Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-07-16 PZC MINUTES• • • CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION July 16, 2002 I. CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order in the City Council Chambers of the Englewood Civic Center at 7:00 P.M ., Chairman Waggoner presiding. Present: Absent: Lathram , Mueller, Parks , Roth , Schum, Welker, Krieger, Waggoner Willis (with previous notice) Staff: Senior Planner Tricia Langon Assistant City Attorney Nancy Reid II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Jul y 2, 2002 Chairman Waggoner stated that the Minutes of Jul y 2, 2002 were to be considered for ap- proval. He asked if there were an y comments or suggestions. Mr. Roth noted on Page 8, reference is made to a "consensus " of the Commission regard- ing compliance of the Safewa y PUD with the PUD District Plan and Site Plan. He noted there w ere two dissenting v otes on approval, and suggested that use of the word "consen- sus " is inappropriate . No further comments or amendments were suggested . Schum mo v ed: Krieger seconded: The Minutes of Jul y 2, 200 2 be approved as amended on Page 8. AYES : NAYS : Mueller, Schum, Roth , Welker, Krieger, Waggoner None ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Parks , Lathram Willis The motion carried . Ill FINDINGS OF FACT Safewa y Fueling Station CASE #PUD 2001-02 Mr. Waggoner stated that Findings of Fact on the Safeway Planned Unit Development for a fueling station at 35 75 South Logan Street, were to be considered for approval. Welker moved: Schum seconded : The Findings of Fact for the Safeway PUD #2001-02 be approved as written . H.\GRO UP'BOARD SIPLASCOM."l\Minu1cs 1Minuu:s ~002\P C:vt 07-16-02 doc 1 • • • AYES : NAYS: Parks , Roth , Schum , Welker, Krieger, Mueller, Waggoner None ABSTAIN: Lath ram ABSENT: Willis The motion carried. IV. ZONING INTERPRETATION Massage Therapy as Home Occupation R-2 , Medium Density Residence District CASE #INT 2002-01 Mr. Waggoner stated that applicant Am y L. Geiger is requesting an interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance to allow massage therap y as a Home Occupation in the R-2 Zone Dis- trict. He asked that staff present the case . Ms . Langon stated that a publ ic he a ring is not required on a Zoning Interpretation, Findings of Fact are not prepared, nor is the case referred to City Council. The Planning Commis- sion renders final determination on interpretation requests. Ms. Langon stated that the re- quest is to find that massage therap y prov ided b y a licensed massage therapist is a permit- ted home occupation in the R-2, Medium Density Residence District. Ms. Langon noted a letter from Ms. Geiger has been distributed to the Commission ; Ms . Geiger's letter outlines her request and proposed home occupation . Ms . Langon pointed out that in 199 7, the Planning Commission interpreted that massage therap y provided by a licensed massage therapist w as not a commerc ial health care facility, and w as permitted as a Home Occupation i n the R-1-C, Single-famil y Residence District. The decision stipulated, howev er, that the interpretation w as applicable onl y in the R-1-C Zone District. Ms . Langon stated that staff is no w requestin g the Planning Commission to determine that massage therap y prov ided b y a licensed massage therapist is not a commer- cial health care facility, and to allow massage therap y provided by a licensed massage therapist as a home occupation in all residential zone districts which currentl y allow home occupations. This would include the R-1-B and R-1-C , R-2 and R-2 -C, R-3 and R-4 Zone Dis- tricts . Ms. Langon discussed the "hierarch y" of zone districts, noting that ty picall y a use permitted in one district carries on through subsequent districts. In this case , staff is asking that the R-1-B district be included to allow massage therapy as a Home Occupation; the R- 1-B district does allow Home Occupations, and to restrict massage therap y provision as a Home Occupation in R-1-B if it is allowed in other residential zone districts that allow Home Occupations would be "arbitrary and capricious ". The R-1-A Zone District will re- main excluded because no Home Occupations are allowed in that district. Ms. Lathram asked what uses are permitted as home occupations . Ms . Langon suggested that a list of what is prohibited is easier to cite, and include: Animal hospital or kennel; as- phalt paving businesses ; barbers, hairdressers, cosmetologists or beauticians; body, me- chanical repair, or modification of motor vehicles ; sale, storage, manufacture or assembly of guns, knives, or other weapons or ammunition other than for personal use ; commercial health care facilities ; dump trucks ; restaurants ; towing business ; wholesale or retail uses of H:'G RO UP\BOARDSI PLANCO M,"1\MinutcslMinu tcs :002\PC M 07-16-01.doc 2 • • • any items on or off the premises of items which