Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-01-23 PZC MINUTES• • • CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 23, 1996 I. CALL TO ORDER. The special meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:03 P.M. in the City Council Chambers of Englewood City Hall, Chairman Mason presiding. Members present: Horner, Shoop, Tobin, Weber, Douglas, Dummer , Mason Simpson, Ex-officio Members absent: Redpath , Garrett Also present: City Attorney Dan Brotzman Neighborhood Community Coordinator Mark Graham Il. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. December 5 , 1995 Chairman Mason asked for consideration of the Minutes of December 5 , 1995 . Tobin moved: Horner seconded: The Minutes of December 5, 1995 be approved as written. AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT : Tobin , Weber , Douglas , Dummer , Horner , Mason None Shoop Redpath , Garrett The motion carried. ID. COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE Planned Unit Development Zone District CASE #OR96-02 Chairman Mason stated that the issue before the Commiss ion is a proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, and asked for a motion to open the Public Hearing. Horner moved: Tobin seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #OR96-02 be opened. AYES: NAYS: Shoop, Tobin , Weber , Douglas , Dummer , Horner , Mason None 1 ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Garrett, Redpath The motion carried. Staff was asked to present the issue before the Commission. Mark Graham, Neighborhood Community Coordinator, was sworn in. Mr. Graham testified that the Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Englewood Herald on January 11, 1996. Mr. Graham reviewed the staff report, noting that the proposed amendment addresses the need for: • Flexibility and creativity in zoning and land use standards which are not provided for within standard zone districts and not characteristic of the existing Planned Development provisions; • Clarity in language and administration not characteristic of the existing Planned Develop- ment section; and • Improving development process, control, and enforcement based on the conceptual PUD District Plan and on detailed Site Plan documents. • Mr. Graham noted there are several redevelopment opportunities facing the City , and review • of the current Planned Development regulations indicates a need for revision. These proposed revisions will strengthen development controls on projects that proceed through the Planned Unit Development process. The process as proposed is an actual "rezoning" --not an "overlay district" as currently exists. The proposed process will specifically delineate uses which would be permitted in a particular Planned Unit Development --it will become a "new zoning dis- trict". Mr. Graham stated that staff will also be preparing "site plan" standards and regulations, which will apply to all sites being developed or redeveloped. The Planned Unit Development process will be activated for sites in excess of one-half acre. It appears that a number of the Planned Developments that have been brought before the Commission could have been more appropriately addressed through a general site plan review process, but this process has not been available. The current Planned Development process is activated for sites of one acre or more in size, regardless of whether the applicant is proposing to develop only a "use-by-right". The proposed amendment will address developments or redevelopments by requiring a "District Plan", and a "site plan" in accordance with predefined standards and review requirements. Recent Planned Developments, such as the medical office development proposed at Floyd and Lincoln, and the Duggan Petroleum request on South Santa Fe, were brought up for discus- sion. It was pointed out that the Planned Development activity was brought about on both of those cases only because they were one acre or more in size. Discussion ensued. 2 • • • • Mr. Simpson stated that projects that include proposals for significant use changes from what is permitted in the existing zone district will be those required to come before the Planning Commission. Mr. Graham further discussed the proposed ordinance revision, making special note of three steps that applicants must follow in the review process: • Developers should meet with City staff members to determine the requirements for any project; the pre-development conference will be with members of applicable City depart- ments. • If the applicant determines he wants to proceed, a "district plan" must be prepared for re- view by the Planning Commission for sites in excess of one-half acre. Within this "district plan", a specific list of uses proposed for the development must be delineated. The District Plan requires approval by both the Planning Commission and City Council. • Site Plan review is the final step; if Planning Commission approval is required, review of the site plan and District Plan may run concurrently. Mr. Graham emphasized that approval of a