Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-11-18 PZC MINUTES• • • • CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING C01\1MISSION November 18, 1997 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: Welker, Cottle, Dummer, Horner, Tobin, Weber, Douglas Simpson Members absent: Styes (no previous notice) Also present: Planning Assistant/Intern Denning Assistant City Attorney Reid II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. November 5, 1997 Chairman Douglas stated that the Minutes of November 5, 1997 were to be considered for ap- pro va l. Tobin moved : Horner seconded: The Minutes of November 5, 1997 be approved as written. AYES : NAYS : Cottle , Dummer, Horner , Tobin, Weber, Welker, Douglas None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Sty es The motion carried. III. COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE Fences, Walls and Visual Barriers: §16-4-17 CASE #OR-97-03 Mr. Douglas stated that the issue before the Commission is a continued Public Hearing on amendment of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance , §16-4-17 , Fences and Retaining Walls. He asked for a motion to re-open the Hearing . 1 Tobin moved: Horner seconded : The Public Hearing on the proposed amendment of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance be opened. AYES: NAYS : ABSTAIN : ABSENT: Dummer , Horner , Tobin, Weber, Welker , Cottle , Douglas None None Sty es The motion carried. Mr. Brad Denning , Planning Assistant/Intern, was sworn in. Mr. Denning testified that the proposed amendment to § 16-4-17 of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance will revise existing fencing standards applicable to the entire City. Mr. Denning noted that the catalyst for the proposed fencing amendment is the South Broadway Action Plan adopted by the City in early 1997 . Staff asks that the Planning Commission recommend to City Council that the existing §16-4-17 , Fences and Retaining Wall s , be repealed , and a new §16-4-17 , Fences , Walls and Visual Barriers , be enacted. Mr. Denning stated that staff has discussed the proposed revisions with members of the busi- ness community , the Englewood Chamber of Commerce , and City Departments . Suggestions from these groups have been incorporated where possible ; however , there are some issues yet • • to be resolved , such as the sight distance triangle area , increased fence heights, and restrictions • of some fence types to specific zone districts. Mr . Denning reviewed previous discussions with the Planning Commission and pointed out modifications that have been incorporated in this proposed draft as a result of those discussions. Mr. Welker discussed the need for clarity on points of measurement for the sight distance tri- angles : is the measurement from the centerline of the alley or street , or from the curb lines. Mr. Denning stated that measurements are taken from the "flow line", which is the center of the alley/street. On street/street vision distance triangles, the measurements are from curb line . Mr . Welker suggested the need to include an illustration on the sight distance triangle for the alley/street intersections. He commented that illustrations may be more easily understood than verbiage. Mr. Welker further commented that the chart on Page 1 regarding speed in relation to the sight distance tr iangle is meaningless to him . He suggested the need for a "defined " sight distance triangle and that the speed should be clarified as "posted" speed limits . Mr. Welker acknowledged that other jurisdictions do not specify points of measurement , either. Assistant C ity Attorney Reid requested clarification on minor street/avenue versus major street/avenue , and asked if an alley is regarded as a "minor street/avenue ". Discussion en- sued. 2 • ,. • • Ms. Tobin asked where fences could be placed at the rear of the property -how far does a fence have to set in from the property line. Mr. Denning stated that rear fences may erected on the rear property line. Also, that six foot privacy fences are permitted across the rear of a yard. Mr. Horner asked whether, in measurement of height of visual obstructions, the measurement was from top of curb or street curb, which to him meant street level. Brief discussion ensued. It was the consensus that the sentence be revised to read: "No visual obstruction over two and one-half feet (2-112 ') in height above the nearest TOP OF street curb level shall be erected ... " Mr. Dummer noted that a majority of the intersections have provision for wheelchairs and sug- gested using the sidewalk level as a point of measurement. Mr. Welker suggested that on Figure 1, page 1, the word "curb" be inserted under "B", and that an illustration for the alley/street sight distance area indicate that measurement begins at the centerline of the