have not been made, grown, or prepared on the premises; and processes involving dispensing, use or recycling of hazardous or flam- mable substances and materials . Mr. Waggoner asked if the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance had to be amended to allow massage therapy as a home occupation. Ms. Langon stated no, and reiterated that in 1997, the Commission made the determination that massage therapy by a licensed massage therapist was not a "commercial health care facility". Mr. Schum asked if the new zoning regulations will contain a definition of massage therapy and the commercial health care facility; he suggested that a clause explaining the difference between the two uses should be included. Mr. Waggoner stated that the reason the request is before the Commission this evening is the stipulation issued in 1997 that the interpretation applied only to the R-1-C District. Ms. Langon stated that this is correct. Ms. Reid stated that there are really two issues before the Commission: 1) the request from Ms. Geiger to allow massage therapy provided by a licensed massage therapist as a home occupation in the R-2 Zone District; and 2) the request from staff to expand this interpreta- tion to apply to R-1-B, R-1-C , R-2, R-2-C, R-3, and R-4 zone districts . Discussion ensued. Ms. Lathram asked if massage therap y is allowed as a home occupa- tion in all residential zone districts except R-1-A, will the Home Occupation regulations re- main the same . Ms. Langon stated that there would be no change to the wording of the Home Occupation regulations . Mr. Waggoner suggested the Commission should have a separate request from staff to ex- tend the interpretation to other zone districts; at the present time, the only application be- fore the Commission is from applicant Geiger to allow massage therapy as a home occupa- tion in the R-2 District. Discussion ensued. Mr. Welker stated that he saw no problem ex- tending the interpretation to apply to the aforecited zone districts on the recommendation of staff. Ms. Krieger stated that once it's determined that massage therapy provided by a licensed massage therapist is permissible in R-2 , staff's request to extend the interpretation to other districts won't change things; it might be better for the Commission to take the ini- tiative to extend the interpretation rather than making staff come back with a specific re- quest. Mr. Schum stated that the issue would be simplified if all districts could be ad- dressed at one time. Mr. Welker stated that two actions could be taken by the Commission this evening -a motion to approve Ms. Geiger's request, and a motion to extend the inter- pretation as recommended by staff. Mr. Roth suggested that the extension be done as a recommendation from the Planning Commission rather than a request from staff. Ms. Reid stated that Findings of Fact are not needed; however, if the Commission deter- mines that massage therapy provided by a licensed massage therapist is a valid home oc- cupation in the R-2 district, and this interpretation is extended to apply to other zone dis- H:'GROUP'BOARDS \PLANCOMM\Minutcs\Minutcs 2002\PC~ 07-1 6-0 2.doc 3 • • tricts allowing home occupations, there should be logical reasons supporting this determi- nation. Mr. Waggoner asked about the "license" referenced in discussions. He stated that the staff report does not address whether it is a State or City license that must be obtained. Ms. Langon stated that Ms. Geiger does not have her license yet; there is no State license, but the City of Englewood Finance Department requires massage therapists to be graduates of a massage therapy school accredited by the State; other license requirements include insur- ance, criminal background checks, and the premises must meet health and sanitation re- quirements before a City license is issued. Ms. Geiger did not know whether she could do massage therapy in her home until the Commission granted approval; therefore, she has not pursued acquisition of the City license at this time. Mr. Waggoner asked if there was further discussion. Ms. Krieger stated she is supportive of the request, it poses no threat to the neighborhood, and there won't be a lot of traffic gen- erated by the home occupation. Schum moved: Lathram seconded: The Planning Commission finds that provision of massage therapy, by a licensed massage therapist, is allowable as a Home Occupation in the R-2 Zone District. AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSE T: Roth, Schum , Welker, Krieger, Lathram, Mueller, Parks, Waggoner None None Willis The motion carried. Mr. Waggoner asked the pleasure of the Commission on extending the interpretation to other residential zone districts. Krieger moved: Schum seconded: Massage therapy, provided by a licensed massage therapist, shall be permitted as a Home Occupation in the following residential zone dis- tricts: R-1-B, R-1-C, R-2, R-2-C, R-3, and R-4. AYES: NAYS : Schum, Welker, Krieger, Lathram, Mueller, Parks, Roth, Waggoner None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Willis The motion carried. • Ms. Geiger thanked the Commission for their time and consideration of her request. H:IGROUl"BOARDSIPLANCOMM\Minuies\Minuies ~00 2\PCM 07-16-02.doc 4 • • • v . PUBLIC FORUM No one was present to address the Commission. VI. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE Ms. Langon reported that Community Development has hired a temporary employee who will be assisting her on the Unified Development Code. Ms. Jennifer Guetschow began employment on Monday, July 15, and will be with the Department through the end of the year . Ms. Langon reported that Community Development has offered a full-time position to a gentlemen currently employed as a Planner in Castle Rock. The offer was accepted, and this employee will begin on August 12 1h; he will be doing development review, and working with the various boards and commissions served by Community Development. Ms. Langon stated that on August 6 1 h, the Commission will have two public hearings on the agenda. The first case is a Planned Unit Development proposed by University Homes for property on South University Boulevard just north of Dartmouth Avenue . The second case is a Conditional Use application on West Floyd Avenue for approval of an amusement establishment in conjunction with a restaurant. VII. ATTORNEY'S CHOICE Ms. Reid stated she had nothing to bring before the Commission VIII. COMMISSIONER'S CHOICE Mr. Schum noted that some fencing along the Little Dry Creek drainage north of the RTD parking area is missing. In response to an inquiry from Commission members, Ms. Lathram stated that she and her husband have a health y bab y girl, Samantha Lynn, who is one month old. The regular meeting adjourned. * * * * * * * * * * Members of the Commission then reconvened in the Community Development Confer- ence Room for a study session on the Bates Station Area Development & Design Standards and Guidelines. Senior Planner Mark Graham and Ms . Tina Axelrad of Clarion Associates joined the Commission. Guests joining to hear the discussion were Mr. Tim Leonard, Mr. Bryant Winslow, and Mrs. Laura Bartnick. Mr. Graham outlined the relationship of the Bates Station Plan , an amendment to the Com- prehensive Plan ; the MX-TSA document the Commission has recently reviewed, and the H:\GRO UPIBOARDSIPLANCOMM\\1inu1es 1Mi nu1cs 2002 ' PC:.! 07-16..0 2.doc 5 • • • Development & Design Standards and Guidelines. The Bates Station Plan set forth goals and objectives for the transit station area. The MX-TSA document is the zoning regulations for the transit station area, and the Development & Design Standards and Guidelines document is the implementation tool. Mr. Graham asked Commission members to keep in mind the word "standards " is "mandatory", and the word "guidelines" equates to "encour- age " in this document. Mr. Graham noted that some provisions originally contained in the MX-TSA document have been removed from that document and inserted into the Stan- dards and Guidelines document. He emphasized the need to correctly categorize issues in the documents. Mr. Graham noted that maps are not available for display at this meeting, but will be in the near future. Ms. Axelrad suggested that the document be reviewed section-b y-section, with questions from Commissioners posed as the review proceeds. Mr. Waggoner noted that Mr. Graham had discussed "should ", "encourage", etc.; on Page 1 of the document it states "promote" -not encourage, or should . Ms. Axelrad suggested that a Section 3 be added to "D " of Part I, to set forth the purpose and intent of the document. Ms. Axelrad pointed out that "E. Alternative Compliance" provisions have been removed from this document, and relocated to the zoning ordinance (M X-TSA ) . Part II , "E. Building Height" was discussed . Mr. Graham stated that the discussion regard - ing o v erall building height from last week is still being considered . He commented that he is inclined to ask the Commission to let the height limitations as w ritten go through the Hearing process, and then address changes that need to be made. Ms. A x elrad stated that the M X-TSA regulations will be incorporated into the Unified De- velopment Code as part of the overall zoning regulations . The document on Standards and Guidelines will be a free-standing document. Height of structures was f urther discussed . Ms. Axelrad stated that taller buildings would be located nearest the light rail station ; height will be "stepped-down " from that point to street frontage. Ms. Mueller stated she wanted to see maps indicating the locations/heights of buildings before the Commission gets too much further into this discussion. Mr. Welker stated that he wanted to see what we are considering, specificall y . Ms. Axelrad discussed the division of the