Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-04-05 PZC MINUTES• • • I. CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION April 5, 2005 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, Krieger, Mosteller, Roth, Schum, Welker None Mark Graham, Senior Planner Tricia Langon, Senior Planner Nancy Reid, Assistant City Attorney II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES March 22, 2005 Mr. Roth moved: Ms. Mosteller seconded: TO APPROVE THE MARCH 22, 2005 MINUTES . Mr. Welker stated he had a correction on Page 4, No. 3. The last word in sentence three should be "required." Mr. Roth and Ms. Mosteller accepted the amendment. AYES : NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Bleile, Diekmeier, Krieger, Mosteller, Roth, Welker None Hunt, Schum None Ill. PUBLIC HEARING Case #2004-41 MU-B-2 Setbacks Chair Krieger stated Case #2004-41 is a continued public hearing on MU-B-2 Setbacks. Mark Graham, Senior Planner was sworn in. Mr. Graham stated the case is on the agenda for a study session following the public hearing to review proposed changes. Staff, therefore, is requesting the public hearing be continued to April 19. Mr. Roth moved: Ms. Mosteller seconded: TO CONTINUE CASE #2004-41 MU-B-2 SETBACKS TO APRIL 19, 2005. AYES: NAYS: Bleile, Diekmeier, Hunt, Krieger, Mosteller, Roth , Schum, Welker None 1 • • ABSTAIN: ABSENT: None None IV. PUBLIC HEARING Case #200 4-33 Fence Ordinance Chair Krieger introduced Case #2004-33 stating 1t 1s a public hearing on the Fence Ordinance. She asked for a motion to open the public hearing. Mr. Bleile moved; Mr. Hunt seconded : TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR CASE #2 004-33 , FENCE ORDINANCE. AYES : NAYS: Bleile, Diekmei er, Hunt, Krieger, Mosteller, Roth , Schum , Welker None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None Motion carried. Tricia Langon, Senior Planner was sworn in. Ms. Lan gon stated the proof of publication wa s previously presented to the recording secretar y . The case was published in the En gl ewood Herald on March 18, 200 5. Staff is requesting the Commission consider public testimon y and provide comments on the proposed amendm e nts to Section 16-6-6 Fe nces, Wall s and Visual Barriers of the Englewood Municipal Code . The Unified Development Code (UD C) was adopted in February 2004 and the Fence regulations were reformatted w ithin the UDC as part of Phase I. When Phase II began, the Commission focused on simplifying existing regulations and considered requests from City Council regarding permitted materials and corner lot fence issues. City Council reviewed the amendments at a March 7 stud y session ; and although there were no substantive changes proposed to the existing sight triangle subsection 16-6-6 :D 3, Garage Entrance / Alley Sight Distance Triangle, City Council requested that section be deleted from the UDC. Ms. Langon stated there are a number of items throughout the Fence Code that a re language conformity and consistency issues so that similar sections read the same in the new format. Terminology has been updated and corrected in the new version to clarify and simplify the language . It also denotes that fences now clearly include a freestandin g w all or other visual barrier that either screen or enclose, and that r.etaining walls are a wall th at holds back earth. The Permit and Zoning Site Plan Review section has now been simplified and it has be en • established that replacement of less than 16 feet of fence material do es not requir e a 2 • • permit or zoning site plan review. The fence maintenance language has also been simplified. Ms. Langon continued; regarding Section D, Visibility: Sight Distance Triangle, this is the section she referred to earlier that City Council requested be deleted . Though it had b een adopted during the 2004 UDC, the regulation required a six foot sight distance triangle at a garage entrance and an alle y intersection. The regulation created a number of nonconformities with existing fences and City Council determined that removing that section would benefit citizens who had existing fences and wanted to replace those fences ; therefore, that section has been deleted. Mr. Welker stated he had a comment on the illustration, 16-6-S :Street/ Alley Sight. In the description of the intersection street, it is described as street/avenue . In 16-6-7, it is just called a street. He suggested making the terms consistent throughout; streets go one direction and avenues go another. Ms. Langon responded ; at this tim e st aff is unable to modify the drawings, or th e tex t associated w ith th e drawings, which were pro v id e d b y an outside source . Ms. Langon stated Section E, Permitt ed Materi als cl arifies th at permitted fen ce m at e ri als must be materials