Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-02-08 PZC MINUTES• • • I. CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION February 8, 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: Absent: Staff : Bleile, Fraietta, Krieger, Mosteller, Roth , Schum , Welker Diekm eier, Hunt Harold Stitt, Senior Planner Tricia Langon, Senior Planner Nancy Reid , Assistant City Attorney II. NEW MEMBER INTRODUCTION Chair Krieger welcomed Ms. Fraietta to the Commission . Ms. Fraietta stated she moved to En gle w ood in April and is an English teacher at Littleton High School. She is also a real estate agent and is looking forward to serving on the Commission . Ill. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Januar y 4, 2 005 Januar y 19, 2005 Mr. Welker mov ed : Mr. Schum seconded : To approve the January 4, 2005 Minutes. Mr. Roth recommended adding a comma after "Hunt (by telephone )" and "Mosteller (b y telephone )" to more clearl y indicate who voted by telephone. Mr. Welker and Mr. Schum accepted the friendl y amendment. AYES : NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Krieger, Roth , Schum, Welker None Bleile, Fraietta, Mosteller Diekmeier, Hunt Motion carried. Mr. Roth moved: Mr. Schum seconded : To approve the January 19, 2005 Minutes. 1 • • • Mr. Roth stated on page 2, paragraph 7, second sentence should read "Fences also cannot be closer than one foot to ... 11 AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Bleile, Krieger, Mosteller, Roth, Schum, Welker None Fraietta Diekmeier, Hunt Motion carried . IV. STUDY SESSION a. Case #2005-03 Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan Mr. Stitt stated the Plan is a document that the Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG) developed which was not included in the Commission's packet because it is so voluminous. Mr. Stitt circulated the Plan for the Commission to review. What was included in the Commission's packet were the pages that are specific to Englewood which are a series of charts submitted by the various jurisdictions that participated in the Plan and also a table showing the participating jurisdictions. It is a federal requirement for DRCOG to obtain approval of the Plan. FEMA will provide funds to jurisdictions for mitigation planning and for other activities if the region has an adopted Plan. DRCOG took it upon themselves to put the Plan together with participation from the jurisdictions that choose to participate. Chair Krieger clarified that even though not all jurisdictions participated it still "counts " that there is an approved Plan. Mr. Stitt responded that it is his understanding that a jurisdiction has to adopt the Plan which would mean that jurisdiction would need to provide some type of input. The work he did on the Plan was attending approximately six meetings, filling out the chart, and reviewing the document. It was not a lot of work on the part of Englewood. There were other jurisdictions, such as the counties, that took a much larger role because they have many .other issues to deal with such as wild fires, tornadoes, wind storms, etc. This is not a document that needs to be adopted as part of the Comprehensive Plan and there are no amendments that can be made. It is a matter for the Plannin g Commission to recommend that City Council adopt, and DRCOG has actually provided a model Ordinance. Once that occurs, Englewood is on the record for having completed the approval process, and if a natural hazard occurs Englewood is eligible for federal funds for mitigation planning. Last year there was approximately $1.5 million available; Mr. Stitt stated he was unclear whether or not that pool of money was for the region or the entire state . Mr. Schum asked if Commissioners could stop by the department and review the Pl an; he doesn't want to vote on the Plan until he has had a change to read it. Mr. Stitt responded that the bulk of the document is an explanation of the natural hazards; the meat of it is the 2 • • • charts which were included in the Commission's packet which shows how each participating community will implement natural hazard disaster mitigation. The Plan will be available for the Commission to review in the department at their convenience or a copy can be given to those Commissioners interested in reading the entire Plan. Ms. Reid asked Mr. Stitt to provide a brief overview of the Plan. Mr. Stitt stated that Englewood has certain activities that it must undertake to satisfy federal requirements for natural hazard mitigation planning. Most of those requirements are handled through the Building Code, Zoning Ordinance, and Safety Services handles some of the other requirements. There is additional disaster planning that will be handled in future years as indicated on the charts. Mr. Stitt briefly reviewed and explained the chart. Ms. Mosteller asked if the action strategies listed were developed by Englewood or if they were consistent for every