Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-03-03 PZC MINUTES• • • I. CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 3 1 1992 CALL TO ORDER. The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairman J. c. Schultz at 7:00 P.M. in the Council Chambers of Englewood City Hall. Members present: Members absent: Also present: Ger lick, Glynn, Leonard, Covens, Draper, Dummer Martin, Ex-officio Tobin (with previous notice) Schultz, Shoop, Harold Stitt, Neighborhood Services Adminis- trator II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. February 19, 1992 Chairman Schultz called for the consideration of the Minutes of February 19, 1992. Draper moved: Dumme r seconded: The Minutes of February 19, 1992 be approved as written. Mr. Covens stated that Ms. Tobin has asked that Page 3 be amended by the insertion of the word "only" in line 4 of the third para- graph of Director's Choice, that statement to now read: " ... this is not a proper function of the City Council, ONLY, and if people want to contribute " Mr. Schultz asked Messrs. Draper and Dummer if they accept the amendment. Both gentlemen replied in the affirmative. The Min- utes of February 19, 1992 were approved as amended. III. SWEDISH MEDICAL CENTER Planned Development Amendment CASE #2-92 Mr. Schultz stated that a Public Hearing on the application to amend the Planned Development for Swedish Medical Center has been scheduled for this time. Mr. Schultz asked for a motion to open the Hearing, and for staff to make the presentation. Gerlick moved: Covens seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #2-92 be opened. AYES: Leonard, Schultz, Shoop, Covens, Draper, Dummer, Ger- lick, Glynn NAYS: None ABSENT: Tobin 1 ABSTAIN: None The motion carried. Mr. Stitt was sworn in, and testified that the application for amendment of the previously approved Planned Development was filed by Swedish Medical Center approximately six weeks ago. One of the requirements in conjunction with the proposed amendment was the submission of an up-to-date traffic impact analysis. This traffic analysis was not submitted until late, and the City Traffic Division has not had sufficient time to review this re- port. Inasmuch as the traffic analysis may have a significant impact on the consideration of the Planned Development, staff recommends that the Public Hearing be continued to March 17, 1992 at 7:00 P.M., and that no further testimony be taken until that time. Mr. Shoop asked if a two week continuation would be sufficient time for adequate review of the traffic analysis report. Mr. Stitt stated that this is the time suggested by the Traffic Divi- sion, and he felt it will be sufficient . Brief discussion en- sued. Mr. Stitt pointed out that continuation of the Hearing will not require re-posting of the property, or re-publication of the notice of Public Hearing. Gerlick moved: • Leonard seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #2-92 be continued • to March 17, 1992, at 7:00 P. M. in the City Council Chambers. AYES: Schultz, Shoop, Covens, Draper, Dummer, Gerlick, Glynn, Leonard NAYS: None ABSENT: Tobin ABSTAIN: None The motion carried. Mr. Schultz announced that the Public Hearing on the proposed amendment of the Planned Development for Swedish Medical Center has been continued to March 17, 1992 at 7:00 P.M. He thanked the representatives from Swedish Medical Center and their architec- tural staff for attending. IV. SHINGLE RECYCLING CASE #3-92 Mr. Stitt presented members of the Commission with copies of a memorandum to Deputy City Manager Martin from Dana Glazier, Envi- ronmental Services Coordinator, regarding the response of the Clean, Green, and Proud Commission to the shingle recycling is- sue. The CGP Commission is supportive of the recycling opera- tion, and is of the opinion that this use provides a beneficial service not only to Englewood but the entire metro area by di-• verting cedar shingles from the landfill into a mulch product that can be widely used. 2 • • • Mr. Stitt then reported that his staff has checked with Lakewood, Littleton, Northglenn, Thornton and Wheat Ridge regarding whether these municipalities would allow shingle recycling operations in their light and/or heavy industrial districts. All of the juris- dictions contacted stated that the shingle recycling operation would be allowed in their industrial districts. Specific stan- dards might be required in some instances, but these are no dif- ferent than what is required by Englewood: The Fire Department required fire lanes and the installation of a fire hydrant on the site, a restriction on the height of the shingle piles, etc. The issue is one of interpretation --this is not a landfill opera- tion, it is a "processing" operation, which is making mulch of different grades out of a product that could have been taken to the landfills. Mr. Stitt stated that staff has determined several courses of ac- tion that can be taken: 1. Propose that an amendment be made to the Comprehensive Zon- ing Ordinance which would prohibit the recycling of cedar shingles in the I-1 and I-2 Industrial Zone Districts. If the Planning Commission determines and can establish that the shingle recycling operation is a detriment to the community, then the Commission can make recommendation to City Council that the I-1 and I-2 Districts be amended to prohibit future shingle recy- cling operations. Mr. Stitt emphasized that whatever determination is made by the Commission and by the City Council will have no impact on the ex- isting operation: Treecycle is in operation, is a permitted use under the existing ordinance, and new restrictions cannot be made retroactive. The only control that may be exercised over the ex- isting operation will be through the Planned Development ap- proval. 