Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-04-19 PZC MINUTES• • • I. CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION April 19, 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, Hunt, Krieger, Mosteller, Roth , Schum , Welker None Mark Graham, Senior Planner Tricia Langon , Senior Planner Nancy Reid , Assistant City Attorney II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES April 5, 2005 Mr. Roth moved: Mr. Bleile seconded : TO APPROVE THE APRIL 5, 2005 MI N UTES . Mr. Hunt stated he had a correction on Page 7 of the Minutes. H e stated he should be indicated as present at the study session. Mr. Roth and Mr. Bleil e accepted the fri e ndl y amendment. AYES : NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Bleile, Diekmeier, Hunt, Krieger, Mosteller, Schum , Roth , Welk er None None None Motion carried . Ill. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT Case #2004-33 Fence Ordinance Mr. Hunt stated he had a correction to the Findings of _Fact on Page 3. His name should be inserted into the "Ayes " for the vote on the motion. Mr. Hunt moved; Ms. Mosteller seconded: TO APPROVE THE FINDINGS OF FACT IN CASE #2 004-3 3 FENCE ORDINANCE AS AMENDED . 1 • • • AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Bleile, Diekmeier, Hunt, Krieger, Mosteller, Schum, Roth, Welker None None None Motion carried. IV. 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. The issue is a proposal to provide relief to four uses within the MU-B-2 zone district: sidewalk cafes, additions to existing buildings, deep commercial properties, and drive-thru uses. The Burt dealerships support the proposal and approached City Council to provide relief in their situation, which was an addition to an existing building on a deep commercial lot to the Chevrolet and Toyota dealerships. They are on record in support of the change. Council provided some temporary relief to them and provided direction to staff to make the modifications that are currently being proposed. Through the course of the last few months, staff has made those modifications. The goal of a strong development edge is to provide safety and well being for citizens . The four listed land uses are uses by right in the zone district. The proposal provides a design edge which is attractive in the commercial zone. In Table 16-6-1.1, Footnote. No. 4 was added and the language for the footnote was specifically added. In the Ordinance, the title was adjusted to remove the reference to residential uses and to make it more broadly applicable to a business use. In the final section, CS, the entire section was added which lists the four uses which may app ly for the exception and the language suggesting that the City will provide relief from the front setback requirement if a strong development edge is provided. Mr. Graham stated there is also a policy document that is also included which shows the minimum section of the strong development edge will typically be 11 feet unless there is a drive aisle or parking behind the development edge. In that particular case, it will be a 16 foot cross section . That policy will guide the development review staff as they review site plans for building additions or new buildings that meet the criteria. The areas affected are all MU-B-2 zoned areas, primarily South Broadway with the exception of the downtown; Evans Avenue (Zuni to Raritan); Old Hampden (east of Logan to Lafayette); south side of Hampden/US 285 (Cherokee to Elati ); Federal Boulevard (south of Chenango to Belleview ); and Cornerstone Park which straddles Belleview east of Windermere . 2 • • • Mr. Graham stated the staff report goes into some detail regarding the expectations for the 5 to 10 foot setback, including the need for such amenities as walls, the circumstances where the wall needs to be solid adjacent to a drive aisle or parking lot or instances where it could be the standard Englewood fence, and also that the area would need to be landscaped according to the Landscape Ordinance. In the case of the setback greater than 10 feet, it talks about adding the 5 feet of width and landscaping it according to the Ordinance. It is anticipated that the fencing and screening will meet the Fence Ordinance _ _o there are no exceptions proposed . There may also be requirements for Encroachment Agreements in some instances for the walls, and the development review staff is aware of that possibility. Mr. Graham reiterated that the goal is to provide the strong development edge to make the business district attractive to motorists and pedestrians. Staff has added several conditions based on the last study session with the Commission. The six requirements are listed in the policy entitled "Strong Development Edge." The first details the minimum widths which have already discussed, but it also anticipates that if there is not sufficient right-of-way, the City will exact an easement for the sidewalk. The second requirement is related to achieving a regular rhythm of vertical elements such as street trees or potentially street lights as part of the design concept. The third requirement is that the building shall be enhanced with brick or stucco and shall also be part of achieving a strong development edge. The fourth is a definition which is necessary to understand how much of the building needs to meet the minimum setback or they would fall into the category of requesting relief and providing the strong development edge; the number proposed is 40% of the building must meet the 0-5 