Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-02-03 PZC MINUTES• • • CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION February 3, 1998 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 Douglas presiding. Members present: Horner, Tobin, Welker, Cottle, Lathram, Rininger, Douglas Simpson, Ex-officio Members absent: Weber, Dummer Also present : Tricia Langon, Neighborhood/Environmental Technician Brad Denning , Planning Assistant Nancy Reid, Assistant City Attorney Chairman Douglas welcomed Ms . Lathram and Mr. Rininger to the Commission. Ms. Lathram and Mr. Rininger have been appointed to fill the vacancies created by a resignation and by Mr. Garrett's election to City Council. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES January 20, 1998 Chairman Douglas stated that the Minutes of January 20, 1998, were to be considered for ap- proval. Tobin moved: Horner seconded: The Minutes of January 20, 1998, be approved as written. Ms . Cottle asked that Page 15 of the Minutes be amended to reflect that she requested staff to explore means to divert truck traffic "around" the neighborhood, not "through" the neighbor- hood. Mr. Welker asked that Page 9 of the Minutes be amended to reflect the cost of the NESAP by Civitas is $25,000, not $2,500 . The amendments were noted, and the vote to approve the Minutes of January 20, 1998, as amended , was called. AYES: NAYS: Horner, Tobin, Welker, Cottle, Rininger, Lathram, Douglas None 1 ABSTAIN: None ABSENT : Weber , Dummer The motion carried. III. ELECTION OF OFFICERS Chairman Vice-Chairman Chairman Douglas stated that officers of the Commission are scheduled to be elected. Horner moved: Tobin seconded: Nominations for Chairman of the Planning Commission be opened . Motion carried . Ms. Tobin asked who was interested and/or available to serve. Mr. Welker stated that he is available, but is not interested. Mr. Horner and Mr. Douglas both indicated they are available to serve , and are interested in doing so . Homer nominated Bill Douglas as Chair of the Planning Commission for 1998. Ms . Tobin • seconded the nomination. • Horner moved: Tobin seconded : The nominations for Chair be closed , and Mr . Douglas be elected Chairman of the Planning Commission. AYES : NAYS: Welker , Cottle , Horner , Lathram , Rininger, Tobin None ABSTAIN : Douglas ABSENT: Weber, Dummer The motion carried. Tobin moved: Horner seconded: The nominations for Vice-Chairman be opened. The motion carried . Welker nominated Mr. Horner as Vice Chairman of the Commission for 1998; Ms. Tobin sec- onded the nomination. 2 • • • • Welker moved: Tobin seconded: The nominations for Vice-Chairman be closed, and Mr. Homer be elected Vice-Chairman of the Planning Commission for 1998 . AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT : Welker, Cottle, Lathram, Rininger, Tobin, Douglas None Homer Dummer, Weber The motion carried. IV. ORDER OF AGENDA Mr. Simpson stated that the applicant for Home Daycare has not yet arrived, suggested that the order of the agenda might be changed, and the Commission proceed with the second Public Hearing. Tobin moved: Homer seconded: The Order of the Agenda be amended, and the Public Hearing on Case #OR-98-01 be moved ahead of Public Hearing CU #98-01. AYES: NAYS: Cottle, Homer, Lathram, Rininger, Tobin, Welker, Douglas None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Dummer, Weber The motion carried . v. COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE Landscape Ordinance § 16-4-18 CASE #OR-98-01 Mr. Douglas stated that the issue before the Commission is consideration of a proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance (CZO) regarding landscaping standards. Homer moved: Tobin seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #OR-98-01 be opened. AYES : NAYS: Homer, Lathram, Rininger, Tobin, Welker, Cottle, Douglas None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Dummer , Weber The motion carried . 