Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-02-18 PZC MINUTES• CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION February 18, 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 Commu- nity Room of Englewood City Hall, Vice Chair Horner presiding. Members Present: Tobin, Weber, Welker, Horner, Rininger Members Late: Members Absent: Staff Present: Douglas, Cottle Dummer, Lathram Planning Coordinator Stitt Neighborhood Coordinator Graham Planning Assistant Denning Neighborhood/Environmental Technician Langon Assistant City Attorney Reid Special Counsel Ken Fellman II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES February 3 , 1998 Vice-Chair Homer called for consideration of the Minutes of February 3, 1998 . Mr. Douglas entered the meeting and was seated with the Commission. Tobin moved : Rininger seconded: The Minutes of February 3 , 1998 be approved as written. AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Welker, Homer, Rininger, Tobin, Douglas None Weber Cottle, Dummer, Lathram The motion carried. III. FINDINGS OF FACT CU-98-01 -Home Daycare OR-98-01 -Landscaping Standards Chairman Douglas stated that the Findings of Fact for Case #CU-98-0 I , Home Daycare, were to be considered for approval. Homer moved : Tobin seconded: The Findings of Fact on Case #CU-98-0 I be approved as written . AYES : NAYS: ABSTAIN : ABSENT: Welker, Homer, Rininger, Tobin, Douglas None Weber Cottle , Dummer, Lathram The motion carried. Mr. Douglas stated that the Findings of Fact for Case #OR-98-01, Landscape Standards, were to be considered for approval. Homer moved: Tobin seconded: The Findings of Fact for Case #OR-98-01 , Landscape Standards, be approved as written . AYES : NAYS : Homer, Rininger, Tobin, Welker, Douglas None ABSTAIN : Weber ABSTAIN: Cottle, Dummer, Lathram The motion carried. IV. STUDY SESSION A. Telecommunications Facilities Mr. Denning introduced Mr. Ken Fellman, special counsel engaged by the C ity Attorney's Office to work on tele- communications issues. Mr. Homer noted that the Staff Report references "Low Power" Telecommunications Facilities Ordinance , y et no- where else in the body of the proposed ordinance is there an y reference to "Low Power" facilities . Mr. Denning agreed that the initial draft was intended to address the "low power" facilities. Mr. Denning stated that the proposed telecommunications facilities ordinance will address two needs. The tele - communications industry has experienced rapid growth as a result of the popularity of cellular phones, multiple phone lines to residential uses and businesses to accommodate fax machines , modems, etc . There have been a num- ber of requests to the City to allow location of wireless telecommunication towers within the City , and existing City regulations are inadequate . Ms. Cottle entered the meeting , and was seated with the Commission . Mr. Fellman discussed the actions of the Federal Government regarding the wireless telecommunications industry , noting that the industry has been "opened" up by Federal Government action; this industry is highly competitive , and very costly for the competing companies . Mr. Fellman discussed digital versus analog communications, noting that digital systems are more secure and private ; the digital systems will also accommodate pagers and e-mail serv- ices . He pointed out that digital systems require transmitting facilities to be located closer together than those for analog systems . The telecommunications companies want to develop service systems that "have no holes in it"; thus , the need for jurisdictions to work with the companies to change zoning ordinances to address needs of the companies as well needs of the community. Mr. Fellman stated that in the Telecommunications Act, local zoning authority is preserved. However, in a location dispute, if a proposed tower location meets federal standards then the federal standards would control. Mr. Fellman stated that a jurisdiction may not prohibit provision of these services ; there must be some location within the juris- diction where the transmission towers/facilities are allowed to enable the telecommunications company to provide complete coverage. Many communities direct location of the transmission facilities to areas that will have the least impact -such as locating the transmission facilities in industrially zoned areas rather than residentially zoned areas. Another possibility to reduce visual impact is to encourage location of alternate tower structures on the sides of ex- isting buildings, or in bell towers/steeple areas of churches, etc. A matrix was distributed to members of the Com- mission, which indicated proposed treatment of structures and antennae in all zone districts, i.e., permitted use or conditional use . Mr. Fellman pointed out that the Planning Commission must hold a public hearing on all Condi- tional Use cases, so members of the public will have an opportunity to express their concern about the proposed telecommunications tower or antennae. 