Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-05-07 PZC MINUTES.,,. . • CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MAY 7, 1985 I. CALL TO ORDER. The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:00 P.M. by Chairman Venard. Members present: Venard, Allen, Barbre, Beier, Carson, McBrayer, Stoel Members absent: Magnuson, Gourdin Also present: D. A. Romans, Assistant Director of Community Development S. T. King, Senior Planner II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. April 16, 1985 Chairman Venard stated that the Minutes of April 16, 1985 were to be considered for approval. Carson moved: Stoel seconded: The Minutes of April 16, 1985 be approved as written. AYES: Allen, Barbre, Beier, Carson, Stoel, Venard NAYS: None ABSTAIN: McBrayer ABSENT: Magnuson, Gourdin The motion carried. III. CENTENNIAL TRADE CENTER II Subdivision Plat CASE 119-85 Mr. Venard stated that this matter is a Public Hearing on a preliminary subdivision plat, and asked for a motion to open the Public Hearing. Carson moved: Beier seconded: The Public Hearing on Case 119-85 be opened . AYES: Barbre, Beier, Carson, McBrayer, Stoel, Venard, Allen NAYS: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Magnuson, Gourdin The motion carried. Mr. Venard outlined the procedure to be followed in conducting the Public Hearing. He stated that statements from the applicant and members of the audience will be taken, and asked that persons speaking before the Commission come to the podium, and be sworn in. Mr. Venard asked if the staff had anything to add to the staff report. -2- Ms. King stated that Mr. Clark, property owner and applicant is not present, but has designated Miss Jane Ross as his agent, and Miss Ross will be making the presentation before the Commission. Ms. King presented Mr. Venard with a letter from Mr. Clark regarding Miss Ross's designation as his agent. Mr. Venard read the letter aloud, and asked that it be made part of the record of the hearing. Mr. Venard asked that Miss Ross come forward. Miss Jane Ross was sworn in, and testified that she is acting on behalf of the applicant. Miss Ross stated that she had nothing further to add to the information that has been submitted to the Commission. Mr. Carson asked if Miss Ross and the applicant have read the staff re- port and the staff recommendations. Are the applicant and Miss Ross willing to incorporate the staff recommendations into the application. Miss Ross stated that she and the applicant have read the staff report, and will amend the plan to incorporate the staff recommendations. Mr. McBrayer asked the types of businesses that are proposed for the de- velopment. Miss Ross stated that there will be eight businesses in the complex, one of which will be leasing approximately one-half of the space; this business is concerned with manufacture of parts for heart and kidney machines. One building will belong to the developer, and the remainder will be leased and/or sold to businesses. Mr, Venard noted that some problem on drainage had been mentioned in the staff report. Miss Ross stated the problem is the drainage into the lake; the City wants the developer to enlarge the detention pond on hj s site to inhibit the drainage into the lake. Miss Ross stated that plans for the enlarged detention pond will be submitted to the Department. Mr. Venard asked if anyone else in the audience wished to speak in favor of the proposed subdivision plat. No one else spoke in favor of the pro- posed subdivision. Mr. Venard asked if anyone wished to speak in opposi- tion to the proposed subdivision. No one spoke in opposition. Allen moved: Stoel/Beier seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #9-85 be closed. Mr. Gourdin entered the meeting. The vote on the motion was called: AYES: Beier, Carson, McBrayer, Stoel, Venard, Allen, Barbre , Gourdin NAYS: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Magnuson The motion carried. Mr. Venard announced that notices to adjoining property owners were sent by Certified Mail. Mr. Venard outlined the courses of action open to the Commission on the preliminary subdivision plat, and asked the pleasure of the Commission. .... , . Carson moved: Stoel seconded: -3- The Planning Commission approve the Preliminary Plat of Centennial Trade Center II; the following four recom- mendations are to be incorporated in the Final Plat when it is submitted for Commission review: 1) The fire hydrant location on Sheet 2 of 4 shall be consistent with the site plan, and fire lanes shall be posted. 2) The sidewalk along South Clay Street shall be four feet wide. 3) Paving design shall be to Englewood standards. 