Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-04-04 PZC MINUTES• • • CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 4 , 1989 I. CALL TO ORDER. 9 D D R A F T The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Ch a irman Volkema at 7:00 P.M. in Conference Room A of Englewood City Hall. Members Present: Members Late: Members Absent: Also Pres e nt: Tobin, Volkema, Barber, Carson, Draper, Fish, Gerlick , Schultz Wanush, Ex-officio Becker (with previous notice) None Susan Hirsch, Senior Planner Po llyanna Hayes, Executive Director of EDDA Mr. Dennis Kelley Mr. and Mrs. Homer Dunn Mr. Volkema welc omed Ms. Hayes, Mr. Kelley and Mrs. and Mrs. Dunn to the meeting. II. HOUSING TASK FORCE Dennis Kelley Mr. Volkema stated that Mr. Kelley was to have been interviewed by the Commis- sion at their previous me e ting of March 21 for appointment to the Housing Task Force, but was unable to be present. Mr. Kelley was a s ked to meet with the Commission this evening to get acquainted and discuss the philosophy of the Task Force. Mr. Kelley stated that he has lived in Englewood since the northwest Englewood area was annexed to the City in the late 1950's. He has been active in the Scenic View nei ghborhood on everything that has occurred in the area: water lines, sewer service, zoning of the area, etc. Mr. Kelley stated that he has, until ·recently, been very active in the Homeown e rs' Association in northwest Englewood. He is interested in the growth of Englewood, particularly in the northwest neighborhood of the City, and is looking forward to helping on the Housing Task Force. Mr. Draper, who will serve as Chairperson of the Housing Task Force, welcomed Mr. Kelley to the Task Force, and stated that he is confident Mr. Kelley's experienc e and input will be of value to the committee. Mr. Fish stated that the housing neighborho od of northwest Englewood is unique, and asked Mr. Kelley what he envisioned for residential development in the area. Mr. Kelley stated that there have been some problems with the development of the area in the past which were created by the zoning, in his -1 - • • • opinion. He stated that the zone classifications which have been imposed al- low a greater density than should be permitted, and there are not the controls on the development that there should be. Mr. Kelley stated that developers try to get as many units on a lot as possible, which leaves no front yards or rear yards, .and variances were too easy to obtain in many instances. Mr. Kel- ley stated that there are still some old homes in the neighborhood, but that it comes down to what people can afford. Mr. Volkema expressed the appreciation of the Commission for Mr . Kelley's at- tendance, and stated that Mr. Kelley had been designated a member of the Task Force upon staff recommendation. Mr. Kelley was invited to remain for the rest of the meeting if he wished to. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. March 21, 1989 Chairman Volkema stated that the Minutes of March 21, 1989 were to be con- sidered for approval. Draper moved: Gerlick seconded: The Minutes of March 21, 1989 be approved as written. AYES: Volkema, Barber, Draper, Fish, Gerlick, Schultz, Tobin NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Carson ABSENT: Becker The motion carried. IV. FINDINGS OF FACT Case #14-88 (Remanded) Swedish Medical Center Planned Development Chairman Volkema stated that the Findings of Fact for Case #14-88 (Remanded) were to be considered. Fish moved: Draper seconded: The Findings of Fact for Case #14-88 (Remanded) be approved as written. AYES: Barber, Draper, Fish, Gerlick, Schultz, Tobin, Volkema NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Carson ABSENT: Becker Chairman Volkema stated that the motion carried. V. PUBLIC FORUM Chairman Volkema asked the members of there were any objections to changing the order of the agendq to let the visitors address the Commission without having to sit through the entire meeting. No objections were voiced, and Mr. Volkema asked if Mr. and Mrs. Dunn wished to address the Commission . Mrs. Dunn stated that she had several questions she wanted to ask, and that City Clerk Crow suggest~d that she come to the Commission meeting. Mrs. Dunn -2 - • • • asked if there were no time limits imposed on speakers before the Commission during a public hearing. Mrs. Dunn stated that speakers for the Swedish Medi- cal Center spoke to the Commission in excess of three hours at the meeting of March 21, and that the opponents had to send people home without being able to make their case to the Commission because of the lack of time. Mr. Volkema stated that no time limits were imposed; however, the hearing was open to all who wished to speak, and he inquired several times if there was anyone else who