Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1974-10-22 PZC MINUTES• • • CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION October 22, 1974 I • CALL TO ORDER. 111.e Regular Meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairman Martin at 8:00 P.M. Members present: Martin; Jorgenson; Jones; Smith; Lentsch; Tanguma; Supinger, Ex-officio Members absent: Brown; Weist; Wade Also present: Assistant Director Romans; Planning Assistants Young and House; Assistant City Attorney Lee. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. Chairman Martin stated the Minutes of October 8, 1974, were to be considered for approval. Jorgenson moved: Smith seconded: The Minutes of October 8, 1974, be approved as written . AYES: Jones; Tanguma; Smith; Martin; Lentsch; Jorgenson NAYS: None ABSENT: Brown; Weist; Wade 111.e motion carried. III. DESIGN REVIEW. .. Mr. Martin stated that the matter of Design Review had been discussed at a previous work session, and was up for further discussion at this meeting. Mr. Supinger noted that the Multi-family Development Standards Review Committee has reviewed the concept of Design Review and have also reviewed a draft ordinance prepared in 1970; suggestions made by this committee include: (1) 111.e procedure should be termed "Design Review" rather than "Development Preview". (2) Add #15 provision to be considered on CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL to require submission on an interior design layout. Mr. Supinger stated he thought possibly the next step would be to schedule the proposed Ordinance, with the amendments, for Public Hearing. Mr. Weist entered the meeting, and took his place with the Commission. • • • -2- Mr. Martin asked if this Ordinance, as proposed, was patterned after an ordinance that was adopted and used in any other jurisdiction? Mr. Supinger stated that the proposed ordinance was patterned after an ordinance he worked with in Southern California; he noted that the use of the ordinance in Southern California was quite successful. Mr. Martin asked Mr. Supinger if he felt the proposed ordinance was an inclusive draft that would take care of most situations? He asked if there was any- thing that might come up that would not be covered? Mr. Supinger stated that he did feel the proposed Ordinance is all inclusive. Mr. Supinger stated he would like to point out that the pro- posed Ordinance would not apply to single-family residences; it would apply to all other structures. Mr. Supinger noted that one exception to the single-family dwelling unit approval might be if a structure were to be moved into the neighborhood; in that event, it would be subject to the review of the Design Review Committee. Mr. Smith asked what recourse a developer would have in the event his project were turned down by the Design Review Committee? Mr. Supinger stated that the appeal process is to the City Council. Mr. Tanguma asked why the relocation of a single-family unit would be subject to consideration by the Design Review Committee but a new single-family structure would not be? Discussion followed. The legality of design review was briefly discussed by Mr. Lee; he pointed out if the project is denied based on the type materials, positioning on the site, or some similar reason, it might constitute a violation of the due process of law. Mr. Jones pointed out that other factors could enter into the possible denial of a project by the Design Review Committee, such as failure to meet the building code, the specifications of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. etc. Mr. Jones .pointed out that another thing to be considered is whether the units to be moved in "fit the lot". Further discussion followed. Mr. Tanguma stated he felt the consideration of "commercial" structures was a different matter from the single-family unit; he stated that he would classify multi-family structures as a "commercial" use in this instance. Mr.Supinger emphasized that prior to submission of plans for any project to the Design Review Committee, the plans would have to meet the requirements of the Building Code and the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance; he noted that this Committee would be considering items that go beyond the recpirements of the Building Code and the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance re- quirements. Mr. Lentsch stated that he felt he was pretty familiar with the Southern California area, and had talked to the Board of Supervisors in Orange County; the gentleman he spoke with was not impressed with Design Review and wasn't sure the City of Tustin as a whole was fallowing the concept today. Mr. Lentsch stated that the Irvine Ranch developer did not have to go through a design review procedure. Mr. Lentsch asked if •• • • -3- Mr. Supinger could cite the number of U.S. cities that do use a form of architectural review. Mr. Supinger stated that he did not have the figures on the number of cities using architectural or design review; he stated that many communities have seen the need to come to some form of review process similar to, but not exactly as what is before the Commission. Mr. Supinger stated that a design review process will not do anything for existing uses, nor will it guarantee maintenance of property; it does, however, attempt to prevent "monstrosities" from going into a neighborhood; it does attempt to prevent buildings from imposing on their neighbors; it also attempts to see that such things as trash bins are properly placed; encourages use of landscaping, not only to beautify the development, but to screen areas that might be obnoxious to the neighbors; it attempts to prevent the use of materials that might cause an imposition upon the neighbors, such as sheet metal which could cause glare. Mr. Supinger pointed out that this would not dictate a design or finish, etc. Mr. Smith noted that the appeal procedure would be to Council; but, he felt that possibly the Council might be the wrong appeal body should a design review be unfavorable. He pointed out that Council does not have the time to go into the merits of good vs. bad design; but, neither does he want to see the design review committee have the final determination. He urged there be some point of arbitration before the matter would reach the Council . Mr. Supinger emphasized the importance of choosing persons to serve on the committee who will understand there can be different opinions relative to good design. He stated that the worth of the committee is in convincing the architect, developer, or other designers involved of the validity of the suggestions of the committee. He stated that the staff should be in the position to check the technical aspects of the proposed plan, and to make recommendations for improvement. Mr. Smith asked if there was any design criteria established -- something that could be followed by the architect and developer? Mr. Supinger noted that the only guidelines that would be in- cluded are listed on pages three and four of Draft I. Mr. Supinger stated that you cannot legislate good design; nor would it be wise to limit design possibilities. Mr. Supinger suggested that the committee could easily determine examples of good and bad design, and have photos of these examples that could be displayed to developers applying for permits, etc. Mr. Brown entered and took his place with the Commission. Mr. Lentsch reverted to his previous discussion of Southern California ·, and noted that "the older part of Tustin isn't developing, and in the same county nobody follows the design review." He again pointed out that the Irvine Ranch develop- ment didn't use architectural review. ,, • • • -4- Mr. Supinger stated that design review procedure does not serve as a "roadblock" to the developer, and he now believes that developers are recognizing the need for guch a process. Mr. Smith referred to the "small landowner and mall builder" who might be limited in funds and therefore limited in the type of architecture they can come up with. He noted that possibly they might have difficulty getting past the review committee. Mr. Supinger stated that he did not feel the proposed ordinance was drafted with only the large developments in mind. Mr. Martin commented on poor design of some structures in Englewood. He stated there is no reason a committee of ex- perts who know about design review cannot be established; he stated he felt there were residents of Englewood who are ex- pert and knowledgeable in this field. Discussion followed. The Larwin development was discussed in reference to a design review committee; Mr. Lentsch noted that / at the time the Larwin project was before the Commission, persons were concerned with drainage, traffic flow, etc., and not with the visual aspect of the development. Mr. Brown commented he felt "we accepted their pictures from California and this is what we ended up with." Further discussion followed. Mr. Tanguma stated that the ordinance should be amended to specifically state that single-family dwelling units are ex• eluded from consideration under the design review procedure. Composition of the proposed review committee was discussed. Mr. Lentsch asked if these people would be citizens of Englewood? Mr. Supinger stated that this would be at the discretion of the Council. Mr. Lentsch stated that he felt members of any City Committee should definitely be residents of Englewood .