4) Detention shall be increased to alleviate the sur- charge conditions. AYES: Carson, Gourdin, McBrayer, Stoel, Venard, Allen, Barbre, Beier NAYS: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Magnuson The motion carried. IV. FINDINGS OF FACT CASE 117-85 Gregg Homes, Inc. Subdivision Waiver Mr. Venard stated that the Findings of Fact on the Subdivision Waiver ap- proved for Gregg Homes, Inc. are to be considered for approval. Barbre moved: Beier seconded: The findings of Fact on Case #7-85 be approved as written. AYES: Gourdin, Stoel, Venard, Allen, Barbre, Beier, Carson NAYS: None ABSTAIN: McBrayer ABSENT: Magnuson The motion carried. V. COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE. Proposed Amendments Mrs. ~omans stated that members of the Commission would recall that she had polle:.d them by telephone to discuss the possibility of setting a hearing on May 14 to consider amendments to several sections of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. One of the proposed amendments would concern the regula- tions in the B-2 Zone District on the automotive sales lots. At the last Commission meeting on April 16, following a discussion of certain concerns of the City Council, it was moved by Mr. Stoel that all uses pertaining to vehicles should be made a Conditional Use in the B-2 Zone District, which motion was adopted. There were several other issues that arose following -4- initial review by the Oity Council of other districts and sections of the Ordinance, which are proposed to be amended, and it was the opinion of staff and counsel that a hearing before the Commission should be scheduled to consider these issues before they were transmitted to City Council. This public hearing before the Commission has been scheduled for May 14 at 7:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers. The Commission members were sent copies of the proposed amendments, and Mrs. Romans asked if the Com- mission wanted to review the proposed changes point-by-point, or to ask questions on concerns they may have. Mr. Gourdin asked why barbers, beauticians and cosmetologists are pro- hibited from operating from their homes in the R-3 Zone District. Mrs. Romans stated that this has been a practice for many years, and is primarily related to health factors; no separate facilities are permitted in a home occupation, and kitchen faciliites may not be used for the washing of hair, etc. By putting in the separate sink and facilities to accommodate the "home occupation", it is getting away from the intent that a home oc- cupation is incidental to the primary use of the residence, and is be- coming a "business" --not a home occupation. Mr. Olsen entered the meeting at 7:20 P.M. Mr. Beier asked if there were a number of such "home occupations" operating out of the home. Mrs. Romans stated that there are not, to her knowledge. Mr. Gourdin stated that cosmetologists are registered by the State Health Department, and are licensed. If they meet the other criteria for a home occupation, such as square footage, etc., why can this operation not be approved as a home occupation in the R-3 Districts, or even in the R-2 or R~l Districts. Mrs. Romans discussed the prohibition of this type of business as a home occupation. Mr. Beier asked for clarification of the term "development plan". Mrs. Romans stated that the requirement of a development plan on some types of development will give a degree of control on the location of the structures, parking, access, etc. Mrs. Romans cited difficult situations that have arisen with large developments wherein no development plan was required, and the ultimate location of the building is not in the best interest of the surrounding neighborhood, but because no development plan was required, the developer could site the building on the lot as he chose. Mrs. Romans pointed out that a development plan would require a public hearing before the Commission, which would afford adjoining property owners an opportunity to view the development plans and voice their opinions. Mrs. Romans cited one area where redevelopment may occur; this is in an area that is currently zoned for single-family, but the redeveloper will not be interested in single-family redevelopment. Mrs. Romans discussed the concern expressed by the City Council about rezonings involving single- family areas, and pointed out that if an application for rezoning is filed, and specific plans are cited, a development plan would be required. Following approval of that development plan and its subsequent recording, the property owner/developer would have to comply with that approved plan. This would give notice to the adjoining property owners of the specific type of development or use that is proposed for a subject site and would give the City Council better control over proposed development. ,. . .,. -5- Mr. Gourdin asked why mobile home parks were included in the industrial district as a permitted use. Mrs. Romans stated that until recently, mobile home parks were not a permitted use in any zone district in Engle- wood. WHERE, a group of mobile home owners/residents along South Santa Fe Drive and Dartmouth Avenue, has formed a co-op for the mobile home park residents in the area. Santa Fe Drive is to be widened, and the State could not relocate these residents. The residents indicated they wanted to remain in this area, and asked the City for assistance in im- proving their mobile home parks. In order to secure financing, they asked that mobile home parks be made a permitted use in the light industrial dis- trict, which the Planning Commission recommended to the City Council, and the City Council ultimately approved. Mr. Gourdin expressed concern about the high noise levels along Santa Fe and the industrial area, and the effects this noise level would have on families and children residing in the mobile home parks. He asked if the noise level from adjoining businesses can be controlled. Mrs. Romans stated that the City does have a noise control ordinance, enforced by the Police Department. This noise control ordinance applies to the entire City.