Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-07-07 PZC MINUTESCITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JULY 7, 1992 I. CALL TO ORDER. The regular meeting of the City Planning & Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairman Jan Schultz at 7:00 P.M. in Conference Room~ of Englewood City Hall. Members present: Tobin, Draper, Dummer, Gerlick, Glynn, Shoop, Schultz Martin, Ex-officio Members absent: Covens (with previous notice) Also present: II. Leonard (entered the meeting at 7:05 P.M.) Planning Administrator Harold Stitt Assistant City Attorney Dan Brotzman Administrative Analyst Chuck Reid APPROVAL OF MINUTES June 16, 1992 Chairman Schultz asked if there were any corrections to the Minutes of June 16, 1992. Tobin moved: Draper seconded: The Minutes of June 16, 1992 be approved as written. AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Draper, Gerlick, Glynn, Shoop, Tobin, Schultz None Dummer Leonard, Covens The motion carried. ID. COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE § 16-4-13 I-1, Light Industrial District §16-4-14 I-2, General Industrial District Mr. Schultz asked staff to discuss the proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Zoning Or- dinance. Mr. Stitt stated that Mr. Reid will lead this discussion. Mr. Reid stated that the proposed amendments pertain to recycled material manufacturing op- erations in both the Light and General Industrial Districts. Mr. Reid stated that there are four options that may be considered: 1. Be laissez-faire about recycled material manufacturing. 2. Allow recycled material manufacturing to operate as a restricted permitted use. 3. Allow recycled material manufacturing to operate as a conditional use. 4. Prohibit recycled material manufacturing. Mr. Reid stated that there are three recycling operations in operation in Englewood at the pre- sent time: Treecycle, at 4755 South Windermere; the General Iron site; Waste Management, at 2400 West Union Avenue. Considerable public concern has been voiced about the recycling operations at Treecycle and on the General Iron site. 1 Mr. Reid introduced Mr. Magee and Mr. Smith from Waste Management, who were in atten- dance for this discussion. Mr. Reid reviewed the four options outlined in the advisory staff report, pointing out that pro- hibition of all recycling operations is not a viable option given the commitment the Council has made to recycling, and in light of today's environmentally conscious society. The proposed laissez-faire policy (enforcement only by current codes), is not responsive to the concerns that have been expressed. Mr. Reid further pointed out that the recycling businesses are a new type of business, and the current codes do not adequately apply to address issues such as the health, safety, and welfare of the community, or the aesthetics of these operations. Ms. Leonard entered the meeting and took her chair with members of the Commission. Mr. Reid summarized the proposed amendments: If the operation is conducted within an en- closed structure, it will be a Permitted Use (with restrictions); if the operation is not conducted ~. within an enclosed structure, it will be a "Conditional Use", subject to a Public Hearing before the Planning & Zoning Commission, shall have a minimum lot area of one (1) acre; shall be enclosed by a solid, non-transparent wall or fence of eight (8) feet in height on the front of the property, and maximum 12 feet in height on the side and rear property lines. Mr. Reid stated that the "Permitted Use" would not require a Planned Development approval unless the site area exceeds one acre in area. Mr. Reid suggested the addition of a Section b) to the "Permitted Use" provisions, which would state that "storage of all processed materials may occur outside a structure, providing said storage is in a roll-off container, tractor trailer, or similar self-contained apparatus." Ms. Tobin inquired whether this roll-off container would have to be covered. She stated that some storage of unclean recycled materials could generate a noxious odor. Mr. Smith from WMI stated that their operation sorts the plastics prior to baling, and they accept very limited plastic products for processing. Contaminated plastics are not baled, but are put in the general waste stream. Mr. Smith stated that there is very little odor associated with the recycling op- eration, and materials such as plastics may be stored on-site until the market dictates. Mr. Reid suggested that the Conditional Use proposal be revised to include the following: "All recycled material manufacturing businesses operating under Conditional Use provisions shall be subject to a yearly administrative review. After the administrative review, the Com- munity Development Director may recommend a Public Hearing to reconsider the business op- eration." Discussion ensued. Mr. Reid pointed out that all recycling operations which are to be conducted outside, (Conditional Use), will have to go through the Public Hearing process. Mr. Draper asked for clarification on "contaminated" plastics. Mr. Smith discussed the plas- tics (basically #1 and #2) which are acceptable by WMI for recycling. Other plastic contain- ers, such as margarine containers, yogurt containers, etc., even though recycling is indicated on the bottom of the containers, are not acceptable, and are termed "contaminated" --whether they are cleaned or not. These items are put in the general waste stream, and are landfilled. Mr. Magee stated that the baled plastic is stored in a tractor-trailer until the trailer is full, and then shipped out. Ms. Martin stated that the City is limited in ways to control the recycling operations, and one of the main concerns that has been expressed by citizens is the aesthetic impact these opera- tions have on neighborhoods. 