commonl y used in the metro are a, appro ve d by th e City Ma nage r or designee, and those materials must be EPA approved for residential use . Mr. Welker stated he had an additional comment. In the chart, Class 4 Wood und e r Permitted Materials it states "Wood materials d es ign ed sp ecifica lly for fencing purposes in the D enver metro area ." Then under Paragraph 1 below the chart it states "Fences shall b e constructed of materials ... in th e Denver m etro ar ea." Mr. Welker stated he would pr ef e r that the wording "in the Den v er Metro area " remain in Paragraph 1 and be d e leted it in th e chart. It implies that fences have to be desi gned sp ecificall y for use in Den v er . M s. La n go n stated from the Commission 's previous discussions, the idea w as to require "metro ar ea" b e in the description rather than fencing material that might be usable in a rural setting . Mr. Welker stated he understood, but when it states that it is designed for use specifically in the Denver metro area it can be construed that it cannot be used anywhere else , including Englewood. Ms. Langon asked if the Commission would prefer to see the same wording in Paragraph 1. Mr. Welker stated he preferred it in Paragraph 1 and deleting it from the chart. Mr. Welker stated he recalls the Commission's discussion was not limited to wood being used, but rather all m aterials , th at are commonl y used in the metro area ; ther efor e Paragraph 1 covers the point. Ms. Langon asked for clarification on the w ordin g for wood. Mr. Welker stated it would read : "Wood materials d es ign e d specifically for f en c in g purposes." Ms . Langon stated that also within the proposed amendments are prohibition of creosote and chromated cooper arsenate (CCA ) treated materials, which would include utility poles and railroad ties which are not EPA approved for residential use. Also prohibited are electrical fences, which is a change from the previous Code which allowed them in • industrial districts. Ms. Langon noted there was a discussion at City Council reg a rdin g 3 • • • underground dog fences, but since they are not a visual barrier, they are not included in the Ordinance. Under Section F, Fence Standards, Ms. Langon stated there were no substantive changes. Also within that section, there are proposals to establish allowances for height for pillars, posts, trellises, and gate features to provide for greater design options for residents. It also clarifies fences must be on the owner's property and not within the public right of way. It further clarifies that a fence must be a minimum of one foot back from the public sidewalk to provide room for sidewalk repairs or expansions. There is a proposal for lighting on fences in all districts provided it is downcast and shielded. Sections G and H are new sections regarding retaining walls due to the Commission 's desire to separate retaining walls from fences .. Within the section of retaining walls, new wall classifications, materials and standards have been established, and the same prohibition for creosote and CCA treated materials as the wood fence also has been provided. The amendments are designed to clarify and simplify the existing regulations . The y ar e designed to provide some consistency with the remainder of the Unified Development Code's language . They are to update fencing and retaining wall regulations consistent w ith metro area standards. They are also to address previous community concerns regardin g permitted materials . Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend to City Council to approve the proposed amendment to Section 16-6-6 : Fences , Walls, and Visual Barriers of the Unified Development as outlined in the attached proposed amendments. Mr. Roth asked where the definition for retaining wall is located . Ms. Langon stated th e definition is located in the definition section of the UDC, and there is no change to the definition. Mr. Roth stated it is mentioned that fences are permitted on top of retaining walls and are measured from the top of the wall. He stated he is not clear on where the top of the wall really is or what limits the top of the wall. He asked if a person can have a two foot differential and build a five foot wall, and then build a four foot fence on top of the wall. Ms. Langon responded that if she understood the scenario, the answer is yes. Chair Krieger stated if a person is retaining two feet of dirt, and then builds a five foot retaining wall, can the person then construct a six foot fence on top of the retaining wall? Ms. Langon stated in that case , it is not a retaining wall . Mr. Roth stated that is why he was looking for the definition of a retaining wall. Mr. Welker stated it might help to clarify from top of grade rather than from top of wall. Chair Krieger stated the question becomes "which grade " because there is a retaining wall which implies one grade on one side and another grade side on another side. Ms. Langon stated the issue has never come up, and she would argue that it becomes a fence because it is a visual barrier. In the previous Code, there was a section that if the fence was an integral part of the wall, then the whole piece was measured . 