3 Tricia Langon, Neighborhood/Environmental Technician, was sworn in. Ms . Langon stated • that notice of the Public Hearing was published in the Englewood Herald on January 23, 1998. Ms. Langon testified that staff is asking the Commission to recommend to City Council that the existing landscape ordinance, §16-4-18 of the Englewood Municipal Code, be repealed, and that the proposed landscaping standards which are the subject of this Public Hearing, be enacted as a new §16-5-26 in the Englewood Municipal Code. Ms. Langon stated that staff has been working on the revisions to the landscaping standards for the better part of one year. The proposed ordinance has been presented for comments to the business community, to the Englewood Chamber of Commerce, and to other City Departments. Feedback has been con- sidered and incorporated into the revisions. Ms. Langon stated that landscaping serves many purposes, including enhancement of aesthetic appearance of developments; aids in stabilizing the environment's ecological balance through air purification, oxygen regeneration, storm water runoff reduction, ground water recharge; encourages water conservation through Xeriscaping and water conserving devices; reduces noise, heat, and glare that may be generated by developments, and protects public health, safety and welfare by minimizing impact of physical and visual pollution. Ms. Langon stated that landscaping also makes you feel good. Ms . Langon cited and discussed key elements of the proposed landscaping standards. She noted that the proposed landscaping standards will apply to both new developments, and to re- developing properties. Trees, shrubs and grass that are now planted in the public right-of-way (parking strip) can be counted toward the total required landscaping for a site. The proposed • ordinance establishes minimum landscaping standards, and establishes planting standards and uniformity in planting sizes and quality. The proposed ordinance also addresses the matter of maintenance, both the need of maintenance, and establishes responsibility for the maintenance. Alternative Compliance for specific cases wherein landscaping requirements cannot be met are set forth; Ms. Langon noted that the "fee-in-lieu" provision shall not apply to any new devel- opment in any zone district. The "fee-in-lieu" provision shall apply only to redevelopment, renovation, remodeling, or expansion in B-1, B-2, I-1 and I-2, and for non-residential uses in the R-3 and/ or R-4 zone districts. Ms. Tobin asked if there is a listing of recommended plantings, and noted that no list is in- cluded as part of the proposed landscaping standards. Ms . Langon stated that the City Forester has such a list. Ms. Tobin asked who determines what is included on this list. Mr. Horner noted that there only three trees that are prohibited: the Box Elder, female Cottonwood, and the Siberian Elm. Ms. Tobin stated that she wants to see promotion of native plants, and noted that the Aspen tree is endangered right now. Mr. Welker discussed concerns with §D.2 on Page 3 of the proposed ordinance. He noted that this provision requires that "the minimum landscaping" shall be located in the front yard, and asked what "the minimum" is; he further noted that previous discussions regarding the land- scaping standards were to require 803 of the landscaping to be in the front yard, and not 1003 of the required landscaping in the front yard. Ms . Langon noted that many properties • along South Broadway cannot put any landscaping on the front. Discussion ensued. 4 • Mr. Welker cited Page 4, §F 6 ; he stated that he thought previous discussions had changed the requirement to three feet rather than five feet as noted in the proposed ordinance. Ms. Langon agreed , and stated that in the interest of being consistent , the number was changed back to five feet. She noted that some of the landscape architects she discussed this provision with stated that three feet is too small to accommodate a tree , whereas five feet is not. Mr. Horner sug- gested that such landscaping areas could accommodate shrubbery, and trees need not be re- quired in a· three foot size area. Mr. Simpson agreed with Ms. Langon that the change was in an effort to be consistent with the requirement in §G 2 , which requires that landscaped pe- rimeters , islands , medians , or peninsulas shall have a minimum dimension of five feet on any side . Mr. Horner asked if there were areas in the City that have the curb, a three foot width of grass, and then the sidewalk. Mr. Welker suggested that this is quite common in the City , and that he would still advocate the three foot figure over the five foot figure cited. Mr. Horner supported the three foot figure ; he noted that if one were designing new areas you could design for five feet , but in older , established areas the three feet is in existence . Ms. Cottle cited Page 3 , and questioned cited requirements for the business and industrial zone districts versus cited requirements for the South Broadway Corridor ; she asked for an explana- tion on the different requirements . Ms. Langon stated that the different requirements are an attempt