redevelopment into three sub-areas : 1) General Iron Site -with separate guidelines 2 ) Winslow Property -with separate guidelines 3 ) Edge transition area -with separate guidelines Ms. Lathram noted that transition areas haven 't been identified . Ms. Axelrad stated she un- derstood the area to be considered is limited to existing industriall y zoned property north of Dartmouth Avenue . Mr. Graham stated that consideration has to be limited to the industri- fllGRO UP\BO AROSIPLAN COMMIMi nu1cs 1Min utes 2002\PCM 07 -16-0:.doc 6 • • • ally zoned area within the Urban Renewal District. Mr. Graham noted that "transition " must be done at street frontage -it cannot be done in the alley. Height issues were further discussed. Ms. Reid noted the possibility of problems on corner lots. Mr. Welker discussed his concerns regarding height permitted along on the Elati Street frontage. He asked why the height appears to have increased from 45 ft. at street frontage to 65 feet. Mr. Schum stated that the 135 foot "skyscraper" is a surprise to neighborhood residents -the height needs to be decreased. Mr. Graham noted that the "skyscraper" Mr. Schum referenced would be a "landmark" and provide a sense of place for the redevelop- ment. Mr. Schum expressed concern the redevelopment will "end up with a big wall of buildings". Ms. Krieger suggested that elevations should be lowered the closer the new development is to existing residential zoning. Mr. Welker suggested the possibility of structures of var y ing heights along a street frontage to provide variety and visual relief. Ms. Axelrad stated that this has been considered; a goal is to preserve views along east/w est corr idors. She stressed the need to consider views from within the dev elopment as w ell as v iews from outside the development. Mr. Schum stated that people w ho live in the area now have views to the west and north, but once buildings are erected, those v ie w s w ill be lost. Mr. Roth stated that he !i v es on South Sherman Street; homes along South Sherman Street w ere built to take ad v antage of the view, and this rede v elopment will be right in the middle of their v iew. He suggested that a wall w ill be created if the proposed height is carried out along the street frontages. Mr. Parks stated that a lot of "view" for an y area is the buildings one looks at. He stated that if he wanted a pristine view, he would move to the mountains . He stated that redevelop- ment is a change in character of a site or an area . Mr. Welker stated that he does not want to see the City Center residential dev elopment copied on the GIW site. He noted that some v erbiage appears to ha v e been changed re garding height limits, but it still includes the 18 ft. "ex ception " for rooftop mechanical equipment and unoccupied architectural elements -this is a problem and unacceptable to him . Ms. Axelrad suggested that some- one in close proximity to a redevelopment with structural heights as proposed may not sense a variety of building heights; however, someone farther away will have a view of the variety in structural heights . She asked why it is bad to have a "street wall ". Mr. Welker stated that he is concerned about people who live in the immediate area , and those resid- ing to the south . Ms. Axelrad asked "what do y ou want to have happen?" Mr. Roth stated that "we have a staff that wants a big development, and residents who aren't buying into that." Mr. Schum recalled opposition to the North Englewood Small Area Plan of a few years ago, and the opposition generated in the neighborhood by that proposal. Mr. Schum stated that he wants to see the GIW site redeveloped, but doesn 't want the redevelopment to be too big. This is where the height factor comes into place; he stated that he would rather see more structures that are a little taller than one really high sk y scraper. He also spoke in sup- port of height variety. H:IGRO UP' BOAROSIPLA NCOM M\Minu1cs \M inuics :00 2' PCM 07 -16.02.doc 7 • • • Mr . Welker stated that he has less issue with greater height on the buildings; they could have a smaller footprint, but increased height. He stated that he does not want to see the one block length of South Elati with a street wall and no variety; this is unacceptable to him. Ms . Mueller agreed there is a need to break the mass of buildings after a given distance. Ms. Reid suggested that wording can be added to mitigate the mass of buildings along South Elati Street. She stated that it appears the Commission is at an impasse on this issue as it is currentl y written , and suggested the need to move forward on the review. Mr. Waggoner asked if the 65 foot height would be acceptable. Mr . Welker reiterated that the 18 feet allowed for the mechanical equipment is very high. Discussion ensued. Mr . Welker suggested that increased height for architectural features could be considered on a case-by-case basis , rather than written to provide