Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-04-20 PZC MINUTES• • • CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION April 20, 1999 I. CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7 p .m. in the City Council Chambers of Englewood City Hall, Chairman Welker presiding . Members present : Douglas, Lathram, Rininger, Stockwell, Weber, Willis, Welker Members absent: Also present: Dummer, Hayduk (both with previous notice) Simpson, Ex-officio Harold J. Stitt, Senior Planner Tricia Langon, Planner Nancy Reid, Assistant City Attorney Chairman Welker declared a quorum present. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES April 6, 1999 Chairman Welker stated that the Minutes of April 6, 1999 were to be considered for approval. Rininger moved: Weber seconded: The Minutes of April 6, 1999 be approved as written . AYES: NAYS : ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Rininger, Stockwell, Weber, Willis, Welker None Douglas, Lathram Dummer, Hayduk The motion carried. III. COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE Park, Recreation and Open Space (PROS) CASE #ORD-99-01 Chairman Welker stated that the issue before the Commission is a proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance regarding a new zone district for Park, Recreation and Open Space (PROS). Mr. Welker asked for a motion to open the Public Hearing. Douglas moved: Rininger seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #ORD-99-01 be opened . 1 AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Lathram, Rininger, Stockwell, Weber, Willis, Douglas, Welker None None Hayduk, Dummer The motion carried. Mr. Welker asked that staff present the issue. Tricia Langon, Planner, was sworn in. Ms. Langon stated that the issue is creation of a new zone district, §16-4-18, Park , Recreation and Open Space (PROS) as part of the Comprehen- sive Zoning Ordinance. Ms. Langon stated that notice of the Public Hearing was published in the Englewood Herald on April 9, 1999, and presented a copy of the publication to the Chair. Ms. Langon stated that City Council has directed staff to identify the parks, recreation, and open space areas in Englewood, and to create a separate zone designation for these land uses. Ms. Langon stated that staff has worked with the Parks & Recreation staff and Commission in developing the proposed ordinance, and that initial drafts of the proposal were reviewed with the Planning Commission, City Council, and the Parks Commission beginning in January, 1999. Ms. Langon cited changes from the initial draft reviewed by the Planning Commission with the draft before them at this Hearing, and noted that educational institutions and public buildings have been eliminated as permitted principal uses in the proposed district. After con- • siderable study and discussion, staff has determined that development standards for the PROS • District should be addressed on a case-by-case basis. Ms. Langon referenced a map showing the location of parks, recreation and open space sites; she noted that there are 20 or 22 of these sites which will, after approval of the proposed PROS Ordinance, have to be rezoned to PROS District. These various sites are quite diverse in character. Ms. Langon also noted that the nature of recreational activities is changing all the time. Ms. Langon stated that the Parks and Recreation Commission did endorse the current draft of the PROS District at their meeting on April 8, 1999, and a statement to that effect has been included as part of the informational packet sent to the Planning Commission. Ms. Langon stated that currently, parks, recreation sites, and open space areas carry the zon- ing designation of the area in which they are located -it can be single-family residential, high density residential, commercial or industrial. Under the proposed PROS District, each park, recreation site, or open space site, will be have to be rezoned to PROS. Development of a separate zone district for the park, recreation and open space land uses can provide an element of protection for those uses, also. Ms. Langon pointed out that administration and development of park, recreation, and open space areas will remain the function of the Parks & Recreation Department. The proposed PROS Ordinance does not rezone, create new, or eliminate existing parks, recreation, or open space uses. Once the proposed PROS District is approved by the Englewood City Council, staff will begin the process of rezoning. Ms. Langon reiterated there are 20 or 22 "sites", 2 • • • • however, these "sites" are comprised of over 70 separate "parcels" of land . Ms. Langon es- timated that the entire process will require a six to nine month completion time. Ms. Langon directed the attention of the Commission to Attachment A, #3, Development Re- view Team, and stated that the City Attorney has requested that enumeration of City Depart- ments by name be eliminated. This provision will then read: "Development Review Team: A committee responsible for reviewing development applications for consistency with City regu- lations and the Englewood Comprehensive Plan. The Development Review Team shall consist of representatives from City Departments as affected." Ms. Langon asked if members of the Commission had comments or questions. Mr. Welker asked what criteria will be used to determine