Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-01-19 PZC MINUTES• • • I. CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION January 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 Community Development Conference Room of the Englewood Civic Center, Chair Krieger presiding. Present: Diekmeier, Hunt, Krieger, Mosteller, Roth, Schum , Welker Absent: Bleile (Excused) Staff : Tricia Langon , Senior Planner II. STUDY SESSION Case #2004-33 Fence Ordinance Ms. Langon stated that Ms. Reid was not in attendance this evening because she was ill. Ms. Langon stated the draft Fence Ordinance included in the packet incorporates all the changes discussed at the previous study sessions. Based on previous discussions, classifications for fences and retaining walls will be separated and walls and visual barriers will be considered fences; so now the heading is just Fences and Retaining Walls. Chair Krieger asked if the term "visual barrier" works for Code Enforcement. Ms. Langon responded that there will need to be a definition for "obscuring" added. Mr. Diekmeier asked if a hedge would be considered a visual barrier and limited in height the same as a fence. Mr. Welker stated he believed it would onl y be a height concern in a sight triangle. Ms . Langon stated she would look into Code Enforcement issues for visual barriers, obscuring, and sight triangles. Mr. Diekmeier asked if there would be a height issue for hedges in the alley . Ms. Langon stated if a visual barrier is considered the same as a fence , then it should follow the same height restrictions as a fence. She will look into it more. Chair Krieger stated she agrees with Mr. Diekmeier; a hedge is not a fence and shouldn 't follow the same restrictions and shouldn't be regulated. Mr. Welker stated he didn't want to deal with hedges. Referring to the draft Ordinance, Ms. Langon stated that C:l Visibility originall y stated that "no fence, wall, or other visual barrier over three feet in height above grade shall be erected, placed, planted, or allowed to grow ... ", but that relates to the sight distance triangle. Based on the Commission's previous discussions, a permit would be required for: any new fences or retaining walls replacement of more than eight feet of fence or retaining walls alteration or modification to the height, material or location of anything that is existing alteration or modification that affects the sight distance 1 • Mr. Schum stated he disagrees with requiring a permit for replacing an eight foot section of fence; that is only one section of fence and should be increased to at least 16 feet. Mr. Hunt stated that made sense to him. Discussion ensued. It was the consensus of the Commission that a permit would be required if more than 16 feet of an existing fence is replaced and if any portion of an existing retaining wall is replaced. Ms. Langon stated she and Ms. Reid discussed the maintenance clause and agreed it should simply state that the fence shall be kept in good repair. The Zoning Enforcement Officer agreed with the language and only needs a citation if the fence is not in good repair. Mr. Welker asked if something needed to be added regarding safety. Mr. Hunt stated he would argue for the way it is written. Ms. Mosteller agreed. It was the consensus of the Commission to keep the maintenance clause as written in the draft. From previous discussions, decorative lights on pillars or posts can be a maximum of one foot above the pillar height. Ms. Langon stated the pillar and post height can be 10 percent above the fence height. Mr. Welker stated that after he started thinking about the light issue, he isn 't sure he reall y likes the idea of having lights on fences. They could create problems with casting light onto neighboring properties. He stated he had no problems with lights on gate posts, but not on shared fences. Discussion ensued regarding whether • or not to permit lights on fences in residential districts. • It was the consensus of the Commission to permit lights on pillars and posts as long as the lights are shielded and the light is contained to the owner's property. The Commission further agreed lights should be a maximum of one foot above the pillar/post height in residential districts. Mr. Roth asked if the reference for the swimming pool fences could be clarified. Ms. Langon stated she would add a reference to the applicable Code. Ms . Langon reiterated that fences must be located on the applicant's property and they cannot be located within the public right-of-way. Fences also cannot be closer than one foot to the public sidewalk. Regarding trellis and entry features, Ms. Langon asked the Commission what they wanted to set for a maximum height and width. Discussion ensued. It was the consensus of the Commission that the maximum height should be eight feet and not to set a maximum width. Chair Krieger stated on page 5 under the prohibited fence materials she couldn't find where temporary construction fencing was listed as a prohibited material. Mr. Schum suggested including it under temporary fencing which would prohibit it as permanent fencing material. Ms. Langon asked if the Commission also wanted to include it in prohibited fence materials . Mr. Welker agreed it fit better under the temporary fencing category. Mr. Welker 2 • • • suggested adding the word "permanent" to paragraph 1 on page 5 so it reads: "Fences shall be constructed of materials customarily used for permanent fencing materials ... " Mr. Welker asked if the Commission reached a determination on how to measure the maximum height on scalloped fencing. Ms. Langon stated it is her recollection that the height is measured to the highest point. Ms. Mosteller asked if the definitions for solid and open would be included in the Fence Ordinance. Ms. Langon stated the definitions would be included in the definition section of the Code. Ms. Langon stated that retaining walls must be located on the applicant's property, and must also meet Building Code. Ms. Langon asked if there needed to be different zone district requirements for retaining walls. The Commission decided the requirements should be the same for all zone districts. The Commission discussed permitted materials for retaining walls. It was the consensus of the Commission to permit masonry to include stone, concrete, brick, smooth or textured CMU, and stucco. The Commission also agreed to add a clause on retaining walls stating "Other materials commonly used for retaining walls are permitted as approved by the City Manager or designee." Regarding wood, it was the consensus of the Commission to permit landscape timbers as a permitted material for constructing retaining walls and other materials used for retainin g walls as approved b y the City Manager or designee . The Commission also agreed to add langu age that creosote or CCA treated materials, railroad ties, mining timbers, and telephone poles are prohibited materials. Ms . Langon stated fences placed on retaining walls are measured from the top of the retaining wall. Mr. Welker clarified that a six foot fence can be placed on top of a retainin g wall. Ms. Langon stated that was correct. Ms. Langon stated she would finalize the remaining changes and distribute a draft to the Community Development department and a few other departments for them to review . A stud y session will probably be scheduled with City Council before it is brought back to the Commission for a public hearing. Ill. PUBLIC FORUM No one was present to address the Commission. IV. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE Ms. Langon stated the next meeting is scheduled for February 8; Mr. Stitt will be bringing forward a Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan and the Three Mile Plan. The Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan is a request from DRCOG which addresses storms and floods and will also 3 • • • go to City Council. The Three Mile Plan will be an addendum to the Comprehensive Plan and will have a public hearing before the Commission in March. After the Fence Ordinance is finished, Ms. Langon stated she will be working on the Unified Development Code updates. Elections will be held at the February 23 meeting, which is a Wednesday evening. Ms. Langon distributed a draft copy of the Commission's member profile for their review. V. COMMISSIONER'S CHOICE The Commission had nothing further. The meeting adjourned at 8:40 p .m . 4