wanted to speak. Mrs. Dunn stated that the lawyer, Mr. Vansoest, did not represent them, but represented Mr. Huckeby who is their attorney. Why was Mr. Vansoest not sworn in, and how could the Commission allow someone who did not represent them to appear on their behalf. Mr. Fish stated that Mr. Vansoest was not presenting testimony or giving evidence, and as an attorney he did not have to be sworn in. Mr. Volkema stated that had Mr. Vansoest been testifying or presenting evidence, he would have been sworn in. Mrs. Dunn reiterated that Mr. Vansoest did not represent she and her husband, but represented Mr. Huckeby. Mr. Volkema suggested that any problem Mr. and Mrs. Dunn may have with their legal counsel is not the concern of the Commission. Mrs. Dunn stated that there are three new members on the board, and that Mr. Volkema had stated at the Hearing on March 21 that these members were not as familiar with the case as they should be. She asked why these members were not familiar with the request. Mr. Volkema stated that he did not intimate that the new members were not familiar with the case, but that they were new members who had not sat through the previous Hearings on the matter in Novem- ber and December, 1988 . Mrs. Dunn stated that only upon the request of a "prominent Council represen- tative" did Mr. Carson disqualify himself from this Hearing because his wife works at Swedish Medical Center. Mr. Carson stated that his wife recently went to work for Swedish Medical Center; this has been since the previous hearings before the Commission in November and December, 1988 and he dis- qualified himself. No member of City Council spoke to him about not par- ticipating in the Hearing. Mrs. Dunn reiterated that one Council person told her that she had gotten Mr. Carson off the Commission for that specific meet- ing. Mr. Carson asked the name of the Council person to whom Mrs. Dunn re- ferred, and Mrs. Dunn stated that it was "none of your [Mr. Carson's] business." Mrs. Dunn stated that there are three members of the Planning Commission who are very "slanted" to anything the Medical Center wants . Mrs. Dunn named, upon request, Mr. Volkema, Mr. Carson, and Mr. Draper as the members who are "slanted" to SMC: Mr. Volkema because of his affiliation with Swedish-Corona; Mr. Carson because his wife works at SMC; and Mr. Draper because of conversa- tions she has had with a Mr. Draper who does her taxes. Mr. Volkema stated that he has stated on previous occasions that Swedish- Corona has no affiliation with Swedish Medical Center, and that it is not a conflict of interest for him to participate in hearings on matters pertaining to the Medical Center. Mr. Draper stated that he is no relation to Mr. Ed Draper, who is an accoun- tant, and that he is not "slanted" to matters pertaining to SMC. Mrs. Dunn stated that she "assumed" Mr. Bill Draper was related to Mr. Ed Draper. -3 - • • • Mrs. Dunn asked how members are appointed to the Planning Commission, and stated that she had applied for membership on the Commission, but it was sug- gested that her membership might be better on the Board of Adjustment and Ap- peals. Mrs . Dunn stated that she was told by a previous member of the City Council that she could not be on the Planning Commission because she would not vote for anything pertaining to Swedish Medical Center. Mrs. Dunn reiterated her previous statement that the Planning Commission is "slanted in favor" of the SMC. Mr. Volkema stated that this is not true, and is only Mrs. Dunn's opinion. Mrs. Dunn also stated that Mr. Carson has been on the Planning Commission for "20 years, which is far too long", and that Mrs. Becker is a former member who was just recently reappointed. Mr. Volkema stated that appointments to boards and commissions are the prerogative of the City Council, and that anyone is welcome to apply for appointment. Mrs. Dunn stated that Mr. Wanush has said they cannot have the 25 foot buffer because he doesn't like the word "adjacent", and that SMC will not give them the 25 foot buffer. Mrs. Dunn stated that "you haven't heard the last of this." Mr. and Mrs. Dunn left the meeting. * * * * * * * * * * Ms. Pollyanna Hayes, Executive Di rector of EDDA, entered the meeting. * * * * * * * * * * VI. SIGN CODE CASE #2-89 Mr. Volkema stated that the Commission would consider the proposed amendments to the Sign Code, §16-4-19 of the Englewood Municipal Code. Mrs. Becker entered the meeting at 7:20 p.m. and took a seat with members of the Commission. Ms. Hirsch reviewed the revisions that have been proposed to the Sign Code, and noted that in the information sent to the Commission, additions are noted in Capital Case, and deletions are italicized . Section 16-4-19-1 was discussed. It was the consensus of the Commission that the