Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-01-20 PZC MINUTES• • • CITY OF ENGLEW OOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 20, 1987 I. CALL TO ORDER. Th e regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:00 P. M. by Chairman Carson. Members present: Magnuson, Maunakea, Allen, Barbre, Beier, Carson Romans, Ex-officio Members absent: Mulhern, Gourdin Also present: Senior Planner Susan T. King Mr. Gourdin and Mr. Mulhern entered the meeting and took their chairs with the members of the Commission . II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. January 6, 1987 Chairman Carson stated that the Minutes of January 6, 1987, were to be con- sidered for approval . Maunakea moved: Magnuson seconded: The Minutes of January 6, 1987 be approved as written. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Magnuson, Maunakea, Mulhern, Allen, Barbre, Carson None None Beier, Gourdin The motion carried. III. FEE SCHEDULES. Mrs. Romans stated that the members of the Commission were given copies of proposed land development fee schedules for the City of Englewood, as well as a comparison chart of fees charged by adjoining governmental agencies at the last meeting. Mrs. Romans stated that the fees charged by the City of Engle- wood for rezoning, subdivision, and subdivision waivers have not been reviewed or revised for a number of years, and the fees currently charged do not re- flect the time and costs to process these applications. The Commission considered the fees charged for rezoning applications. Mrs. Romans pointed out that some of the costs incurred are publication costs, which the City bears, as well as the cost of reproduction of all information for the Commission and City Council. Mr. Mulhern asked if the amount of time and costs incurred were that much greater if a rezoning encompassed seven acres vs. one acre. Mrs . Romans stated that the costs could vary depending on the application. Mr. Maunakea stated that the costs could be dependent on whether there was more than one -1 - owner involved in an application, and the amount of research the staff must do. Mrs. Romans pointed out that the fee schedule amounts were developed with the City Manager's office. Mrs. Romans also pointed out that all City initiated rezonings would be at the expense of the City and property owners within the subject area would not be assessed any of the costs. Mr. Maunakea stated that he is of the opinion that the $200 fee proposed for a rezoning of 0 -4 acres should be increased. Mr. Gourdin stated that he felt the City was moving in the right direction in charging fees for services rendered, but expressed some concern on the formula used to develop the proposed fee schedule. Do the fees take into account the personnel time involved, the printing costs involved, and other miscellaneous expenses. Mr. Magnuson stated that not all costs can be recovered on each application. He stated that he is of the opinion that the City must consider the "invest- ment in the City" that developers are willing to make when they make applica- tion for rezoning, subdivision, or planned development. He stated that the City must make some commitment to try to get an improved tax base. Mr. Magnu- son stated that he felt the time involved in Technical Review Committee meet- ings is for the benefit of the City , and we should not ask the applicant to stand those costs. Mr. Allen stated that in addition to bringing in a broader tax base, the developer has other expenses he incurs, such as installation of curb, gutter, sidewalks, street paving, extension of water and sewer lines, all of which are then given back to the City. Mr. Allen stated that he felt the City should be encouraging people to come into the community to develop, and not be increas- ing application fees. He feels the existing fee schedule is appropriate, and that the proposed increases are excessive. Mr. Barbre stated stated that he was in favor of the proposed fee increases. Mr. Beier stated that he would also support the fee schedule increase. Mr. Maunakea supported the fee increase, and in fact was of the opinion that the rezoning application fee is too low. Mr. Magnuson suggested that perhaps the rezoning fee for 0 -4 acres should be increased to $250. Mr. Mulhern stated that he is of the opinion that a change is in order; however, he expressed concern that the small-time developer could be losing money. He did state that he felt the proposed fee schedule is adequate. Mr. Gourdin stated that he was in support of the fee schedule increase. Mr. Allen stated that "it's sad to charge this kind of money to make a start" in development in Englewood, and urged that the fee schedule rate remain as it presently is. Maunakea moved: Beier seconded: The Planning Commission support the proposed fee schedule for rezoning applications, subdivision applications, sub- division waiver applications, planned development applica- tions, and conditional use applications as submitted and to -2 - • • • • • • AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Maunakea, Allen None None The motion carried. refer the proposed fee increases to the City Council. The staff is requested to add the R-4 Zone District to the Board of Adjustment and Appeals Application Fee schedule. Mulhern, Barbre, Beier, Carson, Gourdin, Magnuson Mr. Gourdin suggested that the proposed resolution should have the words "over 10" added to the section on Subdivision Waivers Application Fee. Mr. Beier suggested that the proposed ordinance, Section 3, 16-2-9 h, appears to be redundant on the statement " ... shall deposit PAY A FEE ... " Mrs. Romans suggested that the word "deposit" should be crossed out. Mr. Gourdin pointed out that the proposed ordinance does not define "Commis- sion" even though reference is made to the "Commission" in several sections . Mr. Gourdin also pointed out that the word "Determined" in Section 4 b (3) is misspelled. IV. PUBLIC FORUM. There was no one present to address the Commission . v. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE. Mrs. Romans stated that it is with great regret that she is announcing the resignation of Senior Planner Susan King. Ms. King has been an employee of the City of Englewood, Department of Community Development, for six years, and has been a very valuable addition not only to the Departmental staff, but to the City as a whole. Ms. King's last day of employment with the City is January 30, 1987. In response to inquiries from the Commission, Ms. King stated that she will be starting her own business of designing and making sweaters for sale. Ms. King stated that she has enjoyed her employment with the City, and working with the Commission on the numerous projects that have come before us in the past six years. She stated t hat she is excited and looking forward to the challenge of beginning her own business, however. Ms. Romans stated that she has reserved Conference Room A for the study ses- sion on the Landscaping Ordinance, which is scheduled to follow the formal adjournment of the meeting . VI. COMMISSION'S CHOICE. Mr. Maunakea stated that Mr . Stitt's suggestion that the Comprehensive Plan be expanded to include a statement on the Helicopter traffic should be addressed. Mr. Magnuson asked if the staff had heard anything in response to the letter sent to Mr . Hac k re gar di ng the scheduled hearing on the revocation of the con - ditional use approval granted to him . Ms. King stated that she is not aware of any contact from Mr. Ha c k. -3 - Ms. King gave members of the Commission a list of the cases considered by the Board of Adjustment and Appeals during 1986. Ms. King stated, in response to inquiries from the Commission, that the meet- ing on the landscaping of the Chrysler dealership on South Broadway is now rescheduled for Wednesday, January 21. Mr. Allen thanked Mr. Beier for the article given him on the waste disposal system used in San Diego. Additional discussion on the issue of trash collec- tion and disposal ensued. Mr. Gourdin discussed a public hearing that has been scheduled on a rezoning application in the vicinity of Swedish Medical Center. This is a request for a change from R-1, Single-family, to R-3, Multi-family. The formal meeting of the Commission adjourned at 7:50 p.m., and reconvened in Conference Room A at 8:00 p.m. for a study session on the landscaping or- dinance. All members of the Commission were present for the study session. Ms. King reviewed the landscape ordinance. It was the determination of the Commission that the following shall be inserted immediately after section b Applicability of Ordinance Standards: THESE REGULATIONS SHALL NOT APPLY IN ALL ZONE DISTRICTS IF ANY ONE OF THE FOLLOWING OCCUR: (A) THE PROPERTY OR BUSINESS COMPLIED WITH THE LANDSCAPING PROVISIONS IN EFFECT AS OF (applicable date.) (B) IF THE PROPERTY IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THIS ORDINANCE, AND THERE IS A CHANGE IN THE TENANT OR LESSEE. Section b.(l)(a), as written in the draft considered 1/20/87, shall be modified by adding EXCLUDING VACANT LAND. Section (c) of the draft considered on 1/20/87 shall be deleted. Section (e) of the draft considered on this date shall be amended by deleting OR WHEN THE REMODELING COST IS EQUAL TO OR EXCEEDS 503 OF THE ESTIMATED VALUE OF THE PRINCIPAL BUILDING AS SUBSTANTIATED BY EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO THE DIREC- TOR. FOR PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, REMODELING COST SHALL BE EQUAL TO THE SUM OF ALL PERMIT VALUATIONS OF WORK. Section (f) of this draft was deleted. Section (2) was cons i dered and the staff was directed to develop a formula based on a charge of $1/square foot of area to be landscaped. Section (3) was considered. Reference to section (c) in the paragraph was eliminated, inasmuch as th i s section had previously been deleted . Further modification to this paragraph included the removal of the words "OF THE LEASABLE SPACE" in the sixth line of the paragraph. There was considerable di s cussion on the contribution of funds to the ; • • Beautification Account. Mr. Carson stated t hat he did not feel funds could be • earmarked for expend i t ure in any particular area. Ms. King suggested that perhaps a comprehens i ve plan for landscap in g for the entire City should be developed. -4 - • • • There was also discussion on who has responsibility for installation of land- scaping: a tenant or the landlord. Ms. King stated that this proposal indi- cates that it will be the responsibility of the tenant. Mr. Mulhern disagreed that it should be the responsibility of the tenant to do the landscaping. Discussion ensued. Ms. Romans suggested that a cover statement should be in- cluded at the beginning of the landscaping provisions stating that the land- lord is ultimately responsible for the installation of all landscaping. Mr. Allen stated that it is "ridiculous to have to pay into a fund if it is physically impossible to landscape on a site". He stated that he could not support this proposal, and is of the opinion that it is only a way to "gig" the developers. Mr . Allen stated that he could not support the fact that the City would come in and tell a developer what type of tree had to be planted, and where . Mr. Beier questioned the enforceability of the provision requiring payment in lieu of landscaping. Mrs . Romans stated that this provision is in the exist- ing landscaping ordinance, and that several developers have contributed to the fund to date . Ms. King stated that one further addition of note is the inclusion of minimum size requirements for t r ees, shrubs, and other landscaping materials such as stone and rock. This provision was in the first draft of the Landscape Or- dinance and was deleted by the Commission. Ms . King then distributed copies of a draft of the Landscape Brochure to mem- bers of the Commission for their perusal. This draft was prepared by Anna Goforth, an intern from University of Colorado at Denver. The study session was declared disbanded at 9:20 p.m. ~~d# Gertrude G. Welty ' Recording Secretary -5 -