to address the lack of greenery along South Broadway , and referenced the goals of the South Broadway Action Plan to improve appearance of South Broadway. Mr . Welker asked for a definition of "redevelopment " -is it razing an existing structure and • building anew, or does it encompass remodeling , expansion , etc. • Ms. Cottle cited instances where an existing car dealer could purchase property next door , raze whatever structures are on the newly acquired property , and use it to park cars; why would this business person be required to provide only 10% of the total lot area for landscaping ; why should they not be required to provide 15 % of the total lot area for landscaping. Ms. Cottle also pointed out there is a difference between a "car lot" and a "parking lot", and the fact that trees with the accompanying leaves and sap may create problems for car dealers. Discussion ensued . Ms . Cottle emphasized that the business districts are not being treated con- sistently ; she also recalled the goals of the South Broadway Action Plan (SBAP) and com- mented that South Broadway is not being beautified in conformance with that Plan. Mr . Hor- ner stated that he did not have much problem with the different requirements , and stated that new development needs to be given flexibility. He stated that he , also , would love to see a landscaped parking strip , sidewalk , new lights , trees , and street furniture all along Broadway , but, again, he does not really object to the different requirements for the South Broadway cor- ridor . Mr. Simpson stated that Englewood is a community that is and will be in a "redevelopment mode ". When you want to encourage an improved quality of life , improved appearance of streets , and of the City as a whole , one of the things you strive to accomplish is to balance the benefits with the cost to new businesses -if costs to comply with stringent requirements prove to be too onerous , new development will not occur , and it may also stymie redevelopment. 5 Mr . Douglas suggested requirement of more "meaningful" landscaping in lieu of a cited "amount". Ms . Langon stated staff has tried to address this , noting that in areas with limited • space for landscaping trees will take more space than a shrub; increased tree requirements may not be feasible. Ms. Langon reiterated that in the downtown area there are few areas that have any "front setback " to landscape. Ms . Cottle suggested increasing the minimum landscaping required in §D 2 to 15 % and let those who cannot comply pay into the Landscape Fund. Ms . Langon reiterated that the fee-in-lieu is only as a last resort, and is determined by the City - not by the applicant. If there is any area on a site that can be landscaped , it must be done. Ms . Lathram pointed out that if the landscaping requirement is increased, there may be no re- development; she suggested that perhaps the lower figure (10 %) is better and work to encour- age redevelopment along South Broadway. Mr. Welker asked about definitions. Ms. Langon stated that all definitions will be included in §16 -8 of the CZO. Mr. Horner discussed the need for streetscape improvements along South Broadway . Mr . Simpson advised the Commission that there are "South Broadway Focus Groups " which are meeting to discuss urban design improvements along South Broadway. The next meeting of this Focus Group is February 4m at 12 Noon , in the Perrin Room in the Library. The initial target area for the Focus Group is Broadway from U.S. 285 north to Yale. They hope to come up with an urban design plan in the near future. Ms. Cottle asked who will pay for the improvements along South Broadway . Mr . Simpson stated that this is one of the issues that has not been fully determined. There may be some funds available from the State Highway Fund , and the City may also pay for some of the im- provements. Mr. Douglas stated that he , like Ms . Lathram , would like to encourage the possibility of some new development and/or redevelopment , and offering a 5 % concession in reduced landscaping requirements might encourage that activity . Ms. Lathram suggested that the requirements might also be reduced to 10 % for all business districts. Mr . Rininger suggested that the re- quirement be reduced to 10 %, and require the additional 5 3 as fee-in-lieu. Ms. Langon reit- erated that payment of the fee-in-lieu of installation of landscaping is at the City 's option -not the developer/property owner. Ms . Langon stated that funds paid in-lieu of landscaping in- stallation are deposited in the