Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-09-17 PZC MINUTES• • • I. CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION September 17, 2002 CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order in the City Council Conference Room of Englewood Civic Center at 7:00 p.m., Chairman Waggoner presid- ing. Present: Absent: Staff: Consultant: Roth, Schum, Krieger, Lathram, Mueller, Waggoner Welker and Willis (both members provided previous notice of absence) Parks (provided notice of absence, and intent to resign) Tricia Langon, Senior Planner Jennifer Guetschow, UDC Project Manager Nancy Reid, Assistant City Attorney Matt Goebel, Clarion Associates Marlise Fratinardo , Clarion Associates As members of the Commission entered the meeting , Chairman Waggoner gave each member a copy of the letter of resignation he received from Mr. Parks earlier this date . Mr. Parks' resigna- tion is effective immediately . II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES September 4 , 2002 Chairman Waggoner stated that the Minutes of September 4 , 2002 were to be considered for ap- proval. Lathram moved: Mueller seconded: The Minutes of September 4, 2002 be approved as written . AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT : Roth, Schum, Krieger, Lathram, Mueller, Waggoner None None Welker, Willis The motion carried. III. FINDINGS OF FACT A. University Homes PUD CASE #PUD 2002-01 Chairman Waggoner stated that Findings of Fact for the University Homes PUD were to be con- sidered for approval . The Commission recommended City Council approve the PUD proposed for property at 3055 South University Boulevard, with three conditions as set forth in the Find- ings . H:\GROUP\BOARDS\PLANCOMM\Minutes\Minutes 2002\PCM 09-17-02.doc 1 • • • Roth moved: Schum seconded: The Findings of Fact for University Homes PUD, Case #PUD 2002-01 , be approved as written. AYES : NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Schum, Krieger, Lathram, Mueller, Roth , Waggoner None None Welker, Willis The motion carried. B. University Homes Subdivision Case #SUB-2002-05 Chairman Waggoner stated that Findings of Fact for University Homes Subdivision were to be considered for approval. The Commission recommended preparation of a final plat identical to the preliminary plat th at was approved by the Commission , and that the final plat be forwarded to City Council for approval. Lathram moved: Schum seconded: The Findings of Fact for University Homes Subdivision, Case #SUB 2002-05 , be approved as written. AYES: NAYS : ABSTIAIN: ABSENT : Krieger, Lathram , Mueller, Roth, Schum, Wagoner None None Welker, Willis The motion carried. c. Craig Hospital Parking Agreement Case #PA 2002-01 Chairman Waggoner stated that Findings of Fact for the Craig Hospital Parking Agreement were to be considered. The Commission approved the Parking Agreement, with three conditions im- posed. Mueller moved: Lathram seconded: The Findings of Fact for the Parking Agreement, Case #PA 2002-01 , be- tween Craig Hospital and Swedish Medical Center be approved as written. AYES : NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT : Krieger, Lathram, Mueller, Roth, Schum , Waggoner None None Willis, Welker The motion carried . H:\GROUP\BOARDS\PLANCOMM\Minutes\Minutes 2002\PCM 09-17-02.doc 2 • • • IV . UNIFIED DEVELOP1\1ENT CODE Study Session Ms. Langon introduced Ms. Jennifer Guetschow. Ms. Guetschow was hired in mid-July to pro- vide staff assistance on the Unified Development Code , and will be working in the Department through the end of December, 2002 . Ms. Langon stated that Ms . Guetschow is working on the UDC exclusively. Ms. Langon then introduced Mr. Matt Goebel and Ms . Marlise Fratinardo from Clarion, Associ- ates. Mr. Goebel stated that he has worked with Ms . Axelrad on the UDC for the last 18 months or so , and has attended presentations before City Council. Mr. Goebel gave a power-point presentation highlighting the new Chapters 3 and 4. The new Chapter 3 will focus on zone districts , and the new Chapter 4 focuses on uses allowed within each zone district. Mr. Goebel noted that while the existing Englewood Zoning Ordinance isn 't the worst he has worked w ith , there are problems -for instance , zone districts and uses are mi xed in with unrel ated pro vis ions -fencing pro vi- sions , condo conversion regulations , are mixed in with zone districts . The y should be a part of the general regulations -applicable to all zone districts . Mr. Goebel stated that the go als of the UDC arer to provide clarity for all users of the Code , to streamline procedures where possible , and to update and incorporate new features to bring the Code up-to-date . One process to provide clarity is the use of tables -a Summary Use Table , for instance , will include all uses currently listed in table format, with indications whether the use is "permitted", "conditional '', or "acces- sory'' in the various zone districts; prohibited uses will also be clearl y indicated. New features are inclusion of the MX-TSA district , as well as proposed new procedures for consideration of "unlisted uses " and "temporary uses ". Ms . Lathram stated that she understood the Bates Station