Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-09-04 PZC MINUTES' • I. CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION September 4, 1996 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, Vice-Chair Douglas presiding. Present: Absent: Garrett, Shoop, Tobin, Weber, Douglas, Dummer Simpson, Ex-officio Horner, Redpath, Mason Also present: Assistant City Attorney Nancy Reid Business Community Coordinator Scibelli II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. August 20, 1996 • Vice-Chair Douglas asked for a motion to approve the Minutes of August 20, 1996. • Tobin moved: Dummer seconded: The Minutes of August 20, 1996 be approved as written. Mr. Weber discussed the proceedings on the Tattoo Parlor issue, and referenced Page 17 of the Minutes, the motion regarding the requested interpretation, and the statement on the call for the vote. Mr. Weber noted that there were no reasons cited by the Commission to substantiate the decision; in the absence of stated reasons was the Commission agreeing with the premise of the staff as set forth in the staff report. Discussion ensued. Mr. Simpson agreed that if Com- mission members cite reasons for their vote it is valuable to the staff in writing the Findings. Mr. Simpson noted there are few requests for interpretation before the Commission, and pro- cedures and criteria for such requests aren't in place. Mr. Douglas noted that on occasion the Commission members have been asked to give reasons, and agreed that on this case, it would have been well to cite reasons. Mr. Simpson pointed out that the request was on the issue of "similar use"; however, the applicant's attorney and supporters diverted discussion to the is- sues of character and economics which were not relevant to the issue before the Commission. Ms. Reid noted that the Commission did keep coming back to the issue that "art is in the mind" in their discussions prior to rendering their decision. Mr. Douglas commented that in his opinion, the tattoo parlor is a "service" business, not an art gallery or art studio . 1 Ms. Reid stated that Mr . Fields did ask for a restraining order against the City to prohibit en- forcement of the Zoning Ordinance ; this was heard on August 28th, and the City prevailed in • their arguments against the restraining order. The applicant does have 30 days from the date of the Commission decision to appeal to the District Court. Weber moved: Shoop seconded : Page 17 of the Minutes of August 20th be amended by striking the words "on the motion to allow tattoo parlors in the B-1 Zone District" in Line 21 , and to reflect that the motion was defeated . AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Shoop , Tobin, Weber , Douglas, Dummer None Garrett Horner , Redpath , Mason The motion to amend the Minutes carried. The vote on the motion to approve the Minutes , as amended, was called: AYES: NAYS : ABSTAIN: ABSENT : Shoop , Tobin , Weber , Douglas , Dummer None Garrett Redpath , Horner , Mason The motion carried. III. COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE Large Format Retail Design Standards and Guidelines CASE #OR-96-04 Mr. Douglas announced that the issue before the Commission is consideration of proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance to establish standards and guidelines for large retail de- velopments . Shoop moved: Garrett seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #OR-96-04 be opened . AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT : Shoop , Tobin , Weber , Douglas , Dummer , Garrett None None Horner , Redpath, Mason The motion carried. Mr . Robert Simpson was sworn in, and testified that the proposed amendment addresses large format retail developments with structures over 20 ,000 square foot footprints . These standards 2 • • • • • and guidelines would apply whether the development is for a "use-by-right" or within a Planned Unit Development. These standards and guidelines are before the Commission at the directive of the City Council; the Council wants this amendment in place prior to receipt of a PUD application for redevelopment of the Cinderella City Mall. Mr. Simpson stated that the proposed standards and guidelines are modeled after provisions enacted by the City of Ft. Col- lins to address the large format ("big box") developments occurring in their jurisdiction. Mr. Simpson stated that staff continues to work on redevelopment issues pertaining to the Mall, and City Council is concerned about development/redevelopment issues for properties surrounding the Mall, as well as development/redevelopment along Broadway. Many newer developments are for structures containing 30,000, 40,000 , or 50,000 