Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-09-06 PZC MINUTES• CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 6, 1995 I. CALL TO ORDER. The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairman Mason at 7:00 P.M. in Conference Room A of Englewood City Hall. Members Present: Horner, Redpath, Weber, Douglas, Mason Simpson, Ex-officio Members Absent: Garrett (with previous notice) Members Late: Tobin, Dummer, Shoop Also Present: Harold J. Stitt, Planning Administrator Mr. Simpson introduced himself to members of the Commission. Mr. Simpson's employment as Manager of Neighborhood and Business Development began on September 5, 1995. Il. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. August 22, 1995 Chairman Mason called for consideration of the Minutes of August 22, 1995. Redpath moved: Douglas seconded: The Minutes of August 22, 1995 be approved as written. AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Horner, Redpath, Weber, Douglas, Mason None None Shoop, Tobin, Dummer, Garrett The motion carried. ID. FINDINGS OF FACT. A. The Marks West Planned Development Amendment Case #7-95 Chairman Mason called for consideration of the Findings of Fact for The Marks West Planned Development Amendment. Commissioner Shoop entered the meeting and was seated with the Commission. Horner moved: Weber seconded: The Findings of Fact for Case #7-95 be approved as written. AYES: Redpath, Shoop, Weber, Douglas, Horner, Mason NAYS: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Tobin, Dummer, Garrett The motion carried. B. Trolley Square Planned Development Amendment Case #8-95 Chairman Mason asked for consideration of the Findings of Fact for the Trolley Square Planned Development amendment. Commissioner Dummer entered the meeting and was seated with the Commissioners. Horner moved: Douglas seconded: The Findings of Fact on Case #8-95 be approved as written. AYES: NAYS: Shoop, Weber, Douglas, Dummer, Horner, Redpath, Mason None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Tobin, Garrett The motion carried. IV. STUDY/WORK SESSION. Design Review Mr. Mason discussed the issues leading to an interest in Design Review on the part of the Commission members. The architectural standards and the quality of design of some recent projects are of concern to the Commission. Mr. Mason further stated that he does not want to see Englewood become a "cheap alternative" because development standards are lax or nonex- istent. Mr. Horner addressed his concerns regarding the lack of design and architectural standards, and the eventual impact this lack of standards will have on the City. Mr. Horner stated that he can envision some older industrial or commercial areas that will eventually be redeveloped, and stressed the importance of having good design and development standards in place. Mr. Horner further stated that the existing Landscaping Ordinance is in need of "tightening up", citing the lack of size specifications for trees, shrubs, etc. Mr. Stitt acknowledged the fact that standards in the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance aren't really strong enough to provide either staff or the Commission a good approach in dealing with 2 developers. Mr. Stitt pointed out that actual "design review" can have some pretty hard and fast rules, dictating matters such as color, style of architecture, etc. He cautioned that one must balance aesthetics and the function of any particular building or development. Covenant controlled communities and subdivisions do have strict design and architectural standards. People who buy into those covenanted or "gated" communities realize this and are aware of the restrictions. Mr. Stitt emphasized that if the Commission is looking for aesthetic control they need to determine what they are looking for: color, size, mass, height, relation to adjoining development, etc. Mr. Horner stated that he did not want to see regulations as strict as those in Vail, but is of the opinion there is a definite need for some regulations or standards. Mr. Simpson asked for clarification of why the issue of "design " has suddenly become impor- tant; is design review the problem, or a lack of negotiating ability , or is it both issues. Mr. Mason stated that the Commission wants to gain a clear understanding of "what we can con- sider , and what we cannot consider". Mr. Mason stated that the Planning Commission feels frustration regarding developments that are occurring; he also agreed to the need of caliper size specifications in the landscaping ordinance. He noted that the "plans " as presented indicate that trees and shrubs will be planted; in reality , what is planted are small saplings that won't mature until the site is ready for redevelopment. Ms. Tobin entered the meeting and was seated with the Commission. Mr. Simpson asked what areas the Commission is pri marily concerned with. Mr. Horner stated that the redevelopment of the business and industrial areas are of concern to him. Mr. Horner expanded on his concern with the Trolley Square Planned Development ; in his opinion it is a poor design and when redevelopment is completed this will be shown. Mr. Horner stated that there is a set of guidelines which pertain only to a few blocks in the downtown area , but seem to apply only to "redevelopment" and not to new construction. The possibility of a "design review board" was discussed. Mr. Simpson suggested that a sepa- rate design review board would create an additional regulatory layer for developers to deal with. Mr. Simpson suggested that rather than "design review ", possibly the Commission needs to consider discussion of "site development standards" and address qualitative and quantitative aspects of developments. Mr. Simpson further suggested the possibility of looking at existing standards and strengthening them. Mr. Simpson discussed "advisory committees", appeal processes, and the length of time such processes require. Mr. Horner pointed out that if standards and guidelines were in place to give staff the authority to require compliance with standards, a great many of the issues presently concerning Planning Commission may not get to the Commission. They can be addressed by staff. Mr. Simpson reiterated that "site development standards" appears to be what the Commission needs, and that staff can certainly collect information and report back to the Commission. 