Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-07-16 PZC MINUTES• • • I. CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION July 16, 1985 CALL TO ORDER. The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:15 P. M. by Chairman Venard. Members present: Venard, Allen, Barbre, Beier, Carson, Magnuson, McBrayer Members absent: Stoel, Gourdin Also present: Assistant Director of Community Development Romans Senior Planner King Planner I Rothweiler City Attorney Olsen II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. July 2, 1985 Chairman Venard stated that the Minutes of July 2, 1985 were to be con- sidered for approval . Carson moved: Allen seconded: The Minutes of July 2, 1985 be approved as written. AYES: Venard, Allen, Barbre, Carson NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Beier, Magnuson, McBrayer ABSENT: Gourdin, Stoel Chairman Venard ruled the Minutes stand approved as written. III. COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE CASE #15-85 §16.2 -Administration of the Ordinance §16.3 -Procedure for Initial Zoning of Property, Rezoning, and Changes and Amendments to the Ordinance §16.4-17 -Fences and Retaining Walls §16.4-18 -Landscape Ordinance §16.4-19 -Sign Code Chairman Venard asked for a motion to open the Public Hearing. McBrayer moved: Beier seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #15-85 be opened. AYES: Allen, Barbre, Beier, Carson, Magnuson, McBrayer, Venard NAYS: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Gourdin, Stoel The motion carried. -2- Mr. Venard stated that he has in hand a copy of the published Notice of Hearing, which was published in the Englewood Sentinel on July 3, 1985. Mr. Venard asked Mrs. Romans, Assistant Director of Community Development, to review the proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. Mrs. Romans stated that the proposed amendments have come about through proposals of the Planning Commission, City Council, and staff. Mrs. Romans stated that §16.2, Administration of the Ordinance, is to be amended by reinserting specific conditions for consideration by the Board of Adjust- ment and Appeals in reviewing requests for a variance to the Sign Code. These provisions were inadvertently omitted from the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance during the process of rewriting and editing. Section 16.3, Procedures for Initial Zoning of Property, Rezoning, and Changes and Amendments to the Ordinance, is to be amended to include guide- lines to be followed for changing the text of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. Section 16.4-17, Fences and Retaining Walls, is to be amended to prohibit any fences along the street side of properties in the B-1 and B-2 Business Districts. The proposed amendment would pennit masonry walls no higher than 30 inches along the stre et sides of properties, and walls or fences no more than six feet in height would be allowed on the rear and interior side yards. This proposed provision has been previously discussed by the Commission in depth. Mr. Carson asked if there is a grandfather clause on this provision. Mrs. Romans stated that the proposal would not apply to businesses with existing fences along the street sides of the property. The provision would apply only to businesses installing new fences. Mr. Venard suggested the possibility of making the provisions applicable if a business changes ownership. Mrs. Romans stated that as the provisions are presently written, .it would not apply, but would apply only to new fences that are installed. Main tenance provisions on fencing would apply. Section 16.4-18, Landscaping Ordinance, is proposed to be amended in several areas. There have been problems in determining the value of "property", which is the crit eria cited in the ordinance; it is suggested that this be changed to state: " ... which