square foot footprints, with uninterrupted concrete walls, large expanses of black-topped parking areas, and limited, immature, landscaping . The proposed development standards and guidelines are meant to as- sure a level of quality development that members of the community are coming to expect, and to mitigate the impact of the large developments on surrounding properties. Mr. Simpson noted that Commissioner Horner had submitted some notations and suggestions to staff, many of which have been incorporated in this draft of the proposed amendments. This draft also includes graphics in an effort to illustrate some of the suggested standards and guidelines. Mr. Simpson reiterated that the purpose of this proposed ordinance is to provide a high quality development for new projects, and for redevelopment projects . Ms. Tobin asked if enactment of these provisions would preclude some development projects locating in Englewood. Mr. Simpson stated that the developers would be expected to adhere to adopted standards . Ms . Tobin asked whether the prohibition of "smooth-faced concrete block" would preclude concrete with small stones and marble embedded in it. She commented that some finish treatments of concrete slabs are quite attractive . Mr. Simpson stated that issues may be negotiated and the Commission render the determination on what is acceptable or not acceptable on a project. Mr. Simpson stated that the Commission should be aware that impo- sition of design standards does eliminate some options. Mr. Garrett noted that there is a provision to allow the Commission to grant exceptions; but any waiver of compliance with the standards would be applicable to a specific site, specific building . Mr. Simpson stated that the Commission does have the power to grant exceptions, and it will be only on a case-by-case basis. Mr. Simpson reiterated that the Commission will render the final determination. Mr. Shoop asked if this would be heard as a PUD. Mr. Simpson stated that it will not be heard as a PUD. Many, if not all, of these standards and guidelines can and will be addressed as part of any PUD consideration, but these standards and guidelines will also apply to new developments or redevelopments that are "use-by-right" and don't require the PUD process. Mr . Weber asked for clarification: if deviation from the proscribed standards and guidelines is requested, the developer must come before the Planning Commission. Mr. Simpson stated that is correct . Mr. Shoop asked if no deviation is requested by a developer whether the Commis- 3 sion reviews the proposal. Mr. Simpson stated that if a proposed project meets all the pro- scribed standards and guidelines, staff will give approval. • Mr. Dummer recalled previous discussions of the Commission regarding their serving as a de- sign review board. Mr. Simpson stated he understood design review has been previously dis- cussed. Mr. Simpson stated that design standards can be a valuable tool. Mr. Douglas pointed out that this is an ordinance setting forth standards and guidelines to use in reviewing devel- opments . Discussion ensued. Mr. Garrett commented that the proposed standards and guidelines appear to be a "leverage" tool. Mr. Simpson agreed that these provisions can provide some leverage on any given development project. Location of parking areas for retail developments was discussed. Ms. Tobin opined that cus- tomers do not want to park at the rear of businesses. It was pointed out that a number of older businesses on South Broadway have rear entrances to accommodate the customer parking in the parking areas back of businesses. Mr. Simpson stated that the proposal requires that no more than 70 3 of the parking for the entire property shall be in front ; the remaining 30 3 must be on the rear or side . Mr. Garrett asked how street fronts are determined on projects such as Walgreens, or Office Depot and Home Base. Mr . Simpson suggested that possibly Walgreens could have been ori- ented to face South Broadway ; and that while Home Base and Office Depot face each other • with parking between, they could have been oriented to face South Jason Street. Mr. Garrett asked if any of the large retail businesses in Englewood comply with the proposed standards and guidelines. Mr. Simpson stated that probably none of them will comply . Ms. Tobin questioned the standard requiring use of "earth tones" for facade colors . She ques- tioned why developers should be told what colors the structure can be . Colors that comprise the "metallic" palette were questioned ; these colors would include silver, gold, and copper. Mr. Simpson advised Commissioners to envision metallic or colors of high intensity on