2 • Mr. Homer inquired whether radio and TV broadcasting facilities would be governed by this proposed Ordinance. Mr. Welker inquired about satellite dishes -is location of the dishes addressed in this proposal. Mr. Stitt pointed out that the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance presently has a section regarding placement of satellite dishes. Mr. Fellman stated that the proposal will address businesses that are FCC regulated. Mr. Fellman suggested beginning at the start of the proposed ordinance and reviewing each section . He invited the Commission members to pose questions or make suggestions as he went along . Mr. Homer suggested that the words "wireless telecommunication facilities " be inserted throughout the proposed ordinance following "tower or antenna". Mr. Fellman agreed that this verbiage shall be included. Mr. Douglas asked the height of the poles . Mr. Fellman suggested possibly 45 to 60 feet in height; a Jot of it would depend on the topography of the proposed location. Mr. Fellman stated that throughout the Denver metro area, telecommunications industry representatives have been getting together with jurisdiction officials to look at existing ordinances , work on proposed ordinances and provide input on what does or does not work for the industry. Mr. Fellman stated that there have been several meetings between City staff and members of the telecommunications industry, and noted that several representatives of the industry are present, if the Commission might want to hear their comments Assistant City Attorney Reid stated that this is a "study session" to inform the Planning Commission of the proposed telecommunications ordinance . She suggested that if the Commission so desired, they could take comments from the telecommunications representatives at the close of the study session on this issue; however, this is not a Public Hearing, and any comments made by these representatives is not "evidence" and may not be taken into considera- tion in reaching a determination following the Public Hearing . Ms . Reid suggested that at the time of the Public Hearing, statements taken from the representatives will be part of the official record of the Hearing, and may be used as a basis for the Commission 's decision . Ms . Reid emphasized that the Planning Commission does not have to listen to any comments from the representatives at this time. Mr. Fellman asked that the representatives introduce themselves , and identify the company represented : Alan Woydziak, representing AT & T Wireless Mike Kortendick, Nextel Troy Miller, Western Wireless Larry Storms, Nextel Mr. Fellman discussed information to be included with the application . He emphasized that the City cannot require proprietary information from the telecommunications companies. Other information which will be required to ac- company the application was reviewed. Mr. Weber asked how many telecommunications transmission facilities , not taking into account the competitive aspect, would be required to cover a community six square miles in s ize . Mr. Fellman suggested that this would best be answered by members of the industry. Mr. Homer questioned requirement of a Performance Bond to be in effect for 10 years . He commented that this seems like a long time. Mr. Homer also asked if one company posts a bond, if a second company co-locates an an- tenna on the same structure is a bond also required from the second company. Brief discussion ensued. It was pointed out that the wording indicates a bond is required per "applicant", not "location". The need for bonding was further discussed. It was pointed out that posting of a bond would provide financial means to remove the antennae and/or tower if the company were to "walk" and not remove their facility Mr. Fellman stated that if the property owner were to be required to post bond, it could conceivably reduce the number of property owners willing to enter into a leasing agreement with a telecommunications company . He emphasized that this is a policy issue for the City to determine -is a bond required , how long should the bond be in effect. He noted that some jurisdictions require the bond to be in effect for the entire time the facility is up and operating. The time factor was further di scussed . 3 Mr. Fellman reiterated that requirement of a bond is at the discretion of the city , as is the time the bond is to remain in effect. Mr. Fellman stated that the ordinance provides for co-location agreements, but co-location is not required . Information that can be required as part of the application was further discussed . Mr. Fellman referenced D-13 and G-6 of the proposed Ordinance, and stated that the City can reasonably require proof the applicant meets all Federal standards. He noted that in every community, there will be someone who is concerned about radio frequencies and high intensity frequencies; he stated that he does not believe there is a problem with the frequencies from the tele- communication transmitters. If a complaint is lodged , the City can require a report on compliance with Federal Standards. This can be required of the telecommunications company only once per year. Waiver of fees was also discussed. Mr. Fellman stated that the City can offer "incentives" for construction of excess capacity, but cannot require that excess capacity be constructed . Mr. Welker asked if the telecommunications per- mit fee is a one-time fee in perpetuity, or a franchise fee . Mr. Fellman stated that the permit fee is a one time fee up front. State law will not allow franchising of telecommunications transmission facilities . Mr. Douglas asked about administrative approval of the alternative tower structures ; would this apply to co-located antenna or camouflaged sites , and is it so the applicants don 't have to go through a public hearing process. Mr. Horner asked why Section K-7 was not included in Section G , General Guidelines and Requirements . Mr. Fellman stated that the provisions included in Section K are applicable to Conditional Use permits for transmission facilities . He cited Section G-2-b and G-2-fwhich reference the Landscaping Standards. Ms. Tobin noted that she sometimes receives CB transmissions on one of her television sets ; she