terminology "or covered" needs further clarification. Mr. Barber sugges- ted that rather than including this explanation in the ordinance, perhaps a policy statement could be written delineating what is "acceptable covering". Section 16-4-19-3 was discussed . Ms . Hirsch stated that the paragraph which would be changed is "B", and not "C" as indicated. Paragraph F was discussed . Ms . Hirsch stated that this amendment is suggested to ease requirements for home owners in residential (R-1 and R-2 Zone Districts) areas. Under the present restrictions, homeowners would be charged for the contractor's license to erect a sign, plus paying for the sign. Suggestions to waive the fee for the contractor's license were discussed. A fee schedule was also discussed . Mr. Barber suggested that residents and small businesses could install some signs themselves; he further stated that determination should be made by the Chief Building Inspector that the individuals are capable of doing the instal - lation. Mr. Wanush stated that he did not see any problem in waiving the fees -4 - • • • as long as the Chief Building Official has given an opinion that the indi- vidual is able to install the sign. The proposed amendment, as worded, was dropped. Section 16-4-19-4 will be moved to §16-4-19-11. Section 16-4-19-5 was discussed. The last sentence will be deleted. Para- graph #2 of this section will be changed to "A", and the section renumbered accordingly. Paragraph C will be changed to D, and a section added pertaining to Flags. This proposed addition was discussed at length. Mrs. Becker stated that she felt there should be a statement included that a "Flag" must be at- tached to a flag pole. Further discussion ensued. This proposed amendment will be deleted. Paragraph D will become Paragraph E, and the statement added at the end of the Paragraph "Not subject to the 25% maximum window coverage :" This was dis- cussed and approved. Section J, Public Signs was discussed, and the proposed amendment was acceptable. Section M, Vehicle Consumer Information, was discussed. It was determined that this section should remain a part of the Sign Code, and not deleted as suggested. The addition of a Paragraph P, Contractor Signs, and Q, Real Estate Signs, were discussed. Ms. Hirsch stated that these paragraphs are being deleted from §16-4-19-7, Signs Subject to Yearly Registration, and being included in the section pertaining to Signs Not Requiring Permits . §§1 in Paragraph Q was reworded to state that "Any use PERMITTED in the R-1-A, " Section 16-4-19-8 C was discussed. This sections pertains to Signs Prohibited in all Zone Districts, and addresses Banners, pennants, valances and wind signs. The enforcement of the prohibition of banners was discussed . Some banners may be permitted as a short-term promotional or advertising effort. The issue of Third Party Signs was then raise.d. Mr. Volkema directed the at- tention of the Commission to a letter dated March 6, 1989, from Councilman Bill Clayton regarding allowing effective, adequate signage to all segments of the business community. Mr. Clayton had also included in his communication to Mr. Volkema, a copy of a letter from Hugh Fowler, owner of the Wishy-Washy , Inc. car wash at 3570 South Fox Street, with a copy of an ordinance proposed by Mr. Fowler and some demographic information on sales tax revenues, office leasing activity and retail sales . Discussion ensued. "Directional Signs" were discussed. Mrs . Becker stated that, in her opinion , people drive to a site specific, and do not need "directional signs" or "third party signs" to direct them to a particular business. Mrs. Becker asked how many "directional" signs can be tolerated in the City. Mr . Fish pointed out that new businesses do not have an established clientele, and that there may be a need for some directional signage for a period of time . Mrs . Tobin stated that she lives in the 3700 block of South Fox, and she was not aware that Buyer's Club and Silo had been constructed on Inca until she saw the sign. Mr. Gerlick stated that the development south of U.S . 