2. Propose that an amendment be made to the Comprehensive Zon- ing Ordinance that would make the recycling of cedar shin- gles a Conditional Use . Mr. Stitt stated that if the Commission were to make shingle re- cycling operations a Conditional Use, it would still be a permit- ted use, but not a use-by-right. Specific consideration on the part of the Commission would be required prior to beginning the business. Specific conditions could be imposed if the Commission determined that the proposed use and the proposed location were compatible , and the specific criteria could apply to noise, lights, dust, vibration, etc. 3 • Propose that an amendment be made to the Comprehensive Zon- ing Ordinance that would maintain the recycling of cedar shingles as a permitted use subject to certain restrictions. 3 , Mr. Stitt stated that auto wrecking yards are an example of a • permitted use subject to certain restrictions: these could in- clude minimum area, screening/landscaping provisions, fire lanes, etc. 4. Leave the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance as it is, thus al- lowing the recycling of cedar shingles as a permitted use. The status quo would mean a finding by the Commission that there are no negative impacts from the recycling operation and that they may be allowed in the I-1 and I-2 Zone Districts with no special requirements or conditions imposed. 5. Establish a date for a Public Meeting at which time this is- sue could be presented to the community and ask for input and direction Mr. Stitt stated that staff is suggesting that a public meeting be held which would involve the entire community. Mr. Stitt sug- gested there is a need to get the concerns and input from not only the subject neighborhood, but the wider community concerns also. Mr. Stitt stated that he and his staff have received some complaints concerning the Treecycle operation, but he is not pre- pared to say that those complaints are echoed throughout the com- munity. Mr. Stitt stated that the public meeting would be publi- cized, City Council would be advised of the date and time, and • property owners in the immediate area could be contacted by mail. Mr. Schultz asked if complaints were continuing, or had the vol- ume dropped off. Mr. Stitt stated that the complaints are con- cerned primarily with aesthetics, with some regarding the nails and flat tires, and one complaint regarding rodents that the lady felt were being harbored in the shingle p iles. Mr. Stitt reiter- ated that Mr. Villareal does magnetically sweep the street sev- eral times per week to remove the nails that may have dropped from loads being brought to the site. This same problem of nails in the roadway has been experienced by Waste Management on West Union Avenue, and they have also been asked to sweep the street. The nail~ are dropped prior to the loads reaching the Treecycle or Waste Management sites. Mr. Stitt stated that Mr. Villareal is bringing in additional equipment from Canada to help in the chipping/grinding portion of the operation . He is also actively negot i at ing with landscaping companies, and h a s been working with the Denver Zoo, to market the mulch product. Mr. Draper discussed his previous suggestion from two weeks agq that loads being brought to the site be required to be covered. Mr. Stitt agreed that covered loads might help, but pointed out that the mere motion of the trailer could shake nails loose, they would drop to the bottom of the trailer or truck, and could drop • out cracks in the floor of the trailer. A tarp over loads would not totally solve the problem. 4 • • • Mr. Draper stated that he had walked through the immediate area, along the street, and in his opinion it is a clean operation. He did not see one nail or shingle on the street. The requirement of Planned Development approval was discussed. Mr. Stitt pointed out there is a $500 application fee on Planned Developments, and the purpose of Planned Developments is to pro- vide flexibility for the developer, not restrict the use. Mr. Stitt suggested that the Conditional Use approval may be the proper way to proceed on recycling operations in the future. Conditional Uses do require a public hearing before the Planning Commission. He pointed out that Conditional Uses do not, at the present time, require approval by the City Council. He suggested that such conditional use cases could be forwarded to city Coun- cil, and that body could exercise its option on whether or not to hold a Hearing. Mr. Covens asked if Treecycle is following all the recommenda- tions of the Fire Department. Mr. Stitt replied in the affirma- tive. Mr. Stitt stated that Mr. Villareal is proceeding with prepara- tions to file for Planned Development approval on the site. Mr. Villareal has indicated that he wants to provide for retail and wholesale operations on the site, in addition to processing the shingles into mulch . Mr. Schultz inquired about the removal of nails and tar paper from the shingles that are brought to the site. Mr. Stitt stated that magnets are used to remove the nails, and that personnel sort out the tar paper by hand. Mr. Ger lick questioned the worth of the public meeting. The business is existing, and whatever determination is made by the Commission and City Council will not affect this operation. He stated that in his opinion, the Conditional Use approval seems to be the way to proceed on future operations. Mr. Stitt stated that he isn't sure it is Council's direction to "eliminate" the subject use, but are asking that the Commission determine whether future recycling operations should be permitted, should they be permitted with conditions, or prohibited. Mr. Stitt stated that he is sure City Council is aware that whatever determination is made regarding future recycling operations will have no impact on Mr. Villareal's business. Mr. Stitt further stated that it will have to be made very clear at the public meeting that results of the meeting will have no effect on the recycling operation run by Mr. Villareal, but will apply