district plan and of a site plan, while they can be accomplished concurrently, must have individual votes of approval by the Planning Commis- sion and by City Council. Mr. Horner stated that he found the difference between the current Planned Development regulations and the proposed Planned Unit Development regulations to be significant. He asked if it is the intent of the PUD ordinance to replace the existing PD regulations. There is nothing in the proposed ordinance to so indicate. Mr. Graham stated that the current PD regulations would remain in place only as it applies to existing properties/developments that have been approved under these regulations. All new applications would be considered under the PUD regulations. Mr. Horner asked if the proposed regulations would remove the activa- tor of one acre so that such developments would no longer come before the Commission if the proposal is only for a use-by-right. He stated that there is nothing in the proposal to indicate that the one acre size activator would be eliminated. Mr. Horner presented a hypothetical case: an owner has five contiguous parcels of land, each of which is listed under a different ownership "name", the parcels have the same zoning. Can this owner choose to develop one parcel as a PUD, but not all of the site. Mr. Graham stated that there is nothing currently in the proposal to prohibit splitting a parcel off for development, but that multiple ownerships must be under "unified control". Mr. Horner asked whether the redeveloper of the Mall were to request approval for only half of the site as a PUD, would this be permitted. Discussion ensued. Mr. Graham asked Mr. Horner if he were recommending requiring inclusion of total ownerships to achieve the objectives of the PUD. Mr. Horner re- sponded affirmative! y . 3 Mr. Simpson furthe r discussed the proposed general site plan review standards which will be developed, and staffs desire to revise the landscaping regulations; he anticipated that both of • these proposals could be forthcoming within the next few weeks. Mr. Weber commented that the only criteria he found to require a Planned Unit Development is the one-half acre size restriction; he expressed the opinion there should be additional criteria such as that of multiple uses, thoroughfares through the site, etc. which would activate the need for the PUD. Discussion followed. Mr. Horner asked why a PUD should be considered unless the developer was proposing mul- tiple uses. Mr. Graham stated that a PUD should more clearly distinguish a "site plan" from a "district plan". Mr. Simpson commented that any design or development standards a developer wants to modify in the development should be documented and included in the site plan. Mr. Mason stated it appears that one of the goals is to streamline the process for the Planning Commission and Ci ty Council. Mr. Simpson cited the standards for zoning and rezoning that are contained in the Compre- hensive Zoning Ordinance. These standards could be used, in addition to the one-half acre size, to activate a PUD if an applicant wanted to pursue a "rezoning". Discussion regarding typical "rezoning" versus a PUD ensued. Mr. Graham commented that in a great number of cases, the Commission will not have to review the site plans if there are no changes to set- backs, parking ratios, etc. --only cases that want a change to the "use-by-right" category would • have to be considered by the Commission. This scenario, because of the change to "use-by- right" would be a rezoning, and the Commission and City Council would have to consider it. Ms. Tobin commented that it appears the Planning Commission would be handing over a lot of its present authority to staff, that the opportunity for citizen input that presently exists would be eliminated or reduced. Mr. Graham agreed that in some instances the Commission may be relinquishing a degree of authority; however, they will be gaining additional control in other aspects of PUD consideration. Mr. Simpson stated that the proposed PUD process will provide clarification to the Planning Commission, City Council, staff, and to the private citizen/developer. Current regulations are unclear. The issue of the "district plan" and "site plan" are being separated in an attempt to provide clarity and flexibility of use. He stated that he is aware there is concern with staff re- view and efforts are being made to gain credibility with the community. Mr. Simpson pointed out that under the present regulations there is almost six months of public review on any proj- ect from start to finish. Mr. Mason noted that the proposed ordinance would give a development review team the authority to waive particular site plan requirements; what authority does the Commission have over the development review team, and does the Commission have the right to object to such waivers. Brief discussion ensued. 