Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-11-05 PZC MINUTES• • • CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 5, 1997 I. CALL TO ORDER. The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order in Con- ference Room A of the Englewood City Hall at 7:00 P.M., Chairman Douglas presiding. Present: Absent: Late: Tobin, Dummer, Garrett, Homer, Douglas Simpson, Ex-officio Styes (no previous notice) Weber, Welker, Cottle Staff present: Langon, Neighborhood/Environmental Technician Brotzman, City Attorney II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. October 21, 1997 Chairman Douglas stated that the Minutes of October 21, 1997 were to be considered for ap- proval. Tobin moved: Dummer seconded: The Minutes of October 21, 1997 be approved as written . AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Dummer, Garrett, Homer, Tobin, Douglas None None Weber, Welker, Cottle, Styes The motion carried. ill. COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE. Landscaping Standards §16-5-3 Case #OR-97-05 Ms. Langon led discussion on the proposed revisions to the Landscaping Standards, and dis- tributed an updated Draft IV to members for their reference during the discussion. Ms. Lan- gon stated that staff is soliciting comments from members of the Planning Commission, and will also solicit comments from others, such as the Chamber of Commerce. A public hearing 1 date of December 16th is proposed, which should provide time for staff to incorporate com- ments and suggestions into a final proposed Draft. • Mr. Weber and Mr. Welker entered the meeting and were seated with the Commission. Ms. Langon stated that basically, the proposed Landscape Standards revision is to improve the aesthetic quality of the landscaping required for new developments and redeveloped sites. Ms. Langon noted that the proposed landscaping standards will be applicable to all zone districts except the R-1 Districts. She acknowledged that this proposed approach has generated consid- erable discussion among staff members within the NBD Department, and the issue is yet to be determined. R-1 Districts are required to comply with landscaping requirements under the ex- isting ordinance. Ms. Tobin asked what gives the City the right to tell private property owners how to landscape their yard. Mr. Simpson reiterated that the existing ordinance currently imposes landscaping requirements on all zone districts, including the R-1 Districts; the proposed revisions, as pres- ently written, will exempt the R-1 Districts from compliance with the landscaping require- ments. Discussion ensued. Mr. Weber asked what the difference is between telling a private property owner to plant a tree or a shrub, making that private property owner remove a dead tree, or telling the owner he cannot have "x" number of junk vehicles or trash in his yard. Ms. Langon suggested that re- quirement of landscaping is addressing "aesthetics", while requirements to remove dead trees, junk vehicles and trash address "nuisance" issues. Mr. Welker suggested that if one is concerned about imposition of requirements and standards on private property owners, why should commercial and/or industrial property owners be re- quired to comply with the landscaping standards. Ms. Tobin stated that business and industrial properties are open to the public. Mr. Welker noted that landscaping in residential areas is visible and impacts those motorists who travel the residential streets. Ms. Tobin asked how many cities and jurisdictions require private property owners to provide landscaping; how many tell the private property owner how much to plant, what to plant, and where to plant. Mr. Dummer suggested that most of the cities and jurisdictions require that all new development meet minimum landscaping requirements. He commented that this require- ment is usually imposed on the developers prior to sale to private owners. Ms. Cottle entered the meeting and was seated with the Commission. Mr. Welker discussed xeriscaping, and noted that xeriscaping in front yards can be offensive in many instances -use is made of rock and bark, but no live plant material is used. Ms. Tobin suggested that this would be acceptable so long as it did not encroach onto another's property or affect another's life-style. Discussion ensued. It was noted that someone could have their yard covered with weeds, and so long as the weeds are kept mowed to no more than 6" in height, it could be acceptable. 