Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-10-04 PZC MINUTESe CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OCTOBER 4, 1994 I. CALL TO ORDER. The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:00 P .M. in Conference Room "A" of Englewood City Hall, Chairman Lloyd Covens presiding. Members present: Shoop, Tobin, Weber, Becker, Dummer, Mason, Redpath, Covens Merkel, Ex-officio Members absent: Garrett (with previous notice) Also present: Planning Administrator Harold J. Stitt IT. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. September 20, 1994 Chairman Covens called for consideration of the Minutes of September 20, 1994. Dummer moved: Becker seconded: The Minutes of September 20, 1994 be approved as written. AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Weber, Becker, Dummer, Mason, Redpath, Shoop, Covens None Tobin Garrett The motion carried. ill. FINDINGS OF FACT Craig Hospital Planned Development Case #12-94 Chairman Covens called for consideration of the Findings of Fact on the Craig Hospital Planned Development. Dummer moved: Shoop seconded: The Findings of Fact for Case #12-94 be approved as written. AYES: NAYS: Weber, Becker, Covens, Dummer, Mason, Redpath, Shoop None 1 ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Tobin Garrett The motion carried. IV. COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE Accessory Structures (revisited) Case #2-93 Chairman Covens asked staff to lead discussion on this issue which was remanded to the Commission by the City Council. Mr. Stitt stated that the Planning Commission began working on amendments to the Compre- hensive Zoning Ordinance regarding accessory structures and home occupations in January or February, 1993. The proposed amendments were subsequently recommended to City Council. Following several study sessions, Council held a "public forum" in July on the various amend- ments to the Zoning Ordinance, at which time some members of the Board of Adjustment and Appeals raised an issue regarding the definition of "garage". Property owners who may not have access to their rear yard cannot construct a "garage" because of the lack of access and the inability to use the structure for the storage of motor vehicles. Members of the Board of Ad- justment felt this was unfair to those property owners, who are denied the right to construct a building, up to 1,000 square feet in size which they could use for other purposes, such as workshops, hobby areas, etc. The Board members felt the definition-of garage should be amended to eliminate the wording "providing for the storage of motor vehicles". Mr. Stitt e stated that at the City Council study session on September 19 this issue was again considered, and Council remanded the proposed accessory structure amendments to the Commission for further consideration. Mr. Stitt stated that there are very few properties in Englewood that do not have access to the rear yard, and it is staffs contention that it is an appropriate function of the Board of Adjustment and Appeals to provide relief'to property owners who may want to construct a 1,000 square foot structure for use other than storage of motor vehicles. Further- more, definitions are in a separate section of the Code, and any proposed amendment to that section would not affect the adoption of the Accessory Structures amendments, as proposed. This was pointed out in the course of the discussion with City Council; however, the Acces- sory Structures amendments were referred back to the Commission. Issues of lot coverage and the requirement that two off-street parking spaces be provided for all residential properties were discussed. The possibility of modifying the terminology from "garage" to "utility structure" was also discussed, as was the issue of accessibility to rear yards by motor vehicles. Ms. Becker and Mr. Dummer discussed a structure at Yale and Pearl. Mr. Merkel stated that staff would check on this issue. Ms. Becker further commented that in her opinion, if the definition of garage were to be changed this could lead to a "hodge podge of problems". Ms. Becker further expressed the opinion that sometimes, residents may have to consider cutting back on the size and number of 2 .-- accessory structures to fit the lot area, or relocate to a larger property. Ms. Becker agreed that the Board of Adjustment and Appeals is the proper venue for relief in problem cases, and that an ordinance cannot be written to address every possible problem. Mr. Merkel discussed the elimination of "clutter" from properties, which can include a prolif- eration of garages, sheds, etc. Various suggestions to reduce this type of clutter were briefly mentioned. The use of covenants to restrict construction of various outbuildings in newer area developments was also noted. General discussion ensued. Becker moved: Mason seconded: The Planning Commission thank members of the City Council for refer- ring the issue raised at the Public Forum to the