asked if the public can expect that signals from the telecommunications companies will interfere with TV programs, etc. Mr. Fellman stated that if analog signals are not picked up on TV's, digital signals would not interfere. Mr. Fellman again cited Section G-5 regarding complaints about companies and the requirement that the company prove compliance with federal standards . Location of towers and antenna on City-owned property was discussed . Mr. Horner asked if this meant on all City- owned property regardless of zone classification. Mr. Fellman stated that this provision (J-1) does not mean that the City has to allow such installation , but that the City may allow the installation in any zone district. Mr. Douglas asked how this would be applicable if a company wanted to located in a city park . Mr. Stitt stated that the City and the Company could enter a lease /contract for a portion of the ground. Mr. Douglas asked if this would require a subdivision or other similar action . Mr. Stitt stated it would not require a subdivision. Ms. Reid noted that real es- tate leases are approved by Ordinance . Mr. Welker asked if he understood that telecommunication facilities -tow- ers and antenna -are permitted use in any zone district if they are located on City property. Mr. Stitt emphasized that properties owned by the City will be held to the same standards as are other properties. Mr. Welker noted that Englewood is a small city , and it is his opinion that location of telecommunication towers and antenna can be restricted without denying coverage. He stated that he does not think the City would have to allow location of these facilities within residential districts . He further stated that he anticipates that discussions will arise that some districts should be exempt from location of these facilities . Mr. Stitt stated that an application for an antenna located in a bell tower was recently approved. He noted that the actual transmission equipment for digital systems is about the size of a refrigerator ; transmission equipment for analog systems is considerably larger. It is the transmission equipment that is difficult to disguise . Mr. Stitt stated that we are trying to look ahead -at this time , we are looking at monopoles 40 -80 in height. There are a number of alternative tower structures that are used or considered for use . An incentive for companies to use alternative tower structures is to make it a permitted use. Mr. Welker again asked if the City can provide full coverage without allowing these facilities in all zone districts. 4 ... .. Mr. Fellman stated that the Ordinance cannot prohibit the service ; the City can say the facilities cannot be located in residential districts. He suggested the possibility of making location of any tower, alternative tower structure, or transmission facility a Conditional Use in the residential districts. Mr. Welker commented that if location of these facilities in residential districts had to go through the Conditional Use process, at least the general public would be aware of the proposal and have an opportunity to voice concerns . He suggested that at least the R-1 Districts require Conditional Use approval for the location of these facilities . Mr. Horner stated that if someone wanted to locate an antenna in a residential area, it would come to staff. Mr . Welker again suggested making alternative tower structures a Conditional Use in the R-1 zone districts . Mr. Doug- las discussed his concerns with the Conditional Use process . Height of proposed towers was discussed. Mr . Fellman stated that some communities are quite strict in the place- ment of towers. Mr. Stitt stated that the proposed ordinance requires that towers be located from property lines a distance equal to the tower height. This provision precludes damage of adjoining property in the event the structure should collapse . Mr . Fellman cited Section K-5-a. Mr . Welker stated that this could limit the height of towers , and afford protection to neighbors . Mr . Douglas inquired whether right-of-way would be included in considering loca- tion of a tower. He questioned that Section K-5 -a would provide protection to residential areas . Mr. Fellman stated that all detenninations by the City-approval or denial -must be rendered in writing . The deci- sions must be based on evidence presented durin g the course of a Public Hearing on the Conditional Use pennit issues. Mr . Fellman stated that appeals from City decisions on the telecommunications facilities go directly to court, and he stressed the necessity to have a good written record that will hold up in Court. Section L, Removal of Abandoned Antennae and Towers , was discussed . Ms . Tobin asked how the City is to de- tennine whether the antenna or tower is in use . Mr. Fellman stated that the City will have records on ownership of the antenna or tower, and may periodically check with the ownership to determine continued operation . Mr . Welker suggested that Section K-1-d be clarified by adding " ... engineer, or RADIO FREQUENCY BY A qualified ... " A recess of the commission was declared at 8:40 p.m . The meeting reconvened at 8:50 p.m ., Mr. Dummer and Ms . Lathram absent. Mr. Douglas asked if any of the representatives wished to address the Commission. Mike Kortendick of Nextel, stated that they have a lot of comments on the proposed ordinance . He suggested that they could go through the comments now, or submit a written list of comments to staff and ask for a meeting with staff, Mr. Fellman and themselves, or a work session with the Commission before the Public Hearing. Mr . Fellman reiterated that