Landscaping and Fine Fund. • Ms. Tobin asked what the funds in this Fund have been used for. Ms. Langon stated that the funds have not been used to this point in time; there is approximately $8,000 in this account. Ms Reid stated that this Fund was brought to the attention of Council and staff during the last budget session . Mr . Simpson stated that the moneys in the fund will be used for public land- scaping purposes ; final use of the funds is at discretion of City Council. Ms . Langon stated that discussions have centered on a "mini-grant " program -offering trees to people who will plant and maintain them. Application would have to be made for the funds /trees , and provide • 6 • • matching funds to rece ive the tree. Ms. Tobin suggested possibly tying in with some of the banks who have tree "give-aways ". Ms. Cottle suggested eliminati on of §D 2; the South Broadway Action Plan addresses issues such as beautification and landscape efforts, and could supersede requirements in the CZO. Ms. Tobin agreed that this section could be eliminated . Ms. Cottle noted that landscaping requirements for PUDs are on a case-by-case basis . How was this determined, and who will make the determination for the landscaping on PUDs. Ms . Langon stated that the general character of the PUD must be determined before the landscaping requirements can be determined. Mr. Simpson pointed out that all PUDs must go before the Planning Commission and City Council for approval. Mr. Simpson stated that PUDs provide for flexibility from established standards . Ms. Cottle suggested that consideration of a PUD seems to be one of the few times there is discretion to increase greenery in the City. Ms. Cot- tle stated that , in her opinion, Englewood is very lax on the landscaping requirements. Mr. Simpson agreed that other cities may have higher landscaping requirements , but pointed out that other cities may have more greenfield space , while Englewood is landlocked , and is restricted to redevelopment of older properties. Mr. Welker stated that the City cannot be turned into a park. Mr. Douglas discussed provisions in §D 1 , noting that current requirements are that 403 of the total lot area be landscaped. He pointed out that the proposal requiring landscaping in only the front 25 foot setback for residential districts could mean that someone would not landscape the rear or side of their property. He did not find this acceptable . Ms . Langon stated that staff wanted to assure that the "public area" (front setback) is landscaped , while not placing too many restrictions and requirements on residential property owners . She acknowledged that this provision does provide the possibility that side yards and rear yards will not be land- scaped. Mr. Welker commented that by "requiring " only the front setback (25 feet) of a resi- dential property to be landscaped , the "requirement " has been reduced from 403 of the total lot area to 203 of the total lot area, inasmuch as residential properties are typically 125 feet in depth. Mr. Simpson stated that staff was taking into consideration the property rights issues , and the fact that people do not want to be "told " the y have to provide a specific amount of landscap- ing. He noted that the majority of people landscape their properties of their own free will . Mr . Douglas agreed that most people will provide landscaping on their own, but he does not want to reduce the requirements in the residential zone districts. Mr . Welker reiterated that the proposal reduces the requirement from 40 3 of the total lot area to 20 % of the total lot area , and suggested that this needs to be reconsidered. Brief discussion ensued . Ms . Langon suggested a modification on Page 1 , §B 2 , asking that this provision be rewritten to read " ... fifteen (15 ) percent or more , a total of 1 ,000 500 square feet gross floor area , • whichever is greater ;" 7 There was no one in the audience to address the Commission on the proposed landscaping • standards. Welker moved: Horner seconded : The Public Hearing on Case #OR-97-01 be closed. AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT : Horner, Lathram, Rininger , Tobin, Welker, Cottle, Douglas None None Weber , Dummer The motion carried . The Commission then reviewed the sections of the proposed standards they feel need modifica- tion . Horner moved: Tobin seconded : Page 1: Change on §B 2: change of 1,000 square feet to 500 square feet. AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Lathram, Horner , Rininger , Tobin , Welker , Cottle, Douglas