2 • • • • • Mr. Welker noted that the R-2 Districts are "residential" neighborhoods; why impose the stan- dards on these residential districts and not the R-1 Districts . Mr. Simpson stated that staff doesn 't have a strong position on the exemption of the R-1 Districts from compliance with the proposed landscaping standards , and reiterated that the current landscaping requirements are applicable to all zone districts. Mr. Simpson did note that Englewood is not a community in a "growth mode", and there is not a lot of new development in single-family districts. Mr. Welker stated that he does have a problem "drawing a line " between the R-1 Districts and the remaining residential districts . Mr. Welker noted that the R-1-A District, in particular, has always been held to standards other districts should ascribe to . The need to write the revision to set forth minimal standards, and assure that trees and shrub- bery are planted in new developments or redevelopments was discussed at length. Ms. Langon noted that the present standards are based on a "percentage" -a given percentage of lot area is required to be landscaped, a given percentage is required to be of life plant materials, a given percentage in the front yard, etc. Mr. Douglas stated that it is his impression that the Commission wants to see more "quality" landscaping -larger trees at time of planting , etc. Mr. Douglas acknowledged that normally , residential properties are more heavily landscaped than are commercial or industrial properties. He urged that the requirements for the commercial and industrial sites be increased. Mr. Horner stated that, in his opinion , the City wants to tell those who build or rebuild that they do have to install landscaping but not how many trees, shrubs, etc. Mr. Horner asked how other jurisdictions, for instance Lakewood, addressed this . Mr. Simpson stated that, as he recalled , Lakewood required installation of one tree and two shrubs. Further discussion en- sued. Mr. Welker stated that the standards should be written to apply to all residential dis- tricts. Mr. Dummer agreed, and suggested that "R-1" be added to "D.l.a." ·He stated that standards and requirements must be imposed ; new development or redevelopment sites cannot be left in dirt and weeds . Mr. Weber noted that absentee landlords and/or renters may not have an interest in installation of landscaping or maintenance thereof. Mr. Weber emphasized there must be some means of enforcement to address problem properties. Mr. Douglas stated he would like to see a separate section pertaining to landscaping require- ments for the R-1 Zone Districts . Ms. Langon noted that landscaping requirements for new development and for redevelopment are separated. Mr. Douglas inquired about the differences between the draft included in the packet delivered to the Commission, and the draft distributed by Ms. Langon this evening. Ms. Langon stated that the draft distributed this evening includes a section on "screening". Xeriscaping was further discussed. Ms. Cottle stated that it would be difficult to tell someone that xeriscaping is not acceptable. Xeriscaping is promoted by several water boards and agen- cies. Mr . Douglas stated that leaving xeriscaping out of the proposed landscaping standards doesn 't make sense . Mr. Welker suggested that some live material should be required. Mr. 3 Garrett stated that xeriscaping is achieved by use of different types of plant materials. Mr. Welker reiterated the need for a statement that live plant materials are to be included in any • xeriscaping plan. Mr. Horner asked if, in the final format, would there be a statement that enactment of these revisions would rescind the existing landscaping section. Mr. Simpson answered affirma- tively, noting that the proposed "draft" is exactly that: a draft. The City Attorney's staff will prepare the "ordinance format" encompassing the proposed standards and the statement of re- scission and enactment will be included at that time. The Commission then began review of the proposed regulations page-by-page, noting state- ments and sections of concern. Page 5-1: §Bl: Strike "except for a single-family or two-family residence". Page 5-2: §Dl: Add R-1 District; break residential requirements out from require- ments/standards for business and industrial districts. Page 5-3: §D2: Separate district requirements, add R-1 District. Page 5-3: §El: Add water features. Page 5-3: §E6: 36" minimum dimension. Ms. Cottle discussed the need for more trees to be planted, commenting that Englewood has very few trees and we should take advantage of opportunities to get additional trees planted. Mr. Simpson agreed it would be nice to see a "greener" city; however, the focus of the revised • landscaping standards is to improve the "quality" of landscaping by requiring a minimum size of tree or shrub. Mr. Simpson also noted that staff is commonly informed by business people of the need to expand, but because of insufficient land area or requirements imposed they can- not do so. He emphasized the need to balance the needs and desires of the business community with the desire to "green-up" the City . Mr. Simpson noted that Englewood is a competitive disadvantage on new development or redevelopment: land is very expensive, and business people interested in locating a new business or expanding an existing business can find less ex- pensive land in outlying unincorporated areas or suburban areas. Ms. Cottle suggested separating standards for new development from standards for renovation of existing structures. Mr. Horner suggested that "development" versus "new development" be defined. Reference was made to Page 5-4, §G 1. Mr. Simpson pointed out that requirements will be specific on size of trees required, as well as size of shrubs and groundcover. Mr. Welker sug- gested that some standard other than "caliper" should also be used. Mr. Horner suggested ref- erencing standards of the American Landscape Association. Mr. Horner referenced Page 3, #3, South Broadway Corridor Properties. He stated that we need to encourage landscaping along Broadway. 