Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-09-10 PZC MINUTES• • • CITY OF ENGLEWO OD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION September 10, 20 02 I. CALL TO ORDER The City Planning and Zoning Commission met for a study session in the City Council Confer- ence Room of the Englewood Civic Center. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m., Chairman Waggoner presiding. Present: Absent: Staff: Consultant: Mueller, Parks, Roth, Schum, Welker, Lathram, Krieger, Waggoner Willis, Diekmeier (both members gave notice of absence) Community Development Director Simpson Senior Planner Langon Assistant City Attorney Reid Tina Axelrad of Clarion Associates II. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE Mr. Simpson provided a brief history of the need to update the various City development codes , and staff efforts leading to the "Unified Development Code". Clarion was contracted over two years ago to work with staff, and to compile all applicable development codes into one docu- ment. Ms. Krieger entered the meeting and took her seat with the Commission. Mr. Simpson pointed out that the existing codes -zoning ordinance , subdivision regulations -do not reflect the current development climate -issues such as height, setbacks, lot coverage -all need to be addressed. Mr. Simpson stressed the need for clarity in the UDC -the regulations must be written to be easily understood by contractors, by the general public, members of the Commission, and by staff members who are charged with interpretation and enforcement of the provisions. Mr. Simpson stated that existing regulations are difficult to interpret and understand, leading to inefficiency and confusion for all who have to work with the ordinance. Mr. Simpson stated that the accelerated schedule on the UDC consideration and Hearing process is necessitated by Council's imposition of a moratorium on development activities in northwest Englewood. This moratorium is due to expire in November 2002 . City Council has indicated that they are interested in improved design standards for development -not only in the northwest Englewood area, but citywide. Community Development staff members , and Clarion staff members, are working diligently to meet the City Council deadline . Mr. Simpson stated that Ms. Jennifer Guetschow was hired in mid-June to work with Ms . Langon on the revisions to the UDC. Mr. Simpson stated that the UDC is being considered in two phases. Phase I is focused primarily on reorganization and format. Phase II will focus on textual clarification on topics such as sign- age, parking , landscaping and open space, etc . Once the structure of the UDC is established and adopted, then other issues will be brought forward. H:\GRO UP\BOARDS\PLANCOMM\Minutes\Minutes 2002\PCM 09 -10-02.doc 1 • Mr. Simpson then introduced Ms. Axelrad. Ms. Axelrad introduced her assistant, Madise Frati- nardo. Ms . Axelrad did a "power-point" presentation outlining proposed changes, in conjunction with verbal discussion of the proposed reorganization and format changes. Ms . Axelrad stated that when Clarion began work on the UDC, there were meetings with members of the City Council, Planning Commission, Board of Adjustment & Appeals, members of the community and staff to get a feel of what was desired and needed in the revised code. This "diagnosis" process was completed in August 2000. An annotated outline of the revisions was completed in October 2000, and Phase I of the reorganized UDC was completed in February 2001. Staff work on Phase I and II substantive revisions was completed in December 2001. Ms. Axelrad stated that Phase I of the UDC revisions include the reorganization of the code and improvement of the layout and formatting of the document. Zone Districts have been renamed and reordered; the new MX-TSA district will be included in the UDC; summary use tables have been prepared; the accessory uses sections have been revised; new temporary use section has been prepared; resi- dential development and design standards are addressed; auto dealership regulations are ad- dressed, and a new and/or streamlined procedures for review section has been prepared. Ms. Axelrad suggested that if members of the Commission had questions, to ask them at any time. Ms. Reid questioned the change of process proposed on Conditional Use issues. Mr. Waggoner questioned where approval and acceptance of right-of-way dedications might occur; he pointed out that the Master Street Plan is being revised and may indicate areas where addi- tional right-of-way is needed. Ms. Axelrad stated that right-of-way issues are addressed in the Subdivision Regulations. • Ms. Axelrad stated that the new section 16-5, Development Standards, will be the "heart" of the Code . She addressed the goals of clarification , streamlining of procedures, and filling of proce- dural gaps in the existing code. • Members of the Commission reviewed a summary table of proposed development review and decision-making procedures. Mr. Welker questioned why the Board of Adjustment & Appeals would be involved in approval of Subdivision Plats. He stated that consideration and approval of preliminary plats for subdivisions should be before the Planning Commission , and that Final Plat consideration and approval should rest with the Planning Commission and City Council. Mr. Welker asked for clarification of "temporary use". Staff responded that temporary uses could be such things as a Christmas tree sales lot, a fireworks sales site prior to Independence Day, as well as a construction trailer for a project. Mr. Simpson suggested that a specific time should be established for the "temporary use" -maybe 30 days for holiday-related uses, and a more appropriate time limit for construction trailers . Ms. Langon commented out that, techni- cally, temporary uses such as Christmas tree sales lots are not "permitted" in the Zoning Ordi- nance; however, the City does license this temporary use , so it is allowed for a minimal period of time . The new provisions will be a means to address the cited uses and any other "temporary uses" that might arise. Ms. Lathram questioned the "Site Plan Review" proposal; why would the Commission see site plans only on appeal from decisions of the City Manager or his designee. Discussion ensued . Ms. Reid stated that she is not sure what a "site plan" is in this context -is it a plan in conjunc- H:\GROUP\BOARDS\PLANCOMM\Minutes\Minutes 2002\PCM 09-10-02 .doc 2 • • • tion with a use-by-right such as a single-family home and