location of fences, height of lighting fixtures, location of structures, etc. No criteria is noted in the body of the proposed ordinance. Ms . Langon stated that everything in existence on the date the ordinance is final would be "grandfathered" in . Mr. Welker stated that he realized that, but if someone were to change a use in one of the parks -put in a new ballfield , or a skateboard rink, how will this be handled. What restrictions would there be regarding height of seating, or parking provisions, lighting that may continue into the very late evening hours. Ms. Langon stated that if the Parks & Rec- reation Department and/or Commission propose such changes, they would be considered by the Development Review Team . Mr. Douglas noted that there is nothing mentioned about height restrictions, lot coverage re- strictions, or setbacks; is it the intent of this proposed ordinance that all of this will be at the discretion of the Development Review Team. Assistant City Attorney Reid stated that if someone did not agree with a determination of the Development Review Team, the decision could be appealed to the Board of Adjustment & Appeals . Mr. Douglas stated that the ordi- nance, as proposed, seems too "open ended". Mr. Welker expressed concern that there is nothing within the proposed PROS ordinance to allow for "public input" on development, redevelopment, or expansion of any park, recreation, or open space use. Mr. Douglas agreed with the need for public input. Mr. Stitt was sworn in, and pointed out that there is public input throughout the development process of any park, recreation, or open space via the Parks & Recreation Commission and City Council. The Parks Commission is charged with development of a "master plan and budget" for each year, and the City Council must approve the budget. There are public hear- ings on the budget each year. Mr. Stitt acknowledged that no public review is required on the building permit and development phase, but reiterated that is an opportunity for public input throughout the process up to application for building permit. Ms. Langon stated that the Parks & Recreation Department and the Parks & Recreation Com- mission do an extensive review process before a project is taken forward for funding by the City Council, and prior to actual development. Ms. Langon stated that the process as set forth in the PROS Ordinance is formalizing current procedures. 3 Mr. Douglas stated that this is a zoning issue; any development of a park, recreation facility, or open space site now has to comply with the district regulations in which the site is located ; • for instance, a recreation facility developed in R-1-A has to comply with setbacks , height limitations, etc. of that district. Under the proposed PROS ordinance, a development review team will determine what standards and criteria is applicable, and there is no opportunity for public review and input. Mr. Welker noted that "some people in the City are al ready leery of the City reviewing plans and making administrative decisions ", citing the road way in the proposed CityCenter which extends north through Cushing Park to Dartmouth. This roadway was developed with no pub- lic input. The Public Hearing process before the Planning Commission does provide the public an opportunity to express concerns , ask questions , and learn about a proposal. He stated that he would like to see a provision included in the PROS Ordinance to require public forums and public hearings before the Planning Commission on de ve lopment , redevelopment , and expan- sion projects in parks. Ms. Langon stated that staff did review a number of scenarios to determine what would trigger review of plans , and came back to the review on a case-by-case basis. Mr. Douglas reiterated his concern that there should be a public hearing required for de velopment other than accessory structures . Mr. Welker questioned whether the lack of "standards " and "criteria " within the PROS ordi- nance would result in the Planning Commission losing the right to review developments such • as Cornerstone Park; he recalled that the Commiss ion considered issues such as lighting, traf- fic, parking, noise , points of ingress/egress , and general impact on surrounding neighbors in that case. He expressed concern that the proposed PROS ordinance , as written , will give the Planning Commission no authority to review future park , recreation facilit y, or open space de - velopments and to protect adjoining neighbors . He suggested that it doesn't necessarily have to be new development -an existing park could be "redeveloped " to accommodate a baseball diamond with bleacher seating and night lighting ; this could have great impact on an adjoining residential neighborhood with increased traffic, parking congestion , lights being on into the late evening hours. A proposal that could impact a neighborhood to this extent should be con- sidered at public hearing , and surrounding neighbors have the right to express their concerns. Discussion ensued. Ms. Langon asked what the Commission would suggest as "triggers " for requirement of public hearing process . Ms . Lathram suggested square footage; Mr. Weber suggested a monetary figure, and Mr. Stockwell suggested that a statement regarding the "permanence" of the im- provement be considered. Ms. Langon stated that the draft before the Commission is a "compromise" including sugges- tions made by the Planning Commission , City Council , Parks staff and Parks & Recreation Commission after the review of the initial draft. Further brief discussion ensued. 