remodeling cost is equal to or exceeds 50% of the estimated valu.e of the PRINCIPAL BUILDING AS SUBSTANTIATED BY EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO THE DIRECTOR. FOR PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, RE- MODELING COST SHALL BE EQUAL TO THE SUM OF ALL PERMIT VALUATIONS OF WORK." This would remove the burden of determining the value of the "property" from the staff, and would place the value on the improvement, not on the land, with the burden to provide the valuation on the property owner/busi- nessman. The valuation of the building would include electrical, plumbing, and mechanical improvements, in addition to the structural improvements. Issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for a completed building, but incompleted landscaping, is an area with which the staff has experienced problems. Once a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy is issued, this seems to alleviate the "incentive" to complete the landscaping at the next planting season or before. It is proposed that a security instrument be required to be posted to cover the cost of the landscaping, and if the property owner does not comply with the required landscaping provisions, the City would then do so, using the instrument of security. • • • • • • -3- The Planning Commission has suggested that 50% of the landscaping that is required for the total site, be required in the front portion of the building site for commercial and industrial districts. Staff suggests the following wording: "Minimum of 10% of total lot area SHALL be land- scaped, AND NOT LESS THAN 50% OF THE LANDSCAPING SHALL BE INSTALLED BE- TWEEN THE STREET LINE AND THE FRONT BUILDING SETBACK LINE, OR IN FRONT OF THE EXISTING BUILDING." Mr. Allen questioned the provision contained in §16.4-18 d (1) (b) (3), which states that a lien on the property by the City would be superior to all other liens. He asked if this would supercede a lien placed by a mortgage company or a bank. He asked if the City Attorney has checked into this provision. Mr. Olsen stated that a governmental agency does have the power to assume the first right of lien on any property, but this would be a decision to be made by the City Council. The City does have the police power to declare previous liens null and void if this is the determination of the legislative body. Mr. Allen asked if Mr. Olsen could give case histories establishing this power for governmental agencies. Mrs. Romans stated that there is an additional amendment that she would like to propose, at the suggestion of Councilman Vobejda, that pertaining to the number of street trees required per the frontage of a lot. Mrs. Romans stated that the suggested wording is: "IF, WHEN THE TOTAL STREET FRONTAGE IS DIVIDED BY 40 FEET, AND THERE IS A REMAINDER OF 20 FEET OR MORE, AN ADDITIONAL STREET TREE IS REQUIRED." This would be included as §16.4-18 c (2) (a), (b), (c), and (e). Section 16.4-19, Sign Code, is proposed to be amended in several sections, also. Staff has experienced problems with enforcing the removal of pro- hibited signs which were erected after the Sign Code went into effect. At the present time, prohibited sign owners are given 180 days to remove the sign following receipt of notice; however, if the sign was erected after the Sign Code went into effect, this did not seem to be proper, and the Code Enforcement personnel has asked that ·the removal time for such signs be limited to five days following receipt of the notice to remove. Hazardous sign removal is also proposed to occur within five days of receipt of notice rather than the existing 10-day removal time. Mr. Carson asked if the five day period would be working day or calendar day. Discussion ensued. Mrs. Romans suggested that the words "calendar days" be added to the provisions on removal of the signs. Mr. Venard asked if there