Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-06-18 PZC MINUTES• • CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION June 18, 1996 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 Community Room of Englewood City Hall, Chairman Robert Mason presiding. Members present: Tobin, Weber, Douglas, Garrett, Redpath, Shoop, Mason Simpson, Ex-officio Members absent: Dummer and Homer (both with previous notice) II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES May 21, 1996 Chairman Mason stated the Minutes of May 21, 1996, were to be considered for approval. Tobin moved: Redpath seconded: The Minutes of May 21, 1996 be approved as written . AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Weber, Redpath, Shoop, Tobin None Douglas, Garrett, Mason Dummer, Homer The motion carried. IV. WORK/STUDY SESSION Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Mr. Simpson stated that staff has begun the process to revise the Comprehensive Zoning Ordi- nance in response to a variety of issues, among them the need for change in landscaping provi- sions, and the relation of those revised requirements to other standards and provisions throughout the Ordinance. This evening staff wants to discuss, with members of the Commis- sion, proposals and ideas regarding revision of the Ordinance. Staff will seek the benefit of insights and perspectives of all members of the Commission in writing the revisions . Mr. Simpson asked that Mr. Stitt present staff ideas regarding the proposed revisions . Mr. Stitt stated that the present edition of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance is based on the 1955 Ordinance, which was modeled after the Denver Zoning Ordinance. Many of the provi- • sions in the current ordinance have not changed since 1955, are arcane and no longer applica- 1 ble. Other provisions need massaging to make them workable in order to address current needs and social concerns . While the ordinance has been modified to a degree throughout the • last 40+ years, proper format has been neglected or foregone; sections are difficult to compre- hend because they are written in "legalese" and not simple , straight-forward English; and there are sections which are wordy and convoluted . Staff does not intend to start over from scratch, but does intend to clarify and reorganize the Ordinance. Mr. Stitt noted that the Zoning Ordinance should be easily understood by the private citizen seeking information regarding their property; if staff members, who work with the ordinance daily , find specific sections to be confusing, the general public is subjected to even greater con- fusion . Mr. Stitt reiterated the intent to clarify the ordinance by eliminating the "legalese" and "jargon" prevalent throughout the Ordinance, and substitute simple English for clarification and ease of understanding. Mr. Stitt suggested the revisions be accomplished in a three-step process : • Introduction • Specific Standards • Supplemental information Mr. Stitt cited §16 -4, Zone Districts. This section also contains the Sign Code, the Planned Unit Development , Flood Plain, Satellite Dish, Fence, Landscaping, and Condominium Con- version provisions, which , while applicable to all zone districts , are not "specific zone dis- tricts " but supplemental information. Also, a few years ago , provisions which were pertinent • to Code Enforcement were removed and incorporated into a new Title 15 of the EMC ; how- ever , some provisions were overlooked and still need to be removed. Mr. Stitt discussed the need to create a standard format throughout the specific zone districts. Work is also needed on the definitions section of the Ordinance : clarification , addition , possible elimination of some , and "tweaking " of others. Mr. Garrett stated that staff, and the Commission , must be cognizant that in many cases spe- cific verbiage has been litigated and is readily accepted and understood, and there is reason for that specific wording. Mr. Mason commented on the difficulty in writing a document to make it easily understandable to everybody who is unfamiliar with the intent of the document or the situations it is to address. Mr. Simpson and Mr. Stitt acknowledged there are instances wherein legal terminology will be required . Ms. Tobin asked whether other cities have recently revised their zoning ordinances. Mr. Stitt stated that several have done so and staff will obtain copies of those documents to use as refer- ence in revising the Englewood Ordinance. Mr. Garrett asked whether the staff wanted direction from the Commission to proceed. Mr. Simpson answered affirmatively , and asked whether the Commission approved the assumptions and goals of the staff on the proposal , those being to: Simplify , clarify , and update sections that are arcane . Brief discussion ensued. 2 • • • • Tobin moved : Redpath seconded: The Planning Commission request that staff begin the revision , update , and simplification of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance , subject to periodic review of the project by the Planning Commission. Mr. Stitt stated that any revisions to the Ordinance will have to go through the Public Hearing process before the Planning Commission and before the City Council after referral from the Commission. The staff expects to prepare a work program and time frame for the project to present the Commission at the next meeting in July . Mr . Garrett suggested that the rough drafts of the revisions be brought to the Commission on a "piece-meal " basis , .but that there be one public hearing on the totally revised document before the Commission. Mr. Simpson stated he liked Mr. Garrett 's suggestion , but pointed out that there will have to be some sections brought to the Commission for Public Hearing prior to the total revision being completed; currently , these sections are being reviewed at the direction of the City Council , and pertain to issues such as home-day-care and group homes . The vote on the motion was called: AYES : NAYS : Douglas, Garrett , Redpath, Shoop , Tobin , Weber , Mason None ABSTAIN : None ABSENT: Dummer , Homer The motion carried. Ms . Tobin suggested that extra meetings may be helpful in accomplishing the work program. Mr. Stitt suggested there may be a need for an extra meeting occas ionally. Mr. Garrett sug- gested that there be an "editorial committee " to work with staff on the revision of the Ordi- nance. IV. PUBLIC FORUM. No one was present to address the Commission. V. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE. Mr . Simpson stated he had nothing to bring before the Commission. VI. COMMISSIONER'S CHOICE. Mr. Redpath asked for an update on recent Commission projects that have been forwarded to City Council. Mr. Simpson stated that the PUD Ordinance was heard and approved , and should become final in early to mid-July . Mr. Stitt stated that there was a ground-breaking in May on the South Denver Medical Plaza at East Floyd A venue and South Lincoln Street. The 3 staff forwarded to City Council all the information on the Assisted Living Facility which was proposed on South University Boulevard just north of God's Miracle Church on East Dart-• mouth A venue. The applicant did not appeal the decision of the Planning Commission to deny the rezoning and the Planned Development; therefore , no action was required by the City Council . Mr. Simpson asked if a project up-date in memo form to the Commission members , which would be included in the meeting packets , would be helpful. There are no cases for the meeting of July 2. Mr. Douglas commented he would not be avail - able for the meeting on July 2 . It was the consensus of the Commission that the meeting of July 2 would be ca~celed . Mr. Simpson suggested that for the meeting of July 16 , staff ex - pects to have drafts of the property development standards , which would include landscaping revisions ; a home-day-care ordinance applicable to all residential areas; and provisions gov - erning group homes in residential districts . Mr . Redpath asked what the status is on the home occupation issue. Mr. Simpson stated that the revision to the ordinance was tabled by City Council quite some time ago; the issue has re- cently re-arisen regarding home-day-care. The revisions will separate "day-care " from "day- care operators ". Discussion ensued. Mr. Simpson stated that as a result of a neighbor dispute , a moratorium on code enforcement action against all day-care homes in the R-1-A District , which were in operation on June 3 , 1996 , is in effect for the next six months . This means that all day -care homes in operation in the R-1 -A District on the previously cited date may continue • to operate for six months without fear of action to close them down . Mr . Garrett stated that he had avoided going to any of the City Council or Broadway public forums because he felt that issues arising from these forums would come before the Commis- sion for action. He asked if this was ethically correct. Mr. Simpson stated that he appreciated Mr . Garrett 's perspective, and noted that Council representatives attended the forums but did not participate. Mr . Mason felt it would be best for Commission members to receive all issues with an "open mind" . Ms. Tobin announced she will be out of town in September. Mr. Mason asked if there was a date imposed on demolition of the "chicken coop " on the Chicken Ranch Estates Subdivision. Mr . Stitt stated no time limit was imposed; the applicant has been out of town for the last several weeks, and tenants of the apartment complex were given a four-month relocation notice . Mr . Mason suggested a study /work session devoted to discussing planning and zoning philoso- phy issues . He commented on the atmosphere of the last public hearing, and said he detected tension between members of the Commission and with the members of the audience, also. He would like to diffuse the tension , and have a philosophical understanding . Mr. Garrett com- mented that while individuals have strong views and expressed those views, he did not feel dis-• sension among the members of the Commission at the Hearing in April was inappropriate. 4 • • • Mr. Simpson stated that staff is working to put together a Planning Academy, trying to get a series of speakers and papers together on various planning topics. This Academy is proposed for this Fall. He suggested that the discussions coming out of this Academy may well address Mr. Mason's concerns. Mr. Mason stated that a young family he was acquainted with has recently moved out of Englewood; they resided in the northern end of town, not far from Broadway. They specifi- cally cited the pawn shops and day labor center as neighborhood problems and incentives for their relocation. He stated that he had mentioned the need to improve the business stock in Englewood to an acquaintance of his, who works for the South Metro Denver Chamber of Commerce, and was dismayed at the low regard this individual displayed toward Englewood. Mr. Simpson stated .he will discuss this "low regard" attitude with other representatives of the South Metro Chamber. Mr. Garrett commented that the Commission considered the issue of pawn shops about 18 months ago, and took no action at that time. Mr. Simpson stated that Council member Clapp is very supportive regarding the Broadway planning study. Mr. Garrett stated that he had visited Pat's Coffee Garden on South Broadway after he read about it in the Neighborhood Newsletter, and found it to be a very nice business . There being nothing further to come before the Commission, the meeting was declared ad- journed. k.Uz<4L~4- Gertrude G. Welty, Recordfug SecrctafY h:\group\boards\plancomm\pcm6-96a.doc 5