Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-06-02 PZC MINUTES• • • I. CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 2, 1987 CALL TO ORDER. The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairman Carson at 7:00 P. M. in Conference Room A. Members present: Maunakea, Russell, Allen, Barbre, Hanson, Carson Romans, Ex-officio Members absent: Mulhern, Magnuson Also present: Senior Planner Susan Hirsch Planner II Harold Stitt II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. May 5, 1987 Chairman Carson stated that the Minutes of the Planning Commission of May 5, 1987 were to be considered for approval. A 11 en moved: Maunakea seconded: The Minutes of May 5, 1987 be approved as written. Discussion ensued. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Russell, Allen, Barbre, Hanson, Maunakea, Carson None Mulhern, Magnuson None The motion carried. III. SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS Review CASE #10-87 Mrs. Romans stated that Ms. Hirsch and Mr. Stitt would discuss the details of the proposed revisions to the Subdivision Regulations. The existing regula- tions were adopted approximately 20 years ago and the up-dating is being sug- gested to address problems that have been experienced in the practical ap- plication of the regulations. The Technical Review Committee has been in- volved in drafting the proposed changes to the Subdivision Regulations. Mr. Magnuson entered the meeting and took his place with members of the Commission. Mrs. Romans stated that a major change that is proposed would be in the pro- cess used for "subdivision waivers" at the present time. This provision of the present regulations has been abused in that it has been applied to large parcels of land such as the former KLZ site. It has also resulted in problems -1 - to developers in trying to obtain title insurance and financing for projects. The "waiver" process would be replaced with a ''minor subdivision'' process. Mrs. Romans asked Ms. Hirsch to discuss the proposed revisions to the General Subdivision Regulations. Ms. Hirsch stated that in the proposed revisions before the Commission, all words that are capitalized are new additions; words, sentences and sections that are crossed through are to be deleted from the regulations. Ms . Hirsch reviewed the proposed changes with the members of the Commission. Among the changes noted is that all reference to "Master Plan" has been changed to "Com- prehensive Plan". Reference to "Exceptions and Waivers" has been eliminated; the Minor Subdivision, which would replace the waiver process would be re - stricted to parcels of residentially zoned land which will be divided into three or fewer lots, or to the division of commercially or industrially zoned property of one-half acre or less. If the dedication of public right-of-way or an easement for any other public purpose is required, the property could not be divided as a Minor Subdivision. References to preliminary or final "design" has been changed to "plat". Mr . Hanson questioned why boundary lines will not be required to be shown in a heavy solid line in the new regulations. Mr. Stitt stated that this revision was made at the suggestion of the Engineering Services Department. Mr. Hanson asked why the contours are to be shown with one foot intervals rather than the existing two foot intervals. Mr. Stitt stated that this modification is also at the suggestion of the Engineering Department. Mr. Hanson asked if the proposed regulations would be sent to public engineering firms for their comment prior to final adoption. Mrs. Romans stated that this had not been planned, but could be done, should the Commission request the staff to do so. She reiterated Mr. Stitt's statement that the suggestions of the Engineering Services Department have been incorporated throughout the pro- posed Regulations. Mr. Hanson stated that he felt the stiffer requirements for the preliminary plat will be requiring a developer to take a greater risk "up front" before it is determined whether the subdivision would be approved. Mr. Hanson reiter- ated that he felt there should be input from the private sector who will have to live with the revised Regulations . Mr. Magnuson asked Mr . Hanson if he felt the change from 2 foot contour inter - vals to t he 1 foot contour intervals would be a hindrance to developers coming into Englewood , and s t ated that he felt this was a moot point. Mr. Magnuson further pointed out that if a developer came in to subdivide property within the next few weeks while the Regulations are under consideration, that the staff would make them aware of the proposed changes. Mr. Magnuson stated that he would rather have a Public Hearing on the proposed