The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2000-02-08 PZC MINUTES• CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION February 8, 2000 I. CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers of Englewood City Hall. Chairman Carl Welker presided. Members present: Member absent: Also present: Rininger, Stockwell, Weber, Willis, Douglas, Sauter, Welker Hayduk, Lathrarn Senior Planner Graham Assistant City Attorney Reid Mr. Welker welcomed Greg Sauter to the Commission. Mr. Sauter was appointed by the City Council on February 7 , 2000. II. RE-ORGANIZATION Chair Vice-Chair • Chairman Welker stated that the first order of business is election of officers for the year 2000. • Douglas moved Stockwell seconded: Nominations be opened. AYES : NAYS : Weber , Willis, Douglas, Sauter, Rininger, Stockwell, Welker None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Hayduk , Lathram The motion carried. Mr . Douglas nominated Carl Welker as Chair. Mr. Rininger seconded the nomination. No further nominations were received for Chair. Mr. Weber nominated Doug Rininger as Vice-Chair. Mr. Stockwell seconded the nomination. No further nominations were received for Vice-Chair. Douglas moved: Stockwell seconded: The nominations be closed . 1 AYES : NAYS: Willis, Douglas, Sauter, Rininger, Stockwell, Weber, Welker None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Hayduk, Lathram The motion carried. Mr. Welker was elected Chair, and Mr. Rininger elected Vice-Chair, by acclamation. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES January 18, 2000 Mr . Welker stated that Minutes of January 18, 2000 were to be considered for approval. Douglas moved: Weber seconded: The Minutes of January 18, 2000 be approved as written. AYES: NAYS: Stockwell, Weber, Willis, Douglas, Sauter, Rininger, Welker None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Hayduk, Lathram The motion carried. IV. FINDINGS OF FACT Sign Code Amendment Case #ORD 99-04 Chair Welker stated that the Findings of Fact on the Sign Code Amendment are to be consid- ered for approval. Douglas moved: Rininger seconded: The Findings of Fact on Case #ORD 99-04, Sign Code Amendment, be approved as written. AYES: NAYS: Rininger, Stockwell, Weber, Willis, Douglas , Welker None ABSTAIN: Sauter ABSENT: Hayduk, Lathram The motion carried. 2 • • • • • v . EVALUATION MATRIX METRO VISION 2020 It was the consensus of the Commission that this item would be a "study session" discussion after completion of the remaining portion of the agenda. V. PUBLIC FORUM No one was present to address the Commission. VI. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE Nothing was brought forward for discussion. VII. ATTORNEY'S CHOICE Nothing was brought forward for discussion. VIII. COMiVIISSIONER'S CHOICE Mr. Welker asked that each member introduce themselves and give a brief statement of their professional background . The formal meeting adjourned, and reconvened in the Community Room for the study session on the Evaluation Matrix/Metro Vision 2020. A new draft of the Planning Commissioner's Handbook was distributed to members for their perusal and comment. Comments and suggestions should be submitted to staff for review and possible incorporation into the Handbook before it is finalized and approved. Mr . Graham discussed the Evaluation Matrix, and cited the 12 major topics on the matrix. Those topics are: 1) Legal and Administrative Considerations 2) Consistency with Regional Plan 3) Consistency with Englewood's Comprehensive Plan 4) Zoning Analysis 5) Physical and Site Analysis 6) Market Analysis 7) Environmental Impacts 8) Social Impacts 9) Economic Impacts 10) Fiscal Impacts 11) Traffic Impacts • 12) Infrastructure Costs 3 • Each of these primary topics has a listing of sub-topics, and the sub-topics are further broken down to issues. • Mr. Graham referenced a listing of tentative study session topics and upcoming issues which was included on the back of the meeting agenda, and pointed out that these proposed study ses- sion topics tie in with the 12 primary topics on the Evaluation Matrix. Mr. Graham noted that the evaluation matrix has been developed not only as an aid for the Commission, but it is an important tool for the staff in their evaluation of cases/requests /issues that are submitted. Discussion ensued . Mr. Rininger asked where public opinion and participation occurs in the matrix . Mr. Graham stated that public participation is an important element, and may occur during the course of consideration on any given topic . Mr. Douglas commented on the extent of the matrix, and suggested that it might be condensed for easier use by members during the course of a discussion or hearing. Several members agreed, and suggested that only topics germane to Englewood be included . The format of the matrix was considered. Some Commission members suggested using a typi- cal "outline" format with bullets and/or indented numbering under primary topics. Usage of easily understood wording was discussed. The Commission was advised that some • terminology , such as "arbitrary and capricious " does have legal importance in considerations , and should be retained. Mr. Sauter noted that , as a new member of the Commission, the evaluation matrix will be in- valuable to him in learning what is important in consideration of issues. Mr. Graham stated that he understood from the discussion, that two formats of the matrix are desired -a condensed, outline format for easy reference , and a second, more fleshed-out for- mat for inclusion in the Handbook . Mr . Welker stated that the Board of Adjustment & Appeals has specific criteria set forth that all applicants for a variance must meet; this enables the Board to render their decision and make findings on cases based on consistent criteria. He suggested that the Planning Commis- sion needs to establish similar criteria. Ms . Reid pointed out that all decisions made by the Commission must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Welker stated this is a fal- lacy. Mr. Welker stated that the matrix is a good tool for staff use, and urged that staff be very specific why a proposal should be approved, and be equally specific setting orth issues of concern for the Commission. Further discussion ensued. Members of the Commission suggested combinations of some "is- sues" on the matrix, and urged the development of an outline format. Some elements of the 4 • • • • matrix should be deleted -such as "Free Standing Communities"; and eliminate issues that are determined by other entities or departments. Mr. Graham stated that the Board of Directors of the Denver Regional Council of Govern- ments (DRCOG) has requested all participating communities review and prioritize the Metro- Vision principles. Mr. Graham reviewed the list, and his suggested prioritization. Mr. Stock- well asked Mr. Graham to explain his logic in his suggested prioritization. Discussion fol- lowed. The Commission noted the difficulty of prioritizing the list because all the principles are very important. 1) Local comprehensive plans as reliable decision-making tools. 2) Incorporation of Metro Vision into local comprehensive plans. 3) Adherence to local and regional plans. 4) Development within urban growth boundaries. 5) Effective and creative land use and development. 6) Provision of services within urban growth boundaries/areas. 7) Open space in the region should be strategically protected and preserved. 8) Multi-modal transportation funding. 9) Increase density. 10) Jobs-housing balance. Mr. Willis asked if any consideration was given to schools in the jobs-housing balance princi- ple. Mr. Graham stated that only housing and employment were listed. He noted that Engle- wood is in a unique position of "importing" labor -there are more jobs available in Engle- wood than there are members of the work force. Brief discussion ensued. Mr. Welker noted that the next meeting, February 23rd, is on a Wednesday evening because of President's pay holiday on Monday. He asked if members of the Commission will be able to attend the meeting on Wednesday -if there will be a problem, the meeting might be cancelled, or rescheduled. Mr. Rininger stated that meeting on Wednesday evening may present a prob- lem for him, but he would let staff know. There was no further business brought before the Commission. The meeting adjourned . Gertrude G . Welty, Recording Seer tary \\eng_ ch \sys \dept\nbd \group\boards\plancornrn\rninu es 2000 \pcrn 02-2000a.doc 5