• Mr. Tanguma suggested that this stipulation be made a part of tbe draft ordinance, also. Mr. Lentsch asked why the matter of exterior color should be of concern to this committee? Mr. Supinger stated that by including the stipulation on exterior color, this does not state that the committee will dictate colors; it does state that color needs to be taken into account. Mr. Lentsch asked whose jurisdiction the committee would be under? Mr. Supinger stated that it would work closely with the Department of Community Development; this department wouliaccept plans as they do now and review them for code compliance as well as design. Mr. Lentsch asked how much additional manpower this would require? Mr. Supinger stated that he did not feel it would require any additional personnel. Mr. Jones noted that the draft Ordinance has a date of 1970 on it; he asked why there had been no pursuit of this project until this time? Mr. Supinger stated that the proposed ordinance was previously discussed by the Planning Commission, but never got to Public Hearing. I ' : I I I I • • • -5- Mr. Martin stated that for a design review procedure to be effective, he felt everyone should be as objective as possible. He stated that the immediate area for which a development is proposed must be considered, andnot just that specific building. Discussion followed. Mr. Jones stated he felt there should be a joint City Council - Planning Commission meeting prior to submitting this to public hearing; he stated he felt the Council and Commission should be in basic agreement on this procedure before taking it any further. Mr. Brown stated he would have to agree with Mr. Jones that it should be reviewed with Council prior to any further hearings, etc. Mr. Martin cautioned that this should not be tied to the Core Area plan; he stated that there would be change in the city regardless of whether or not there is a Core Area Plan. He felt an educational process was perhaps needed for the Design Review procedure. Mr. Lentsch stated he didn't think there had to be changes; he stated he didn't think the city was "as bad as some people try to make it out". He cited some chain establishments in the downtown area as being very successful. Mr. Martin stated that he felt some attempt could be made to I regulate even the chain operations. He felt they could be made to conform to the community. Mr. Supinger stated that chain operations can cause problems with the design review process. However, they can and will modify some of their designs, use different materials and install landscaping when required to do so. Mr. Supinger pointed out that service stations are another special problem in design review. Discussion followed • • Mr. Lentsch suggested that Council be asked to set a date when it would be convenient for them to meet with the Planning Com- mission to discuss the Design Review proposal. He suggested that a letter be written to the Mayor. It was determined that this would be the best way to proceed. Mr. Martin stated that he would hope the meeting could be fairly soon to avoid a long time span between this discussion and the discussion with Council. IV. BICYCLE PATHS. Mr. Supinger stated that Mrs. Romans and Mrs. Young have pre- pared a synopsis of the proposed bicycle trail report, setting forth a history of past consideration and setting forth, also, a proposed scheduling for development . • • • -6- Trails are proposed along (1) the City Ditch from Belleview Park to Jason Park; (2) Little Dry Creek from South Clarkson Street to West Girard Avenue and South Bannock Street; (3) con- tinue the trails along the Northwest Greenbelt Drainage area (a portion of this trail is now under construction); (4) along South Sherman Street between East Yale Avenue and East Chenango Avenue. Mr. Weist asked what was the purpose in defining bicycles as vehicles? Mr. Lee stated that there had been occasions of bicycle/automobile collisions with bicyclists injured. Mr. Lee stated that motorists, in making left-turns, pulling away from curbs, etc., are required to yield to .on-coming vehicles; by defining a bicycle as a vehicle, the motorist is required to yield to the bicyclist. I The use of trail bikes in the City was discussed. Mr. Lee stated that they would be classified as vehicles, and if they were licensed, they would be used on city streets and alleys. Mr. Jorgenson asked if paving was a requisite for bicycle trails? He noted that the estimate for paving is $5,000 per mile. Mr. Jorgenson stated that he felt the right-of-way for the trails should be secured now, and they be paved later. Mr. Supinger stated that paving is not a prerequisite; the staff suggests paving in an effort to get maximum use, particularly commuter use. Unpaved trails would suffice for recreational use, temporarily. Mr. Supinger noted that it is difficult to ride the newer model bicycles on unpaved roads. Mr. Jones stated that he understood Mr. Jorgenson's