4 • • • Mr. Bleile asked if the retaining wall section pertained to residential landscaping such as a pond, waterfalls, or walkway that held back earth . Ms . Langon stated in those situations they are typically deemed landscaping features and not retaining walls . Mr. Welker stated the City has not generally regulated someone's fence within a fence ; these regulations pertain to perimeter fencing. Ms. Langon stated kennels and other fences within the yard are regulated . Swimming pool fences and kennels are regulated . Mr. Welker stated those are special because the y are safety issues . Discussion ensued . Ms. Mosteller asked if staff meant to strike out the letter "B" on the first page of the proposed changes. Ms. Langon stated she did not. Mr. Bleile clarified that fences need to be located one foot back from sidewalks and asked if fences that did not meet that rule were nonconforming. Ms . Langon responded technically yes; there are a number of fences in the City that do meet the rule. The one foot regulation was in the pre v ious Code and was removed in the UDC. At the request of Public Works, it is being put back in for the purpose of maintenance and rep air o f th e sidewalk . The regulation will onl y come into pla y if the property line is less than a foot from the sidewalk. If the property line is more than a foot back from the sidewalk, the fenc e has to be built on the property line . Mr. Bleile asked what occurs when the sidewalk sits within the property line. Ms. Langon stated then the fence has to be built one foot back from the sidewalk. There are not man y situations where that occurs; most property lines are one or more feet back from the sidewalk. The regulation is also included so staff has the opportunity to obtain an Encroachment Agreement if someone did want to encroach into the public right of way. Mr. Welker moved; Mr. Schum seconded: TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR CASE #2 004-33 , FENCE ORDINANCE. AYES: NAYS : Bleile, Diekmeier, Hunt, Krieger, Mosteller, Roth, Schum, Welker None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None Motion carried . Mr. Welker moved; Mr. Schum seconded: TO RECOMMEND PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 16-6-6: FENCES , WALLS , AND VISUAL BARRIERS OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE TO CITY COUNCIL WITH A FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENT: 1. Table 16-6-6 :1 Fence Classifications, Class 4, Wood, Permitted Materials read as follows : 5 • • • 11W ood materials designed specifically for fencing purposes . Wood fence material shall meet EPA resid ential use standards. 11 AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Bleile, Diekmeier, Hunt, Krieger, Mosteller, Roth , Schum, Welker None None None Motion carried . V. PUBLIC FORUM No one was present to address the Commission . VI. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE Ms. Langon stated the next meeting is April 19. There are two public hearings scheduled; the continued MU-B-2 case and the UDC Housekeeping Amendments case. Ms. Langon stated she will distribute the Commission's member profiles after the study session. Ms. Langon stated the Zoning Enforcement Officer investigated Mr. Welker's complaint regarding the banners and floating signs at K-Mart, and found no banners or signs . She wi ll continue to monitor the situation. Ms. Langon reminded the Commission of Lauri Dannemiller's farewell reception on Friday, April 8 in the Community Room from 2 -4:30 p.m. She accepted a position as the Executive Director of Denver's City Council staff. VII. ATTORNEY'S CHOICE Ms. Reid stated she had nothing further. VIII. COMMISSIONER'S CHOICE The Commission had nothing further. * * * * * * * * The regular meeting of the Planning & Zoning Commission adjourned at 7:35 p .m. The Commission adjourned to the Community Development Conference Room on the third floor of the Englewood Civic Center . 