area was the only area where the MX- TSA district would be applicable ; will this same district be appl ied at the Oxford Station area. Ms. Lathram cited Page 2 of the memorandum from Clarion Associates , Paragraph 2 , wherein it is stated " .. .immediately adjacent to the Bates and Oxford station areas along the Southwest RTD light rail line ." She stated that she does not want to see any "area " identified without bene- fit of the public hearing process. Ms. Langon advised that the process at this time is only "crea- tion " of the MX-TSA District -the District must be established before it is "applied to an area". To apply any district to an y given area is a rezoning process , and must go through a public hear- ing before the Planning Commission and before the City Council. Brief discussion ensued. Chairman Waggoner asked what happens to existing districts that may have a new name, such as the MX-B-1 , or R-2-A and R-2-B versus B-1 , R-2 and R-2-C. Ms . Langon stated that it is only changing the name of a zone district , district boundaries will not be changed. Mr. Goebel discussed the procedure for approving "unlisted uses ". It appears that, at present, there is no established procedure to address this issue. The proposal will allow the City Man- ager, or his designee, to determine whether an unlisted use should or should not be allowed in a specific zone district ; the determination can be appealed to the Planning Commission. Ms. Krieger asked if only the applicant has the right to appeal an issue , or can anyone who might be H:\GROUP\BOARDS\PLA NCOMM\Minutes\Minutes 2002\PCM 09-17 -02 .doc 3 • • • affected by, or in disagreement with, the determination appeal to the Commission. Mr. Goebel stated that in jurisdictions where they have a "wide open" appeal process on interpretations, it is difficult to get anything approved; narrower, stricter interpretations limit those who have appeal rights. Ms. Reid stated that as a practical matter, if someone applied for approval of an unlisted use and were denied, and someone else applied for approval of the same unlisted use and got approval, the person initially denied could file an appeal. Ms. Lathram asked if the Commission will see the UDC document before the Hearing. Ms. Langon assured Ms. Lathram that the document will be provided to and reviewed by the Com- mission prior to the Hearing. Ms . Langon stated that she has been concentrating full time on the UDC, and is in fact, working from home to alleviate interruptions that occur during office hours . Ms . Lathram suggested doing a "calendar" setting forth dates textual information can be seen by the Commission. Mr. Roth asked whether a "use interpretation", once the determination is made by staff or by ap- peal to the Commission , will be added to the table of uses. Mr. Goebel suggested that it might be best to do a "comprehensive amendment" -maybe once per year, to incorporate such changes. Ms. Langon agreed that "housekeeping amendments" will be made on a periodic basis -possibly once or twice per year. Mr. Goebel discussed temporary uses . At the present time , there is no listing of temporary uses , and no guidelines establishing standards for approval or denial. Chapter 16.4 will establish stan- dards not only for Accessory Uses and Structures , but also for Temporary Uses and Structures. Mr. Goebel addressed the revisions that are proposed in the UDC . Terminology is "tightened", mixed-use designations are proposed for several districts -R-3, R-4 , B-1 , B-2 , I-1, and I-2 , as well as the new MX-TSA District ; the R-2-C SPS District has been eliminated-this "district" was in the Zoning Ordinance , but no land was so zoned. The "Use Table" was briefly reviewed. Ms. Langon described the table as a work in progress , but it does provide the Commission an idea of the proposed format. Mr. Goebel stated that the use table will provide a clear, concise definition of use types. Chairman Waggoner noted that a "mobile home park" is listed as a use; he recalled a controversy several years ago over "manufactured" housing . Ms. Langon clarified that a mobile home park is a "use"; manufactured units are a type of "structure". Ms. Guetschow further discussed the proposed table of uses , and stated that staff has concen- trated on development of this list. She noted that text that is "black" is existing ; text in "red" is proposed. Ms. Langon and Ms. Guetschow reviewed the format of the use table , and how to read the table to determine status of a use -is it a "use by right" or "permitted"; "conditional" "accessory", etc. A new use that is proposed is a "columbarium" as an accessory to a religious institution. Ms. Langon defined a "columbarium" as a repository for individual urns of ashes of deceased, which are placed in a "wall or column", and sealed. Englewood does not have a ceme- tery as a permitted use -there is insufficient land; but there have been inquiries regarding H:\GROUP\BOARDS\PLANCOMM\Minutes\Minutes 2002\PCM 09-l 7 -02.doc 4 • • • "columbariums". Ms. Langon emphasized that the use table document distributed this evening is not a final document. Ms. Krieger asked if Home Occupations will be revisited and "brought into the 