large structures -something on the scale of Home Base or Office Depot , and imagine the impact this might have on adjoining businesses . Ms. Tobin stated that there is no "predominant color" on building facades. She suggested that "we are trying to set ourselves up as arbitrators of taste, and no one is qualified. " Mr. Garrett inquired whether imposition of the design standards and guidelines would place Englewood at a competitive disadvantage for builders wanting to build in Englewood. Mr. Simpson stated "no"; that, in his opinion, there would be a competitive advantage . He sug- gested that new landscaping requirements would have more positive impact; but, again, the community is looking for a higher quality developments . Mr. Simpson suggested that in a competitive retail climate , developers are familiar with design standards. Mr. Simpson also pointed out that shoppers are going to quality developments. 4 • • • • Mr. Garrett noted on Page 31 , the text has been changed to state 75 foot length, but the graphic still indicates 100 feet. Mr. Shoop discussed a scenario whereby the design standards have been approved for a proj- ect, and the developer comes back with a "slight change"; how many of these "slight changes" can occur before the developer is required to go back through the process. Is this issue ad- dressed in the proposed ordinance . Mr. Simpson stated that it is not. Mr. Douglas pointed out that the developer will have to meet standards. Mr. Shoop stated he wanted to eliminate the "bait and switch " that seems to be common on some developments. Mr. Simpson presented proof of publication to the Chair , and stated that staff recommends ap- proval of the proposed Large Format Retail Design Standards and Guidelines . Mr. Shoop asked for a definition of "interruption " as used on Page 31. If he develops a building "X" number of feet long, and places a fire door in that wall , is that an "interruption ". Mr . Simpson stated that "interruption " as used in this context would be a protrusion or break in the length of the wall . Garrett moved: Tobin seconded : The Public Hearing on Case #OR-96-04 be closed. AYES : NAYS: Tobin, Weber, Douglas, Dummer , Garrett, Shoop None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Horner, Redpath , Mason The motion carried. Mr. Douglas asked for a motion to recommend approval. Dummer moved: Garrett seconded : The Planning Commission recommend approval of Case #OR-96-04 , amending the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance to include "Design Standards and Guidelines for Large Retail Establishments." Mr . Douglas called for discussion. Ms. Tobin asked if the proposed standards and guidelines comply with existing codes. Mr. Simpson answered affirmatively. Mr. Douglas discussed §16-5-8 B, noting that this is quite lengthy. Does this apply to "redevelopment" or only to new development. Mr. Simpson stated that we are trying to deal with modifications; when a new development comes in , it must meet certain quality standards . When it is redevelopment that is considered , the City does not want to minimize our options, and the goal is to get quality "development " and "redevelopment". 5 Mr. Dummer suggested that a phrase be inserted in §16-5-8 B to state that these restrictions are "guidelines" for redevelopment, and standards for new development. Mr . Simpson agreed that • this is a very good point. Ms. Tobin stated that one of the topics discussed at the workshop she recently attended was the light rail station; would these design standards and guidelines apply to this development. Mr. Simpson pointed out that the design standards and guidelines apply to "large format retail ", with structures in excess of 20,000 square foot footprint. Mr . Simpson advised that the design standards and guidelines will not be applicable to light rail stations , theaters , restaurants , and other uses that are not "retail ". Mr. Shoop asked whether these standards and guidelines would apply if a development on the order of Elitches were to occur . Mr. Simpson stated that these specific standards and guidelines would not apply ; such a development would have to go through the PUD process. Mr. Weber questioned the provision on Page 32 on detail features, and the repeating patterns. Mr . Douglas noted that a new building under construction at South Colorado Boulevard and East Evans Avenue makes use of repeating patterns , and that it is quite attractive. Discussion ensued on the wording of this particular provision . It was determined that the words "no less than " be stricken , and the word "all " inserted . Mr. Douglas noted that Page 33 A requires that HVAC equipment not only be concealed