jurisdiction. Mr. Stitt responded that they are consistent for every community. Mr. Schum asked if there was real estate disclosure for flood plain . Mr. Stitt stated FEMA is obligated to provide that information; staff does it as a courtesy since we have the flood maps . Staff does not provide official information to people as to whether they are in or out of a flood plain since we do not have that level of detail on our maps . We have had requests for certifications of flood plain status but it is impossible to tell from the scale of maps whether or not properties are in or out of a flood plain . Chair Krieger stated it is nice to see that Englewood is not lacking much in m1t1gation planning. Mr. Schum stated nothing was indicated for outreach projects and asked if anything was being planned to train citizens. Mr. Stitt stated that was one option; in order to obtain a lower rating for flood insurance, the City went through a process of acquiring a substantial number of publications that are located in the City's public library. Ms. Mosteller stated drought is not identified on the chart for Englewood; however, it is an issue for the surrounding communities. She asked if Englewood should be addressing it in some fashion. Mr. Stitt responded that it did come up in some of the meetings, and it was the various Utilities Departments that were interested in addressing that issue in terms of watering restrictions, newer technologies for reducing water use, newer technologies for handling gray water, etc. Since the City's Utilities Department didn't mark that area, they might not have any such programs . Our water system is a little different than some of the other communities; we haven't had mandatory water restrictions. It didn't receive a lot of discussion at the meetings beyond what the major water providers were doing. Mr. Stitt suggested it could perhaps be handled through landscaping materials. Englewood encourages drought-tolerate landscaping materials in its Landscaping Ordinance, but it's not mandated. Discussion ensued. Chair Krieger asked what Mr. Stitt needed from the Commission. Mr. Stitt responded that he would request a motion to recommend the Plan to City Council. He reiterated that he can provide copies of the Plan to any of the Commissioners who would like to review it in more depth. 3 • Ms. Reid stated even though the Plan doesn't go to a public hearing, there is one member who has expressed an interest in reviewing the document more thoroughly. She recommended postponing sending it to Council until the next meeting until everyone who is interested in reviewing the document has had a chance to do so. Mr. Stitt stated that would not be a problem. Mr. Stitt asked the Commission to please let him know if they would like a copy of the Plan or if they would like to stop by the office to review the document. • • b. Case #2005-04 Three Mile Plan Mr. Stitt stated the Three Mile Plan is required by State statute for all jurisdictions to have a plan in place that anticipates any future annexations. The purpose of the Plan is to identify the areas that would qualify for annexation; the current status of those areas; and if they were to be annexed what land uses exist and what the City would do in terms of rezoning, if necessary, and provision of services. Map 1 shows six parcels that qualify for annexation. There are other parcels within the three mile boundary which are unincorporated, but they do not qualify for annexation because they are not contiguous to Englewood . Properties must have a boundary which has one-sixth width contiguity with the City boundary. That provision was added to the state statutes to prevent "flagpole" annexations where a road is annexed to obtain access to a large piece of property. The City cannot annex the areas unilaterally, because the City does not surround them. If it is an enclave, which means it is surrounded by all sides by the City of Englewood, then the City can do an unilateral annexation. Mr. Stitt explained that the majority of the parcels are currently developed. Map 2, Area A is adjacent to the South Platte River, south of West Oxford Avenue. The property is landfill land and is part of unincorporated Arapahoe County between the Cities of Sheridan and Englewood . Englewood has 1.ooked at this property as a potential site for open space. Chair Krieger clarified that the property owner would need to approach the City if the wished to be annexed into the City. Mr. Stitt stated that was correct; the City could asked them if they wished to be annexed but they have to agree . There are some environment issues with the property since it is landfill, but it would be suitable for recreational use . Map 3, Area B is another piece of unincorporated Arapahoe County which is a combination of mobile home parks and industrial uses. It is adjacent to Santa Fe, north of Union. There may be some environmental issues and providing services to the site might be difficult. Map 4, Area C is a part of Progress Park. There is no advantage for Littleton to annex that piece because they would not receive any tax revenue. The only advantage for Englewood to annex would be to clean up the "islands" of unincorporated land . 