to any future operations. Mr. Stitt stated that in his opinion, the public meeting will estab- lish a record of public involvement in the decision regarding fu- ture recycling businesses. Brief discussion ensued. Mr. Shoop asked if zoning restrictions were to be changed, would Mr. Villareal have to comply with new restrictions inasmuch as the Planned Development approval has not 5 been granted yet. Mr. Stitt pointed out that Mr. Villareal is already in business; the use is permitted, and the only require- ment that has not been met is that of Planned Development, and that only because staff was given to understand by the individual who began the business was that it would be "temporary". Mr. Villareal purchased the business from that individual, and while his initial intent was that it would also be of a temporary na- ture, he has now determined that it is a viable business and he wants to do recycling of shingles and yard waste on a permanent basis. He is taking steps to comply with the Planned Development requirement. If the Commission and Council determine that recy- cling operations are not to be permitted in the I-1 Zone Dis- trict, Mr. Villareal's business will become non-conforming. This will mean that he cannot purchase additional land to expand the operation, and should the operation cease for 180 days, the land must thereafter be used for a permitted use. Ms. Leonard asked if there are special restrictions that apply to the existing operations. Mr. Stitt stated only the requirements of the Fire Department, which Mr. Villareal has complied with; it is a permitted use in the I-1 Zone District. Mr. Stitt further reviewed the history of the Treecycle Opera- tion. Ms. Tobin entered the meeting at 7:55 P. M. Mr. Schultz asked if there was, possibly, some flaw in the way we deal with businesses as a City; is there some way to prevent "temporary businesses" from becoming "permanent businesses." . Is there some way that some businesses are able to slip by the re- strictions by saying they are "temporary". Mr. Stitt stated that in his opinion, this case was handled properly, and emphasized that it is a permitted processing use in the I-1 Zone District. The only issue on this particular case is that of the Planned De- velopment, which Mr. Villareal is preparing to file. Mr. Stitt acknowledged that in some instances, people may try to slip by, but are frequently cited into court when found to be not in com- pliance with the Ordnance. Mr. Shoop asked if the individual who began the recycling opera- tion was issued a zoning permit. Mr. Stitt reiterated that the recycling operation is a permitted use, which does not require a "zoning permit". The issue is whether it was appropriate to not require a Planned Development for an alleged "temporary" use. Ms. Tobin stated that she had served as an election judge today, and that a number of people had approached her with concerns re- garding the shingle recycling operation. They were not aware that Mr. Villareal has complied with Fire Department requirements such as installation of fire hydrant, fire lanes, etc. ,, • • The issue of temporary vs. permanent use was discussed. Mr. • Stitt emphasized that in terms of zoning the length of time a 6 • • • business is in operation is immaterial. What is of importance is whether it is a Permitted Use in that particular zone district. The shingle recycling business is a permitted use in the I-1 Zone District. Covens moved: Gerlick seconded: The Planning Commission schedule a Public Meeting for April 7 at 6:30 P. M. on shingle recycling operations in the City. Discussion ensued. Ms. Martin suggested that the Commission should make sure that everyone in attendance has an opportunity to speak, and that placing a time limit on the meeting might in- hibit speakers. She further suggested that if the Commission wanted to set guidelines at the beginning of the meeting regard- ing repetitious remarks, etc., this could be considered. Brief discussion ensued. The vote was called: AYES: Shoop, Tobin, Covens, Draper, Dummer, Gerlick, Glynn, Leonard, Schultz NAYS: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None The motion carr i ed. V. PUBLIC FORUM. No one was present to address the Commission. VI. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE. Mr. Stitt reported that the Waste Management Planned Development was approved by City Council on March 2. Staff will proceed get- ting the documents together for signing by Mr. Schultz and Mayor Wiggins so they may be recorded. The City Council approval was 5:1:1; Councilwoman Habenicht felt a Public Hearing should have been held, and Councilman Bullock abstained because of a conflict of interest. Mr. Shoop stated that the air raid sirens are still on the site. Mr. Stitt stated that an easement has been retained for the air raid siren. Ms. Martin reported on the action of the RTD Board of Directors to approve an extension of the Metro Area Connector (MAC) project southward from the Auraria Campus to I-25 and Broadway. Last year the City Council passed a resolution in opposition to the original definition of the MAC project (from the Five Points area to Auraria). The Council's opposition stemmed from their concern that the RTD was funding a project, quite new in definition, in- stead of continuing the original focus of extending a transit 7 corridor down Santa Fe. On Monday, Council determined their con-• cerns had been considered, and unanimously approved a resolution supporting the MAC extension project. RTD has identified some financing mechanism sufficient to pay off some of their bonded indebtedness. Discussion ensued. VII. COMMISSIONER'S CHOICE. Mr. Covens stated that the Tri-cities Planning Group will meet on March 4th; Englewood will be hosting the meeting, and he and Mr. Shoop will both be in attendance. There was nothing further brought before the Commission. The meeting adjourned at 8:25 P. M. 8 • •