4 • • • • Mr. Horner suggested that on Page 1, §Dld, the wording "including design issues" be inserted before the word "and". Also, on Page 2, §3e, the scale citation be clarified; §3e10, ask for an "irrigation concept"; and that §3e in general be modified to address off-site impacts. Mr. Hor- ner noted that the "district plan" will be a pretty picture for the Planning Commission to see, but it is a preliminary plan. The Commission is accustomed to viewing a "final plan", and ac- knowledged his concern that the Commission will now be viewing the preliminary plan but not the final. Mr. Simpson stated that the proposed ordinance is suggested to give the Commis- sion a choice: when the district plan is being reviewed there will be an opportunity for the Commission to make known whether they want to view the site plan, or allow for staff and administrative approval. Mr. Shoop asked whether an applicant has the right to appeal to the Planning Commission if they are displeased with staff determinations. Mr. Graham stated that this can be written into the proposed ordinance. The Commission supported clearly setting forth the appeal process for applicants. Mr. Shoop suggested that issues such as meeting ADA requirements , provision of bicycle paths and greenbelts all be included as part of Paragraph 3. Mr. Horner discussed "City Review" on Page 3 of the proposed ordinance, noting that it is not clear the Planning Commission will receive the recommendations of the other City depart- ments; standards are not spelled out, and there is no reversionary clause. Mr. Horner asked specifically "will the Planning Commission have those comments from other departments prior to consideration by the Commission". Mr. Simpson replied affirmatively. Mr. Horner em- phasized that there are no standards written into the proposed ordinance: on what issues should the Planning Commission judge a district plan? Mr. Graham stated that a district plan will be judged on typical zoning standards: a change in character of the area, a change in the Comprehensive Plan, among others. Mr. Horner inquired whether lack of screening, land- scaping, lighting, fencing, or other amenities would be issues for judging a district plan. Mr. Simpson stated that the Commission will have to determine whether a proposal meets the intent of the PUD district; if the proposal does not meet adequate screening, landscaping , or other requirements, this is a basis for denial. Mr. Simpson stated that he wanted to impress upon the Commission that rezoning is a "privilege", and not a "right". The PUD, if granted would give more flexibility than exists under the current zone restrictions. Mr. Douglas stated it is hi s impression that the Commission will be losing the guidelines of the zoning districts when a PUD is granted. Discussion ensued regarding a perceived "industrial use" along Broadway. Mr. Graham stated that most impacts could be mitigated with sufficient landscaping, building materials, screening, etc. Mr. Douglas commented that once the PUD is approved by the Commission and Council, the staff works on the site review, is this correct? Mr. Graham noted that staff will not be involved in waiving any requirements , such as park- ing, landscaping, etc .; any waiver of those requirements would have to come before the Commission . 5 Mr. Simpson commented that there are time constraints in consideration of the proposed ordi- nance amendment because of pending redevelopments. Mr. Simpson emphasized that the • PUD process is really two phases: the district plan and the site plan review. The District Plan will set forth issues such as land use, setbacks, heights, landscaping standards, etc. If the District Plan is approved, this would be the guiding criteria which will run with a specific property until a new property owner/developer chooses to pursue a change. The second step of the process, "site plan review" will require a very detailed site plan , and must be in substan- tial conformance with the District Plan. On the site plan , such things as size and type of trees and shrubs can be indicated, location of irrigation systems can be noted , etc. This is a step to assure the communi ty of good quality development. Mr. Mason asked if, through the PUD process of granting specific zoning for specific proper- ties, there might be a problem of "consistency". If it is granted to one developer, must it be granted to subsequent developers. Mr. Brotzman stated that if two applications, properties, and proposals were "exactly alike", the applications should theoretically be resolved in the same manner. Mr. Brotzman pointed out , however, that each property does have it's own character- istics and that each application and proposal will probably have some different component. Mr. Horner reiterated the need for "standards" to be written into the proposed ordinance. Mr. Dummer asked if he understood that the current PD regulations would no longer exist. Mr. Graham stated that the current regulations would pertain to those properties granted ap- proval under the current ordinance; however, these regulations would no longer be an option for new developments once the PUD regulations are in effect. Mr. Dummer suggested incor- porating