foot setback. The fifth notes that an applicant may still seek relief through the Landscape Ordinance for alternative compliance . The final requirement is that block corners and entrance features should be enhanced. Mr. Graham stated staff requests the Commission take public testimon y and requests the Commission approve an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance accepting the changes. Mr. Graham confirmed that proof of publication was provided when the public hearing was opened. The secretary confirmed that it was entered into the record . Mr. Welker moved; Ms. Mosteller seconded: TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR CASE #2004-41 MU-B-2 SETBACKS AYES: NAYS: Bleile, Diekmeier, Hunt, Krieger, Mosteller, Schum, Roth , Welker None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None Motion carried . 3 • • • Mr. Roth moved; Mr. Hunt: TO FORWARD CASE #2004-41 MU-B-2 SETBACKS TO CITY COUNCIL WITH A FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION. AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN : ABSENT : Bleile, Diekmeier, Hunt, Krieger, Mosteller, Schum , Roth , Welker None None None Motion carried. V. PUBLIC HEARING Case #2005-05 UDC Housekeeping Amendments Chair Krieger introduced Case #2004-3 3 stating it is a public hearing on the Unified Development Code Housekeeping Amendments . She asked for a motion to open the public hearing. Mr. Welker moved; Mr. Hunt seconded: TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR CASE #2005-05, UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE HOUSEKEEPING AMENDMENTS . AYES : NAYS: Bleile, Diekmeier, Hunt, Krieger, Mosteller, Roth , Schum , Welker None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None Motion carried. Tricia Langon, Senior Planner was sworn in. Ms . Langon stated she prev iousl y submitted the proof of publication to the recording secretary which noticed the public hearing in the Englewood Herald on April 1, 2005 and the staff report has also been entered into the record. The request is to review the proposed amendments to the Unified Development Code, take public testimony, and provide comments on the proposed amendments . For background information, Ms. Langon stated the Unified Development Code (UDC) was adopted in 2004; it was the first major rewrite of the zoning and subdivision regulations in approximately 20 years in the City. The project reformatted, reorganized, and updated the Code as well as established new regulations. It was anticipated at that time, because of the size of the document and such a major rewrite, that small oversights and errors were inevitable and would be addressed through future "housekeeping" or updating amendments . 4 • • • The proposed amendments have been considered by the Commission at an earlier study sessions and are outlined in the staff report. They are designed to correct omissions, to provide clarity to existing regulations, and to provide consistency to the remainder of Title 16 and the Municipal Code. There is new material in the amendments which were included because they were deemed small additions to the Code which did not warrant the full ordinance process. Those additions are the internet sales use included under "New Retail Sales and Service" and permitted projections into the setback for mechanical equipment and for handicapped access ramps. The projections into the setback has been a longstanding policy the City has had and the addition codifies the policy. The other new material is a lapse of approval which is a termination of postponed cases after 180 days. The 180 days is similar to the 180 day timeframe for expiration of building permits which are inactive and expiration of variances that are not acted upon. These would only be cases that for some reason could not be carried out. It provides the City with an ending and closes out the case so the case does not become "stale " or does not leave a cloud on title of land. The other major section in the housekeeping amendment is historic preservation. Under that section, City Council directed staff during the April 4 study session to resolve the ambiguities between the terms "application" and "nomination ." A single term "application " is being used , and Council also directed staff to adjust the section so it is more consistent with the other procedural processes in the Code. There are no real substantive amendments to the section . Ms. Langon continued; there are a total of 16 amendments listed in the staff report. Staff requests the Commission recommend to City Council to approve the proposed housekeeping amendments to Title 16 Unified Development Code. Ms. Langon welcomed questions from the Commission. Ms. Mosteller clarified that with the amendments to the Historic Preservation Ordinance, the public cannot nominate a property for historic designation. Ms. Langon stated that was correct. Ms. Mosteller continued; the only way a site can be designated is through an application process by the property owner. Ms. Langon stated that was also correct. Ms. Mosteller asked if that was consistent with historic/preservation ordinances in other communities. Ms. Langon responded that from the information she reviewed earlier other ordinances ranged from only the property owner to people other than property owners being able to nominate sites. From discussions at Council, she believes it is their feeling that it is a property rights issue and it should be the property owner who ultimately makes that determination. If the property owner did not support the application then it should not move forward. Ms. Mosteller asked if the owner of the Englewood Post Office did not want to designate that building, there would be nothing the general public could do to save that building. Ms. Langon stated that with the amendments, that is correct. Mr. Roth stated the Code does not place any limitations on the property; it is a designation. A property owner could receive a designation and then still have the building demolished . 