None None Weber, Dummer The motion carried. Douglas moved : Rininger seconded: Page 2 : Change §D 1 a 1): modify to read " ... front setback area , and no less than 40 3 of total lot area, exclusive of driveway ... " AYES : NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT : Rininger, Tobin, Welker, Cottle , Horner, Lathram, Douglas None None Weber, Dummer The motion carried . Horner moved: Lathram seconded : Page 4 : §F 6 and §G 2 : Both shall be changed to five (5 ) feet. AYES: NAYS : ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Tobin, Welker , Cottle, Horner, Lathram , Rininger, Douglas None None Weber , Dummer 8 • • • • • The motion carried . Cottle moved: Tobin seconded: Page 3 : §D 2 be eliminated from the proposed revised standards . AYES: Cottle , Rininger, Tobin NAYS : ABSTAIN: Welker, Homer , Lathram, Douglas None ABSENT : Weber, Dummer The motion failed . Homer moved: Welker seconded: Page 3: §D 2 be amended to require that 803 of the required landscap- ing shall be located in the front yard area . Ms. Cottle reiterated her opposition to granting concessions to some business areas . AYES : NAYS: Welker, Homer, Lathram , Rininger , Robin , Douglas Cottle ABSTAIN : None ABSENT : Dummer, Weber The motion carried. The Definitions were discussed . Ms. Langon reiterated that all definitions pertaining to the landscaping standards will be included in §16-8-1 of the CZO. Mr. Welker asked if the Com- mission would have any input on wording of the definitions . Brief discussion ensued. Copies of the proposed definitions were distributed to the Commission. Ms. Reid noted that when the Bill for Ordinance is written, there will be two sections; one will pertain to the requirements and standards discussed during the hearing. The second section will enact the new definitions as part of § 16-8-1. * * * * * * * * * * A brief recess of the Commission was called. The meeting reconvened; all were present but for Messrs . Dummer and Weber . * * * * * * * * * * Brief discussion on the proposed definitions ensued . Horner moved : Rininger seconded: The Planning Commission approve the proposed landscaping standards and recommend to City Council that §16-4-18 of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance be repealed, and that the proposed landscaping stan- 9 dards be enacted as §16-5-26 of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. • Also, that the definitions be added to §16-8-1 of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Homer, Lathram, Rininger, Tobin, Welker, Douglas Cottle None Dummer, Weber The motion carried . VI. CONDITIONAL USE 2700 South Emerson Street Home-Daycare Mr. Douglas asked for a motion to open the Public Hearing . Homer moved: CASE #CU-98-01 Tobin seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #CU-98-01 be opened. AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Homer, Lathram, Rininger, Tobin, Welker, Cottle, Douglas None None Weber, Dummer The motion carried. Brad Denning, Planning Assistant, was sworn in. Mr. Denning testified that the applicant for approval of Home-Daycare in the R-1-A Zone District, is Mrs. Mary Gomes, 2700 South Em- erson Street. Mr . Denning stated that Home-Daycare is permitted in the R-1-A District only as a Conditional Use . Criteria was developed specifically for the R-1-A Home-Daycare providers to comply with City Council directives of 1996. Mr. Denning reviewed this criteria, which includes licensing by the State, and date of that licensing; whether any Code Enforcement vio- lations have been lodged within the previous year; Daycare Use conditions; Traffic congestion and parking; Notification of immediate neighbors, and Revocation of the Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Denning pointed out that Ms . Gomes is in compliance with all of the criteria, and staff recommends approval of her application. Ms . Tobin stated that she is a social worker and a licensed child care specialist; she has worked with City, County, and State . She inquired if this would affect her consideration of Mrs . Gomes' s case. Ms. Reid stated that it would not. Mr. Rininger stated that he lives in Mrs. Gomes's immediate neighborhood; he asked what im- pact this would have on his participation in the hearing. Ms. Reid asked if it would affect the • way he might vote on the issue. Mr. Rininger stated it would not. • 10 • • • It was noted that the license copied for the packet was dated in 1994. Mr. Denning stated that this was used to establish the fact that Mrs . Gomes was licensed to do home-daycare