2 The suggested annual administrative review was discussed. Mr. Smith pointed out that this provision could create problems for new businesses, in that banks might not be willing to loan for a business that could be shut down within one year. He pointed out that WMI has close to $100,000 invested in their recycling operation. He suggested the possibility of requiring an "operational plan" for the business to be judged by, and requiring a bond to assure clean up of a site should the business fail. Ms. Tobin inquired if such a bond would be prohibitive for a small business just getting started. Ms. Martin asked if a Conditional Use were approved, and there were violations of the condi- tions/restrictions imposed on that Use, would the City have recourse if there were not an an- nual review required. Mr. Brotzman stated that the City does have recourse; the administra- tive review clause would make it easier to close a problem business. Mr. Dummer suggested that the yearly review could be based on a "phase" plan which could -- be required at the time of initial approval. ~. Mr. Stitt emphasized that the Commission must keep in mind that what we are considering is the "use", and not the "business". Regarding outside storage (Conditional Use provision , as suggested), specific standards would be imposed at the time of approval, and if the operators do not meet those imposed standards or conditions at the time of review , or at any time, the City would have recourse. Ms. Martin asked if a site plan has to be submitted in conjunction with a conditional use re- quest. Mr. Stitt replied in the affirmative. On this site plan, the businessman interested in re- cycling operations could designate general areas that he proposed for outside storage, land- scaping, parking, etc. This site plan is kept on file. Mr. Magee stated that there is need for a bond to assure cleaning of a site. Ms. Martin asked how much this bond would be, particularly if there is recyclable material stockpiled. Mr. Smith stated that it would probably depend on the quantity that is stockpiled. Mr. Smith cited that insurance companies could require collateral, individual investment, etc. in determining whether they would issue bonds for new businesses . It is up to the insurance companies to make the determination on viability of the business. Mr. Magee commented that requirement of a performance bond or clean-up bond, will be for the protection of the City. Further discussion ensued. Mr. Schultz stated that we need something quantitative to base the reviews on; he pointed out that memberships on the Commission change, staff members leave, and ordinances change; this could, possibly , put someone in a position of non-compliance if there is not something firm to base the review on. He stated that he likes the restrictions of requiring screening, landscaping, fencing, etc. on the site plan. The volume of the business should not be an issue to the Commission. Further discussion ensued. Mr. Reid emphasized that it will be determined by the individual businessman whether they want to operate as a "Permitted Use" (inside a structure), or as a "Conditional Use" (outside storage). Mr. Magee stated that they operate a buy-back center, which was approved in their recent Planned Development. These bins provide outside storage during operating hours. Would they be subject to regulations, also. Mr. Reid stated that restrictions imposed on the buy-back operations would affect King Soopers, Safeway, and other retail outlets which accept materials for recycling. These proposed amendments were not drafted to include buy-back centers. 