were members of the audience who wished to ad- dress the Commission on the amendments proposed to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. No member of the audience spoke. Carson moved: McBrayer seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #15-85 be closed . AYES: Barbre, Beier, Carson, Magnuson, McBrayer, Venard, Allen NAYS: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Gourdin, Stoel The motion carried. -4- The Commission members reviewed the proposed amendments to the Comprehen- sive Zoning Ordinance. Section 16.2, Administ ration of the Ordinance, was approved as written in the staff report. Section 16.3, Procedure for Initial Zoning of Property, Rezoning, and Changes and Amendments to the Ordinance, was approved as written in the staff report. Section 16.4-17, Fences and Retaining Walls was considered. Mr. Carson asked how the Commission members felt about writing in a provision that when a business or property changes owners, they must comply with the fencing provisions. Discussion ensued. Mr. McBrayer suggested that it could be an undue hardship in selling the property if ' a prospective pur- chaser was aware that fencing would have to be removed or replaced, or that a sign would have to be changed or replaced upon completion of the purchase. This would particularly apply to replacement of retaining walls. Mr. Allen stated that he felt replacement of a sign is quite different from replacement of a retaining wall. There were no changes to §16.4-17, Fences and Retaining Walls. Section 16.4-18, Landscape Ordinance, was considered. The formula to be used to determine the value of the structural improvements was dis- cussed. Section 16.18 d (2) e (1) was amended to state: "Minimum of 10% of total lot area mtts~ SHALL be landscaped, AND NOT LESS THAN 50 % OF THE LANDSCAPING SHALL BE INSTALLED BETWEEN THE STREET LINE AND THE FRONT BUILDING SETBACK LINE, OR IN FRONT OF THE EXISTING BUILDING." Section 16.4-18, Landscaping Ordinance, is also amended by adding the statement: "WHEN THE TOTAL STREET FRONTAGE IS DIVIDED BY 40 FEET, AND THERE IS A REMAINDER OF 20 FEET OR MORE, AN ADDITIONAL STREET TREE IS REQUIRED"; this statement shall be added by §16.4-18 c (2) (a), (b), (c) and (e). Section 16.4-19, Sign Code was considered. The Commission asked that a typographical error be corrected, substituting "Mail" for "Main" in §16. 4-10-14 a, and added the word "CALENDAR" to: " ... removed within five (5) CALENDAR days of receipt " in Section 16.419-14 on both Prohibited and Hazardous Signs. Carson moved: McBrayer seconded: The Planning Commission recommend the following amendments to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance: §16.2 Administration of the Ordinance. Add: Section 16.2-8 b (1) (c). IN PASSING UPON VARIANCES TO THE SIGN CODE, SECTION 16.4-19 OF THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE, THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS SHALL DETERMINE THAT: ( i) THERE ARE SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES OR CONDITIONS SUCH AS THE EXISTENCE OF BUILDINGS, TOPOGRAPHY, VEGETATION, SIGN STRUCTURES OR OTHER MATTERS ON ADJACENT LOTS OR WITHIN THE ADJACENT PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY, WHICH WOULD SUBSTANTIALLY RESTRICT THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE SIGN IN QUESTION; PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT SUCH SPECIAL CIR- CUMSTANCES OR CONDITIONS MUST BE PECULIAR TO THE PAR- TICULAR BUSINESS OR ENTERPRISE TO WHICH THE APPLICANT DESIRES TO DRAW ATTENTION, AND DO NOT APPLY GENERALLY TO ALL BUSINESSES OR ENTERPRISES. • • • • • • (ii) (iii) (iv) -5- THE VARIANCE, IF AUTHORIZED, WILL WEAKEN NEITHER THE GENERAL PURPOSE OF THIS ORDINANCE NOR THE REGULATIONS PRESCRIBED FOR THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE SIGN rs LO- CATED. THE VARIANCE, IF AUTHORIZED, WILL NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE SIGN IS LOCATED. THE VARIANCE, IF AUTHORIZED, WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY OR PERMANENTLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT CON- FORMING PROPERTY. PROCEDURE FOR INITIAL ZONING OF PROPERTY, REZONING, AND CHANGES AND AMENDMENTS TO THE ORDINANCE. Add: Section 16.3-1 d. REQUIREMENTS FOR CHANGES OR AMENDMENTS TO THIS ORDINANCE. WHENEVER THE PUBLIC NECESSITY, CONVENIENCE, HEALTH, SAFETY, MORALS, GENERAL WELFARE, OR GOOD ZONING PRACTICE JUSTIFIES AN AMENDMENTI 'TO ANY SECTION OF THIS ORDINANCE, AND AFTER THE AMENDMENT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED FOR CON- SIDERATION BY THE COMMISSION, THE CITY COUNCIL MAY CHANGE THIS ORDINANCE, AFTER PUBLIC HEARING HAS BEEN HELD ON THE PROPOSED CHANGE BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE CITY COUNCIL. Add: Section 16.3-9. INITIATION OF CHANGE OR AMENDMENT. a. A PROPOSED CHANGE OR AMENDMENT TO ANY SECTION OF THIS ORDINANCE MAY BE SUBMITTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL, THE COMMISSION, OR THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS OR UPON THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY STAFF. ANY PROPOSED CHANGE OR AMENDMENT TO THIS ORDI- NANCE SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FOR ITS EXAMINATION AND RECOMMENDATION BEFORE CONSIDERATION BY THE CITY COUNCIL. b. CHANGING THE ORDINANCE. (1) COMMISSION SHALL MEET. THE COMMISSION SHALL MEET TO CONSIDER PROPOSED CHANGES OR AMENDMENTS TO THIS ORDINANCE AT SUCH TIMES AND PLACES AS ESTABLISHED BY RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE COMMISSION, AND AFTER PUBLIC NOTIC E OF HEARI NG. (2) ADOPTION OF RECOMMENDATIONS. AFTER THE COMMISSION HAS CONSIDERED THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT OR CHANGE, AND HAS SUBMITTED ITS RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE COUNCIL THE COUNCIL MAY ADOPT BY ORDINANCE THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT OR CHANG E AFTER A PUBLIC HEARING THEREON AS SET FORTH IN SECTION 16.2-10 a. (3) DISAPPROVAL OF CHANGE. IN THE EVENT THE COMMISSION DISAPPROVES A CHANGE IN THIS ORDINANCE, A REPORT Section 16.4-17 -6- THEREON SHALL BE MADE TO THE CITY COUNCIL. THE CITY COUNCIL SHALL THEREUPON REVIEW THE RECOMMENDATION AND REPORT OF THE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AND MAY, AFTER PUBLIC HEARING, MAKE SUCH CHANGE IN THIS ORDINANCE. Fences and Retaining Wall s. Change: Section 16.4-17 d: Fences in business districts shall conform to the following requirements: 1. Feftees-saa±±-be-e£-G±ass-±,-~,-3,-4,-ef §0 -9He-sfia±±-fteE-eHeeea-eae-aeigae-e£ s±H-fe}-£eee. FENCES OF CLASS 2, 3, 4, OR 5 SHALL NOT BE PERMITTED ON THE STREET SIDE OF ANY PROPERTY. FENCES OF CLASS 1 ON THE STREET SIDE SHALL NOT EXCEED 30 INCHES IN HEIGHT . THIS PROVISION SHALL NOT APPLY TO EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS. FENCES IN THE REAR YARD OR INTERIOR SIDE YARD MAY BE OF CLASS 1, 2, 3, 4, OR 5 AND SHALL NOT EXCEED SIX (6) FEET IN HEIGHT. Section 16.4-18 Landscape Ordinance. Change: Section 16.4-18 b (1). These regulations shall apply IN ALL ZONE DISTRIC TS to ANY CHANGE IN USE OR any new development or to any property on which the principal building is remodeled, which remodeling cost is equal to or exceeds 50% of the estimated mafket value of the VfeveftY> ±ft eae £e±±ew±ng e±sef±ees~ fa}--Res±aefte ±a±-Bistfiees~--R-±-A,-R-±-B,-R-±-e,-R-±-e,-R-~,-R-~-G, R-i-GISP&,-R-3,-afte-R-4. {e}--GeH!Hlefe±a±-B ±stF±ees~--B-±-afta-B-~. {e}--±ftaHsEF±a±-B±seF±ees~--±-l-afta-±-~. PRINCIPAL BUILDING AS SUBSTANTIATED BY EVI DENCE SUBMITTED TO THE DIRECTOR. FOR PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION , REMODELING COST SHALL BE EQUAL TO THE SUM OF ALL PERMIT VALUATIONS OF WORK. • • Add: Section 16.4-18 c (2) (a ), {b) • (c), (e).: WHEN