Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-03-08 PZC MINUTES• • • CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION March 8, 2005 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 Krieger presiding. Present: Absent: Staff : Bleile, Diekmeier, Hunt, Krieger, Roth, Schum , Welker Fraietta, Mosteller Harold Stitt, Senior Planner Tricia Lan gon, Senior Planner Nancy Reid, Assistant City Attorney II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES February 8, 2005 Mr. Roth moved : Mr. Hunt seconded: TO APPROVE THE FEBRUARY 8, 2005 MINUTES. AY ES : NAYS: Bl eile, Krieger, Roth, Schum, Welker None ABSTAIN: Di ekmeier, Hunt ABSENT: Fraietta, Mosteller Motion carried. Ill. PUBLIC HEARING Case #2004-41, MU-B-2 Setbacks Chair Krieger introduced Case #2004-41, MU-B-2 Setbacks. Tricia Langon, Senior Plann er was sworn in. Ms. Langon stated notice of the public hearing was published in the Englewood Heral d on February 18, 2005. Community Development requests th e Commission continue the public hearing to April 5, 2005 so staff can have additional tim e to re v ie w and complete the proposed amendments for the MU-B-2 setbacks. Chair Krieger stated the Commission failed to open the public hearing. Ms. Reid stated th e public hearing is deemed open by the Chair introducing the case . Mr. Roth moved; Mr. Schum seconded: TO CONTINUE CASE #2004-41, MU-B-2 SETBACKS, TO APRIL 5, 2005. • • • AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Bleile, Diekmeier, Hunt, Krieger, Roth, Schum, Welker None None Fraietta, Mosteller Motion carried. IV. PUBLIC HEARING Case #2005-04 Three Mile Plan Mr. Schum moved; Mr. Diekmeier seconded: TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR CASE #2005-04, THREE MILE PL AN. AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Bleile, Diekmeier, Hunt, Krieger, Roth, Schum , Welker None None Fraietta, Mosteller Motion carried . Harold Stitt, Senior Planner, was sworn in. Mr. Stitt stated the notice of the public hearing was published in the Englewood Herald on February 18, 2005. The purpose of the Three Mile Plan is based in the Colorado Revised Statutes Section 31-12-105 which requires communities have a plan in place that extends three miles beyond its current jurisdictional boundaries and within that plan establishes those properties that may be eligible for annexation to that community, and then provides information on how particular areas would be served if they were to be annexed into the community. Mr. Stitt emphasized that the City constructed the plan at this time only to meet the State requirement, not because the City is currently looking to annex any of the properties presented in the plan. It should be noted that annexation of these areas would need to be at the request of the property owners. The City does not have the power to annex unilaterally in any of these properties. There are provisions within State Statutes which would allow that to occur only if the City completely surrounded the property that was the subject of annexation, but the parcels that have been identified in this plan do not meet that requirement; and therefore, annexation can only occur if property owners petition the City of Englewood for that action. The plan has identified several pieces of property that fall within the three mile boundary which are currently unincorporated and would be subject to annexation if the property owners so chose. Staff has gone through a brief analysis of each of those areas showing what their current situation is in terms of zoning, utilities and other public services, and then reflecting back on those properties how they would be served if they would become part 2 • of the City of Englewood. For the record, the properties included in the plan, as depicted on the maps accompanying the staff report, are: Area A, Oxford Recycling site Area B, South Santa Fe Drive frontage area Area C, Progress Park parcel Area D, Brookridge Heights Area E, a strip of right-of-way along Hampden Avenue Area F, Cherry Hills Height subdivision Mr. Diekmeier asked how many property owners were needed to initiate the annexation process. Mr. Stitt responded usually 51 percent of the property owners have to submit a petition for annexation. The properties that have been defined in the plan run the range from one parcel to full subdivisions, which contain up to a hundred parcels. There would need to be an annexation election in that area, and if the owners chose not to pursue annexation the matter would be moot. Mr. Welker stated there are some parcels which have non-Englewood school districts associated with them . Mr. Stitt responded that the school districts are fixed; the y can be modified but that requires an action by both the Englewood school district and whatever district serves the properties in question. It has been his understanding that most school • districts prefer to keep the district boundaries as they exist. • Mr. Diekmeier clarified that the Hampden right-of-way was owned by the State of Colorado. Mr. Stitt responded that was correct; the State would have to petition for annexation . With regards to that particular parcel and the Progress Park parcel, there is really no benefit to the current property owners to seek annexation. There is no change associated with the right-of-way parcel whether it is unincorporated Arapahoe County or whether it is annexed to Englewood or annexed to Cherry Hills Village. Likewise, Progress Park is open space; it is not taxed and there is no benefit to the owners of the park to have it annexed into Englewood . In an urban area, anytime there is a Three Mile Plan those parcels are also subject to annexation into adjoining jurisdictions. Progress Park could be annexed into Littleton and the Santa Fe frontage area could be annexed into Sheridan, provided they met the contiguity requirements. Simply having a map that shows those parcels does not mean that those are the only options available for annexation for those parcels. Mr. Schum asked if there were an annexation vote on a particular area, would the property owners have the choice as to which city they wished to be annexed into. Mr. Stitt responded the owners would need to consider the petition submitted by at least 51 percent of the property owners to the city they chose to be annexed into. If that petition were voted down, then 51 percent of the property owners could petition to be annexed into another city which met the requirements . The vote is not whether or not they want to be annexed into one city or another; it is a one issue election. 