3 Mr. Reid addressed Ms. Tobin's earlier concern regarding odors from recycled products; he a noted that food wastes are now processed into pellets for cattle feed, and this product is not • stored outside uncovered because it must be kept out of the elements. Ms. Tobin inquired if "vegetation" as noted in the proposed amendments would include cedar shingles. Mr. Brotzman stated it would not. Ms. Martin stated that staff has tried to talk to people who are involved in the recycling busi- ness; staff does not believe that the proposed amendments will discourage people who want to get into this type of business, and will also address the aesthetic values of the citizens of En- glewood. Further discussion on the proposed amendments ensued. Mr. Schultz asked whether the stor- age and/or processing of tires should be eliminated. Mr. Smith stated there is no market for used or recycled/processed tires. Further discussion regarding requirement of a performance bond ensued. The necessity to ex- ercise caution in requiring a bond of one type of business but not of another was stressed. Mr. Stitt cited auto wrecking yards, which some people find aesthetically offensive; this use has outside storage, also. Ms. Martin stated that staff needs some directives from the Commission: does the Commis- sion approve of the proposed amendments, with the additions as outlined by Mr. Reid, and should the staff further explore the requirement of a performance/closure bond. Also, what is the determination on the yearly administrative review. Mr. Schultz stated that if a "plan" were presented at the beginning of the operation, and if the review were to be based on that plan, the administrative review would be acceptable. Mr. Magee commented that this would. be less objectionable to the businessmen engaged in recy- cling operations. Further discussion ensued. Mr. Reid suggested changing the wording fol- lowing "administrative review "by adding "the adopted conditional use". Mr. Draper asked how a change of ownership on the business would be addressed. Mr. Stitt stated that it has been a problem on some businesses, but not on others. If a business has been in operation longer than the Conditional Use approval llas been required, staff may suggest that the new businessman go through the Conditional Use process in an effort to get some amenities that are not provided --designated parking, screening, landscaping, etc. If the busi- ness is basically conforming to current standards, this is not pursued. Mr. Magee inquired about recycling businesses in the future and the transfer station tax. If the operator cannot show a market for the material, at what point does the City consider it a tax- able material; at what point in time does the incoming material cease to be considered recy- clable? Ms. Martin and Mr. Brotzman indicated that this issue will be researched. Ms. Tobin asked whether this would be an issue that the Commission would consider. Mr. Brotzman stated that it is not. Ms. Tobin asked whether members of the Commission could also request the administrative review/public hearing if a use does not appear to comply with Conditional Use provisions. Ms. Martin suggested that the Director of Community Development would be the authority to suggest the Public Hearing, and that the Hearing would be before the Commission. Mr. Schultz suggested that staff be directed to rewrite the proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance, and bring them back for further consideration by the Commission before proceed- ing further. Mr. Brotzman asked for clarification on whether the Commission wants to require 4 : the bond under the Permitted Use section; the bond requirement can be a special requirement at the time of approval of the Conditional Use. Mr. Schultz suggested that the provision state "may be subject to a closure bond". Ms. Martin discussed the aesthetic issue of the recycling operations. She pointed out that what these businessmen are doing isn't "wrong", but it may not necessarily be acceptable in the City. Ms. Martin stated that the proposed amendments will be redrafted, and submitted to the Commission for further consideration before proceeding with the Public Hearing process. Ms. Martin also noted that other communities that have been contacted have not yet addressed the issue of recycling operations. Mr. Shoop inquired of Mr. Magee how many loads of recyclable products they receive per day. Mr. Magee stated they have six trucks, and have three loads per day from each truck for a total of 18 loads per day. Mr. Schultz thanked Mr. Magee and Mr. Smith for their attendance and participation in the discussion. IV. PUBLIC FORUM Mr. Schultz inquired of an unidentified gentleman if he wished to address the Commission. The gentleman declined to do so, stating that he was just an interested citizen. v. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE. Ms. Martin summarized discussions and actions of the Study Session/Council meeting of July 6th. A Small Business Development Corporation is being considered, which will be formed to assist in new business start-ups by providing loans and/or grants. The initial funding will be $125,000 from the City , $25 ,000 from the Englewood Chamber of Commerce, and $50,000 to be contributed by the Englewood Downtown Development Authority. The corporation mem- bership will be appointed by all three bodies, and will operate independently of all of the con- tributors. The maximum amount for any one loan/grant is proposed to be $50,000. Discus- sion ensued. The sales tax rebate program for purchase of new equipment in the industrial area has not been used much , and Council felt that it might attract more use were it to be extended for a given period of