5 • • • Ms. Langon stated Council also stated that without an inventory of all "historic" buildings in the City, they were not ready to move forward with any other amendments regarding limitations on development or demolition of the structures. Mr. Welker stated the section starts out "historic preservation", but it really is only a "designation." There is no "teeth" for preservation unless the property owner so decides. Chair Krieger stated the proposed amendment changes it from "preservation" to "designation." Ms. Langon stated that is correct; it is a process of designating the property. Mr. Welker stated that is how he would like the section to be written, more as designation and less as preservation . Mr. Roth agreed; in 16-2-20 :A.1 it starts by stating : "Preserv e and protect buildings ... "which it doesn 't do. The title and purpose of the section is correct, but the first paragraph then states the City is going to preserve and protect buildings, which it isn't doing. The Commission suggested changing the wording to "designate." Mr. Schum confirmed that a future property owner could still demolish a property that was alread y designated historic. Mr. Welker and Mr. Roth stated that was correct. Mr. Schum agreed that the City wasn 't "preserving and protecting." There are no rules pl aced on sit es to protect them from future demolition once they have been designated. The criteria needs to be outlined before the Commission can proceed with an actual historic preser va tion ordinance. Chair Krieger agreed. Mr. Welker stated the actual designation of a building should include photographin g it, documenting it, and permitting a sign which would acknowledge that there was a building on the site at one time if it should be demolished . Mr. Welker stated that is w hat a "designation " is to him. If it cannot be preserved, than designating it should m ea n something in the sense of acknowledging the building, the designer, the history, etc. The language in the ordinance is very vague. He stated he understood the Commission 's direction is for designation and not preservation, but it should be more clearl y defined . Chair Krieger agreed. Mr. Schum asked if a property could be placed on the National Registry or the Colorado Registry for historic preservation. Chair Krieger responded yes. Mr. Schum stated no one is estopped from being able to preserve a building by Englewood's Code; the y can apply to other organizations. Mr. Welker stated he has a problem with 16-2-20 :A3 which states: "Promot e the public health, safety, and welfare ... " This is standard language in the Code and doesn't reall y seem to have anything to do with preserving and protecting a building. He would like to see some stronger language. Mr. Welker stated the Commission has not had a chance to discuss the Historic Ordinance prior to the public hearing. He is hearing a lot unhappiness on the Commission regarding the wording. Mr. Hunt stated he believed it can be fixed with some minor changes . Ms. Mosteller clarified that the ordinance is historic designation not historic preservation . Ms. Mosteller asked if it would be uncommon to have both sections in a Code; she asked if the Commission could work on a Historic Preservation Ordinance to add more substance 6 • • • for preservation. Ms. Langon stated the Commission might be getting sidetracked on the words "preservation" and "designation." There is not a major difference in the terms in the sense of what is trying to be achieved in the Code. It is merely a process, no different than a process for a variance . Mr. Welker stated the designation is all that Council has supported at this point. Ms. Langon stated that is correct. Mr. Welker stated at this point preservation is a goal. Chair Krieger stated the Historical Society and others in the city are working towards that goal. Mr. Welker suggested adding a registration process for the designation, similar to the State Historical Society or similar organizations. They take specific steps to register a building; it doesn 't necessarily protect the building, but it does register the building. Mr. Schum stated that could always be placed into the Code as a separate section as part of preservation. Chair Krieger reiterated she believed the City was working towards that goal. Mr. Welker stated he can support designation and registration at this time, but he agrees the City is not in agreement on preservation as to who should be allowed to take those steps . Chair Krieger stated she didn 't believe the City was prepared on the registration issue either. Discussion ensued . Mr. Roth stated regarding the criteria, it states that: "only buildings or structures at least 50 years, or districts in which the majority of structures have been in existence for at lea st 50 years may be designated ... " Mr. Roth stated that history starts yesterday not 50 years ago . Ms. Langon responded that section is consistent with the current state requirement. Mr . Roth suggested that the 50 year