· Further discussion ensued. Mr. McBrayer pointed out that this group of people, WHERE, came to the City and pleaded to remain in this area and for assistance in improving the mobile home parks. They asked to become a permitted use in the in- dustrial zone district. The City complied with the wishes of the residents of the area. Mr. Venard asked if Mr. Gourdin was aware that sound barriers will be in- stalled by the State Highway Department. Mr. Gourdin stated that he is aware of the proposed sound barriers, but pointed out that wooden sound barriers do not have that much impact on reducing the noise level, and that the people will not really be protected with a wooden barrier. Mr. Venard asked for clarification on the proposed change of signage in the Design Guidelines section. Mrs. Romans stated that this amendment was devised in an effort to solve some of the problems that have been experienced in working with the ordinance. Mr. Stoel stated that at the last meeting, he did make a motion that all auto-related uses be a Conditional Use in the B-2 Zone District; however, he is of the opinion that the proposed restrictions will not achieve what he w~nted, and will drive people out of business. Mr. Stoel stated that he wanted to see a set of guidelines developed, and that approval for the used/new car sales lots would be given on a one-to-one basis after applying to the Commission. Mr. Stoel stated that he is not in favor of making the regulations retroactive as is proposed. He is further of the opinion that some of the proposed regulations and restrictions are ambiguous. Mrs. Romans stated that each regulation or restriction contained in the proposal addresses a specific problem that has been noted in the existing new or used car lots along Broadway. These regulations were drafted by the City Attorney's office following meetings with members of the City Council and staff. Mr. Stoel stated that he felt if a used car dealer wanted to install a chain-link fence along his property, he should have that right. Mr. -6- Gourdin asked what need there is for chain-link and barbed wire fencing; has the EPD been contacted to determine the number of thefts from vehicles on the lots. Mr. Allen asked how the installation of landscaping and lighting would put these used car dealers out of business. Mr. Allen noted that other businesses are required to install landscaping and to make other improve- ments on the property; he asked why the car dealerships should be exempt from these same provisions. Mr. Stoel stated that his concern is for the car lots that are in existence at the present time. Mr. Allen stated that he is in favor of giving them time to make the modifications, and felt that until 7/1/87 was a reasonable amount of time to comply with the ordinance. Mr. Barbre suggested that compliance should be required when the car lot changed ownership. Mr. Barbre pointed out that there are some smaller lots along Broadway that might have space for two vehicles if they were required to provide the driving lanes, employee/customer parking, etc. that is required in the proposed regulations. Mr. McBrayer noted that the cost of real estate on Broadway at the present time seems to be conducive to putting in small car lots vs. constructing new office buildings. Mr. Carson stated that he sees no problem with the car lots, but wants to clean up the City as much as possible. He does see a problem with putting people out of business. Mr. Stoel stated that he did not like to see lots where vehicles are parked all over and across sidewalks; if these lots are creating problems, he feels they should have to come before the Commission on a one-to-one basis. He does not want to see a lot of rules and regulations enacted for one specific type of business. Mr. Allen pointed out the need for rules and regulations in order to deal with the car lots even on a one-to-one basis. Mrs. Romans asked the reaction of the Commission if the "grandfather" clause was eliminated, and it was worded that the car lot would have to be brought into compliance when the business changed hands; would this be more acceptable. Mr. McBrayer stated that he would like it better. Mr. Barbre asked if all the existing car lots were developed under the existing laws. Mrs. Romans stated that there are not really any City laws governing the sale of new and used vehicles. They have not had to provide parking for customers or for employees; they do not have to pro- vi.de a driving lane for emergency vehicles. Further discussion ensued. Mr. Beier suggested that the enactment of these rules and regulations might force property owners and tenants to