alley . Mr. Douglas stated that he understood from previous discussions that the sight distance area would not be enforced on alleys. Mr. Horner suggested that it may not be enforced on existing development, but new development on corner properties will have to comply with the new requirements. Mr. Denning noted that this is not being enforced along alleys, but the Traffic Engineer does have to determine whether new construction is impacting the vision triangle . Ms . Reid suggested that Figure #1 on Page 1 be moved down on the page, and a statement added that this illustration refers to street/ street intersections; a second illustration could be added with a statement referencing alley/street intersections. Mr. Denning agreed that the alley/street intersection illustration can be reinserted, and that flow lines and curb lines will be shown as points of measurement. Mr. Douglas expressed his concern that imposition of the sight distance triangle on the al- ley/street intersections impacts the building envelope, and that property owners lose building space. Discussion ensued. Ms . Reid referenced a memorandum from Rick Kahm Engineering Manager, Public Works, and from Ladd Vostry, Traffic Engineer, dated November 18, 1997. This memorandum states: "We have reviewed the most recent copy of the proposed City Code, Section 16-4-17, and have no additional comments regarding its content . We find this proposed document, as drafted, acceptable from our Engineering/Traffic Engineering point of view. " Mr. Simpson stated that staff is trying to simplify and clarify the standards and regulations for fence construction, and deal with zoning issues rather than traffic control issues. The possibil- ity of placing all responsibility for determination of sight distance control on the Traffic Engi- neer/Public Works Department was briefly discussed. It was suggested that the last sentence on Paragraph D, Page 1, should be stricken, along with the illustration and chart for the speed/sight distance ratios inasmuch as this pertains to traffic control issues. Discussion en- 3 ... sued . Mr. Simpson also suggested that the Commission might want to continue the Hearing to sometime in mid-January , and ask the Public Works/Traffic Engineering Department present • other means to address the sight distance issue. Mr. Denning commented that he has read a number of ordinances on fences, and restrictions and regulations regarding fences are very controversial. Mr. Denning suggested that the pro- posed amendments are a means of defining fence placement and height. If the Commission is looking for an answer on a means to address the alley/street intersection issue , the illustration can be reinserted in the ordinance , and the Traffic Engineer can interpret questions on the sight distance when required to do so. Mr. Denning requested that the Planning Commission try to reach a consensus on the issue at this meeting and forward the proposal to City Council. Mr. Douglas asked if the alley/street illustration is reinserted, and enforced , can staff assure him that the sight distance triangle will not encroach into the building envelope of comer prop- erties. Mr. Denning stated he cannot give such a blanket assurance . Mr. Welker emphasized that this proposed amendment would not address existing developments , only new development on comer lots. Mr. Simpson agreed that this proposed amendment is applicable only to new structures . Ms. Tobin asked if this is clearly stated in the proposed amendment. Ms. Reid commented that the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance has a section dealing with non-conforming uses and structures, and that if a property owner feels a necessity to encroach within the sight distance triangle , they may appeal to the Board of Adjustment & Appeals. Mr. Simpson noted that anytime a zoning ordinance is amended the issue of non-conforming uses • and structures must be addressed. Staff does not tell people with non-conforming structures to remove those structures ; however, if a structure is damaged beyond 60 % of its value, new construction will be required to be in compliance with rules and regulations existing at time of the damage . Ms . Cottle noted existing visibility problems at the intersection of South Logan Street and East Belleview Avenue, and asked if anything can be done to correct this problem . Mr . Welker also noted serious visibility barriers at the intersection of South Washington Street and East Belleview Avenue. Mr. Simpson stated that if the visibility barriers are created by vegetation the property owners may be required to trim or remove the offending plantings . Ms. Cottle noted that the proposed amendment stipulates that side yard fences for comer lots may not exceed three feet in height. Discussion ensued. Modification will state that the maximum height for side yard fences within the front setback (front 25 ') may be no more than three feet in height. Maximum height may be six feet from that point back to the sight distance triangle at the alley/street intersection. Mr. Welker expressed his preference that the illustrations (street/street and alley/street) and chart be included in the proposed amendment. Also , it should be stated that the Traffic Engi- neer shall have final determination on the sight distance triangle. 