Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-01-04 PZC MINUTES, • • • I. CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION January 4, 2005 CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting of the City Pl anning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:05 p.m. in the Community Development Conference Room of the Englewood Civic Center, Chair Krieger presiding. Present: Absent: Staff : Bleile, Diekmeier, Krieger, Roth, Schum, Welker Hunt, Mosteller (excused) Mark Graham, Senior Planner Tricia Langon, Senior Planner Nancy Reid, Assistant City Attorney II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES December 7, 2004 Mr. Roth moved: Mr. Diekmeier seconded : To approve the December 7, 2004 Minutes . AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Diekmeier, Krieger, Roth, Schum None Bleile, Welker Hunt, Mosteller Ill. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT Case #2004-35, Economic Development Strategy Mr. Roth moved: Mr. Diekmeier seconded: To approve the Findings of Fact in Case #2004-35, Economic Development Strategy. AYES: NAYS: Diekmeier, Hunt (by telephone), Krieger, Mosteller (by telephone ), Roth None ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Bleile, Schum, Welker Hunt, Mosteller 1 , • • IV . STUDY SESSION a. Case #2004-41 MU-B-2 Setbacks Mr. Graham stated staff has identified some issues regarding the MU-B-2 setbacks within the Unified Development Code (UDC). The staff report outlines five different scenarios staff believes will be common . One such scenario is sidewalk cafes on South Broadway and staff would like to provide relief in terms of setbacks if a new building is built. The current five foot setback is too shallow for a sidewalk cafe; it will need at least 10 feet. The concepts of a strong development front anchoring the corners with building and placing parking in between or anchoring the front side and putting parking behind work very well north of Hampden where most of the lots are shallow. Building additions are another problem area that has been identified. King Soopers just added an addition to the south end of their building. Mr. Graham stated he understands the front setback is defined as primary frontage and that Broadway is King Soopers primary frontage . It would ha v e been impossible for King Soopers to make a connection from the south of their building all the way to Broadway . That is an example that would fall into the large lot, greater than 250 feet of depth or a building addition. With the acceptance of the policies, staff could have provided relief to allow them to do the addition. The way the Ordinance is currently written, staff would have had to sa y "no." Another example is K-Mart, which is expected to be redeveloped into Sears. If they choose to put money into renovating and expanding the building, the City wouldn't want to be in the position of telling them "no" because the y can 't meet the setback requirements . The policies would provide relief for that type of development as well. Regarding Scenario 3 in the staff report, the Department did receive a site plan which met the technical requirements of the Ordinance where a portion of the building was at the 0-5 feet, but it was a small portion of the building. The actual building was 8-10 feet back from the frontage which left little development edge at the street. Staff is looking for the flexibility to provide an incentive that the building be placed at the street, but if not they provide landscaping and other treatments to achieve the same development edge. A car dealership who technically wanted to meet the requirement, but who really wanted to display cars, could do a "wedge-shaped " building with an inch of frontage on the setback and then build back to maximize the amount of display area . The idea is if we really want the buildings to create the development edge, we have to determine the minimum standard. Staff is suggesting that if half of the building frontage is at the development edge than the requirement is met. Mr. Schum asked if on the deeper lots the front area could still be used for signage. If the City requires them to cover the space with landscaping or fencing, people might not be able to see the signage to the stores on the back of the lots . Ms. Langon responded that • signs are permitted according to the Sign Code requirements. Each property is allowed one 2 , • • • pole sign. With multiple businesses on one property, a joint ID sign is permitted such as the one at Safewa y. Mr. Welker stated there are always problems with very large developments, such as King Soopers, Safeway, etc., which have different needs than other businesses. He asked if the Commission should consider something more specific for the downtown blocks because it is generally easier to do development towards the front of the block in that area. There are other elements, such as posts, fences, etc., that bring the development forward as well and yet have outdoor space behind it and still achieve the "look." He stated that even with two corners of the block anchored with buildings and a large area behind it with parking, he would like to see elements such as gates, fences, large columns, monument signs, etc. which provide edging on the property with height and mass. There are a number of elements that can be used to define a space. He suggested adding that