6 • • IX . STUDY SESSION a. Case #2004-41 MU-B-2 Setbacks The study session of the Planning & Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:40 p.m. by Chair Krieger. Present: Absent: Staff: Bleile, Diekmeier, Hunt, Krieger, Mosteller, Roth , Schum, Welker None Mark Graham, Senior Planner Tricia Langon, Senior Planner Nancy Reid, Assistant City Attorney Mr. Graham stated a staff report, an Ordinance, and a policy were included in the Commission's packet. Photos depicting various strong development edges are on the wall for the Commission to review. Mr. Graham suggested Commissioners take a few minutes to study the photographs taking note of the elements which make up the development edge. Mr. Graham stated the photos depict edges such as street trees , trees in grates, landscaping behind the sidewalk, and other amenities such as bus shelters and trash cans . Referring to the zoning map on the wall, Mr. Graham pointed out the MU-B-2 zone districts within the City. Staff is proposing one set of exceptions for all the MU-B-2 zone districts in the City. The Commission reviewed the photographs . Mr. Graham distributed the draft policy governing the development edge. Mr. Graham stated that if one of the four situations listed in the policy -sidewalk cafes , additions to existing buildings, deep commercial properties, which is defined as twice the depth of the standard Broadway lots, or drive-thru uses -occurred during development, the applicant could approach staff for relief from the 0-5 foot setback. It would be staff's responsibility to require the applicant to provide a strong development edge in lieu of having the building at that 0-5 foot edge. The proposal is to provide an 11 foot minimum width or the width of the right of way behind the curb, whichever is greater. The approach will generally achieve 11 feet of development edge comprised of a 7 foot sidewalk and a 4 foot landscaped area that contains shrubs and a fence or wall, and potentially trees. In some rare cases it mi ght also include a light. Those 11 feet will become the de facto minimum standard for the development edge. If there were certain things happening on the other side of the walls such as a parking lot, not a display lot, or a drive aisle then 5 additional feet of landscaping would be required. Mr. Welker clarified that from the curb the applicant can develop public right of way as well as their property a minimum of 11 feet, plus an additional 5 feet if there is a parking lot or drive aisle. Mr. Graham stated it is 5 additional feet if the building is more than 10 feet back and the use behind the wall is the drive aisle or the parking lot. Mr. Welker stated the right of way is counted . Mr. Graham stated that was correct. In many cases the entire 11 • feet can happen within the right of way and will not impact private property. 7 • • Mr. Graham stated the other proposal is the upgraded building materials because the building is part of the street edge even if it is moved back away from the property line. There is a provision asking for brick, stucco, or a combination to upgrade the building materials. In the event that there is less than 11 feet, it would still be achieved but in a different combination of right of way and private property. In the event there isn't enough right of way for the sidewalk, a pedestrian easement would be exacted to cover the width of the sidewalk. Mr. Welker asked if there were any provisions for bigger lots having some monumental element to establish a property corner or building line. Mr. Graham stated it was not addressed, but encouraged the Commission to suggest changes. Mr. Diekmeier asked Mr. Welker what he was suggesting in the way of monumental elements . Mr. Welker stated he is suggesting a wall that has some interesting architecture. There are also other elements that can be considered for gateways or corners. Shrubs and trees are better than grass. A row of fence posts or a group of columns at the corners that are brick or stucco then fences that go some distance down the property line show an edge without havin g it be hard then soft. Those elements are favorable and desirable for larger properties such as Burt or K-Mart. Regarding Burt, he suggested walls, columns and lights to emphasize the entry to their property. Chair Krieger asked for input from the other Commissioners. Mr. Bleile stated he likes Mr . Welker's ideas. Mr. Schum stated in some aspects the wall at King Soopers keeps the front edge, but at the same time he worries about losing the pedestrian traffic. Mr. Bleile asked if the City preferred attached sidewalks over detached sidewalks. Mr. Graham stated that discussion was held with Public Works, and as much as some people prefer detached sidewalks Public Works is finding it is not easy to achieve detached sidewalks in Englewood and some people do not maintain the tree lawns which creates a maintenance problem next to the street. Mr. Bleile stated he personally does not like attached sidewalks. An attached sidewalk with a wall next to it can cause a pedestrian to feel that a car has a better chance of hitting you than you have getting over the wall. He would prefer to see detached sidewalks with a