4 • • • • • Ms. Cottle stated that specifying measurement from curb line and flow line provides clarifica- tion on the point of measurement. Mr. Welker noted that industrial districts are allowed fences in the side and rear yards up to 12 feet in height, with barbed wire at heights above six feet. He asked if a residential use , located in an industrial district , could apply for and expect approval for a 12 foot fence with barb.ed wire . Mr. Simpson stated that a residential use located within an industrial district could have a 12 high fence in compliance with the regulations for that particular zone district. Mr. Simp- son stated that fencing requirements will apply to "zone districts", not to "uses" within the particular district. Mr. Welker suggested that Class 4 fences (wooden construction) also be included in the R-1 and R-2 districts as allowable "solid construction" fences in the front yard setback; he sug- gested that this same provision also be applicable in the R-3 and R-4 Zone Districts. Mr. Denning agreed that Class 4 fences would be added . Mr. Welker then suggested that Class 1 and Class 6 fences be added the Comer Lot restric- tions for R-1 , R-2, R-3, and R-4 Districts. This was agreed to. Page 4: B-1 and B-2 -Front Yard Setback: The illustration indicates Classes 2, 4, and 5 ; however, the Permitted Fence Class column indicates only Classes 2 and 6 . Mr. Welker asked that this be clarified . Mr. Denning stated that Class 6 is a "combination", which would in- clude Classes 4 and 5 . It was suggested that if Class 6 is a combination fence, then Class 2 could be stricken. Mr. Homer asked why a chain link fence is not permitted in the B-1 and B-2 districts . Mr. Homer also referenced Page 1, Column B, commenting that he felt the cited length is exces- sive. He asked if other jurisdictions had this same standard. Mr. Denning stated that he un- derstood these figures were ASTE and/ or ITE standards. Ms. Reid asked if the Commission if they wanted to see the standards from the ITE. Discus- sion ensued. Mr. Simpson asked if a statement attributing the cited distances to the Interna- tional Traffic Engineers handbook were included, would this be acceptable to the Commission. Mr. Dummer noted that parking is allowed on-street , seemingly right up to the intersections which obviates visibility for motorists and/or pedestrians trying to cross a street. Mr. Welker stated that this is a traffic code issue. Mr. Weber su ggested on Page 3 , Comer Lot, that Class #6 fence should be added. Mr. Douglas and Mr. Denning reviewed the changes to the proposed amendments that have been suggested during the course of this hearing . Mr. Douglas asked if there were further comments regarding the proposed amendments . It was noted there was no one in attendance from the general public to address the Commission. 5 Horner moved : Tobin seconded : The Public Hearing be closed. AYES : NAYS: Horner , Tobin, Weber , Welker, Cottle , Dummer , Douglas None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Sty es The motion carried . Mr. Douglas asked the pleasure of the Commission. Dummer moved : Welker seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council that the Compre- hensive Zoning Ordinance be amended by repealing the existing §16-4- 17 , Fences and Retaining Walls , and enacting the proposed § 16-4-17 , Fences, Walls , and Visual Barriers . This proposed new § 16 -4-17 will include all amendments proposed and included during the course of the Public Hearing. • Discussion ensued . Ms. Reid suggested that if the Commission wants more information, they could request that Public Works provide this information regarding traffic engineering stan- dards and regulations. Mr. Horner stated that he would like to know why people can park ve-• hicles in the street , and yet people cannot plant landscaping in the sight triangle. He reiterated his belief that the distance requirements for the sight distance triangle are erroneous . Ms. Reid briefly researched a traffic engineers manual , and cited that parking may be allowed to within five feet of a public or private driveway ; within 15 feet of a fire hydrant; within 20 feet of a crosswalk at an intersection; within 30 feet of a stop-sign-controlled intersection, and within 20 feet of a drive entrance to a fire station . Mr . Welker asked what ramifications