language; he is not opposed to 50 percent, but it would be extremely difficult to get K-Mart to maintain 50 percent, except by developing the front lots with restaurants and other types of buildings, which still present challenges. Ms. Reid stated the larger developments such as Brookridge, K-Mart, and Burt, would probably be Planned Unit Developments. Mr. Graham responded there would be no need for the properties 'to be rezoned since the uses are permitted in B-2 zoning. Ms . Reid stated the properties could accomplish what staff wants with a PUD. Mr. Graham stated staff is proposing a zoning site plan as the tool that achieves the design and commitment for a strong development edge. Ms. Reid stated her concern is that Scenarios 2 and 3 appear to be administrative variances. Ms. Langon stated the Ordinance states 0-5 feet; however, there are exceptions all through the Code that are not administrative adjustments. Ms. Reid stated she wants the Commission to be aware that they need to make a determination as to who waives the 0-5 feet requirement. Currently, the Board of Adjustment grants variances for those ty pes of adjustments . Ms. Langon stated if the Ordinance states the requirement is 0-5 feet except in certain circumstances staff can then adjust or waive the requirement. Ms. Reid stated there would need to be very specific criteria . Discussion ensued. Mr. Graham stated page three of the staff report outlines two basic ways to address the issue. It is either to be very specific about the situations and the relief to be granted or develop a process. Staff's preference would be to develop a process for an administrative waiver if the situation meets certain criteria. Discussion ensued . Mr. Welker stated he is not in favor of "deep" variances by staff that change the texture of our City. Those issues should be brought to a public hearing where the public can voice their opinion . He has no problems with relatively minor administrative adjustments. On the other hand, if 50 percent of the building front doesn't have to be there and can step back and have another front line that is considerably major from what the Ordinance requires and should have a public hearing. Mr. Bleile asked how many properties would be affected. Mr. Graham responded there are a lot; the majority of the properties that would not meet the setbacks if they were built now would be auto related properties. The final scenario listed in the staff report is if a drive-thru business is located right at the street, the car would be blind to any pedestrian traffic which 3 , • • • is a dangerous situation. Drive-thrus, auto-related businesses and major shopping centers will be tough to achieve a strong development edge with the current setbacks in the B-2 zone district. Staff would like the Commission to approve the package that constitutes a strong development edge as a design standard; the development would then either have to meet the strong development edge or the setback. The Commission could approve the minimum elements to create the development edge. If the development cannot meet either one of those two criteria, they can then approach some other body for relief. Mr. Bleile stated he agreed with Mr. Welker regarding the public review process; however, with the number of affected properties it would not be very efficient for the City or the applicant. Mr. Welker that is wh y the Commission needs to amend the 0-5 feet requirement. Not every restaurant will want outdoor space so there need to be other requirements to make it advantageous to grant relief. For downtown in particular, the buildings need to be close to property line . Ms. Langon reminded the Commission that the proposal is for MU-B-2 only and not for downtown Englewood. Discussion ensued. Mr. Schum suggested fitting uses into different development categories and determining their setbacks within those categories. Ms. Reid stated that would solve the problem of administrative variances because those categories and setbacks would be determined in a public hearing. Mr. Graham stated categorizing by use works for some of the situations but not all. An existing building can have a lot of different uses in it over its lifetime. Discussion ensued regarding building placement, development edge, and setback credits . Mr. Bleile wondered that if setback credits are granted for ornamental development edge that if in 10-15 years Broadway will be in the same "hodgepodge" that it is in now with a few buildings at the front of the street and then ornamental edging on the street front with buildings set back, etc. Mr. Welker responded landmarks can be created at the corners of lots with something along the remainder of the front of the street edge to visuall y match up. Mr. Welker stated there will be a lot more remodels and fa<;ade treatments than there will be new buildings. Mr. Graham stated we are more likely to get a set of design standards met than we are to get the buildings built at the street. Chair Krieger asked what staff was looking for from the Commission. Mr. Graham stated that staff will probably look to outside sources for design standards and will present those back to the Commission. Since there are currently projects in the "hopper", he is looking to see that additions to buildings are either exempt or that the Commission is in favor of staff bargaining for development edge