blanket allowance. Mr. Graham empha- sized the need to write the regulations , standards and guidelines for ease of understanding and use by developers and staff. Parking was addressed. Mr. Graham noted that residents will be allowed to purchase addi- tional parking spaces. Mr. Schum pointed out that the parking minimum has been reduced ; he discussed problems with reduced parking required in the CityCenter. Vehicle Access was discussed. Ms. Axelrad directed attention to Page 10 , and the "preser- vation of views " . Ms . Krieger noted that Amherst Av enue ends in a cul-de-sac and does not tie in with the street grid system proposed. Mr . Graham pointed out that Amherst dead-ends now, and no change was proposed regarding extension of Amherst. Pedestrian Access , Circulation and connec tions was then discussed . Sidewalk width was addressed, both sidewalks within the de velopment, and public sidewalks linking with the interior sidewalks. Ms . Lathram excused herself from the meeting . Off-Street Parking was discussed. Ms. Axelrad stated that provision must be made for some automobiles, but this is also a transit oriented development and transit use should be sup- ported. The proposal reduces the required parking per dwelling unit; no maximum is estab- lished so long as parking is provided in a parking structure. Mr . Schum again expressed concern regarding a decreased minimum requirement for off-street parking, and pointed out that this transit station will be much closer to a residential neighborhood than the Ox- ford transit station. He suggested the parking requirements be increased and parking struc- tures be required. Mr. Welker stated that he did not want to see on-street parking count toward provision of guest parking spaces . H:'.GRO UPIBOARDSI PLA NCOMM\."l inutcs1Minutcs ~002\P C:"I 07-16-02.doc 8 • • • Ms. Mueller stated that she is working on a project near Coors Field that is required to pro- vide one space per dwelling unit. She stated that it is very difficult to find a parking space at this work project, and emphasized the need to be aware of what could happen in the GIW neighborhood if insufficient parking is provided. She urged that staff and Clarion rep- resentatives tour other developments to see what can happen. Ms. Reid asked what a good requirement might be for off-street parking per unit. Ms . Mueller stated that one or two spaces per unit, plus additional provision for guest parking. Ms. Reid asked why the minimum parking proposed was reduced from 1.25 spaces per unit to one space per unit. Mr. Welker suggested that two spaces per unit is probably too much, but one space per unit is insufficient. Mr. Parks pointed out that the philosoph y of this development is to go to transit transporta- tion. People are driving to the CityCenter to catch the light rail because it has become too expensive to park in downtown Denver. Ms . Mueller reiterated that it will be worth viewing other developments in Denver; do a survey of other developments to see what impacts parking requirements /provision ma y have on surrounding neighborhoods. Ms . Mueller referenced Page 20, 7 d; she noted that this is vague. Regarding the parking structures, she stated that she wanted to avoid a repeat of the Alexan parking structure at CityCenter -she would prefer to see something that looks like a building and not a parking ramp . Mr. Schum asked if two parking structures were to be constructed in the GIW rede- velopment, would it not be better if the y were similar in appearance. Lighting of parking areas was then considered. Mr. Roth expressed concern that the light- ing of the parking areas would be so bright it would impact residents on South Sherman Street. Ms . Axelrad pointed out that the standards require shielding of lighting fixtures and there w ill be no glare. Mr. Welker noted that no distance factors are set forth on lighting coverage . Ms . Langon asked about height limitations on lighting standards. Ms. Axelrad stated that she didn 't know that lighting standard height is limited. Further brief discussion ensued. Review of the Standards and Guidelines will begin at Sec- tion J, Screening on Page 21. Ms. Reid stated that once the MX-TSA and Design Standards and Guidelines have been considered by the Commission at Public Hearing, a recommendation will be made to City Council. Mr. Graham stated that the next Study Session , August 13 , will have Public Works Director Ross in attendance, along with Wendy Gracy who is working on the Bicycle Path program. He stated it appeared that the Public Hearing on the MX-TSA District, and the Design Stan- dards and Guidelines will not occur on August 20 1h as hoped. This ma y occur at the second meeting of September. Brief discussion ensued. H:IGRO UP' BOARDSIPLA NCO MM\M inu1c:s 1Minu 1cs c OO:!IPC~ 07 -16-02 .doc 9 • The study session disbanded . • • H:IGROU PIBOARDSIPLANCOMM\Minutcs\Minutcs 2002\PCM 07-16-02.doc 10