4 • • • • Mr. Homer suggested that on Page 5-4, §F, the portion of surface area to be provided as addi- tional landscaping be increased to 103. Discussion ensued. Mr. Simpson suggested that for parking areas accommodating 1-20 spaces, the additional area be 53; for parking areas 20 spaces and over , the additional area be increased to 103. If a parking lot is adjacent to the public right-of-way, it must be screened with landscaping. Mr. Welker suggested that credit be given for landscaped islands in parking lots. Page 5-4: §G2: Strike (minimum life expectancy of 60 years). Page 5-4 : §G6: Reword to state: A water permeable landscape fabric shall be required in all shrub beds. Page 5-4: §G7: change to "a minimum depth of 4-6 inches". Page 5-5: §H: Credit for existing trees: change to 1 tree 2" to 6" in caliper -1 tree credit. Page 5-5: §Hl: Reword to read: Each existing tree shall be in a healthy and growing condition; dead limbs and branches shall be pruned. Page 5-5: §11: Change to 3" caliper for every thirty (30) feet of frontage. Page 5-5: §12b: Strike entire statement. Page 5-6: §12e: Reword to "Trees planted near public curbs and attached sidewalks ... " Page 5-6: §12f: Reword to allow tree grates of aluminum or other acceptable materials which may be painted . Page 5-6: §12g: Strike entire section. Page 5-6: §12j: Reword to state that "shrubs and other plant materials with thorns, spines, seed pods or large fruits shall not be permitted within ten feet of sidewalks or other pedestrian areas. Mr. Homer referenced back to Page 5-5, §12, regarding responsibility for maintenance of landscaping in public right-of-way, and repair and replacement of sprinkler systems which may be damaged by the City of Englewood. Mr. Homer suggested a need to state definitively whose responsibility it is to repair sprinkler systems and landscaping destroyed by the City during the course of repair or maintenance of utilities or other public improvements. The screening requirements on Page 5-6 were discussed. Page 5-7 was considered . §K was reworded to: "Landscaping shall not obstruct the visibility of motor vehicles at intersections or points of ingress and egress. No landscaping which ex- ceeds an elevation of the top-of-curb plus two (2) feet shall be allowed in such areas, except for single trunk trees, which are to be of such size and so spaced that no visual obstruction that represents a traffic hazard is created. Determinations regarding visual obstructions shall be made by the City. Page 5-7: §L: Add reference to American Landscape Association standards. Page 5-8: §P: Strike entire statement. Replacement of dead plant materials with comparable size and type was discussed. 5 Page 5-10: §U: DBH definition -strike entire definition. Mr. Homer commended Ms. Langon and Mr. Simpson on the proposed landscape standards, and urged due haste to get it through the Public Hearing process before the Planning Commis- sion and before City Council. IV. PUBLIC FORUM. No one was present to address the commission. V. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE. Mr. Simpson stated that the Public Hearing on the revised Fence, Walls, and Visual Barriers ordinance has been continued to November ism. Staff will be scheduling the Public Hearing on the landscape revisions, telecommunications ordinance, and the North Englewood Small Area Plan in the near future. VI. COMMISSIONER'S CHOICE. Ms. Tobin inquired about progress on Cinderella City. Mr. Simpson stated that the City now has control of the mall. Montgomery Wards will vacate the premises no later than December 31, 1997; environmental remediation will begin in January. Mr. Simpson stated that City • Council has scheduled a study session on November 10m to review the recommendations of the • CRNA/Compass Group and determine the process to be followed now. Mr. Weber asked about the Englewood Garden Center site. Mr. Simpson stated that this is part of the Swedish/Columbia ownership and has been for some years. Mr. Douglas asked Mr. Welker about the CCRA Conference in Longmont he was registered to attend. Mr. Welker stated that he did not attend the Conference on October 24m, citing bad weather. Mr. Homer inquired about the future of "Guide the Ride" which was defeated in the election on November 4m. Mr. Simpson stated that the light rail system for the South Santa Fe corridor is not affected by this election. Brief discussion ensued. There being nothing further to come before the Commission, the meeting was declared ad- journed. Gertrude G. Welty, Recording Seer f:ldeptlnbd\grouplboardsl plancommlrni nutcs 97\pcm I l -97a.doc 6 •