3 The character and image of Englewood were discussed. Mr. Mason suggested that a desirable e goal for the redevelopment of the Mall area might be to achieve a "sort of Cherry Creek at- mosphere". Mr. Horner discussed requirements by the Englewood Utilities Department for looping water lines , and the financial impact this "design guideline" has on developments. Mr. Horner also passed around a copy of standards from Jefferson County, noting that there are a lot of "simple things" that can be included in site development standards. Brief discussion ensued. Mr. Stitt stated that the Commission needs to determine where they want to go with the design/architectural standards: do they want to establish design criteria? He also pointed out the need for the community to make known what they want to be. Mr. Stitt noted that Englewood really has no one "design theme", and cited different architectural styles throughout the City. Mr. Stitt further advised the Commission to keep in mind that what we have is the result of the zoning that is in place; no strict standards exist on develop- ment or uses that are permitted. Mr. Stitt stated that little things like new street signs, or planted medians help make an "image" for a city. Mr. Stitt stressed the need to revise the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, and make improvements to sections such as the Landscap- ing prov1s1ons. Mr. Horner advocated reviewing landscaping requirements from other municipalities . Ms. Tobin discussed her perception that whatever is presented to the Commission is a "completed plan ", and that the Commission is not allowed to have input. Ms. Tobin expressed the opinion that it would be helpful to see blueprints prior to the "completed plan". Mr. Hor- ner stated that he had made such a request several weeks ago regarding the redevelopment of the Mall; at that time, City Attorney Brotzman advised that the role of the Planning Commis- sion is "reactive" and not "proactive". Mr. Horner said that the primary concern to him regarding the King Soopers Planned Devel- opment was the loss of two street-trees, and most of the shrubbery. He advocated tightening up regulations in the Landscaping Ordinance to address issues of trees, shrubs , and sod. Mr. Stitt agreed that development of "landscaping standards" in addition to the landscaping ordi- nance will give the staff the authority to make specific requirements in viewing a landscape plan. Mr. Simpson agreed the Zoning Ordinance does need to be revised, but cautioned that prior to undertaking the total revision of the Zoning Ordinance, the Commission needs to look at the Comprehensive Plan. It may be some time before the Zoning Ordinance revision becomes reality; however, there are some "short-term fixes" which can be put in place if the Commis- sion is interested in doing so. Revision of the Comprehensive Plan was discussed. Mr. Horner expressed concern that con- centrating on the Comprehensive Plan would not address the issues that would prevent staff bringing another plan to the Commission like that of Trolley Square. Mr. Stitt suggested that 4 staff look at the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance and develop a list of amendments that can be made to tighten up the existing standards; he did agree that the Comprehensive Plan must be addressed before the overall revision of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Douglas expressed his concerns and frustrations on the Trolley Square Planned Develop- ment, noting that this is in the heart of the downtown area. A structure that presented "character" to the downtown is being razed, and replaced with· a concrete wall. This wall will not extend the brick facade of the Kaufman structure to tie in with the proposed 2,500 square foot retail pad on the north end of the block --it will be a concrete wall. The Planning Commission felt they didn't have any real authority when considering the Planned Develop- ment; how can this be prevented from happening again. He urged that the standards be im- proved , and emphasized that "no one is talking about aesthetic control or theme", and ques- tioned that the City needs a "theme". Mr. Simpson suggested that the staff will develop a work program of issues that need to be addressed, both long-term and short-term issues . Mr. Dummer discussed the redevelopment o f the Mall; will it be similar to the Englewood Marketplace, or to the Trolley Square development. Will it be totally different from the Mar- ketplace or Trolley Square. What role does "zoning " have in this redevelopment, and what role does "planning" have . Discussion ensued. The possibility of developing a comparison of standards and requirements in various munici- palities was discussed. Mr. Mason suggested that such comparison be in matrix form , if pos- sible. The Comprehensive Plan was again brought up for discussion. Mr. Simpson stated that copies will be made available for members. Mr. Simpson stated he understood there has been an on- going effort by Englewood, Focusing on Tomorrow to develop a "vision" for Englewood, and that this report will be considered in the Comprehensive Plan revision. Mr. Simpson outlined what staff will be concentrating on: • Develop a work program • Develop tighter standards for landscaping, and site development standards • Comprehensive Plan revision Mr. Mason asked where the EFOT group is in their process. Mr. Stitt stated that they have completed their task, and a report has been written. V. PUBLIC FORUM. No one was present to address the Commission. 5 VI. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE. Mr. Simpson had nothing to bring before the Commission. VII. COMl\1ISSIONER'S CHOICE. Mr. Weber noted that there is a scavenger operating in his neighborhood, sorting out alumi- num and tin cans from recyclables that are put out for pick-up. Mr. Weber was advised that there is an ordinance prohibiting scavenging, and to get a license number and report it to the Police Department. Mr. Shoop asked what progress has been made on Duggan Petroleum. Mr. Stitt stated that they are still working with the Colorado Department of Transportation regarding the access from South Santa Fe Drive. Mr. Horner inquired about the South Denver Medical Plaza. Mr. Stitt stated that this devel- opment has been granted approval by City Council. Mr. Douglas inquired about the amendments on Home Occupations. Mr. Stitt stated that the decision on this issue has been placed on hold by City Council; staff has not been made aware of reasons for the "hold". Mr. Mason noted that atop the sign for Santa Fe Books and Video is a "huge video camera". Mr. Mason also noted that the car lot just to the north of the Gothic Theater does have a chain link fence along Broadway , with barbed wire atop the fence. The poles for this fence are now sunk in concrete. Mr. Stitt stated that this was reported to Code Enforcement some time ago. Mr. Dummer stated that this was a former "storage lot" for vehicles that weren't to be sold from the site, and has always been fenced. The issue of outside storage was further discussed. Mr. Horner noted that King Soopers also stores some of their merchandise, such as firewood or gardening supplies, outdoors. The meeting was declared adjourned at 8:45 P.M . 6