revisions than send the revised regulations out to private engineering firms requesting their comments . Mrs. Romans pointed out that there is very little unplatted land remaining in the corporate limits of the city . Further, that the Subdivision Regulations are a part of the Englewood Municipal Code, but not of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance; therefore, it is not mandated that the Planning Commission -2 - • • • • • •• or the City Council hold a Public Hearing on the proposed revisions. Either or both bodies may do so at their discretion . Mr. Allen stated that he did not feel the contour interval made any difference. Mr. Stitt suggested that the staff check back with the Engineering Services Department on the reasoning for the proposed change and report back to the Commission. Mr. Hanson asked if the applicant for a subdivision was invited to sit in on the Technical Review Committee meetings. Mrs. Romans stated that the intent of the Technical Review Committee at the time it was formed, was that it would be primarily for staff review, and that the intent was not to bring the ap- plicant in at that time; however, were it to be of benefit, the applicant could be asked to meet with the committee. All determinations from the Tech Review process are relayed to the applicant by the Planner working with them. Mr. Hanson asked if referrals are sent to adjoining municipalities. Mrs. Ro- mans stated that if the proposed subdivision is adjacent, adjoining or abut- ting another governmental entity, it is referred to that entity. Mr. Hanson questioned the statement on Page 10 that "The preliminary plat must be amended accordingly prior to submission for Planning Commission review." It was suggested that this statement be amended to state "should" be amended. Mr. Stitt cautioned against making the statement too permissive, because there are requirements that are included in the regulations that are not negotiable . The required attendance of the applicant at the Public Hearing was discussed. Mr. Mulhern suggested this could be a problem in the case of an out-of-town or out-of-state property owner. Mr. Hanson stated that the applicants frequently send consultants to the Hearings. Ms. Hirsch stated that the staff wants someone in attendance who is authorized to speak for and make commitments on behalf of the property owner/applicant. It was suggested that there be a def- inition of the "applicant", or include wording "or designee". Mr. Hanson questioned the six months time period imposed on the applicant for submission of a final plat following approval of the preliminary plat. Dis- cussion ensued. Ms. Hirsch stated that the staff would explore the possibili- ty of including a provision for a time extension if it is demonstrated that an extension would be necessary. Mr. Hanson questioned the elimination of the phrase "conveys to the school district involved any land set aside for schools and to the city of" on Page 12a B. Mr. Stitt stated that it has not been the policy of the City to request land of a developer for school purposes. If such a dedication is re- quired, this must be worked out between the developer and the school offi- cials. Mr. Stitt further stated that land is not normally required for public parks and playgrounds from a developer. Mrs . Romans stated that there is a provision open space for that particular development. the time of the Larwin development, land was Park. -3 - that a developer must provide She pointed out, however, that at provided for the public Romans Mr. Hanson asked why §G on Page 13 was eliminated. Ms. Hirsch stated that she would check into this further. Mr. Hanson stated that in reading §10-2-7 A, it appears that a public hearing will still be required on the Final Plat. Is this the correct interpretation of this section. Ms. Hirsch stated that the intent is that a public hearing will not be required on the Final Plat, and that this section will have to be reworded. Mr. Stitt reviewed the provisions for a Minor Subdivision, which procedure is proposed to be used in lieu of the existing "Subdivision Waiver". Mr. Stitt stated that the procedure for a Subdivision Waiver is not spelled out in the existing Subdivision Regulations, and it is the opinion of the staff that the steps to be followed for a "Minor Subdivision" should be clearly delineated in the proposed regulations. Mr. Magnuson excused himself from the meeting. Mr. Stitt continued his review of requirements for a Minor Subdivision. Upon a question from the Commission, it was suggested that page 17a be amended to state that "Upon approval by the Director of Community Development, previously platted lots of one acre or less may be resubdivided without