there have been several meetings with staff, the industry representatives , and himself. He suggested that the comments from the industry representatives be reduced to writing and submitted to staff for their review, and detennine whether an additional study/work session or further meetings were needed prior to go- ing to Public Hearing . Ms. Cottle stated that she would like to see the responses of the industry representatives . Mr. Woydziak of AT & T , stated that the industry representatives would like one more opportunity to review the proposed ordinance after their comments have been submitted. He stated that there will be some points of disa- greement. Mr. Kortendick stated that he didn't feel the industry and the City are that far apart, and if there could be additional dialog outside the Public Hearing setting, it's much better for all concerned. Mr. Fellman stated that he understood the industry representatives will submit their comments in writing to staff, staff will review those comments at a staff level meeting , will present the industry comments and the end product to the Commission . The Commission will make a determination to have an additional study session or schedule the Public Hearing. Ms . Cottle asked that Mr . Fellman and staff indicate what their recommendation is when this in- fonnation comes to the Commission. 5 Mr. Douglas asked why tower structures cannot be prohibited in residential districts , particularly the R-1 districts . Mr. Welker stated that if the alternative tower structures are permitted, it is by administrative approval. When it requires Conditional Use permit, it comes before the Commission for Public Hearing. Mr. Rininger stated it is im- portant that neighbors have an opportunity to voice concerns . Mr. Douglas reiterated his opinion that towers should be prohibited in residential areas . The City will not be deny ing coverage if only the R-1 residential areas are ex- empted from the ordinance. Mr. Fellman cautioned that if the Commission and City Council determine to prohibit construction of towers or use of alternative tower structures in a specific zone district, there is the possibility they could be taken to Court; a judge is likely to approve the location of the tower, and this is imposing a facility with no public input. Mr. Douglas ex - pressed skepticism that exemption of the R-1 Zone Districts would result in a lawsuit. Mr. Douglas reiterated his concern regarding the Conditional Use process . Mr. Welker pointed out that the Commission can place specific conditions on Conditional Uses . He also reiterated his contention that if the transmission facilities are a permitted use , staff makes the determination with no Planning Commission input, and no public input. Ms. Cottle stated that she did not think the industry would try to locate in areas where the approval process is harder -i.e., requiring Con- ditional Use approval. Ms. Cottle stated that the Conditional Use process will enable the Commission to try to as- sure aesthetic amenities on tower locations . Mr. Douglas stated that he wants to see a good ordinance, and doesn 't want to see cellular towers popping up all over the residential are as . Mr. Welker stated that if the Conditional Use process is imposed, it g ives the public an opportunity to express their concerns, and he thinks it is important that the public be protected. He urged that alternative tower structures be made Conditional Use in the residential zone districts. Brief discussion ensued . Mr. Douglas thanked Mr. Fellman and members of the telecommunications industry for their attendance . V. STUDY SESSION B. Amendment ofI-1 and I-2 Industrial Districts Mr. Graham and Ms . Lang on assumed chairs at the table with the Commission . . Ms . Langon stated that the charg e from City Council, the City Attorney, and the City Manager was to address the impact of two specific uses which have been discussed as possible uses on an I-2 zoned site in north Englewood -a car crushing operation and storage of hazardous chemicals/toxic materials . Staff has been working in the direction of total revision of both industrial districts , but the scope of research, rewriting, and cross-referencing makes it im- possible to have the total revisions ready in time for the public hearing on March 3'd . Ms . Langon stated that when staff analyzed the 1-1 and 1-2 districts , a number of internal inconsistencies came to light, many of which require greater in-depth research . For instance , what is "toxic" versus "hazardous"; how does "car crushing" relate to "auto shredding", "auto wrecking", and "recy cling". Staff has determined that it is better to pull back from the total revi- sion at this time, and concentrate only on the issues of "car crushing" and storage of hazardous chemicals/toxic ma- terials. However, this decis ion was not reached until approximately 6 :30 p.m . this evening, which has not provided tim e t o prepare a revision addressing only those two issues. Mr. Stitt stated that the basis for the 1-1 and 1-2 zone districts is the 1955 Zoning Ordinance ; there have been no significant changes since that time . Mr. Stitt stated that the majority of the zone districts in the Comprehensive Zone District list "permitted uses ", with the understanding that if a use is not listed it is not permitted ; however, the I-1 District lists a few permitted uses , then cites a long list of prohibited uses . Mr. Doug las asked if the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance is "permissive" or "proh ibitive". Mr. Stitt stated that the way it is written , it's "hybrid" -some of the di stricts are written