285 is primarily that of small businesses; if one business is allowed a "directional" sign , everyone should have the opportunity to have a "directional" sign. This would -5 - • • • mean a proliferation of signs, and where would they be installed. Mr. Wanush pointed out that the proposed amendment does contain a distance factor of no closer than 200 linear feet to another off-site directional sign. Mr. Wanush suggested that one means to make it easier for people to locate a specific use is to increase the size of the street signage along U.S. 285, so that people driving the highway can see where a specific street intersects. Mr. Volkema stated that he felt the enlarged street name signs would be of assistance to motorists. The effect that third party signs have on an increased economic base was con- sidered. Mr. Fish noted that the City of Sheridan allows third party signs, and he does not regard that jurisdiction as an "economic mecca". Mr. Volkema pointed out that the two directional signs were allowed by City Council. Ms. Hirsch further pointed out that the two directional signs were allowed in the public right-of-way, which is not addressed at all in the Sign Code. Mr. Barber suggested that perhaps location of signs in public right-of- way should be addressed. Discussion ensued. Mr. Wanush stated that the staff will be meeting with the Chamber of Commerce Governmental Affairs Committee to review the proposed amendments. Ms. Hirsch stated that staff will also be meeting with some sign contractors regarding the amendments. The staff will report back to the Commission on the outcome of both these meetings. Further discussion on Third Party Signs ensued. Mr. Volkema asked if it was the consensus of the Commission that there should be no Third Party Signs al- lowed. A substantial majority of the Commission agreed that third party signs should not be allowed, but Ms. Tobin stated that it did not appear the small businessman was getting a "fair shake", and that she had no problem with the proposal regarding Third Party Signs. Section 16-4-19-9 was discussed. Ms. Hirsch stated that this section is being split, to separate the single-family and two-family (R-1-A, R-1-B, R-1-C, R-2, and R-2-C) districts from the higher density residential districts, which may also allow some uses which are not strictly residential. The R-2-C/S.P.S., R- 3, and R-4 residential districts will be placed in a new Section 16-4-19-10. Further amendments proposed to §16-4-19-9 were reviewed. Section 16-4-19-10 was considered . The signage permitted in the R-3 and R-4 Zone Districts was discussed. Signage permitted in the commercial districts and industrial districts was then considered. This section was reworded to state that "Each permitted use is calculated as follows", with the calcula- tions depicted in a graphic format. Amendments proposed to Ground Signs, Marquees, Canopy or Awning Signs were approved by the Commission. The provisions for Joint Identification Signs were also approved. Section 16-4-19-11, Permit for Group Signs was considered. This has been reworded to require a "Sign Package for all of the signs within" a new .... Mr. Schultz asked how many signs constituted a "group". Mr. Wanush stated that this would require a sign package for every sign within the boundaries of a particular property. -6 - • • • Mr. Volkema stated that staff will have discussions with the Chamber of Com- merce and the sign contractors. He asked if any members of the Commission had further comments or suggestions regarding the sign code amendments, to please call Ms. Hirsch. Mr. Fish stated that he wanted to see the final proposal prior to the Public Hearing. Mr. Wanush stated that the staff will try to have the final draft ready for the next meeting of the Commission. Mr. Schultz asked if a formal response should be made to Mr . Clayton's letter. The Commission so directed. V (B). PUBLIC FORUM There were no further comments addressed to the Commission under Public Forum. VII. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE. Mr. Wanush referenced the publication The Job of the Planning Commissioner, and suggested that members read the first three chapters in preparation for discussion on April 18 . Mr. Wanush stated that he also wants to discuss the Housing issue at the next meeting. VIII. COMMISSION'S CHOICE. ·' Mr. Volkema stated that he felt the Housing Task Force is very important, and understands that the organizational meeting is scheduled for April 10. He asked that if any member had suggestions for that committee, to transmit those suggestions to Mr . Draper and/or Ms. Tobin . Mr. Draper stated that he felt it would be a very good committee, and very educational for all concerned. Mr. Fish stated that one thing he feels should be discussed is the "area of housing". He stated that in his travels through the City, he does not come upon total blocks of poor, dilapidated housing; rather, it appears to be houses interspersed with nice, well-kept dwellings. There is a need to ad- dress the individual lot' and what can be done to upgrade that particular site. Mr. Draper agreed, and stated that he is trying to sell his home; he had a contract on it and thought the sale was going through, but the prospec- tive buyer noticed a junk vehicle in the yard next door and backed out of the sale. Mr. Wanush stated that a derelic r vehicle must be stored in a garage or covered, and that he would have staff check the problem out. Mr . Volkema