Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-06-20 PZC MINUTESCITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 20, 1995 I. CALL TO ORDER. The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7: 10 P.M. by Chairman Mason in Conference Room A of Englewood City Hall. Members present: Douglas, Dummer, Garrett, Horner, Tobin, Weber, Mason Esterly, Acting Ex-officio Members absent: Redpath, Shoop (both with previous notice) Also present: Planning Administrator Stitt City Attorney Brotzman II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. May 16 , 1995 Chairman Mason asked for consideration of Minutes of May 16, 1995. Tobin moved: Douglas seconded: The Minutes of May 16, 1995 be approved as written. AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Dummer , Garrett , Tobin, Douglas, Mason None Horner, Weber Redpath , Shoop The motion carried. ill. CITY ATTORNEY'S CHOICE. Mr. Brotzman addressed the issue of personal liability for Planning Commission members,· which was briefly discussed at the previous meeting. Mr. Brotzman noted that members may be subject to personal suit if they have a financial interest in a development under considera- tion by the Commission, if this financial interest is not disclosed, and they do not excuse them- selves from participation. Mr. Brotzman noted that frequently suits against the City will name members of Council, or board and commission members, individually. The City does provide indemnification against such suits; Mr. Brotzman cautioned, however, that credit agencies will pick up the fact that an individual has been named in a suit and reflect this in credit reports. Brief discussion ensued. Mr. Brotzman suggested that any Commission member who may find it necessary to excuse themselves from consideration of an issue notify the staff in advance of that meeting. IV. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS REVIEW. Mr. Stitt and Mr. Brotzman led discussion on review of the Planned Development regulations. Points of discussion included desirability of architectural and design guidelines, present lack of specific standards, and uniform application of standards that are delineated in the Ordinance. The issue of whether "architectural review" and "design review" is desirable was discussed at length, with Mr. Stitt noting that in many jurisdictions an architectural and/or design review board is separate and distinct from the Planning Commission. Mr. Stitt pointed out that there are minimal landscaping requirements cited in the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, but the "design" of the landscaping plan is now the responsibility of the applicant/developer. Quite often , this "design", as presented by the applicant/developer, does not enhance appearance of the development. Mr. Brotzman asked if architectural review /design review is an issue the Commission members want to consider. Merits of this process were further discussed. Mr. Stitt stated that staff will request architectural/design review regulations from other municipalities for perusal and fur- ther discussion. The "Design Guidelines for the South Broadway Incentive Area " were briefly discussed. Mr. Stitt stated that these guidelines apply to the 3200 through 3500 blocks of South Broadway, were developed in the early 1980's, and are applicable to rehabilitation of "existing" structures in this narrowly defined area. The intent was that rehabilitation of the existing buildings would reflect the period in which the structure was built, but the program has not been suc- cessful. The Englewood Downtown Development Authority is now attempting to foster a similar approach to encourage restoration of original facades and general upkeep of the down- town structures. The Trolley Square Planned Development public hearing and consideration was raised for dis- cussion. Mr. Horner commented that there are a lot of people who are concerned about the appearance of this development, and who expressed that concern during the course of the Planning Commission deliberations. He asked what will happen to the shrubbery along the Broadway frontage once the demolition process is begun; will this existing shrubbery be re- placed and incorporated into the overall landscaping plan of the site. Information which the Commission can expect to consider on an application was addressed, such as "final plan", landscaping plan , and drainage plan. The time constraints placed on the Community Development staff and on the Commission in their deliberations on Trolley Square were also discussed. Mr. Brotzman pointed out that, had the Commission "continued" the Public Hearing in an effort to get the information they wanted from the applicant, the issue could not have been taken to City Council as quickly. However, there was the issue of the "dosing date" on acquisition of the site, which King Soopers had disclosed to City Council, 2 and the possibility of "killing" the entire redevelopment deal and subsequent loss of King Soop- ers if the time line was not followed. Mr. Brotzman emphasized that there had been a lot of staff work and negotiations prior to Commission consideration at Public Hearing, and that the applicant did exhibit an interest in trying to resolve concerns of staff and adjoining property owners. Mr. Brotzman also pointed out that Mr. Stitt "bends over backward" to work with the applicants prior to bringing issues to the Commission, but