treatments in exchange for not having to meet the setback. The matter will also be going forward to City Council and staff will be asking for relief in advance of changing the Ordinance . There are several projects which are dependent upon this issue being resolved . Mr. Schum stated he would like to see policies in place before a lot of variations are made to the Ordinance. What is negotiated now could be a lot different from what is finally decided upon later. Mr. Bleile stated he doesn 't believe the Commission wants to hold up any developments that meet 4 • • • the long-terms goals of the City. Mr. Welker stated if the Commission is going to support a moratorium on the Ordinance it needs to be a relatively short period of time so the problems can be addressed. Mr. Welker suggested staff look at frontage, percentage of building, what other elements provide, and if the building is allowed to go back further on the lot, something should be put on the front of the lot as a "trade off." It doesn't have to be architectural elements such as fences and gates if a developable or activity area can be provided. Discussion ensued. Mr. Bleile moved; Mr. Schum seconded: AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN : ABSENT: To recommend City Council enact an 8 month moratorium on the MU-B-2 setback of 0-5 feet where the development presents an alternative design plan which provides a development edge consistent with the design standards of the Unified Development Code and the Englewood Comprehensive Plan pursuant to policies enacted by City Council. Bleile, Diekmeier, Krieger, Roth, Schum, Welker None None Hunt, Mosteller b. Case #2004-33 Fence Ordinance Ms. Langon stated she started a draft Ordinance with the strikeouts and underlines showing some of the fence revisions previously discussed by the Commission . The retaining wall portion still needs to be worked on since there will be a separate section at the end. She suggested discussing retaining walls at a future study session. Ms. Langon suggested simplifying the section on complex repairs . The Commission agreed. Ms. Langon asked at what point the Commission wanted to require permits for fence repairs. Discussion ensued. Mr. Schum suggested if a person replaces more than 50 percent of the fence a permit should be required . Mr. Bleile suggested if placement, material, or height changes, a permit should be required. Mr. Schum stated he didn 't believe it should be necessary to obtain a permit just to repair a gate. Ms. Langon stated 50 percent is a large amount of area . The only opportunity to correct the misplacement of these fences is when they are replaced or repaired. Mr. Welker suggested a length of fence . Mr. Welker stated there needs to be a clear delineation between replacement and repair by using either a percentage or a length of fence ; personally he prefers using length . Chair Krieger agreed . It was the consensus of the Commission that any fences seeking replacement that are of nonconforming materials, height, or location will require a permit. Regarding fence maintenance, Ms. Langon suggested removing from the Ordinance the language requiring the homeowner to sign an agreement to maintain the fence. The Commission agreed. She suggested that the fence permit is the agreement of the 5 • • maintenance. Ms. Reid stated notice should be given on the fence permit that they are required to maintain the fence. Regarding fence height, Ms. Langon stated the Ordinance already outlines the maximum height, but there has been no discussion regarding scallops, pillars, or posts. Mr. Welker stated he would like to see a 10 percent allowable increase for those types of elements . Chair Krieger agreed. Ms. Langon stated she plans to prepare an appendix showing what is permitted and will include photos and diagrams. Ms. Langon recommended adding language to the Ordinance that fences shall be located on the applicant's property and no closer than one foot to the public sidewalk. Ms. Langon stated the property line might be closer to the sidewalk than one foot or further back. Staff is requesting that the fence be constructed on the property unless it is closer than one foot to the sidewalk. In that instance, it would need to be constructed one foot back from the sidewalk so Public Works can do repairs. Public Works can grant Encroachment Agreements for anything closer than a foot to the sidewalk. V. PUBLIC FORUM No one w as present to address the Commission. VI. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE Ms. Langon reminded the Commission that the next scheduled meeting is on January 19 which is a Wednesday due to the Martin Luther King holiday. Ms. Fenton stated she spoke with Ms . Mosteller; she delivered a health y baby girl on New Year's Eve. VII. A TIORNEY'S CHOICE Ms. Reid stated she had nothing further. VIII. COMMISSIONER'S CHOICE Chair Krieger stated that elections would be held in March and asked if someone would volunteer to serve as Vice Chair until that time; Mr. Welker volunteered . All Commissioners present approved of Mr. Welker serving as Vice Chair until March. Chair Krieger reminded Commissioners that it is important to let the recording secretary know if they will be attending meetings so staff can determine if there will be a quorum. The meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m . • Nancy ~nton , Recording Secretary 6