would be if the Commission recommended, and City Council adopted , restrictions that were less restrictive than those cited. Mr. Simpson stated that typically the more restrictive provisions would apply . Ms . Reid stated that if an accident were to occur , the City could be liable . Mr. Denning inquired about placement of the word "posted " in the chart on Page 1, asking what ramifications a change of speed limit on a street -such as South Santa Fe Drive-might have . Discussion ensued. Insertion of the word "posted" will be done in the Chart on Page 1. Mr. Horner asked about street trees planted at intersections. Mr. Simpson stated that single- trunk trees will be allowed , provided the limbs are trimmed to a height no lower than seven feet above grade . Ms . Reid noted that if the Commission members know of intersections where vegetation obscures vision they should notify Code Enforcement. • 6 • • • Mr . Simpson acknowledged the issue of fence location, height , and classification is a difficult issue to address . He stated that he understands concerns that have been expressed . However , the City does have a Traffic Engineer and Public Works Department that deals with the traffic code and liability issues. This proposed ordinance was reviewed by the Public Works/Traffic Engineering personnel , and the memo distributed earlier indicates they do approve the draft of the proposed amendment presented to the Commission for this meeting. Mr. Simpson also urged the Commission members to move forward with this issue , noting that business persons do have an interest in the enactment of the proposed amendments. Mr. Simpson did stress , however , that if the Commission is desirous of additional information the public hearing can be continued and staff will endeavor to provide the information. Mr. Homer asked if some of the sight distance standards are in the existing ordinance , and have been for some time , why are they not enforced. Discussion ensued . Mr. Simpson cited an instance regarding a fence which was constructed in the sight distance triangle and the prop- erty owner had to move the fence to comply with the vision requirements . He noted that the City staff does work with people to assure proper placement of fences, and/or relocation of visual obstructions to assure the proper sight distance standards. Ms . Reid noted an auto dealer on South Broadway who was issued a stop work order on con- struction of his fence ; he went to the Board of Adjustment & Appeals to obtain a variance. Mr . Denning noted that this particular auto dealer was constructing the fence without a permit , and the fence exceeded the permitted height. Mr. Simpson agreed that the fence which was started at this location is not in compliance with the existing requirements, and this particular business person is no longer in business . The reasons cited by this particular auto dealer for exceeding the height limits was for insurance purposes . Mr. Douglas asked if there was further discussion on the motion to recommend approval of the proposed amendments to the City Council. The vote was called : AYES: NAYS : Homer , Tobin, Weber, Welker, Cottle , Dummer , Douglas None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT : Sty es The motion carried. IV. PUBLIC FORUM. No one was present to address the Commission . 7 V. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE. Mr. Simpson reminded members of the Holiday Dinner, and asked that those planning to at- tend notify the Secretary. All members present indicated they would attend the holiday dinner. VI. COMMISSIONER'S CHOICE. Ms . Tobin asked if any member of the Commission planned to attend the workshop sponsored by the Colorado Municipal League on December 10th. No one indicated they were planning to attend. Ms. Tobin stated she would check her calendar and notify the NBD office if she could attend. Mr. Horner asked when the next meeting of the Commission is. Mr. Simpson stated that the next meeting of the Commission is scheduled for December 2 , 1997; there is a case on the agenda. He indicated he was not sure about the meeting agenda for December 16th. In response to an inquiry regarding the landscaping ordinance status, Mr. Simpson reported that staff has met with the Greater Englewood Chamber of Commerce regarding the proposed landscaping ordinance amendments; it was a productive meeting but there is a lot of material and information that staff needs to review and try to incorporate some of the suggestions of the business community. Mr. Simpson suggested the landscaping ordinance probably will not be back before the Commission until sometime in January, 1998. There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was declared adjourned . ertrude G. Welty, Recording Secretary lnbd\gro uplboardsl plancommlm inutes 97\pcm I l -97b .doc 8 • • •