that many times changes are made at the very last minute which staff has not had an opportunity to address. In such instances, it is entirely appropriate to continue a Public Hearing to give both staff and Commission adequate time to study the ramifications of these last minute changes. Discussion ensued. Mr. Stitt pointed out that Trolley Square was not, initially, developed under the Planned De- velopment process. Requirements for Planned Development consideration were enacted in 1994. When the proposed redevelopment issue arose, he and former Director Merkel dis- cussed the pros and cons of pursuing the Planned Development process because the redevel- opment does result in a reduction of the overall square-footage of the structures. However, Mr. Merkel supported going through the Planned Development process, and the Planning Commission was involved at that point. Mr. Weber asked what was gained by following the Planned Development process; there are no public rights-of-way through the development. Mr. Stitt stated that the provision for additional right-of-way to accommodate turning lanes on West Floyd Avenue and on Englewood Parkway was secured through the Planned Develop- ment negotiations. Mr. Garrett pointed out that the vehicular/pedestrian conflict caused by the right-in/right-out movements from South Broadway was also a point of consideration and dis- cussion. Brief discussion followed . Mr. Garrett excused himself from the meeting. Mr. Esterly excused himself from the meet- ing. Further discussion on design standards ensued. Mr. Stitt stated that if the Commission deter- mines that architectural and design guidelines should be pursued, it would require development of the guidelines and proposed ordinance; and public hearings would be required. Mr. Stitt suggested that public input and participation be encouraged early on in the process, involving membership of the Englewood Downtown Development Authority, the Chamber of Commerce and industrial and Broadway business people to generate as much support as possible. Dis- cussion ensued. Mr. Stitt stated that many new developments, particularly residential devel- opments, have design and architectural guidelines, as do older communities wanting to pre- serve a "historical" character. The necessity for a separate architectural/design review board was discussed. Mr. Horner suggested that such a board could be very small in membership --maybe not more than three people such as an architect, landscaper, and engineer. Brief discussion followed. 3 Horner moved: Tobin seconded: Staff be asked to collect information from other communities pertaining to architectural/design review guidelines, this information to be sched- uled for consideration by the Commission at the earliest date possible. AYES: NAYS: Horner , Tobin , Weber, Douglas, Dummer, Mason None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Garrett, Redpath, Shoop The motion carried. V. PUBLIC FORUM. No one was present to address the Commission. VI. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE. Mr. Stitt stated that interviews for the position of Commun i ty Development Director have been scheduled for June 2 8 . Mr. Stitt stated that he has received a request to amend the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, R-3 High Densit y Res idence District , to allow veterinary hospitals and clinics as permitted principal uses. This will probably be scheduled for Public Hearing on July 18 , 1995. A Public Hearing has been scheduled for Wednesday, July 5, on the Duggan Petroleum Com- pany Planned Development. VII. COMMISSIONER'S CHOICE. Mr. Horner stated that he has reviewed the job description for the position of Community De- velopment Director; in his opinion this job description is interchangeable with a job description for a director of "Finance"; there is very heavy emphasis on social and financial programs. Mr. Horner expressed his "disappointment" with the approach that has been taken in recruiting for this position. Mr. Horner asked about the status of the medical complex at Floyd and Lincoln. Mr. Stitt stated that staff is now in receipt of the signed agreement with the Archdiocese of Denver, and the issue will be transmitted to City Council for the July 3 meeting. The City has also devel- oped a "license agreement" to be signed by the applicant and the City regarding the City Ditch. Mr. Horner inquired regarding the existing shrubbery along the Broadway frontage at Trolley Square. He asked that staff "dog" the developer to see that the same amount of landscaping is incorporated somewhere on the redeveloped Trolley Square site. 4 \ Mr. Weber briefly reported on the Englewood, Focusing on Tomorrow --Business and Trans- portation Task Force. The goals and objectives have been compiled; he has not seen a final draft of the document. Mr. Stitt stated that the Final Draft was mailed to membership earlier this date. Mr. Brotzman stated that he will be preparing a new ordinance pertaining to "group homes" to comply with recent legal decisions. Discussion ensued. Mr. Brotzman advised that this may be a separate chapter in the Municipal Code. The definition of "family" as it applies to non- related individuals in group homes was discussed. Controls on the "family size" were also dis- cussed. There was nothing further raised for discussion. The meeting was declared adjourned at 8:35 P.M. Gertrude G. Welty , Recording Seer 5