going through EITHER subdivision process." It was suggested that this statement be included at the beginning of the Subdivision Regulations, also. Mrs. Russell asked the procedure to be followed if a proposed subdivision con- tained lots that did not meet the minimum standards. Mr. Stitt stated that the lots in a proposed subdivision would have to comply with the minimum zone district requirements for the district in which they are located; the staff and Commission could not permit the platting of a substandard lot. Ms. Hirsch stated that the section on Boundary line Adjustments has been added. Discussion on the overall proposed regulations ensued. Mr. Hanson stated that he would like the staff to contact some of the private engineers who will have to work with the regulations to get their comments. It was the consensus of the Commission that they do not wan t to hold a Public Hearing on the proposed revisions. Ms. Romans stated that she wanted to commend Ms. Hirsch and Mr. Stitt for their work on the revision of the Subdivision Regulations. IV. PUBLIC FORUM Mr. Carson acknowledged the presence of Ms. Marj Nickum, President of the Greater Englewood Chamber of Commerce, and members Mr. Bob Marx, and Mr. Greg Thompson . Mr. Carson also acknowledged receipt of a letter directed to Mayo r Otis and copied to him from members of the Government liaison Committee ex- pressing concern about several provisions of the landscaping Ordinance cur- rently before the City Council. Mr. Carson stated that the Commission had requested input on the landscaping Ordinance provisions from the Englewood Downtown Development Authority and from the Greater Englewood Chamber of Commerce before the regulations were -4 - - • • • -,• • • • referred to City Council. Mr. Carson stated that there was no response from the Chamber of Commerce, and no one attended the Public Hearing. The EDDA Board did discuss the regulations at a Board meeting, and indicated it was the consensus of the Board that the restrictions needed to be strengthened. Mr. Marx addressed the Commission, stating that he is in the Real Estate busi- ness. He stated that in his opinion, some of the provisions in the Landscap- ing Ordinance need to be clarified. One of the provisions that was specifi- cally cited by Mr. Marx as being of concern, is the change of ownership of the business, property, or the lessee, which would bring the landscaping require- ments into effect for a specific property. Mr. Carson suggested that members of the Commission sit down with members of the Chamber of Commerce to discuss their concerns within the next few weeks. Mr. Thompson stated that he would like to sit down with the Commission to dis- cuss it; in his opinion, the language that is contained in the Landscaping Ordinance is "dangerous and illegal language"; he stated that he had checked with other municipalities, and not one has any reference to a change of owner- ship in their landscaping requirements. Mr. Carson suggested that staff members be included in this Task Force meet- ing, and that the meeting be scheduled for the Chamber Office. Mr. Carson asked that the Chamber get in touch with Mrs. Romans, who will in turn contact members of the Commission regarding the meeting. V. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE • Mrs. Romans stated that an open house has been scheduled for June 5 from 2 P.M. to 5 P.M. at 2107 West Baker Avenue. This house has been constructed by students of the Alternative High School under the supervision of the Englewood Housing Authority, and will be offered for sale to a low income family. Mem- bers of the Commission were strongly urged to attend this open house. Ms. Hirsch pointed out that the "resubdivision" process is not addressed in the Subdivision Regulations, as proposed for revision. She stated that the staff has been contacted by Pennant Properties, who would like to resubdivide Lot 2 of the Gunesch Subdivision to designate the area identified on the Development Plan as the future "pad" as a separate lot. Ms. Hirsch asked the Commission is it would meet with their approval if the preliminary and final platting process were to be combined. Discussion ensued. It was the consen- sus of the Commission that this appears to be a very simple matter, and that the preliminary and final procedures could be combined in one step. VI. COMMISSIONER'S CHOICE. Mrs. Russell stated that she would not be in attendance at the next meeting. Mr. Barbre stated that he would not be in attendance at the next meeting. Mr. Carson noted that the landscaping was being removed at the Safeway Store , not the King Sooper's Store as he reported at the last meeting . -5 - The meeting adjourned at 8:40 P. M. • • • -6 -