21 si Century". The Home Occupation issue was discussed. Ms . Langon asked what the Commission felt would "bring Home Occupations into the 21 s i Century". She pointed out existing prohibitions against employment of outside assistance , and stated that she would recommend retention of this prohi- bition. One issue that arises with frequency is storage of materials in a garage -either attached or detached. A requirement of Home Occupation is that it be conducted within the "dwelling unit ", which has been interpreted to exclude storage in a non-living area such as the garages. Is an attached garage part of a dwelling unit, even though it is not part of the living area. Mr. Schum supported the restriction against outside employees for Home Occupations; he did state that people need to be able to make a living , and need to have the right to use their property . He noted the prohibition from parking commercial vehicles -trucks over a given size , or with business signage on the side -in residential areas. Ms. Mueller stated that tractor-trailers parked on street create problems . Ms. Reid cautioned that the Commission needs to be very c areful what is or is not allowed as "home occupations " -she cited a neighborhood where an "office " for a sprinkler system company was allowed . This use has se veral business-marked trucks that park at the site, and employees ha ve been dispatched from this site. Further discussion ensued. Previous consideration of the Home Occupation issue by the Commission was briefly cited; Nir. Waggoner stated that residents of the R-1-A District do not want Home Occupations permitted in that District. Ms. Krieger noted that home occupations presently exist in all districts , and if the home occupation is not bothering anyone , why not allow them and make them legal. Mr. Waggoner stated that making home occupations legal in R-1-A could lead to more residents hav- ing home occupations and possible problem uses. Ms . Lathram noted that a lot of neighbors ma y know a bout home occupations that are currently being done. and may not be pleased that this use is next door or across the street , but they don 't know what to do about it. Mr. Schum reiterated his opinion that people should ha ve the right to use their property . Ms. Langon stated that this is where zoning is important -everyone should have a "level playing field" -yes , you have a right to use your property , but the neighbors have the right to enjoyment of their property also, and your home occupation should not infringe on those rights. Ms . Reid briefly raised the issue of child care -child care homes are all over, but a great many of them are not registered as home occupations, may not be state-licensed, etc. Another issue Ms . Reid raised was allowance of nail salons as a home occupation . They are currently prohibited as part of the beauty salon business, but the Board of Adjustments and Appeals has allowed this use on occasion at specific sites. Ms. Langon cited an issue that needs to be addressed -that of a definition for "office" and "pro- fessional office". It is currently very poorly defined, and staff is still working on this with the consultants . H:\GROUP\BOARDS\PLANCOMM\Minutes\Minu1es 2002\PCM 09-17-02 .doc 5 • • • Ms. Guetschow advised the Commission that the next sections of the UDC have been on hold, and will not be ready for consideration on September 24th . There will not be a study session of the Commission on September 24th V. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE Ms. Langon stated she had nothing to bring before the Commission . VI. ATTORNEY'S CHOICE Ms. Reid stated she had nothing to bring before the Commission . VII. COMMISSIONER'S CHOICE Mr. Schum discussed the Bates Station area , and said that it sounds like RTD has walked away from all commitments to construct the Bates Station , and that the City and his neighborhood are left holding the bag . Mr. Schum stated that his neighborhood will carry the traffic to and from the RTD maintenance facility , the south end of the GIW site will remain undeveloped if the de- veloper walks away because the Bates Station won 't be constructed, and RTD is off the hook. He asked why RID wasn 't held to a contract, and if there was a contract, why wasn 't the con- tract better written to assure RTD funding for the station . Ms . Langon advised that discussions and negotiations are still on going , there has been no firm decision made regarding the Station or development of the south half of the GIW site . Ms. Krieger stated that the City is also short of funds to meet their commitment for the Bates Station construction. Chairman Waggoner stated that he received notice of a Public Forum on the South Platte open space on October 23 and 24. He asked if anyone is interested in attending . Chairman Waggoner noted receipt of Mr. Parks ' letter of resignation . He asked staff to notify City Council of the vacancy , request the appointment of Mr. Diekmeier as a voting member of the Commission, and to appoint a new alternate member. The meeting was declared adjourned at 8 :27 p .m . Gertrude G. Welty, Recording Secreta ,. H:\GROUP\BOARDS\PLANCOMM\Mioutes\Mioutes 2002\PCM 09-17 -02.doc 6