4 • • • • Mr. Douglas asked if the Commission should close the Hearing , or continue the Hearing to a date certain to enable staff to revise the proposed ordinance . Mr. Rininger asked why the Englewood Golf Course isn't included on the map of parks , rec- reation sites , and open space . Ms. Langon stated that the Englewood Golf Course is actually located within the City of Sheridan. Mr. Welker asked what impact this proposed ordinance will have on Cornerstone Park; it is within the City of Englewood , but is owned and developed by the South Suburban Parks & Recreation District. Ms. Langon stated that she has spoken to Director Lorenz; he has stated that he "applauds " the idea , but he does have some concerns. However , he has not enumer- ated those concerns for staff to address. Mr. Welker asked if this park would have to be re- zoned. Mr. Stitt stated that an ideal situation would be for the SSPRD board to make a j oint request with the City of Englewood , and the rezoning to PROS could go forward. The PROS Ordinance addresses "public parks", "public open space ", and "public recreational facilities " - not privately owned developments such as Cornerstone Park . Mr. Stitt further pointed out that the Cornerstone Park was developed under the Planned Development provision , and the un- derly ing zone districts of B-2 and R-3 remain in effect. The Planned Development process (now repealed and replaced by Planned Unit Development process) is an "overlay district", not a rezoning. Mr. Rininger asked about the Home Lumber open space site. Ms . Langon stated that this is the location of the former Home Lumber Yard that burned several years ago . Mr . Welker asked if there were more questions of staff. Lathram moved: Stockwell seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #OR-99-01 be closed . AYES: NAYS : Lathram , Rininger , Stockwell, Weber , Willis, Douglas, Welker None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Dummer , Hayduk The motion carried. Mr. Welker asked the pleasure of the Commission. Weber moved : Dougla s seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council that the PROS ordinance , as modified in Section 16-8-1, Definitions , to comply with the City Attorney's request , be approved. Discussion ensued . Assistant City Attorney Reid stated that the Commission may approve the motion as made, defeat the motion and start over, or amend the motion . 5 Mr. Douglas stated he feels very strongly that the design standards such as setbacks, lighting , fencing , parking and traffic congestion must be reviewed by the Planning Commission and not • the Development Review Team. Discussion ensued . Ms. Lathram questioned whether the Commission needs to see every change or modification to an existing park, recreation facility , or open space. Mr. Welker stated that he felt the Commission must review proposals that con- stitute a "change of use " -such as putting a swimming pool or ball diamond in a "park" area. Discussion ensued on possible "triggers " for public hearing requirements. Mr. Stitt suggested the possibility of using a percentage of total square footage of the area as a "trigger". Mr. Stitt noted that the Commission has expressed concern that there are no stan- dards or criteria in the PROS ordinance; he asked the Commission to suggest what standards or criteria they want cited. Mr. Stitt stated that reference has been made to the Cornerstone Park Planned Development, and the fact that the Commission considered issues of lighting , noise, parking , etc. Mr. Stitt suggested the need for Planning staff and the Commission to rely on park planners expertise. Mr. Welker stated that he just wants the option to review changes, and to provide a public forum (public hearing process) for neighbors. Mr. Stockwell suggested that wording might be inserted stating that "anything causing signifi- cant changes in the subject site or surrounding area ". Assistant City Attorney Reid pointed out that the Development Review Team will be desig- nated by the City Manager -it will comprise key city personnel in the affected departments. She further addressed the desire of the City Attorney 's Department to avoid "listing " the de-• partments by name because departmental titles do change. Mr. Stockwell asked about a member of the Planning Commiss ion s itting on the Development Review Team . It was noted that the DRT is composed of administrative personnel. Further discussion ensued . Mr . Welker again referenced the road through Cushing Park , noting that this was done without benefit of Public Hearing ; there may have been discu s sion , but there was no forum for public input. Mr. Welker emphasized his concern that the public needs to be protected, and that of- fering the public hearing option on development , redevelopment or expansion of parks , recrea- tion facilities , and open space is necessary. Mr. Douglas suggested that without the benefit of public hearing , there may be issues that are accomplished "covertly" without review by the Planning Commission . Mr. Rininger agreed . Mr. Weber stated that the only "change " he could image would be to change a park to a rec- reational facility . Mr. Welker suggested that a recreational facility could impact surrounding neighbors through sound , lighting , traffic , parking, hours of operation , and the type of recrea- tional use. Mr. Douglas stated that with no criteria written into the ordinance, a development could be built from lot line to lot line , and of excessive height. 