THE 'l'O'l'AL STREET FRONTAGE IS DIVIDED BY 40 FEET, AND THERE IS A REMAINDER OF 20 FEET OR MORE, AN ADDITIONAL STREET TREE IS REQUIRED. Change: Section 16.4-18 d (1) (b). The Landscaping Plan shall be reviewed by the Planning Division, and if the proposed landscaping complies with the requirements of this Ordinance, it shall be approved. All landscape improvements indicated on or contained in an approved site plan shall be completed prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Hewevef, (1) If all conditions necessary for issuance of a Certificate of • Occupancy are met e x cept landscape improvements, and the reason for not finis hing the landscape improvement s is be- cause completion of construction occurred outside of a planting season, a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy will be issued AS PROVIDED FOR HEREIN. In this situation, all land scape • • • -7- improvements must be completed by the next planting season within a time frame established by the Director. BEFORE THE TEMPORARY CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY SHALL BE ISSUED, A SECURITY INSTRUMENT NAMING THE CITY AS BENEFICIARY SHALL BE FILED WITH THE CITY, WHICH SECURITY INSTRUMENT SHALL REQUIRE THE INSTAL- LATION OF ALL LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN THE TIME FRAME ESTABLISHED BY THE DIRECTOR. THE SECURITY INSTRUMENT SHALL FURTHER PROVIDE THAT IT SHALL BE IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT FOR ONE YEAR AFTER THE TIME FRAME ESTABLISHED BY THE DIRECTOR OR UNTIL THE LANDSCAPING HAS BEEN COMPLETED. SHOULD ACTION BE COMMENCED TO ENFORCE THE LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS, THE SECURITY INSTRUMENT SHALL CONTINUE TO BE IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT UNTIL THE IMPROVEMENTS ARE COMPLETED. FURTHER, THE SECURITY INSTRUMENT SHALL PROVIDE FOR THE PAYMENT OF ALL ATTORNEY FEES, COLLECTION FEES AND EXPENSES OF THE CITY IN ENFORCING THE LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS. THE AMOUNT OF THE SECURITY INSTRUMENT SHALL BE NOT LESS THAN TWICE THE VALUE OF THE LANDSCAPING IMPROVEMENTS. THE FORM OF THE SECURITY INSTRUMENT AND ITS TERMS SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE DIRECTOR BEFORE ACCEPTANCE BY THE CITY. (2) TO PROVIDE THE SECURITY INSTRUMENT, THE PROPERTY OWNER MAY DEPOSIT WITH THE CITY CASH IN ESCROW, CERTIFIED FUNDS, OR AN IRREVOCABLE LETTER OF CREDIT, IN A FORM ACCEPTABLE TO THE DIRECTOR. THE PAYEE OF SAID FUNDS SHALL BE THE CITY, AND THE FUNDS SHALL BE COLLECTABLE BY THE CITY BY THE CITY'S GIVING TEN (10) DAYS WRITTEN NOTICE TO THE PARTY GIVING THE INSTRUMENT AND THEREAFTER EXECUTING ON THE INSTRUMENT. (3) THE OWNER(S) OF THE REAL PROPERTY, ON PROOF OF OWNERSHIP AND CONSENT OF ALL HAVING A SECURITY INTEREST IN THE PROP- ERTY, MAY PLACE A LIEN ON THE PROPERTY IN FAVOR OF THE CITY, WHICH LIEN SHALL BE SUPERIOR TO ALL OTHER LIENS AND ENCUMBRANCES. THE FORM OF THE LIEN SHALL BE AS APPROVED BY THE DIRECTOR AND SHALL PROVIDE FOR THE PAYMENT OF ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS OF COLLECTION IN THE EVENT THAT ENFORCEMENT IS NECESSARY. THE OWNER CONSENTS, IN GIVING THE LIEN, THAT REASONABLE EXPENSES MAY EXCEED THE VALUE OF THE LANDSCAPING REQUIRED. (4) IN ACCEPTING A TEMPORARY CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY, THE OWNER IS CONSENTING AND ACKNOWLEDGING THE AUTHORITY OF THE CITY TO PERFORM THE LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS ON THE PROPERTY AND TO EXECUTE ON THE SECURITY GIVEN BY THE LAND OWNER. Section 16.18 d (2) e (1). Minimum of 10 % of total lot area ffiH5~ SHALL be landscaped, AND NOT LESS THAN 50% OF THE LANDSCAPING SHALL BE INSTALLED BETWEEN THE STREET LINE AND THE FRONT BUILDING SE~BACK LINE, OR IN FRONT OF THE EXISTING BUILDING . Section 16.4-19 Sign Code. Change: Section 16.19-3 a. Permit Required. It shall be unlawful