Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-03-22 PZC MINUTES• • • CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION March 22, 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 Community Development Conference Room of the Englewood Civic Center, Chair Krieger presiding. Present: Absent: Staff : Bleile, Diekmeier, Krieger, Mosteller, Roth , Welker Fraietta, Hunt, Schum Tricia Langon , Senior Planner Nancy Reid , Assistant City Attorney II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES March 8, 2005 Mr. Roth moved : Mr. Diekmeier seconded: To approve the March 8, 2005 Minutes . Mr. Bleile stated that Mr. Schum called and had amendments to the Minutes. On pages 4 and 5, "social economic" should be "soc ioeconomic" and water rights should be "water rates ." Further, Mr. Schum wanted to clarify on Page 5 that when he was speaking of the higher water rates "anyone else had ", he was referring to other communities . Mr. Roth and Mr. Diekmeier accepted the amendments. AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Bleile, Diekmeier, Krieger, Mosteller, Roth , Welker None Mosteller Fraietta, Hunt, Schum Ill. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT Mr. Welker moved: Mr. Bleile seconded: To approve the Findings of Fact in Case #2005-04, Three Mile Plan. AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Bleile, Diekmeier, Krieger, Mosteller, Roth, Welker None Mosteller Fraietta, Hunt, Schum • • • IV . STUDY SESSION a. Case #2005-05 UDC Housekeeping Amendments Ms. Langon stated the amendments were before City Council at their study session on March 21, and they had no major issues. Council briefly discussed the definition of internet sales . Ms. Langon stated the Commission still needs to discuss Amendments 11 and 14; the other amendments are some the Commission has already discussed; others are corrections and additions. Ms. Langon asked if the Commission had any questions on any of the amendments, with the exception of Amendments 11 and 14. Mr. Welker stated he had a comment on Amendment 12a, regarding projections into setbacks for HVAC units. Mr. Welker stated he had no issue with the projection of the units into the setback as long as they were low to the ground; however, he has a concern if the y are hanging off the second-story and make a lot of noise, such as a swamp cool e r. He asked if other Commissioners had similar concerns . Ms . Mosteller stated she understood the noise concern, but the purpose they serve outweighs that concern for her. Chair Krieger stated an air conditioner, which can or cannot be nois y, is allowed. Ms. Langon pointed out that it is only permitted to project into the side and rear setbacks, not the front. It was the consensus of the Commission to leave Amendment 12a as written by staff. Mr. Roth asked for clarification on Amendment 7; are pawnbrokers a conditional use? Ms . Langon responded that pawnbrokers have a distancing requirement; the y are a permitted use if they meet the distancing requirement. The amendment is required because the "P " was accidentally left off the use chart under MU-B-2 . Ms . Langon stated that regarding Amendment 8, Farmers Market, wording will probabl y be added to the definition due to discussion at the Council stud y session . The current definition reads that it is for the sale of agricultural products only, which technically means only fresh produce could be sold. Staff will be adding wording to permit the sale of other related items typically sold at farmers markets. Regarding Amendment 14, Short-term Advertising Signs, Ms. Langon stated this amendment is for banners typically used for store grand openings. The sentence "Number of short terms signs allowed per calendar year " was in a draft to remind her to edit that section, and it inadvertently remained and thus makes no sense. The Commission needs to discuss the number of allowed signs for a specified period. The other option is to leave it without a specified number, but that means a business owner could have a grand opening sign for two weeks, and at the end of that two weeks come back to the City and apply for another grand opening sign for an additional two weeks. It could then become a permanent sign by just renewing the permit every two weeks . The issue for the Commission to consider is how many short-term sign permits should be issued per calendar year, and should there be a break between each permit. Ms . Langon stated another option was to leave it as written and address it when the Commission considers the entire Sign Code at a later date . 