the site plan is required as part of the building permit process, or does this "site plan" reference pertain to larger developments as might be encompassed in a PUD. She suggested that this reference needs clarification. Mr. Welker asked if this might be an issue requiring a Public Hearing before the Commission; he also suggested that City Council should not be the "appeal body" on site plans . Ms. Langon suggested that maybe the Board of Adjustment should be the appeal body on site plans. Brief discussion ensued. Mr. Simpson stated the UDC needs to include an "appeal process". Mr. Schum stated that he thought the Commission would be presented a document indicating what is existing, and what changes were proposed. Ms. Langon stated that staff is still working on the revisions . Ms. Axelrad discussed the "Lapsing Period". This establishes a time limit for a property owner to begin and pursue work on a project/development following approval. Ms. L athram asked if a developer or property owner would have the right to request an extension of this time limit. St aff responded that an extension may be requested; how many extensions could be requested has not been established . Mr. Welker stated that variances granted by the Board of Adjustment have time elements established. Ms . Langon agreed, and stated that property owners recei ving vari- ances have 180 days (6 months ) to make application for a building permit or the variance e x - pires; the property owners do have the option to request extension of the variance from the Board. Ms . Mueller noted the 10-year lapse time on the "overall concept plan "; is this time limit to the completion of the project? She stated that some projects are "phased" or "staged" for build-out, but in her opinion if an overall concept plan is approved, the developer should show demonstra- ble progress before 10 years have expired. Mr. Welker stated that 10 years is too long. Mr. Simpson suggested a three to five year time element. Mr. Schum suggested a mandatory review at five years might be considered. Ms. Axelrad suggested that the provision might be modified to state that if nothing has happened on a project within three years, the Commission can bring it up for review. Chairman Waggoner suggested that a percentage of development/progress for each period of time might be included ; he cited a couple of projects that have stretched out over several years, and emphasized the need to "move things along ". The term "substantial activity" was discussed; staff noted that a definition of "substantial activity" would have to be written. Ms. Axelrad then discussed major procedural revisions. New procedures will be established for temporary use permits, development agreements, administrative adjustments, and statutory vested rights, Comprehensive Plan amendments, Overall Concept plans , and site plan review . Ms . Lathram asked if there will be acreage requirements/limits on site plan review. Ms . Langon stated that at the present time the Development Review Team considers site plans submitted as pre-application for the building permit process. She stated that a goal of the staff is to develop a series of brochures addressing issues such as fencing , landscaping requirements -issues that people interested in development or redevelopment want to explore. Chairman Waggoner noted that a Homeowners Association agreement was required on a recent PUD case , and a copy of the agreement is required to be filed with the City . Would any review process of homeowner agreements be incorporated in the UDC, and how would a buyer or the H:\GROUP\BOARDS\PLANCOMM\Minutes\Minutes 2002\PCM 09-10-02.doc 3 • • • City know whether a homeowner agreement/covenants are applicable to any particular property . Why would an agreement be required to be submitted to the City if the City assumes no respon- sibility for review or enforcement. Ms. Lathram excused herself from the meeting. Ms. Axelrad stated that many communities want to see the homeowner agreements to be assured that issues such as drainage , landscaping, off-street parking or some similar topic has been ad- dressed, and responsibility for maintenance issues is assumed by the homeowners . Ms. Langon stated that in the PUD case referenced by Chairman Waggoner, new purchasers would be made aware of the homeowner 's agreement because the Commission and staff have required that this document be recorded against all properties. Mr. Simpson discussed a "permit tracking system" that the City is exploring. This system would track all activity related to any given address -building permits, inspections, code violations, etc. A homeowner/covenant agreement could also be included on this tracking system. Ms. Axelrad briefly addressed new procedures for Temporary Use Permits, Development Agreements, Administrative Adjustments, and Statutory Vested Rights. The Administrative Ad- justments provision will provide flexibility to staff to approve minor issues that now have to be taken before the Board of Adjustment and Appeals . She cited an example wherein staff would have the right to vary setbacks, for instance, within a given percentage. Mr. Welker stated that many times the Board was tied up on cases wherein a one-inch encroachment had to be consid- ered. Ms . Langon agreed ; such minute issues are time consuming for the property owner as well as the staff. Mr. Welker stated he would support a 15 % leeway for staff administrative adjust- ments . Ms. Langon noted that in some instances, 15 % may not be workable and criteria should be established for the adjustments . General brief discussion ensued. Mr. Simpson noted that some issues -such as the telecommu- nications regulations , or flood plain regulations, may be "spread around" through the various zone districts, but the overall character and integrity of the regulations is not changed. Mr. Welker stated that he really wants to make the attempt to look at the UDC from a "user 's" perspective. He stated he likes the idea of the charts such as was available to the Commission at this meeting. Ms. Axelrad stated that illustrations and tables will be included as part of the UDC. Ms. Axelrad stated that further review of sections of the UDC is scheduled for September 17th and September 24th. She noted that City Council review of the UDC is on-going simultaneously with the review by the Commission. The meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m . Gertrude G. Welty, Recording Secret~ H:\GRO UP\BOARDS\PLANCOMM\Minutes\Minutes 200 2\PCM 09 -10 -02 .doc 4