requirement be removed. Mr. Welker stated he didn 't believe today's buildings would stand the test of time. He agreed 50 years may be arbitrary. Mr. Roth stated his point is there are a number of buildings that deserve historic designation that are not close to 50 years old, such as the Colonial Bank building which is architecturally significant. Mr. Hunt suggested continuing the discussion once the hearing was closed. Chair Krieger agreed. Ms. Langon stated in the same section Mr. Roth was referring to, A4 addresses some of Mr. Roth's issues that buildings already on the National Register of Historic Places could forego the 50 year requirement. Ms. Mosteller stated that the way the section is written the buildings still have to meet the 50 year requirement and one of the other four criteria. Mr. Welker stated that was correct. Ms. Langon re-read the section, apologized, and stated Ms. Mosteller was correct. Chair Krieger asked if there were any more questions for staff. Ms. Langon suggested the Commission make only minor changes to wording, but the contextual issues be held so the Commission and staff can look at the whole Ordinance in comparison to other communities . Douglas Cohn, 3051 South Marion Street, was sworn in. Mr. Cohn stated he was interested in finding out what would be discussed prior to the meeting. He stated there was no way of doing that. He asked the recording secretary if the Commission's packet 7 • • • could be posted on the City's website so it could be reviewed prior to the meeting. Chair Krieger stated it is available in the library one week prior to the meeting. Ms. Reid reminded Mr. Cohn that when a person is testifying for a public hearing, the same as at the Board of Adjustment, questions cannot be asked of the Commission. The purpose is to provide testimony on the case. Mr. Cohn stated his only testimony is that it would be helpful to have the case information available prior to the meeting. Mr. Hunt moved; Mr. Diekmeier seconded: TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR CASE #2005-05, UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE HOUSEKEEPING AMENDMENTS. AYES: NAYS : ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Bleile, Diekmeier, Hunt, Krieger, Mosteller, Roth , Schum, Welker None None None Motion carried . Mr. Hunt moved; Mr. Bleile seconded: TO RECOMMEND CITY COUNCIL APPROVE CASE #2005-05 UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE HOUSEKEEPING AMENDMENTS WITH THE FOLLOWING CHANGES: 1. 16-2-20:A.1: Delete "Preserve and protect" and insert "Designate '. 2. 16-2-20:A.3: Delete "Promote the public health, safety, and welfare by encouraging" and insert "Encourage ". Mr. Roth stated he would like to propose a friendly amendment. Section 16-2-20:H Criteria, Mr. Roth stated he would like subparagraph 1 (a) to be changed to read as follows: "Such building, structure or district must meet two of the following criteria ": He would like the remainder of 1 (a) to be a new 1 (a) 5 and to read as follows: "(5) Only buildings or structures which have been in existence for at least fifty (50) years, or districts in which the majority of structures have been in existence for at least fifty (50) years may be designated." Mr. Hunt asked Ms. Reid for clarification on procedural matters as to voting and discussion on the motion. He stated he did not agree with Mr. Roth 's amendment. Ms. Reid responded that Mr. Hunt has the right to not accept the friendly amendment and to call the vote on the original motion. Mr. Roth can then make a separate motion . 8 • • • Mr. Hunt stated he did not accept Mr. Roth's friendly amendment. Ms. Mosteller stated she does not agree that the only person who should be able to file an application for designation is the property owner. Mr. Bleile asked if she thought the property owner should have a say in whether or not their property gets designated, because the other side of the issue is what the Commission encountered with the hearing regarding the Bank. As a property owner, Mr. Bleile stated he would rather have the right as to whether or not his property is historic. Discussion ensued. Mr. Welker stated one option is for the Commission to remove the Historic Designation Ordinance from the vote, vote on passing the other amendments, let those amendments move on to Council, and take the Historic Designation section back into review. He asked if the Commission wished to pursue that option. Ms. Mosteller stated she liked that idea. Chair Krieger asked Ms. Reid for her legal advice. Ms. Reid stated that is an option for the Commission. There is a motion on the floor which the Commission is discussing. If a Commissioner wishes to make another motion to do as Mr. Welker suggested, that is also possible. Mr. Hunt stated while he appreciates everyone's comments, he doesn 't believe they warrant holding up the Ordinance from moving forward at this time. He urged the Commission to allow the minor changes to be made and move forward at this time and address the larger issues of preservation at a future date. He see them as two separate issues. Chair Krieger agreed . Mr. Bleile asked what the process would be to look at an actual historic preservation ordinance with "teeth." Chair Krieger stated it is her opinion that the Historical Society and other people are actively pursuing this issue. It is a large job; there has to be a review of all the buildings in the city. They are wo rkin g towards it, and Chair Krieger encouraged Commissioners interested in historical preservation to become involved in that project to bring it forward. Discussion ensued. Mr. Roth moved; Ms. Mosteller seconded: That Section 16-2-20:H1 (a) read as follows: "Such building, structure or district must meet two of the following criteria:" In addition a new subparagraph 5 be added to read as follows: "(5) Only buildings or structures which have been in existence for at least fifty (50) year s, or districts in which the majority of structures have been in existence for at least fifty (50) years may be designated." 