buffer between the pedestrian and a car. Chair Krieger stated it is difficult to maintain vegetation within that space . Mr. Schum stated the Commission had the same discussion during the Safeway case, and that vegetation seems to be doing fine . Discussion ensued. Mr. Graham stated the policy is simplified to what staff believes can be implemented and can likely be achieved, 50 feet at a time, and effective enough to create that strong development edge. There was the initial question of how much of the building had to meet the setback; the policy proposes 40 percent of the building face must meet the 0-5 foot setback in order to achieve the requirement. Anything less would require meeting the strong development edge requirements . The applicants would still have the option to take • advantage of the alternative compliance mechanism within the landscape ordinance. 8 • • • Mr. Welker stated the policy is a little weaker than he would like to see in the sense of the architectural elements which to him bring the edge up. To him, fences, walls, patterning of concrete is more rhythmic than a soft landscaping edge, and says to him that it is an edge of something. Mr. Graham stated the drawings show that the fence or wall is a requirement and that the range is a 24-36 inch fence or wall setback of the landscaping edge. Mr. Welker stated that is what he takes an issue with. He would like to see part of the wall brought forward to the sidewalk edge, perhaps in the form of a terrace and plantings on the wall. Ms. Reid asked _if staff is looking for a policy or the just the general idea of possible edge treatments. Mr. Welker stated the Commission could write a statement of recommended elements and make it a little stronger than what is currently written . Mr. Graham stated the main change in the Ordinance is located on the last page and the cross references to it. The language that is key is in the first sentence which states that any relief is conditioned on establishing a strong development edge . The draft policy then defines the stron g development edge. To the extent the draft policy is clear and can be administered b y staff, that is what staff will be working from. Mr. Graham reminded the Commission that th ese are minimum standards; the applicant c an alway s build more . The y could build seatin g walls, put in art walls, etc. Discussion ensued regardin g fencing, trees , detached sidewalks, and entry port monumentation . Mr. Welker reiterated that he w ould like to add a statement to the policy for "encouraged elements " which does not obligate every one to the same solution. Mr. Graham ask ed if those elements would onl y appl y to the deep commercial properties . Mr. Welker responded that it could appl y to all four situ ations, but he would lik e to see it as a requirement for the larger lots . Mr. Bleile left the meeting at 8:30 p .m. Mr. Schum stated he had some concerns regarding the sidewalk cafe looking temporary. He would like to see a wall or something that gives the cafe a look of permanency, rather than just a slab of concrete and some tables . Mr. Graham stated that tends to occur when there is a liquor license invol v ed because the Liquor Authority requires a fence or wall to contain the area where the beverages are served . Mr. Welker asked if there have been an y discussions with Burt regarding the policy. Mr. Graham responded there has been discussions with Burt. Burt has proposed a landscapin g plan ; they have installed trees on their property. The y will be widening their sidewalk to seven feet, and he believes the y will be installing fences. The y ha v e not proposed additional elements to mark the driveway but are considering a piece of art for the entryport monumentation project. Since detached sidewalks aren 't feasible , Ms. Mosteller asked if the lights could be moved to the edge. Mr. Graham stated it was a possibility; however, the difficulty is that the first 9 • • • couple of feet of the 7 foot sidewalk is to give separation from the splash back and for traffic control signs. ADA requires 40 inches to remain clear, but the City would like to keep 5 feet open. There are other standards in the traffic manual that dictate how far the lights and trees need to be back. The traffic engineers are very careful about how close trees and lights can be to traffic going 35 mph . With the one proposed change of the encouraged architectural elements on the deep commercial properties, Mr. Graham asked the Commission if there was a consensus on the policy and moving the case forward to public hearing. It was the consensus of the Comm ission to move the case forward to public hearing with the change in the policy. The study session adjourned at 8:40 p .m. '--ih.m btiu / Na.nc y Fint~n, Recording Secretar y 10