Commission for consid- eration. It is the opinion of the members of the Planning Commission that no change to the definition of "garage" is needed, and the appropri- ate place for resolution of no access to rear yards and denial of permits to construct a "garage" is before the Board of Adjustment and Appeals. Ms. Tobin addressed the possibility that some property owners may need additional space for workshops, hobby shops, etc., and that it is unfair they be denied a permit for a "garage" just because they lack motor vehicle access to the rear yard. Mr. Shoop inquired about a property owner who might want to construct a 400 sq. ft. accessory structure, but no garage. Mr. Stitt pointed out that sheds are restricted to no more than 150 sq. ft., and other accessory structures cannot exceed 200 sq. ft. in size; thus, the 400 sq. ft. structure would not be allowed as a use by right. A variance would have to be requested and granted before such construction would be permitted. Mr. Weber suggested the possibility that a property owner could request a "combination" of a shed and other accessory structure for a total of 350 sq. ft., with a com- mitment that no additional accessory structures would be permitted. Mr. Stitt agreed that this would be supportable from the staff point of view; it would, however, still require a "variance" from the strict application of the ordinance regulations. Attendance of members of the Commission at the public hearing before City Council was dis- cussed. It was noted that members may attend as "private citizens", but may not speak on be- half of the Commission unless they are so designated. The vote on the motion was called. AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Becker, Dummer, Mason, Redpath, Shoop, Weber, Covens Tobin None Garrett The motion carried. 3 Brief discussion ensued. V. PUBLIC FORUM. No one was present to address the Commission. VI. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE. Mr. Merkel updated members on the issue of Cinderella City Mall. Over 75 Requests for Qualifications (RFQs) have been mailed out, as well as over 200 letters to people in the real estate and development businesses. Advertisements were placed in the Wall ~ Journal, the Denver Post, and Denver Business Journal. Mr. Merkel discussed the review, elimination and selection process that will be followed in selecting a developer/redeveloper for the Mall. Mr. Merkel advised that the RFQs address an "all or none" approach to redevelopment of the Mall, and that no proposed use or combination of uses has been ruled out at this time. Mr. Shoop inquired whether the uses along U.S. 285 are part of the "Mall". Mr. Merkel stated that there are four independently owned pads which would have to be purchased by the rede- veloper if he so desired; they are not part of any negotiations with Equitable Assurance Com- pany, KRA VCO, ·and the City of Englewood. Mr. Merkel pointed out that the Planning Commission has been "left out of the loop" on this process, because whatever redevelopment takes place will require Planning Commission ap- proval of a Planned Development, etc. Ms. Tobin pointed out that the closest shopping area is Southglenn Mall, and that some elderly residents do not feel comfortable traveling that distance. Ms. Tobin inquired about a closure date for Cinderella City Mall. Mr. Merkel estimated sometime in early Spring, 1995. The next meeting date for the Commission is October 18; no cases are on the agenda, but staff is proposing a procedures study session. Training sessions sponsored by the City were noted and briefly discussed. VII. COMMISSIONER'S CHOICE. Mr. Covens asked for an update on "Cedar Mountain", and what the costs were to the City to fight the fire which occurred in August. Mr. Merkel stated that the owners of the property are still under order to have all the shingles mulched and the site cleaned by June, 1995. They have been instructed to develop water detention facilities to inhibit runoff from the site into Big Dry Creek and/or the South Platte River. Mr. Merkel stated that he cannot recall the lat- est figures for fire fighting expenditures, but estimated it is in the neighborhood of $100,000. Mr. Covens inquired about the Santa Fe Industrial Park (Cameron's property); is this area de- veloping. Mr. Merkel responded negatively. 4 ' Mr. Covens inquired about the new housing development which was recently approved via re- zoning by the Commission and City Council. Mr. Merkel stated that development is being actively pursued on this site. Mr. Dummer. noted that the Englewood Depot has been relocated to the site on West Dart- mouth A venue. Ms. Tobin asked if anyone had attended the Englewood, Focusing on Tomo"ow meetings while she was out of town. She stated she would welcome someone else to attend; she would like to see what their perception of this endeavor is. Brief discussion ensued. The meeting was declared adjourned at 8:25 P. M. Gertrude G. WeltJ, Rec0fding5etary 5