2 • Ms. Langon stated her recommendation would be that any sign up more than 6 months be considered a permanent sign. Chair Krieger suggested four temporary signs per year, which is one per quarter. Mr. Diekmeier asked if this included signs painted on windows. Ms. Langon responded that it would if it were temporary, short-term signage in the window. These signs are only for a window or a wall. Ms. Reid stated the Code currently states temporary signs are limited to a two week period. Mr. Welker asked if language needed to be added that the signs must be located on the owner's property. Ms. Langon stated that language is contained within the Sign Code and is understood. Discussion ensued. • • It was the consensus of the Commission to permit up to six temporary sign permits per calendar year per business. Regardin g Amendment 11, Projections into Setbacks for Porch es Decks, Terraces and Patios, Ms. Langon stated Council previously provided some direction to allow citizens to have porches that projected into the front setback. Council wished to promote that community feel out to the street so the Commission wrote into the Code projections into the front setback for porches, decks, terraces, and patios, provided they were not enclosed. Ms. Langon stated that currently an uncovered porch, less than 30 inches above grade can project 30 percent into the 25 foot front setback, which is 7.5 feet. A covered porch more than 30 inches above grade can currently project no more than 5 feet into the 25 foot front setback, which creates a large degree of bulk and mass. Ms. Langon stated she believes the covered porch section was miswritten and should have been written "less than 30 inches above grade." Currently, there is nothing written for an uncovered porch that is taller than 30 inches or the covered porch less than 30 inches . Mr. Welker stated that some people also like to add a railin g or a wall to the 30 inch deck or walking surface which the Commission should discuss. Mr. Bleile asked if a homeowner could rebuild an existing porch if it was destroyed in a snowstorm and the house encroached into the front setback. Ms. Langon responded that in that case, the homeowner would need to request a variance because the house already encroaches into the setback. If onl y the porch encroached, an existing front porch administrative adjustment would be allowed if the new porch matched the previous encroachment. Mr. Bleile stated he didn 't agree with that because the owner would only be replacing what existed, and the City shouldn't penalize people for replacing what they had. Mr. Welker stated most cities adhere to the rule that citizens can replace what previously existed without a variance . Chair Krieger stated the goal is to bring properties into compliance with the 25 foot front setback for the house but still allow some minor projection into the setback for a porch . Ms. Langon reviewed the administrative adjustment section of the Code, Section 16-2- 17:02( c ). Ms. Langon stated the section should read "covered or uncovered porches." It should also include decks, terraces and patios. 3 r • • • Discussion ensued . It was the consensus of the Commission that: 1. Enclosed porches, decks, stoops, terraces, and patios may not extend or project into required front or side setbacks. 2. Uncovered patios, porches, stoops, and decks, with a walking surface less than 30 inches above grade, may extend no more than 30 percent of the required setback distance into the required setback area. 3. Covered, unenclosed porches, decks, terraces, and patios attached to residential dwellings, with a walking surface less than 30 inches above grade, may extend no more than five feet into the required front or rear setback, or five feet into a required side setback that is adjacent to a street, provided they do not encroach into or hang over an easement or a property line and the encroachment does not obstruct sight distance requir ements per City standards . V. PUBLIC FORUM No one was present to address the Commission . VI. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE Ms . Langon stated the ne xt meeting is scheduled for April 5 . The continued public hearing on the MU-B-2 setbacks and a public hearing on the Fence Ordinance are on the agenda . Ms. Langon stated she received an e-mail from Ms . Fraietta resigning from the Commission. Ms . Reid stated Council appointments to Boards and Commissions are scheduled for Jul y . VII. ATTORNEY'S CHOICE Ms. Reid stated she had nothing further. VIII. COMMISSIONER'S CHOICE Ms. Mosteller asked who she would call to volunteer for the flower garden. Ms. Reid directed her to call Debby Severa in the Parks Department. Ms. Mosteller asked why the City was continuing to study the dog park issue . Ms. Langon responded that the issue is that at Belleview Park there was an area identified by the dog park committee to construct a fenced off-leashed dog area. The problem is that the area is located within a flood plain and floodway. A flood plain is the larger area that would be inundated with water in the event of a flood, and the floodway is the channel of water. Good flood plain management dictates no structures within the floodway. The committee wants a fence which could act as a dam . The Flood Plain Ordinance states that is allowed if an engineer states the fence will not raise the water level in the event of a flood . The City has agreed to do a study to 4 • • • research the possibility of constructing the fence and whether or not it will raise the water level in the floodway in the event of a flood. Mr. Roth stated the Commission previously received the Minutes from the Board of Adjustment and Appeals; he asked if the Commission could receive them in their packet again . The recording secretary stated she would include the Minutes in future packets . The meeting adjourned at 8 :30 p.m . 5