4 • • • Map 5, Area D is the subdivision known as Brookridge Heights and is located east of the Brookridge Shopping Center. There had been some discussion a number of years ago regarding annexing the subdivision but the property owners were not interested. It is a large unincorporated area of single-family homes; if it were annexed into the City it would stay as such and the City would need to provide water service. Map 6, Area E is US 285 between South Lafayette Street and South University Boulevard. Since no one lives on that property, Chair Krieger asked how the City would annex that property. Mr. Stitt stated the property is owned by the State so the State could petition for annexation. Map 7, Area F is property located at the northeast corner of US 285 and South University Boulevard and is the Cherry Hills Heights subdivision. It is an established, upper-income neighborhood . The City of Denver supplies their water, and they have their own sewer district. Mr. Stitt stated the City is not actively pursuing any annexations; the Plan has been developed because it is a State requirement. Unless Arapahoe County makes a policy decision to start forcing some of these areas to be annexed, it will not happen . Mr. Schum asked if the City foresees the County doing that anytime in the near future. Mr. Stitt responded that he has not heard an y thing of that nature from the County. He attended a series of meetings when the County was writing its Comprehensive Plan in approximately 1995 where there was a lot of discussion regarding why the County had all these isolated parcels that are not attached to any of the local jurisdictions. At that time the conclusion was that Arapahoe County was taking a "hands off" position . If those areas want to be incorporated, they will approach the city and request to be incorporated. Also, a lot has to do with the perceived lifestyle of being unincorporated. A public hearing is scheduled for March 8, and the Three Mile Plan will be a companion piece to the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Mosteller confirmed at the public hearing the Commission will be asked to adopt the Plan as a companion to the Comprehensive Plan . Chair Krieger stated the Commission will recommend the Plan to City Council with a positive or negative recommendation depending upon the Commission's decision . The City has no plan to annex property as this time . Mr. Schum confirmed that the property owners must be part of any annexation process. Mr. Stitt responded that was correct. Mr. Welker stated it is important to point out at the hearing that Three Mile Plan is a State requirement the City must fulfill. Chair Krieger recommended that the word "will " in the Plan be changed to "would" to make the Plan sound less affirmative and more conditional. Mr. Stitt stated the Plan will be reformatted so it is more consistent with the Comprehensive Plan , and he will make those edits at that time. Mr. Welker asked if the Plan would be attached to the Comprehensive Plan or would it be an addendum. Mr. Stitt stated it is a separate document, but it is part of the comprehensive planning tools . Ms. Reid recommended that it be clarified in the document that it is a separate document from the Comprehensive Plan. The Master Bicycle 5 • • • Plan was incorporated into the Comp Plan. Mr. Stitt stated the difference in the two documents is that the Master Bicycle Plan was part of the transportation element. V. PUBLIC FORUM No one was present to address the Commission . VI. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE Ms. Langon stated the Commission will not be meeting on February 23; however, the department is hosting a community meeting on historic preservation to gather citizen input for City Council. Ms. Langon invited the Commission to attend the meeting which will be held in the Community Room. The Commission's next regular meeting is March 8 which will be a public hearing on the Three Mile Plan, a follow-up discussion on the Natural Hazard Mitigation, and elections for chair and vice chair will be held. VII. ATTORNEY'S CHOICE Ms. Reid had nothing further. VIII. COMMISSIONER'S CHOICE Mr. Schum stated there was an article in the Denver Post regarding CityCenter Englewood . Mr. Roth stated there was a public notice in the Englewood Herald regarding a Board of Adjustment and Appeals meeting that was to be held on February 8. Ms. Fenton stated it is a typo and should have been February 9. Ms. Reid stated th at the agendas are correctly posted on the bulletin boards for February 9. Unfortunately, the Englewood Herald has to republish a number of the City's legal notices due to mistakes. The meeting adjourned at 8: 10 p.m . 6