point; it is more important to establish the trail route as a beginning point, than to have none at all. Mr. Jorgenson commented that we could lose most of the proposed right-of-way if it ~sn't tied down. Discussion followed. Mr. Supinger asked if the Commission would want to ask the Parks & Recreation Commission to review the report and get their recommendation prior to making a recommendation to City Council? Mr. Supinger stated that the bicycle trails report has been discussed with Parks & Recreation Director Romans, but not with the Commission. Mr. Martin suggested that a letter be written to the Parks & Recreation Commission Chairman asking their review of and comments on the Bicycle Trails Report. Mr. Weist stated that he hoped the City could develop trails and routes through the City and tie in with trails and routes developed in the surrounding jurisdictions, and that the routes could be developed off-street as much as possible. Mr. Weist noted that Littleton has developed routes on-street, parking has been removed to accommodate the bicycle route, and residents are rather unhappy with the system. Discussion followed. Mr. Lentsch asked what advantage would there be for on-street trails? Mr. Supinger stated that a specific lane would be provided for • • • -7- on-street trails, but the bicyclist may use any street they so desire. Mr. Lentsch stated that he didn't feel the specific lane would be used by the bicyclists. V. MASTER STREET PLAN Traffic Patterns Mr. Supinger stated that Mrs. Romans would make the presentation on the Master Street Plan. He reminded the Commission that City Council did accept the Commission recommendation of no action until further study on the matter of one-way vs. two- way traffic flow on Bannock-Sherman, West Hampden Avenue, and the extension of West Hampden Place. Mrs. Romans noted that the Commission had been given, this evening, information from the Director of Public Works and the Traffic Engineer addressing the question on one-way streets. Mrs. Romans stated that she would like to go into the background of the Master Street Plan. The Comprehensive Plan, or Master Plan, is a long range plan to guide the growth of the City. The detail to be included in a Comprehensive Plan can vary. Mrs. Romans stated that the Englewood Comprehensive Plan was prepared by three Planning Directors under the direction of three different City Attornies. Mrs. Romans stated that the authority for the Master Plan is contained in State Statute 139-59-6; the Statute gives the Planning Commission the responsibility of writing and adopting a Master Plan. A requirement of the Master Plan is that adequate provision be made for traffic. When the Commission has adopted a Master Street Plan there are certain restrictions placed on further development in the City. No building permits may be i~sued for or construction take place on lands that are needed for street purposes, or where additional street dedication is needed to give frontage. Mrs. Romans stated that the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision Regulations, etc. carry out the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. Mrs. Romans stated that the purpose of the Master Street Plan is to provide for traffic generated in the area. The Master Street Plan is but one segment of the Comprehensive Plan, which includes History & Character, Central Business District, Land Use, etc. The City Charter, which creates the Planning Commission, also says it is the responsibility of the Commission to prepare a Comprehensive Plan, and that it must be kept current • • • • -8- Mrs. Romans stated that the first Master Street Plan was drawn by former Ci ty Engineer Neil Barde; this was referred to City Council, but no record can be found that the Plan was adopted and recorded. The Plan was directed largely to street widths. Under Planning Director Joe Lacy, work was begun on the Compre- hensive Plan known as "Englewood Tomorrow". Planning Director Munns directed work on the Plan, which was known as "Guide for Growth" during his tenure. The Plan was finally adopted in 1969, during the period when Mrs. Romans was Planning Director. Pictoral displays of the growth of the City from 1940 to 1950, to 1960 -1965 to present day were shown. The street designations, arterial, collector, freeway, etc, were also shown. Mrs. Romans then reviewed several drafts of the Master Street Plan section of the Comprehensive Plan. These drafts went from great detail to a very general statement. The Comprehen- sive Plan, as prepared and adopted, is rather general. Mrs. Romans then discussed the north/south streets through Englewood that would tie into continuing streets in other municipalities. West of Broadway, there is no street that runs from Yale to Belleview without some