agreed that there are not "pockets" of problems, and is impressed that the City has few "problem areas" .1 Mr. Volkema stated that there is a need to keep after enforcement, however. Mr. Barber discussed a problem with on-street parking in residential areas; many residents will not park their vehicles in their garages or drives even though they may be available. He stated that when you drive down some streets, one "does not see the houses because of the number of cars parked on street." Mr. Wanush stated that this is not a violation , but agreed it is a problem . Abandoned vehicles were discussed. Mr . Wanush stated that the Police Depart- ment handles a lot of abandoned vehicles. -7 - • • • Mrs. Becker discussed a resident in her neighborhood who continually parks a semi-trailer tractor in his front yard. Not only is this tractor over the weight limit allowed on streets, it is unsightly, and is a commercial vehicle being parked in a residential district. Mrs. Becker discussed her contacts with the Police Department, and has been told they cannot do anything about it because the vehicle is parked on private property. Mrs. Becker stated that she knows that the Code Enforcement personnel are aware of the problem, but it continues. Mr. Wanush stated that some Police personnel are not familiar with the provisions of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, and their ticket books do not contain the citation numbers under which a ticket could be issued for this type of violation on private property . Signage restricting truck traffic was discussed. Mr. Volkema stated that there is a large truck that is parked east of Swedish Medical Center every weekend. This vehicle is also in violation of the commercial vehicle restriction. Mrs. Tobin stated that she has received three telephone calls asking why the City has sold the water rights. She asked if any other member of the Commis- sion had received calls regarding this issue, and what is going on. Mr. Schultz stated that an article in the Rocky Mountain News included Englewood as a jurisdiction that Denver supplies water to; this was an erroneous state- ment, but does have some people concerned. Mr. Carson stated that there are small areas within Englewood that do obtain water from Denver. Discussion ensued. Mr. Volkema stated that some time ago, the Commission considered a proposed policy for use of The Plaza at Little Dry Creek. He asked if, when the policy is ready for presentation to City Council, whether the Planning Commission could review it again . Mr. Wanush stated that this would not require Planning Commission action, but it will be put on the agenda for information. Mr. Draper commended Mr. Volkema for the manner in which he replied to the concerns voiced by Mrs. Dunn. Mr. Schultz asked if Ms. Hayes wanted to address the Commission. Ms. Hayes stated that she is the Executive Director of the EDDA . She is presently work- ing on the First Annual Independence Fair, proposed for July 1 and 2 on The Plaza at Little Dry Creek. She stated that this is being developed along the lines of the People's Fair in Denver, and has nothing to do with the Englewood Rendezvous, which was last year in late summer. Ms. Hayes stated that she would hope the Rendezvous will be a yearly event, but understood that there were some problems experienced last summer. Ms. Hayes stated that she is also working on the Loyalty Day Parade, which will be on April 29. This is spon- sored by the V.F .W., and they have asked to move the Parade from downtown Den- ver to Englewood. Mrs. Becker stated that she had a recent discussion with a South Broadway businessman, and he expressed concern that all activities will be centered on The Plaza, and that South Broadway will be forgotten . She suggested that there be som~ activities planned which will involve both sides of South Broad- way. Ms. Hayes stated that she is working on activities that will involve all businessmen, and that most of the businesses she represents are located on South Broadway. -8 - • • • Ms. Hayes further discussed plans for the Independence Fair, noting there will be small rides, and that alcoholic beverages will be available (beer and wine coolers). Mrs. Tobin stated that some of the rides can be very dangerous, and that there should be ample insurance coverage. Mrs . Becker expressed concern about the availability of alcoholic beverages at any City-sponsored activity. Ms. Hayes stated that there will be ample security, and that she felt there would not be any "abuse" of the alcoholic beverage availability. Further dis- cussion ensued. Mr. Volkema asked if there was anything else to be brought before the Commis- sion . There being nothing further , the meeting was adjourned at 9:10 p.m. Gertrude G. Welty Recording Secretary -9 -