the standards and workable provisions that are in the PD ordinance into the PUD or- dinance. Mr. Si mpson discussed the impact the proposed PUD regulations could have had on recent PD applications. Mr. Simpson stated that under "performance zoning ", a developer is required to provide criteria to guide review and mitigate impacts and the proposals must be approved by the Planning Commission and by City Council. Developers are required to review the impact of the proposal on surrounding properties , and if developer may be required to provide for off- site improvements to mitigate those impacts. Mr. Douglas stated that he did not see any provision in the proposal that would allow the Commission to say "no" on any proposal. Mr. Simpson stated that standards and guidelines will be added to the proposed ordinance so that Commission and Council members have a comfort level with the proposed ordinance. Mr. Simpson reiterated staff belief that the proposed ordinance will provide a higher level of control for new and redevelopment projects. Mr. Simpson stated that the proposed Ordinance will give the Commission and Council an opportunity to address issues that are of concern and importance to them , and provides the City a better level of control on new developments. The staff initiated the proposed ordinance revision , and is sensitive to the extreme importance of • improved community image and viability of developments. Staff is also of the strong opinion • that the current PD regulations do not provide the control necessary to achieve the quality de- 6 • • • velopments the citizenry has a right to expect. Mr. Simpson reiterated that time is of the es- sence in considering the proposed PUD Ordinance. Mr. Horner questioned the need for a reversionary clause; he is of the opinion that such a clause is needed so that if a proposed development is not underway within two years of ap- proval, the PUD approval is rescinded. Mr. Simpson discussed his opinion regarding a rever- sionary clause, stating that he does not feel such a clause is needed. Mr. Graham spoke in support of a reversionary clause. Discussion ensued. Mr. Mason asked if the Commission could recommend a reversionary clause on an individual basis. Mr. Simpson suggested that a reversionary clause should be written into the ordinance or excluded from the ordinance, and not be imposed on an individual basis. Further discussion ensued; the time elements for such a reversionary clause were also discussed, with suggestions ranging from two years with a one- year renewal option, to three or four years with a one-year renewal option. The extension of a reversionary clause would be at the discretion of the Planning Commission. Time elements for developers were then discussed; Mr. Simpson noted that on the redevelop- ment of the mall property, for instance, could require anywhere from four to six months to go through the PUD process of "district plan", "site plan review" and approval by all bodies. Mr. Simpson emphasized that the PUD and site plan must be in place on the mall property before the redeveloper can begin demolition and new construction. Further brief discussion ensued. Mr. Mason suggested the need for closure on this issue, noting the remaining items on the agenda and the fact that both he and Mr. Weber have interviews scheduled before the City Council beginning at 9:40 P.M. He suggested that discussion on this case be continued to the next regular meeting of February 6, 1996. Douglas moved: The discussion on Case #OR96-02 be continued to February 6, 1996. The issue of the reversionary clause was again brought up. Mr. Horner suggested that the re- versionary clause stipulate two years, with an option to renew for one year. Mr. Shoop noted that there are some sites that have been granted approval under the existing PD, but no evi- dence of attempt to develop have been shown. Discussion ensued. Mr. Shoop asked if the general site plan ordinance would be available at the next meeting. Mr. Simpson stated it probably would not be ready. Mr. Horner seconded Mr. Douglas's motion. Mr. Douglas stated that he would like to see "everything" regarding the proposed amendments. Mr. Horner stated in his opinion, the Commission could continue to discuss the PUD ordi- nance as it is, and staff would be making the modifications that have been noted during this discussion. He stated that he understood the proposed general site plan review process will pertain to development done in all zone districts, not just the PUD. Mr. Simpson stated that he would like to bring the proposed site plan provisions and the landscaping regulation revi- sions to the Commission at the same time within the next few weeks . 