Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-03-22 PZC MINUTES• • • I. CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 22, 1988 CALL TO ORDER. The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order in Conference Room A at 7:05 P.M. by Chairman Hanson. Members present: Carson, Draper, Fish, Hanson, Russell, Schultz Romans, Ex-officio Members absent: Such, Volkema, Barbre Also present: Senior Planner Susan Hirsch Assistant City Attorney Nancy Reid II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. March 8, 1988 Chairman Hanson stated that the Minutes of March 8, 1988 were to be considered for approval. Carson moved: Fish seconded: The Minutes of March 8, 1988 be approved as written. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT : ABSTAIN: Draper, Fish, Hanson, Russell, Schultz , Carson None Such, Volkema, Barbre None The motion carried. III. PLANNING COMMISSION ORIENTATION. Assistant City Attorney Reid reviewed the duties of the Planning Commission, and stated that the authority for the Commission is given by State Statute , City Charter, and City Ordinances. Duties that are the responsibility of the Commission are the development of a Master Plan (Comprehensive Plan), approval of Subdivision Plats, development and recommendation of a Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, recommendation of a five year Capital Improvement Budget to the City Manager, and hearing and making recommendations on applications for amendments to the Zoning Ordinance, Comprehensive Plan, and Subdivisions . Assistant City Attorney Reid stated that the Planning Commission is an adviso - ry body to the City Council, with very limited decision making powers on its own. The Commission makes recommendations to City Council on issues relating t o the "general plan" of the City, and the City Council may or may not follow the Commission recommendation . Ms. Reid stated that Hearings before the Plan - ning Commission are at the "pleasure" of the Commission and are an administra - tive procedure. Mr. Carson discussed his interest in considering the B-2 Zone District and the landscaping requirements as applied in that Zone Di strict. He stated that -1 - there is nothing in the City Charter to prevent the Planning Commission from bringing this issue back for further discussion and action. Mr. Carson stated that he wants to come up with a solution to "clean up Broadway." Ms. Reid summarized the litigation before the Courts regarding the 10 foot landscaping requirement for automotive dealers. Ms. Reid stated that inasmuch as this issue is in Court, it is the opinion of the legal staff that the issue should not be reconsidered until the litigation is resolved. Discussion ensued. Mr. Hanson stated that he could foresee problems if the Commission tried to consider individual sections of the Zoning Ordinance for "little" amendments. Mr. Hanson suggested that prior to looking at individual sections of the Zoning Ordinance for amendment, he is of the opinion that the Comprehensive Plan should be up-dated, and then the Commission should consider the Zoning Ordinance as a whole to bring it into alignment with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Fish asked Ms. Reid to explain the relationship of the Planning Commission to the Englewood Urban Renewal Authority and the Englewood Cowntown Develop- ment Authority. Ms. Reid stated that she could not answer Mr. Fish regarding the EDDA without further research. However, the Englewood Urban Renewal Au- thority (EURA) is a separate body and is granted its powers from the State Statute. The EURA may acquire and dispose of land, float bonds for public improvements, etc. Mr. Fish asked if the EURA carried out the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Reid stated that carrying out the Comprehensive Plan is not the responsibility of the EURA. The EURA develops an Urban Renewal Plan, which is approved by the Planning Commission and by the City Council, which Plan could be superimposed on the General Plan (Comprehensive Plan) of the City. Once this Plan is · approved by the City Council, "it is out of everybody's hands but for the EURA". The EURA works hand-in-hand with the City, but is not "the City". The Plan developed by the Authority and approved by the Commission and Council must fit within the parameters of the City's zoning ordinance -- zoning must be appropriate for the type of development proposed for a specific site. Ms. Reid pointed out that the Buyer's Club/Home Club site is zoned I-1, Light Industrial, which requires Planned Development approval; the Urban Re- newal Authority requested and received approval from the Planning Commission and City Council of the Planned Development on this site. Ms. Reid emphasized that the City Council must approve the EURA Plan and any amendments thereto, and that the Plan and any amendments must first be submitted to the Planning Commission for their consideration and recommendation to City Council. Mr. Schultz discussed what he feels are "inconsistencies" in the EURA Plan and the general plan of the City, and cited intersections where it appears the intersecting streets "don't match" in the new developments. Mrs. Romans stated that she has talked to the EURA Executive Director, and Mr. Hinson has agreed to meet with the Commission at the meeting on May 3. The development of the old King Sooper's site should be firmed up by that time, and Mr. Hinson