time; therefore, the program was expanded to a three-year period. Vacancies on various boards and commissions were filled, only to find that there are at least two more vacancies. Ms. Martin urged members who might know of a neighbor or friend who would be interested in serving to contact that person and urge them to apply for appoint- ment. The ordinance banning wood burning on high pollution days was passed on first reading. This would prohibit wood burning or burning of other polluting substances on high pollution days unless this was the sole source of heat, or a phase 2 or 3 stove. Ms. Tobin asked how high pollution days could be determined. She stated that she does not hear it broadcast on radio or television. Mr. Schultz agreed this is a problem. Ms. Martin suggested that persons interested in high pollution day designations can always call Dana Glazier in Neighborhood Services, notification is broadcast on radio and television, and notices are also published in the daily newspapers. 5 ' Ms. Martin stated that the first year-the wood burning ban is in effect will be an "educational" A year, and tickets would not be issued. WI' City Council purchased a new fire rescue vehicle; the existing rescue vehicle will be placed in reserve, and the vehicle now in reserve will be sold at auction. Council approved expenditure of funds to increase signage and install lighting at all elementary schools, including parochial schools. This will be accomplished before the Fall school term begins. Council approved the concrete district/paving district contract for 1992. Ms. Martin announced her resignation as Deputy City Manager for Englewood effective the end of July; as of August 3 she will begin duties as the City Manager for the City of Black Hawk. Ms. Martin stated that interviews for the position of Community Development Direc- tor will be conducted on July 28 and 29, and the new Director should be chosen prior to her departure. Ms. Martin also stated that the budget process should be well underway, and that provisions for the "vision" process will be in place. In response to a query, Ms. Martin stated that the Capital Improvement Project (CIP) list was submitted to City Manager Fraser. He has not made a determination on which projects he will recommend for funding in 1993. Mr. Dummer asked why golf course expansion needs to be considered by the Commission, inasmuch as the golf course fund is a separate fund, and is self-supporting. Ms. Martin agreed it is a separate fund, but activities need to be coordinated to take into account staff capabilities and timing. Mr. Stitt distributed information he obtained at the AP A Conference, and an article from the latest Planning magazine for the perusal of members of the Commission. vn. COMMISSIONER'S CHOICE Ms. Tobin stated that she has received several comments on the new patrol cars, and that citi- zens are not pleased with the color. They do not feel the vehicles present a "picture of safety". Ms. Tobin stated that she works as a tour guide at the Molly Brown House, and that they have received several calls regarding access for disabled. She stated that she is also aware that the City of Denver has received numerous calls regarding the same issue. Mr. Ger lick asked for an explanation of the diverse opinions rendered by the City Attorney's office to Mrs. Romans and to Mr. Stitt regarding the issue of adult establishments in the pro- posed B-3 Zone District. Mr. Brotzman stated that Mr. Stitt had discussed the issue with him and explained that the proposed B-3 Zone District is less restrictive than the existing B-2, but more restrictive than the existing I-1; both the existing zone districts do at the present time permit adult establishments. Therefore, it is his opinion that adult establishments should be in- cluded in the proposed B-3. Mrs. Romans, on the other hand, apparently approached discus- sion of the issue with City Attorney DeWitt from a different perspective. Mr. Brotzman stated that it appears no one wants to see adult businesses in Englewood, and he understands that point of view; it is his opinion, however, that City Council will want to have "factual find- ings" why adult businesses are not included in the proposed B-3 when they are included in both the B-2, Business, and I-1, Light Industrial Districts. Brief discussion ensued. Mr. Glynn asked the outcome of Ms. Habenicht's campaign for the CML Board. Ms. Martin stated that Ms. Habenicht was not elected to the Board. 6 -- \ Mr. Schultz and Mr. Glynn briefly discussed their attendance at the CML meeting. Mr. Schultz stated that the meetings he attended were very good, and suggested that at some future meeting, all attendees be prepared to discuss their attendance in more detail. Ms. Martin agreed that the CML conference was very good, and there was a good tum out. She commented that there are some sessions, such as those pertaining to Planning, that do need to be expanded. There was nothing further brought up for discussion, and the meeting was declared adjourned . Gertrude~ Recording Secretary 7