emailed was discussed. She stated all packets that have maps and large plans, such as for Public Hearings, will be mailed. After discussion it was determined all packets for Study Sessions of 14 pages or less will be emailed. Anything larger will be mailed. One copy of the packet will be provided for every meetin g. All Public Hearing packets will be mailed. A schedule of the 2008 meeting dates was distributed. Senior Planner Lan go n provided an update on upcomin g meetings: • November 20th -Meeting cancelled • December 4th -Topic to be determined • December 18th -Meetin g cancelled • January 8th -Topic to be determined VII. ATTORNEY'S CHOICE Vice Chair Bleile reported Ms. Reid had nothing further to report. VIII. COMMISSIONERS CHOICE Vice Chair Bleile asked what was happening with the old Jim Paris tire store. Ms. Langon said the current building will be demolished and a bank built. The old Baily 's property has been sold to McKenzie House, a housing developer. It will house their corporate offices. The me eting adjourned at 8:30 . 6