6 • ' • • • Mr. Welker stated that members of the DRT will be reviewing the plans from a different per- spective than members of the Commission or general public . Mr. Welker reiterated the need for public input process, and the need for standards to be written into the ordinance. Mr. Douglas offered the following "friendly" amendment to the motion: That 16-4-18 D be amended to read: Development Standards and Site Plan. Prior to the de- velopment, redevelopment or expansion of any permitted principal use within the Parks, Rec- reation and Open Space District, a site plan and development standards appropriate for the proposed use shall be submitted to the City for review by the Development Review Team. The Development Review Team shall, on a case-by-case basis, consider impacts of the proposal including, but not limited to the following: lot coverage, building height, setbacks, signs, fences, exterior lighting, parking, landscaping, and compatibility with surrounding zone dis- tricts and land uses. The DRT shall submit a written advisory report and recommendation to the Planning Commission for approval at Public Hearing. Mr. Weber accepted the "friendly " amendment. Mr. Stitt asked, for clarification; does this mean that any proposal under the PROS ordinance that comes before the DRT then comes to the Planning Commission for public hearing. What recourse does an "applicant" have if the Planning Commission does not approve the proposal. Ms. Reid stated that the Planning & Zoning Commission is a "recommending" board, making recommendations to the City Council. The Parks & Recreation Commission, by City Charter, is charged with developing an annual Parks Master Plan and budget, which must be approved by the City Council. Council approves the funding for the projects contained in the Parks Master Plan . Mr. Weber pointed out that the only applicant he could foresee will be the City of Englewood . Further discussion ensued . The vote on the motion to approve, as amended was called. The motion reads as follows: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council approval of the PROS ordinance, as modified in Section 16-8-1, Definitions, to comply with the City Attorney's request; and that wording in Section 16-4-18 D be amended to read: Development Standards and Site Plan. Prior to the development, redevelopment or expansion of any permitted principal use within the Parks, Recreation and Open Space District, a site plan and development standards appropriate for the proposed use shall be submitted to the City for review by the Development Review Team. The Development Review Team shall, on a case-by-case basis, consider impacts of the proposal including, but not limited to the following: lot coverage, building height, setbacks, signs, fences, exterior lighting, parking, landscaping, and compatibility with surrounding zone districts and land uses. The DRT shall submit a written advisory report and recommendation to the Planning Commission for approval at Public Hearing. AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: Rininger, Stockwell, Weber, Willis, Douglas, Lathram, Welker None None 7 ABSENT : Dummer, Hayduk The motion carried. IV. ROW VA CATION N 16 ft. of West Jefferson Avenue Between S . Cherokee St. and S. Cherokee/S. Bannock alley CASE #V AC-99-02 Mr. Stitt stated that this is not a public hearing . The request , filed by Maxine M. Molner and Linda Unger , property owners of 3642 South Cherokee Street , is for vacation of the north 16 feet of West Jefferson Avenue between South Cherokee Street and the South Cherokee/South Bannock Street alley . West Jefferson Avenue is not a through street between South Cherokee Street and South Bannock Street, and the City does not plan to extend this street through to South Bannock Street. West Jefferson Avenue presently has a right-of-way width of 50 feet ; the applicant is request- ing the vacation of the north 16 feet. The City has paved a 24 foot portion of the unvacated right-of-way to provide access to and from the Cherokee /Bannock alley . The vacated 16 feet will revert to the Molner ownership , and be placed on the tax rolls . The right-of-way for West Jefferson A venue has never been improved, and the City has received complaints from Mr. Molner about the dust problem resulting from the unpaved street. Mr. Douglas asked if, by vacating this right-of-way , the parking of trucks on jacks, trailers, and a varied assortment of vehicles can continually be parked on this area . Ms . Reid stated that this property has been cited for code violations by Code Enforcement on several occa- sions . Mr. Stitt noted that code enforcement issues are an on-going problem with this prop- erty. Mr. Rininger asked , in light of the code enforcement issues with this property owner, why the City would consider "giving" property to this owner. Mr. Stitt stated that the City does give up right-of-way that is not needed ; the vacated right-of-way reverts to the property from whence it came , and goes back onto the tax rolls of the City. Maintenance of this property then becomes the responsibility of the property owner who benefits from the vacated right-of- way . Mr. Stockwell asked if there is or will be sidewalk along this right-of-way . Mr. Stitt stated that he did not believe there is sidewalk , and that none will be installed. Mr. Willis asked why the City didn 't pave the entire alley, but only 24 feet. Mr. Stitt stated that the 24 foot width is all that is needed for the turning movements to and from the alley . Mr. Welker asked if any easements need to be retained. Mr. Stitt responded negatively . 