would be able to address the total redevelopment area. Mr. Hanson stated that in his opinion,the proposed development should have come to the Planning Com- mission before the fact so that streets could have been vacated before the project is built, and not vacated after the fact. • • Mr. Fish stated that after having read the Comprehensive Plan, he feels it is out of date. Mrs. Romans stated that some sections of the Plan are out of • date, but that other sections are still applicable. Mrs. Romans discussed the -2 - • • • purpose of the Comprehensive Plan, and the need to keep it a "general" vs. "specific" plan . Mr. Hanson inquired about changing the zone classification in the downtown area which would require that redevelopment projects have to come before the Planning Commission. Ms. Reid stated that the Commission could always recom- mend that a zone district be changed; however, depending on the status of the proposed redevelopment, it could be "grandfathered" in even if the zoning pro- visions were changed. Mr. Hanson asked if a new zone classification required Planned Development approval, would this apply to new projects. Ms. Reid stated that this would again, depend on how far the project had progressed. Mr. Fish stated that he was trying to determine what authority the Commission had in regard to the downtown area. He suggested that maybe the Commission should be concentrating on other areas. Ms. Reid stated that as long as the EURA complies with the plans which have been approved by the Council, any subsequent changes in the Comprehensive Plan suggested by the Commission would not apply to the development in the area covered by the approved Plan. Mr. Hanson asked what vote of Council is required to overturn a determination of the Planning Commission. Ms. Reid stated that a simple majority is the only requirement. Mr. Hanson stated that in other municipalities where he has worked, a 2/3 vote is required to overturn a recommendation of the Planning Commission . Mrs. Romans stated that under the Charter, the City Council cannot consider any change in the general plan of the City without a recommendation from the Planning Commission; however, the City Council does not have to abide by that recommendation. Mr. Hanson asked if members of the Commission had further questions of Ms. Reid. Mr. Carson asked what the City Attorney's Office was doing on the Planning Commissioner's Handbook. Ms. Reid discussed the change in staff in the Attor - ney's office over the past several months, and stated that the legal staff will review the Handbook for legal sufficiency when it has been compiled by the Planning staff . The legal staff is not prepared to take responsibility to update the Handbook. Mr. Hanson asked if the Commission should continue to operate under the present Handbook guidelines, or as the guidelines "should be". Ms. Reid suggested that the Commission could follow the existing Hand- book as closely as possible until the updated edition is available; or the Commission could make a motion that the Handbook not be followed and that they operate under Robert's Rules of Order. Discussion ensued. Ms. Reid asked if the Commission wanted her to research the relationship of the Commission with the EDDA. Mr. Fish stated that he was interested in determining what the relationship is between these two boards. Mr. Hanson thanked Ms. Reid for her attendance at the meeting. Ms. Reid ex- cused herself from the meeting . -3 - * * * * * Mrs. Russell stated that she wanted to take this opportunity to tell the mem- bers that she would be resigning her position on the Commission. Mrs. Russell stated that she could sense from the last couple of meetings that there is an intensification of purpose from members of the Commission, which will require considerable commitment and time from the individual members. Mrs. Russell stated that her schooling is demanding more of her time, and she has also been offered a position as a Para-legal with a firm, which will require some traveling. Therefore, Mrs. Russell stated, she did not feel that she would have the time to make the commitment to the programs before the Commission that should be made, and tendered her resignation. Mrs. Russell excused her- self from the meeting at 8:20 P.M. * * * * * IV. 1988/1989 GOALS Mr. Hanson asked the members of the Commission to review the goals which were determined at the last meeting, and asked whether there were any additions or deletions to those goals. Mr. Carson suggested that the Tour of the City by the Commission be done be- fore actually beginning the review of the Comprehensive Plan. Mrs. Romans submitted to members copies of the Orientation booklet, which was compiled to give members of the City Council. This Orientation booklet covers all divisions of the Department of Community Development and sets forth the duties and responsibilities of each division. Mr. Hanson asked if a date had been determined for the meeting with City Coun- cil. Mrs. Romans stated that no date has been set for the meeting with Coun- cil; but City Manager Mccown will arrange for a meeting date soon. Mrs. Ro- mans stated that she has spoken to EURA Executive Director Hinson about at- tending the Commission meeting on May 3, and suggested that possibly EDDA Ex- ecutive Director Dietrich could also attend that meeting. Mr. Hanson sugges- ted that a meeting also be scheduled with the Englewood Housing Authority and