prior to June 3 , 1996. Ms. Tobin asked the significance of June 3 , 1996. Mr. Simpson and Mr. Den- ning stated that this was a date established by City Council -those daycare operators in busi- ness in the R-1-A district prior to that date would be allowed to apply for Conditional Use ap - proval and have their application fee waived . This must be accomplished by December, 1998 . Ms. Tobin questioned the revocation section, noting that if someone develops a dislike of a daycare provider and voices a complaint , could this be grounds for revocation. Would the daycare provider be provided information on whomever lodged the complaint. Mr. Denning cited the section on Revocation , noting that it states the City shall notify the permit holder and licensing agency in writing of any violation ; if this is not resolved within 30 days, there is a hearing on the complaint/revocation . He noted that Mr . Dummer had also raised this issue for discussion during previous home-daycare hearings . Mary Gomes , 2700 South Emerson Street , was sworn in. In response to a query from Mr. Horner , Mrs. Gomes stated that she has been a daycare provider for 13 years. Mrs . Gomes stated that she does have a current license from the State. She provides care for six children every day, plus two after school. Mrs. Gomes stated that she also has a 17 -y ear-old son at home . Ms . Tobin asked if anyone had every lodged a complaint against Mrs. Gomes. Mrs . Gomes responded affirmatively, noting that the client had been on her waiting list for two years until there was an opening. However , when she realized that Mrs. Gomes's son was ill, she lodged complaints that her children were allowed to use the same bathroom as Mrs . Gomes's son , that babies and children Mrs . Gomes cared for were being infected with AIDS , and other allega- tions. This was investigated by the State and by Tri-County. Mrs . Gomes stated that the Po- lice periodically drop by , as do representatives of the Fire Department. Her home was cleared by Tri-County Health . Mr . Welker inquired about the hours Mrs . Gomes provides care. Mrs. Gomes stated that her hours are 6:30 A .M. to 5:30 P.M., Monday through Friday. Mrs. Gomes noted that her home is directly south of Porter Hospital facilities, and the driveway is from Yale Avenue ; there is very little disturbance to ne ighbors , and they have not complained about the daycare activities . Tobin moved: Rininger seconded : The Publ ic Hearing on Case #CU-98-01 be closed . AYES : NAYS : ABSTAIN : ABSENT : Lathram , Rininger , Tobin , Welker , Cottle , Horner , Douglas None None Weber , Dummer The motion carried . 11 Tobin moved: Horner seconded: The Planning Commission approve the Conditional Use application of Mary Gomes, 2700 South Emerson Street, for home-daycare. AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Rininger, Tobin, Welker, Cottle, Horner, Lathram, Douglas None None Weber, Dummer The motion carried. VII. PUBLIC FORUM No one was present to address the Commission. VIII. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE Mr. Simpson also welcomed new appointees Lathram and Rininger, and stated that staff looks forward to working with them. Mr. Simpson reminded Commission members of the study session scheduled with City Council on February 9th ; the time has been moved to 5:30 P.M., and the City Council/Planning Commis- • sion portion of the evening will be 5:30 P.M. to 6:30 P .M. City Council will then be going into • an executive study session. The Study Session will be in the Community Room. A meal will be served. Ms. Cottle stated that she will be out of town that evening, and unable to attend. Mr. Horner asked if there is an agenda for the meeting. Mr. Simpson stated that there was no formal agenda, but suggested that if a member of the Commission wanted to discuss a topic to feel free to do so. Mr. Simpson stated that some up-dated material -recent amendments to the Municipal Code, and an updated copy of the Zoning Map are available if members would care to pick them up on their way out this evening. Mr. Simpson stated that a study session on Telecommunications has been scheduled for February 18th before the Commission. IX. ATTORNEY'S CHOICE Ms. Reid stated that she had nothing to discuss. 12 • • • • x . COMMISSIONER'S CHOICE All members of the Commission introduced themselves and gave a brief background. There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was declared ad- journed. - Gertrude G. Welty , Recording Secret \nbdlgro up\boardslplancommlminutes Y8\pc m 02-Y8a.doc 13