in the "permissive" mode ; others written in th e "prohibitive" mode . Mr. Stitt cited the following statement in the I-2 Zone District: "A ny use p ermitted in th e I-I Industrial Z one District except mobile hom e parks and oth er residential uses which shall be prohibited. ... " Does this statement mean that all uses in the I-1 Zone District which are specifically prohibited are also prohibited in the I-2? Are they permitted uses in I-2? Mr. Stitt stated that staff wants to take time to look at the existing regulations and the proposed amendments to try to ensure w e are not creating additional confusion . He a greed with Ms . Lan- 6 , gon that the terminology is very confusing. What does recycling cover -auto shredding, car crushing , auto wreck- ing yards ? Mr . Welker asked if the City is considering a new industrial district applicable only to the north Englewood area. Mr. Stitt stated that this is not the case . Any revisions to the 1-1 and 1-2 Zone Districts will be applicable to any area that is so zoned . Ms. Cottle asked why the proposed amendments have come about at this time. Staff is responding to a directive from City Council to establish controls for these types of uses in the industrial ar- eas of Englewood . Staff is also working on a total rewrite of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance , but due to the urgency of Council's request, the total rewrite will be brought forward at a later date. The amendment would also include a clear definition of "car crusher" operations. Ms. Cottle stated that getting into definition of "toxic" substances is going to be scary ; use of the word "to xi c" has horrible implications to people . She stated that an EPA approved storage site for toxic materials would be good - storage of these materials would be accomplished under very strict site preparation and close scrutiny. Discussion ensued. Ms . Langon reiterated that the proposed amendments will be to the zone district re gulations , and will not be site specific . Ms . Cottle briefly discussed the shingle storage operation (Cedar Mountain) on South Windermere Street. She sug- gested that perhaps all recycling operations should be required to store the recyclable materials in an enclosed buildin g . Mr. Welker stated that the I-2 Zone District used to be a "catch-all" district, and allowed pretty much everything. Further discussion followed . Ms. Reid asked if Ms . Langon has researched definitions of toxic and hazardous. Ms . Lan gon responded that "toxic" is one of the criteria for "hazardous ". Ms. Reid asked if there are separation requirements from residential districts , schools, parks, etc . for EPA approved toxic storage sites. Ms. Cottle stated that a risk assessment of the site would have to be done prior to construction . Ms . Cottle discussed the ways to store various to x ic substances . Staff stated that proposed amendments to the I-1 and 1-2 Districts addressing the issue of car crushing and storage of tox ic materials/hazardous chemicals will be prepared and submitted to the Commission in their packets for the Pub- lic Hearing on March 3'd . VI. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE. Mr. Stitt stated there was nothing to bring before the Commission. VII. ATTORNEY'S CHOICE Ms. Reid stated she had nothing to bring before the Commission. VIII. COMMISSIONER'S CHOICE Mr. Homer stated that he had an opportuni ty to review a draft plan for the downtown Englewood area, which is being prepared by Harold Celva and Ron Straka for the Englewood Downtown De velopment Authority . Mr. Hor- ner stated that th is Plan encompasses more than the typical downtown , and encompasses an area from South Uni- versity Boulevard west to South Santa Fe Drive ; from Dartmouth Avenue south to Kenyon Avenue . Mr. Homer stated that viewing this overall "vision " of Englewood helped him to put the redevelopment of the mall area into perspective , and is the first time he has seen something like this to show the "big picture ". Mr . Homer stated that this is a 20-year "vision". EDDA 's goal is to present it to staff, refine the concept, and take it out to the business 7 community. He stated that he does not know when it will come before the Planning Commission and/or City Coun- cil , but he would like the Planning Commission to have an opportunity to look at this plan before the plans for the mall redevelopment come before the Commission. Mr. Welker asked if this EDDA plan will be adopted as part of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Stitt stated that ide- ally , this Plan will become part of the Comprehensive Plan if it is accepted by the Planning Commission and by City Council, and will be the "Downtown Section" of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Stitt stated that the current approach to the Comprehensive Plan has been to focus on "area plans" rather than an overall revision; the South Broadway Action Plan was a revision to the Comprehensive Plan, and the North Englewood Small Area Plan follows in that format. Mr. Stitt stated that there is a possibility a separate set of regulations will be developed that will be enforced by the EDDA. Mr. Welker stated that it would be helpful to be cohesive with all of the plans. Mr. Stitt stated that he did not know what stage of development the downtown plan is in. Mr. Horner stated that even if it is not a fuial plan, it is very interesting, and he would like the Commission to have an opportunity to view it. There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was declared adjourned. d~l.B~gS:c(dcef- \deptlnbd\groupl boardsl plancommlminutes 98\pcm 02-98b.doc 8