9 • Mr. Hunt stated there is a reason the other historical organizations use the 50 years as a standard. It proves that the buildings stands the test of time. With the current motion, a structure could have a connection to events, embody distinguishing characteristics, and be one day hold, and be historically designated. Mr. Roth stated that was correct. Mr. Hunt stated he disagrees with that intent for historical designation; he believes there is a reason why there is a standard in the realm of historical preservation . • • Discussion ensued. Mr. Bleile agreed with Mr. Hunt. The Commission should pass the minor amendments now and revisit the major changes to the historic designation/preservation section in the future . There doesn't appear to be any pressing issues to warrant the Commission rewriting the entire section now. Chair Krieger called for a vote on Mr. Roth 's motion. AYES: NAYS : ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Motion failed . Mosteller, Roth Bleile, Diekmeier, Hunt, Krieger, Schum, Welker None None Mr. Diekmeier stated he would like the Commission to study the historic preservation issue and to review some of the documents from the state or federal level on this issue. Also , the Commission has been discussing the difference from historical significance, whether it be architectural or some other type of significance . Chair Krieger called for the vote on the original motion. Mr. Diekmeier asked the recording secretary to restate the original motion . Ms. Fenton stated the original motion is: AYES: NAYS: TO RECOMMEND CITY COUNCIL APPROVE CASE #2005-05 UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE HOUSEKEEPING AMENDMENTS WITH THE FOLLOWING CHANGES: 1. 16-2-20:A.1 : Delete "Preserve and protect" and insert "Designate'. 2. 16-2-20:A.3: Delete "Promote the public health, safety, and welfare by encouraging" and insert "Encourage " . Bleile, Diekmeier, Hunt, Krieger, Roth, Schum , Welker Mosteller 10 • ABSTAIN: ABSENT: None None Motion carried. Ms. Mosteller stated for the record her "nay" vote is because of content contained in the historic designation amendments . VI. PUBLIC FORUM Doug Cohn clarified that it is the Planning and Zoning Commission that is referred to in the Historic Designation Ordinance as the "Commission ." Chair Krieger responded that was correct. VII. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE Ms. Langon stated there are no cases for May 3 and asked if the Commission w ould lik e to approve the Findings of Fact and Minutes from the public hearings by telephone poll o r if would they like to meet on May 3. It was the consensus of the Commission to not meet on May 3 and approve the Minutes and two sets of Findings of Fact by telephone poll . VIII. ATTORNEY'S CHOICE • Ms. Reid stated she had nothing further. • IX. COMMISSIONER'S CHOICE Mr. Schum stated he and his family are moving to Littleton the end of April, and he unfortunately needs to resign from the Commission . He has enjo y ed his tim e on th e Commission and has learned a lot. The Commission wished Mr. Schum well and thanked him for his service to the City. Chair Krieger again stated it is even more critical that Commissioners be in attendance at meetings now that the Commission is down two members. It is also just as important to let the recording secretary know whether or not they will be attending the meeting so she will know if a quorum will be available prior to the meeting. The study session adjourned at 8:35 p .m . 11 MEMORANDUM To: Secretaries to Boards and Commissions ,, -. Planning & Zoning Commission -Nancy Fenton · From: Jeanne Kelly Records Management Clerk Date: December 14 , 2005 Subject: Minutes I have been informed that the auditors will be here on December In checking all Board and Commission minutes books, I find that some minutes are missing. Please send me a copy, if there actually was a scheduled meeting . Following are the minutes I do not have : Mry, June and Aurst I-Jo /rku:rl-t'u f Ne; M'2a:l-o1 MEMORANDUM -· To: Secretaries to Boards and Comr:nissions ,., . . Planning &·Zoning Commiss ion -Nancy Fenton · From: Jeanne Kelly Records Management Clerk Date: December 14 , 2005 Subject: Minutes I have been informed that the auditors will be here on December In checking all Board and Commission minutes books , I find that some minutes are missing. Please send me a copy , if there actually was a scheduled meeting . Following are the minutes I do not have: Its fe~ MrPr~ fiv-tr,J Mry , June and Aurst /Jo ltko-f-t'u f No Mead-1 1 Work Session on Commission Handbook '.Pleas·e'.'note~ ~If you ' have a disability and· need at.p<iliaf'i'aias or services;. please· notifY the City' of Ef)gre»-ood at , ...... -.i..~ 'rt :', --<"~"''. ~--..... ~. • ·•·. -· ,.? ..... -" -•• :. , .. '.f-:·.';...;,;."'' • ' .... ·----~ '· • • '.,,,...;; _. .· , .w: ;·.' .. 't:f.\-_•;·,<··· .. 30J-76~2;370 ai.'least 48~hciurs in advance oTwhen theser-Vices are needed. Thank you : · ·""·' }':.:.: ' , >.