staff. Mr. Carson discussed the bicycle path issue, and noted that at the time the existing bicycle path system was developed, the route along Little Dry Creek was not included. Mrs . Romans suggested that if members receive inquiries about the maintenance of the bicycle path along Little Dry Creek, they should be aware that this area is still the responsibility of the contractor because there is work remaining in this phase of the Little Dry Creek improvements. The City will not accept responsibility for the maintenance of the bike path until the contractor has completed the work and the City has approved the job. Once this has been accomplished, maintenance and upkeep of the bicycle path will be assumed by the City. V. PUBLIC FORUM. There was no one present to address the Commission under Public Forum. -4 - • • • • • • VI. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE . Mrs. Romans stated that several weeks ago, the Commission considered a request to vacate a portion of the right-of-way in the 3500 block of South Jason Street, and recommended the vacation with the retention of utility and access easements. This matter was referred to City Council, and was passed by Coun- cil on first reading. However, there were some questions posed on the vaca- tion, and upon further discussion with Pennant Properties, the property owner to the west, it has been suggested that the recommendation for vacation be amended, and that the vacation apply only to the east 17 feet of the right-of- way, which land is already being used by Silo and Rocky Rococo. Discussion ensued. Mr. Hanson asked why the entire 60 foot right-of-way is not to be vacated. Mrs. Romans stated that only the east 17 feet of the right-of-way is recommen- ded for vacation by staff because the west 43 feet is necessary for access. She pointed out that the issue of the vacation was brought about because of development agreements with Pennant Properties, Inc., and the developers of Silo and Rocky Rococo. Carson moved: Draper seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council that the recommendation dated January 19, 1988 regarding the vaca- tion of the 3500 block of South Jason Street be amended to vacate only the east 17 feet of that right-of-way, as follows: Parcel A: A 17 foot strip of land being adjacent to Lots 23 to 29, Block 6, Englewood, according to the recorded plat thereof, City of Englewood, County of Arapahoe, State of Colorado, being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the Northwest corner of Block 6, being also the intersection of the East Right-of-Way (R.O.W.} line of Jason Street and the South R.O.W. line of Hampden Avenue; thence South 0°26'55" West, along the West line of said Block 6 and along said East R.O.W. line, a distance of 80.00 feet to the True Point of Beginning of the parcel herein described; thence continuing South 0°26'55" West, along said West line and said East R.O.W. line, a distance of 157.00 feet; thence North 89050'22" West, a distance of 17.00 feet; thence North 0°26'55" East, parallel with and 17.00 feet West of (by perpendicular measurement} said East R.O.W. line, a distance of 157.00 feet; thence South 89°50'22" East, a distance of 17.00 feet to the True Point of Beginning. Parcel B: A 17 foot strip of land being adjacent to Lots 17 to 23, Block 6, Englewood, according to the recorded plat thereof, City of Englewood, County of Arapahoe, State of Colorado, being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the Northwest corner of Block 6, being also the intersection of the East Right-of-Way (R.O.W.} line of Jason Street and the South R.O.W. line of Hampden Avenue; -5 - AYES : NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: thence South 0°26'55" West, along the West line of said Block 6 and along said East R.O.W. line, a distance of 237.00 feet to the True Point of Beginning of the parcel herein described; thence continuing South 0°26'55" West, along said West line and said East R.O .W. line, a distance of 140.73 feet to the North R.O.W. line of the proposed Inca-Ithaca Street R.O.W.; thence North 89°50'08" West, a distance of 17.00 feet; thence North 0°26'55" East, paral- lel with and 17.00 feet West of (by perpendicular measure- ment) said East R.O.W . line, a distance of 140.73 feet; thence South agoso'22" East, a distance of 17.00 feet to the True Point of Beginning. Fish, Schultz, Carson, Draper Hanson Such, Barbre, Volkema, Russell None The motion carried. VII. PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S CHOICE. Mr. Hanson stated that he wanted to discuss the idea of appointing ad hoc com- mittees to review the Comprehensive Plan vs. reviewing each section with the entire Commission . He stated that he personally would like to be involved in the consideration of each section, and would not have the time to attend all the ad hoc meetings. Mr. Draper suggested that the discussion of each section by the entire Commission would be educational for all members. Discussion ensued. Mr. Hanson suggested that staff put together a case load and schedule for consideration of the Comprehensive Plan. Mrs. Romans stated that according to the Handbook, one meeting per month is to be a work meeting. The staff will work out a schedule for the Commission using this procedure. Mrs . Romans stated that she will be sc heduling a tour for the Commission in the near future . The meeting was declared adjourned at 9:15 P.M. -6 - • • •