by roof treatments , but that the equipment be painted to match the color of the roof; he asked the reasoning for this requirement. Mr. Simpson pointed out that tenants of tall buildings may • overlook the rooftops of large retail stores , and if the HVAC equipment is painted the same color as the rooftop it is not as intrusive to the view. Mr. Douglas discussed the paragraph addressing sloping roof lines , and the ratio thereof. Mr. Douglas suggested that Page 34, 5-e, be changed to read "shall" rather than "should ". Further discussion ensued. Mr. Simpson suggested that Page 30 , B , be revised to read : "These standards and guidelines apply to all NEW projects that include a retail development of 20 ,000 or more square feet as a use-by-right or within a planned unit development without equal or more stringent retail design standards and guidelines . ALL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS OF 20 ,000 OR MORE SQUARE FEET SHALL USE THIS CHAPTER AS A GUIDELINE ONLY. Standards are ... " Commissioners approved this suggested wording . The four amendments to the proposal were noted , and discussion ensued on the proper way to include as part of the motion to approve. Ms. Reid suggested that there could be a motion to amend the motion , or the original motion could be withdrawn and a new motion made. Mr. Dummer and Mr. Garrett withdrew the motion to approve . 6 • • • Tobin moved : Dummer seconded : The Planning Commission recommend approval of Case #OR-96-04 , amended as follows : 1. These standards and guidelines apply to all NEW projects that include a retail develop- ment of 20,000 or more square feet as a use-by-right or within a planned unit develop- ment without equal or more stringent retail design standards and guidelines. ALL RE- DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS OF 20 ,000 OR MORE SQUARE FEET SHALL USE THIS CHAPTER AS A GUIDELINE ONLY . Standards are ... " 2. Page 31 , #2 : Amend graphic depiction to reflect 75 ' rather than 100 '. 3. Page 32, #3 , Standard: Strike words "no less than" and substitute "all ". 4 . Page 34 , #5e : Strike "should " and substitute "shall ". The vote was called : AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN : ABSENT : Tobin, Dummer , Weber, Shoop, Garrett, Douglas None None Mason , Homer, Redpath The motion carried. IV. FINDINGS OF FACT Home Day-Care CASE #OR-96-03 Mr. Douglas stated that the Findings of Fact regarding the Home Day-Care amendments are to be considered for approval. Shoop moved: Tobin seconded: The Findings of Fact for Case #OR-96-03 be approved as written. AYES : NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT : Tobin, Dummer, Douglas , Shoop , Weber None Garrett Mason , Redpath, Horner The motion carried. V. PUBLIC FORUM. • No one was present to address the Commission. 7 VI. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE. Mr. Simpson announced that the Public Hearing on the 1997 Budget has been scheduled before City Council on September 16m. All residents of the community are invited to attend . Mr. Simpson reported that negotiations are continuing with Miller Development Company on the Mall, and that reasonable progress is being made . Mr. Simpson stated that an application for PUD approval is expected to be filed within 30 to 45 days . Mr. Simpson stated that staff is working on. a variety of amendments to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance; these include landscaping standards, fencing, parking , and other sections. Staff plans to have the landscaping standards prepared for Hearing before year-end. VII. COMMISSIONER'S CHOICE. Mr. Douglas announced that Mr. Shoop has submitted his resignation from the Commission, and this is his last meeting. Mr. Douglas presented Mr. Shoop with a plaque commending Mr . Shoop for his service and thoughtful deliberations during the course of his membership. Members expressed their appreciation to Mr. Shoop for the opportunity to work with him on the Commission. Mr. Simpson also thanked Mr. Shoop for his thoughtful approach to issues before the Commission. All wished Mr. Shoop well . Refreshments were available for mem- bers of the Commission. Ms. Tobin asked whether she could give Mr. Simpson the information she gathered at the workshop she recently attended , and if that information could be reproduced to share with the members of the Commission. Mr. Simpson stated that this would work well, and the informa- tion will be returned to Ms. Tobin. There was no further business to be brought before the Commission, and the meeting ad- journed . \ \$nds \. eng_ c h_ sys .c ityhall .englewood, \dept\nbd \group\boards\plancomm\minuces 96\pcm09-96a .doc 8 J • • •