3 • Mr. Roth moved; Mr. Welker seconded: TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR CASE #2005-04, THREE MILE PLAN. AYES : NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT : Bleile, Diekmeier, Hunt, Krieger, Roth, Schum, Welker None None Fraietta, Mosteller Motion carried. Mr. Welker moved; Mr. Roth seconded: THAT CASE #2005-04, THREE MILE PLAN, BE FORWARDED TO CITY COUNCIL WITH A FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION FOR ADOPTION. AYES : NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSE N T: Bleile, Diekmeier, Hunt, Krieg er, Roth , Schum , Welker None None Fraiett a, Mosteller • Motion carried . • V. PUBLIC FORUM No one was present to address the Commission . VI. CASE #2005-03 Natural Hazard Miti gation Plan Mr. Stitt stated the Commission discussed the plan several weeks ago at a stud y session , and th e consensus was to let some time pass to allow the members to review the documents . If there are any comments to be forwarded to City Council, staff would do so . Ultimately, City Council will adopt the plan b y resolution and the information will be forwarded on to the Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG ) which will then close the "book" on the Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan for the time being and will assist DRCOG in meeting a federal requirement for havin g a regional natural disaster mitigation plan . It will also help qualify the region for federal aid in the event of a natural disaster, and also for dollars for planning for natural hazard mitigation. Mr. Stitt asked the Commission if the y had an y comments on the plan. Mr. Schum stated he read through the plan , and thought it was a good plan except he didn 't believe it went far enough in the discussion on socioeconomic drought which is drought brought on overdevelopment. He was disappointed in that particular aspect of the plan , but not enough to not approve the plan. 4 • • • Mr. Welker asked Mr. Stitt if he thought the City needed to look further into changing any of its development standards in light of the sporadic drought situation. Mr. Stitt responded that in looking at the plan in the context of DRCOG's regional plan, MetroVision 2020, and soon MetroVision 2030, the City of Englewood is doing a lot towards reducing the impacts of sprawl by encouraging redevelopment within the built environment that currently exists. There is a parallel with the annexation plan; lacking any annexation the City's opportunities for growth are redevelopment. The type of redevelopment the City is likely to achieve is more high density; that development can be tied to a more urban-style development which probably means less landscaping in a traditional sense of bluegrass lawns. The City can also include in the development regulations ways of reducing the demands placed on the water resources. Discussion ensued. Mr. Schum stated he saw an article in the Englewood Herald regarding Bates Station. He stated the City owns land in Highlands Ranch, and the article states that the City has b e en in discussions with Highlands Ranch to build a high-density development. Mr. Schum stated this causes him some concern. Chair Krieger stated she didn 't understand how the topic related to the Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan. Mr. Schum responded that the Highlands Ranch and Douglas County are currentl y in the socioeconomic drought area. They do not have enough water for what the y are planning on developing; therefore, this would put the City of Englewood into a quandary if it was an owner/operator of land and built on it. He asked if the land would be valuable if everyone had much higher water rates than other communities had, and how would that effect the City of Englewood with some of the water deals it completes with Highlands Ranch on a yearly basis. He also asked if it could affect the City of Englewood and force it into a drought b y having to sell more water to Highlands Ranch to protect the City's interest on that land . Chair Krieger reiterated that she doesn 't believe it has anything to do with the Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan . The Highlands Ranch development may or may not occur. Mr. Schum stated he brings it up because mitigation is to foresee the problem and to attempt to have a plan in place to reduce the damages. These are negotiations that are going on now. Mr. Welker moved; Mr. Bleile seconded: TO FORWARD CASE #2005-03 , NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN TO CITY COUNCIL WITH A FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION FOR ADOPTION. AYES: NAYS : ABSTAIN: ABSE T: Bleile, Diekmeier, Hunt, Krieger, Roth, Schum , Welker None None Fraietta, Mosteller Motion carried. 5 • • • VII. ELECTIONS Mr. Welker moved; Mr. Diekmeier seconded: TO ELECT CYNDI KRIEGER AS CHAIR AND DON ROTH AS VICE CHAIR. AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT : Bleile, Diekmeier, Hunt, Krieger, Roth, Welker None Schum Fraietta, Mosteller Motion carried. VIII. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE Ms. Langon stated the Commission 's next meeting is scheduled for March 22 ; the Commission will be considering UDC housekeeping items at a study session prior to a public hearing tentatively scheduled for April 19 . The comments from the historic preservation community meeting, held on February 23, will be forwarded to City Council at a April 11 study session. The Fence Ordinance was heard by City Council at their study session on March 7, and Council was supportive of all measures except for one area which was already in the Code. Council has asked that the sight distanc e triangle from a driveway to the alley be removed . The Fence Ordinance will be scheduled for a public hearing before the Commission on April 5. IX. ATTORNEY'S CHOICE Mr. Schum asked if everyone was in agreement on the sight distance triangle issue. Ms. Reid responded that the Traffic Engineer 's position is that it takes 22 feet to back out of a garage, but with the setbacks for fences there are going to be a lot people who will knock down there neighbor's fences . The Traffic Engineer was satisfied with the sight distance triangle at the alle y and street corners and the sight distance triangle at the driveway and street corners. If the Commission is concerned, they may make a recommendation that it stay within the Fence Ordinance, otherwise it will be removed from the Ordinance . Traffic is also looking at in the future moving all the sight triangle issues to the Public Works' section of the Code and leaving the Zoning Code with only a reference that Fences must compl y with sight triangles as required by the Public Works Department. 6 • x. COMMISSIONER'S CHOICE The Commissioners had nothing further. The meeting adjourned at 7:35 p.m . • • 7