impediment other than South Santa Fe Drive. East of Broadway, there is Logan and Clarkson. Clarkson does not extend north of Yale, nor does it go anywhere south of Belleview. North/south streets that extend and tie in with streets in other municipalities, then, are University Boulevard, South Broadway, South Santa Fe Drive, and Federal Boulevard. Mrs. Romans discussed street designations, such as local, collector, arterial, freeway, etc. The primary function of a local street is to provide access to the property that abuts upon the street. Another function for local streets ie to provide easement areas for utilities, and open space. The local street carries the traffic to the collector streets, which in turn, carry the traffic to the arterial streets. The arterial streets move large volumes of traffic through the city into adjacent municipalities and jurisdictions. The freeways carry high volumes of traffic at reasonably high speed; the freeway is relatively access-free, also. Mrs. Romans stated that the Master Street Plan identified five areas where additional access was needed: (1) the former KLZ site; (2) and (3) Two areas in Northwest Englewood; (4) South of Union west of South Santa Fe, and (5) East of South Santa Fe between Oxford and Stanford Avenues. Proposed interchanges were also indicated in the Master Street Plan: University, Broadway and Santa Fe at U.S. 285; Belleview and Quincy at South Santa Fe Drive • • • • -9- Mrs. Romans stated that by Resolution #50, Series of 1973, City Council did designate certain streets on which additional right- of-way was needed. Mrs. Romans then cited the Englewood Municipal Code, §14-3-9, which section sets forth the duties of the Traffic Engineer. Among those duties listed is: (5) Designate one-way streets and roadways. Mrs. Romans emphasized that designation of one-way streets, traffic control, etc., are all administrative responsitilities of the Traffic Engineer. The Master Street Plan does not address the matter of one-way streets whatsoever. Mrs. Romans noted that an election in 1968 did address the matter of one-way streets, most particularly South Bannock Street between West Dartmouth Avenue and West Quincy Avenue. Mrs. Romans urged members to become more familiar with the Plan. Mrs. Romans noted that it has been five years since the Plan was prepared and adopted, and that periodic up- dating is advisable. Mrs. Romans referred to the petitions that have been presented asking that South Bannock Street be designated for two-way traffic. She stated that persons have urged that the Master Street Plan be changed to permit two-way traffic on South Bannock; she stated that she has attempted to show that the Master Street Plan does not designate two-way traffic or any form of traffic control. This authority is given to the Traffic Engineer by the Englewood Municipal Code. Mr. Martin asked if the Traffic Engineer in fact did have the authority to designate traffic control and traffic flow? Mr. Supinger noted that the Traffic Engineer is not a department head. • Mrs. Karen Ratz 3748 South Bannock-stated that the property owners along South Bannock had requested that the street be designated for two-way traffic. Mrs. Romans reiterated the fact there was an election pertaining to two-way traffic on South Bannock Street, and the results of the election determined there should be one-way traffic on South Bannock Street from West Dartmouth Avenue to West Quincy Avenue. Mrs. Romans also pointed out that the street is too narrow to accommodate tw o-way traffic properly. Mrs. Ratz stated that the traffic goes too fast on South Bannock, and it is poorly marked; people turn onto Bannock to go north- bound and don't realize it's one-way south because of the poor marking • • • • -10- Discussion followed. Mr. Jones stated that he felt other items such as storm drainage had taken priority over widening of streets to carry the traffic volumes. Mr. Jones state~ that South Broadway is carrying an undue amount of traffic. Mr. Jones noted that Englewood is required to provide for large volumes of "through" traffic, and that arterial streets should be improved. Further brief discussion followed. VI. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE Mr. Supinger stated that members of the staff will be attending the American Institute of Planners Conference in Denver October 27 thru 30th. VII. COMMISSION'S CHOICE Assistant City Attorney Lee stated that the Commission had asked for an opinion from him regarding the referendum on •traffic flow on South Bannock; he stated that if the traffic flow were to revert to two-way, the matter would first have to be put to a vote of the people, inasmuch as the one-way traffic flow was voted in in 1968. Brief discussion ensued. The meeting adjourned at 10:55 P.M •