adopt the highest and best use of the land; the highest and best use of the land might be an of- fice building rather than use as a car sales lot. Mr. Stoel stated that he agreed the issue needs to be addressed, but suggested that the regulations and restrictions proposed are "a little much." Mr. Venard suggested on Item g, Page 5 of a summary, that the wording be changed to "either bumper" rather than "bumpers". He did not feel . ' -7- the present wording eliminated the 45° angle of some display vehicles. The issue of fencing was again discussed. Mr. Gourdin stated that he does not feel it is aesthetically pleasing to see barbed wire atop a chain-link fence. He would prefer no fencing along car lots. Mr. Stoel suggested that perhaps insurance companies are requiring that the lots be fenced. There was no further discussion; the proposed amendments will be considered at Public Hearing on May 14. VI. PUBLIC FORUM. There was no one to address the Conunission under Public Forum. VII. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE. Mrs. Romans stated that the City Council, at their meeting of May 6, 1985, approved the administrative and general regulations sections of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance; also the R-1 and R-2 residential sections and other sections not previously approved by Council. The ordinance will become final 30 days after publication. City Council approved the request for rezoning of 3511 South Downing Street, which was filed by Mr. James Plunnner, to accommodate a parking lot for Fratelli's Restaurant. The City Council approved the Warren/Pecos right-of-way vacation. Mrs. Romans stated that she was leaving for Philadelphia, PA. on May 8 to attend a Land Use Law session. If members of the Commission had any questions on Planning matters, they were requested to call Susan King, Senior Planner. VIII. COMMISSION'S CHOICE. Mr. Allen stated that he wanted to meet with Mr. Carson and Mr. Gourdin after the meeting to discuss the issue of trash. Mr. McBrayer reported on the APA Conference in Montreal, which he at- tended. He stated that he was impressed with the vibrant downtown area, and that shopping "malls" are unfamiliar to the people of Montreal. Mr. McBrayer stated that he did notice a lack of greenery in the City Center. Mr. McBrayer reported on issues discussed at the Conference itself, such as the efficiency of the professional staff and staff support of the Planning Commission; it is a healthy process to discuss to consensus on an issue after a Hearing is closed, even though members of the audience may be waiting for a decision; there should be a provision in by-laws of the Commission for submission of a "minority report" if so desired; this should be included with the "Findings of Fact" on each case. Other issues that were discussed included matters such as: Planning Connnissioners should have input into the hiring and firing of staff; the Planning Com- mission may call public hearings for any reason, at any time if members -8- feel that something they are promoting is not getting sufficient attention from the proper people; Bonus Densities must be given only for the benefit of the public, and not for the benefit of a developer; use of the "move to consent" after something has been discussed at length in a study session and agreement has been reached; requirement of rezoning/planned develop- ments when a specific "plan" is cited as reason for a rezoning; use of special limitations clause which applicants can use to "limit" the develop- ment they propose for a site --this would operate much the same as a restrictive covenant; some governmental agencies are allowing effects of an operation on one property to extend onto an adjoining property -- such as crop spraying --this extension is allowed for a given distance, and could also apply to issues of odors, noise, etc. Mr. McBrayer stated that he attended a workshop in elementary law; the Planning Commission is an advisory body, and is pretty free to make recommendations to try to steer the course of the city for the future. Mr. McBrayer stated that the trip was very enjoyable, and he expressed his appreciation to the Commission for approving his attendance. Mr. Beier noted that some time ago, approval was given to a "car polishing- refinishing" use on South Broadway; it appears that nothing is happening on the site, and asked whether the staff had further information on this proposed use. Ms. King stated that she understood the applicants had found the Building Code requirements to be more than were financially feasible, and have dropped their plans for use of the property. Mr. Beier asked what happened to the approval given by the Commission. Mrs. Romans suggested that something be recorded with the County which would nullify the Commission action. Mr. Venard asked if a time frame is a part of Conditional Use approval. Mrs. Romans stated that no time frame was con- sidered on this use. Mr. Stoel suggested that any other automotive use of the property would have to go through the same process before the Com- mission. Mrs. Romans agreed. The meeting adjourned at 8:40 P. M.