7 Mr. Mason recapped modifications the Commission will be looking for in the PUD ordinance at the meeting on February 6th: review standards, reversionary clause and standards, criteria • on activation of the PUD process. Mr. Dummer excused himself from the meeting. The vote on the motion was called. AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Tobin, Weber, Douglas, Horner, Shoop, Mason None None Dummer, Garrett, Redpath The motion carried . Mr. Dummer entered the meeting and took his place with the Commission. IV. STUDY SESSION Landscaping Regulations Case #OR96-01 Mr. Horner noted the time, and questioned that the Commission should begin discussion on this topic at this meeting. Mr. Simpson asked if the Commission determines not to discuss issues related to new Landscaping Regulations on this date, could the discussion be resched- uled for February 6th following conclusion of the Public Hearing on the PUD regulations. He asked that members go through the Policy Report, and submit any comments they have to Mr. Graham. Staff would like to begin preparation of the proposed Ordinance, and schedule it for Hearing on February 21st. Mr. Horner suggested that staff proceed, and further suggested that staff review landscaping provisions from Denver and Littleton. He stated that both entities have excellent landscaping requirements. Ms. Tobin asked for staff business cards, stating that she is still receiving calls from citizens who are dismayed r egarding Trolley Square. Mr. Graham quickly summarized the issues regarding the Landscaping revisions: when does the requirement for landscaping activate --at what percentage of addition or improvement to an existing property? Landscaping for parking lots currently does not apply to those with less than 50 spaces --this seems a high threshold before landscaping requirements apply. Existing regulations need to be clarified to assist developers in knowing what the city is trying to achieve with landscaping requirements. Specific sizes of trees can be cited, types of trees, types and sizes of shrubs. Such specifications will make it easier for staff responsible for in- spection of landscaping to determine whether the requirements of the site plan are actually • met. Is this the type of requirement the Commission is looking for; does the City want to real-• ize an immediate impact from landscaping, or wait 20 years for the trees and shrubs to mature 8 • • • to provide the green effect we are seeking. Ms. Tobin asked if the revised regulations would address trees that die and are not replaced. Mr. Graham stated that the inspection and en- forcement process would have to address replacement of dea d trees, but it would be appropri- ate to write these provisions in. Brief discussion ensued. Mr. Brotzman commented that the City does have a "forestry program", but does not have a "ci ty forester". Mr. Simpson noted that some jurisdictions have "site development inspectors"; he expressed the opinion that an- other position will not be required. Mr. Mason asked if encouragement could be given to plant larger and more trees on redevel- oped properties. He cited some of the landscaping installed on Project BUILD homes. Mr. Graham stated that in his position of Neighborhood Community Coordinator, this would be something he will be reviewing. Mr. Graham asked whether the landscaping regulations should pertain to all zone districts , in- cluding single-family , or only to multifamily, business and industrial districts. Mr. Homer stated that there should be provisions in the ordinance that address "new home construction ". Mr. Simpson stated that this preliminary policy report has been discussed with City Council, and that Council expressed support of improved landscaping requirements in medians and on city property. Mr. Simpson stated that staff would like to have the landscaping revisions ready for consideration by the Commission on February 21st. Mr. Homer suggested that graphics be included in the ordinance . Mr. Shoop asked what has happened to the proposal from the State Highway to improve the medians in US285 between Logan and Clarkson. Staff will proceed with development of a revised ordinance on landscaping requirements. V. PUBLIC FORUM. No one was present to address the Commission. VI. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE. Mr. Simpson noted that copies of the Rocky Mountain Land Use Institute agenda for the Spring meeting had been distributed. He urged any members interested in attending to notify staff, and reservations will be made. Mr. Simpson stated he has attended these sessions previ- ously , and found them to be very valuable. Also distributed are copies of the current Planning Commissioner 's Journal. Mr. Simpson noted that this edition contains several very good articles . VII. C01\1MTSSIONER'S CHOICE . Ms. Tobin expressed her appreciation for the "open forum" with the Director. 9 Mr. Horner asked what is happening regarding the wall lighting along Trolley Square. Mr. Simpson stated tha t he will follow up on this concern for Mr. Horner. • Mr. Horner thanked staff for the initiative shown in revising the PD and landscaping regula- tions. Mr. Mason stated that he has been informed that Englewood no longer has a "garden club". Ms. Tobin stated that she would try to verify this for Mr. Mason. There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was declared adjourned. 10 • •