8 • • • • • • Ms. Lathram asked if the City deeds the vacated right-of-way to the adjoining property owner . Ms. Reid addressed the procedures to transmit vacated right-of-way to property owners. Mr. Weber asked why there is no plan to extend West Jefferson Street through to South Ban- nock Street. Mr. Stitt noted the location of the City Ditch, and the grade differentials. Mr. Welker asked if there is any possibility that the 16 feet will provide sufficient space that the property owner may try to "subdivide" to get another building site. Mr. Stitt stated that a duplex is allowed in this block , but there would be insufficient land area to split into two building sites. Mr. Rininger asked if there was a way to condition the recommendation of vacation on compli- ance with code issues by the property owner. Mr . Stitt suggested the fact that the Planning Commission is aware of, and concerned about, the condition of the property will be noted in the minutes of this meeting . He agreed that the property owners should be strongly encour- aged to come into compliance with City codes with all due speed . Mr. Willis asked why the City is giving this right-of-way away; why not offer to sell it to the adjoining property owner. Mr. Stitt stated that this proposal has been raised on previous occa- sions; the right-of-way came from this property -probably as a required dedication on a sub- division plat -and the property should then be "given" back to that property . Mr. Willis asked if there are instances where the City has purchased property for right-of-way and then sold it back to the property owner. Mr. Stitt stated that he is not aware of any such instances. Mr. Welker asked the pleasure of the Commission. Lathram moved: Weber seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council that the north 16 feet of West Jefferson Avenue, between the South Bannock/South Cherokee alley and South Cherokee Street , be vacated as requested by Maxine Molner and Linda Unger. AYES : NAYS: Weber, Willis , Douglas, Lathram, Rininger, Stockwell, Welker None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Dummer, Hayduk The motion carried . V. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE Mr. Stitt stated that the subdivision plat for CityCenter Englewood will not be ready for Hear- ing on May 4th; it should be ready for Hearing on May 18th. Mr. Stitt suggested that the May 9 4m agenda be devoted to consideration of the Five Year Capital Plan, and the subdivision plat • hearing scheduled for May 18 . Mr . Stitt stated that staff will get as much information to the Commission for the May 4 meeting as possible , including the current FYCP budget and listing of projects. VI. ATTORNEY'S CHOICE Ms . Reid said she had nothing to bring before the Commission. VII. COMMISSIONER'S CHOICE Mr. Willis asked for further information on the City Ditch . Mr. Stitt stated that the City Ditch provides water to the City of Denver from Chatfield Reservoir and the South Platte River . M s . Reid stated that it is an irrigation ditch that has been in place even when Colorado was yet a territory. Land grants for the Englewood area are signed by President U.S . Grant. Mr. W illis asked if Englewood owned land on the west side of Santa Fe where the on/off ramps are located. He suggested that landscaping the interior of the cloverleafs and installing a nice "Welcome to Englewood " sign might be a project for the CIP . He commented that the existing "Welcome to Englewood " sign on the east side of Santa Fe Drive is rather small. Mr. Stitt stated that when the Tri-Cities group (Englewood, Littleton , and Sheridan) was working on Santa Fe improvements , one of the proposals was to landscape the cloverleaf areas, and there is a landscape plan creating an entrance feature for Englewood , even though technically • the cloverleaf areas are in Sheridan. The pro_iect was to be funded through the Colorado De- partment of Transportation (CDOT), but the funds have been deplo yed to other projects -such as landscaped medians . Mr. Stitt suggested that when the "dust settle s" with the CityCenter Englewood project , the improvement of the cloverleaf area should be addressed . Mr. Stitt said that whether the signage will be "Welcome to Englewood " or not , he doesn 't know. He did say that Mr. Willis 's suggestion is a good one , and it can be included in the list of projects the Commission requests be funded. Mr. Welker asked if there wa s anything else to bring before the Commission . Nothing further was brought up for discussion , and the meeting was adjourned. Gertrude G . Welty, Recording Secretary f:\d epc \nbd \gro u p\boa rd s\planco mm \min uces 99\pcm 04-99b .doc 10 •