to display, erect, construct, relocate or alter (except for copy changes), any sign without first filing with the Department an application in writing, paying applicable fees, and obtaining -8- a sign pennit, except as provided in Section 16.4-19-5 and Section 16.4-19-7 of this Ordinance. IF A SIGN HAS BEEN DIS- PLAYED, ERECTED, CONSTRUCTED, RELOCATED OR ALTERED WITHOUT SUCH PERMIT OR NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS OF SUCH PERMIT, THE SIGN MUST BE REMOVED WITHIN FIVE (5) DAYS OF OFFICIAL NOTICE. When a sign pennit Change: Section 16.4-19-14 Prohibited, Hazardous and Abandoned .§_igns - Enforcement Procedures. a. Notification of Unlawful Signs. Notice shall be given by Certified Mail or personal service to the owner or lessee of such unlawful signs and to the owner of the property on which such unlawful signs are located. Prohibited signs IN EXISTENCE BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS ORDINANCE, as described in Section 16.4-19-8 shall be declared a nuisance by the Department. The notice shall require that prohibited signs SHALL be brought into con- formance with this Ordinance or be removed within one hundred eighty (180) days after the notice has been received. Signs EXISTING BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS ORDINANCE WHICH ARE prohibited in Section 16.4-19-8 d, j, and 1, shall be removed within three (3) years from the date the notice is received. PROHIBITED SIGNS ERECTED AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS ORDINANCE SHALL BE REMOVED WITHIN FIVE (5) CALENDAR DAYS OF RECEIPT OF OFFICIAL NOTIFICATION FROM THE DEPARTMENT. This Section shall not be applied to require the removal of any sign for which it is lawfully required, by Federal or State Constitution or statute, that compensation be paid by the City for sign removal, unless the City elects to pay any compensation lawfully required. Hazardous signs are those which, by reason of inadequate maintenance, dilapidation, or obsolescence, create an im- minent hazard to public health, safety, or welfare, as declared by the Department; those signs are further declared a nuisance and shall not be displayed or erected within the City. The notice shall require hazardous sign removal within ~eR-{±9* FIVE (5) CALENDAR days. Signs abandoned .... AYES: Beier, Carson, Magnuson, McBrayer, Venard, Allen, Barbre NAYS: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Gourdin, Stoel The motion carried. IV. SUBDIVISION WAIVER CASE #13-85 2701 South Santa Fe Drive Mr. David Jeffrey, applicant, was present and addressed the Commission. Mr. Jeffrey stated that he and Mr. David Rasmussen own the property at 2701 South Santa Fe Drive, and have asked for a waiver from the require- • • • • • • -9- ment of filing a Subdivision Plat for this property. They wish to con- struct a warehouse and sales area for electrical equipment. Mr. Allen pointed out that South Santa Fe Drive is to be widened and im- proved by the State Highway Department; he asked if there will still be access to this property from Santa Fe Drive following the widening and improvement. Mr. Jeffrey stated that they will have access from South Santa Fe Drive by an acceleration/deceleration lane; they do have ap- proval and a permit for such access from the State Highway Department. Mr. Jeffrey stated that there are no turning restrictions imposed on the access at the present time, but sometime before 1990, he understands that left-turning movements may be restricted. Mr. Venard asked if the staff had anything to add to this discussion. Mrs. Romans stated that the staff had nothing to add; there will be no benefit served to require the preparation of a subdivision plat by the applicant, and the staff recommends approval of the request. Mr. Venard asked if anyone else in the audience wanted to speak on the Subdivision Waiver. No one addressed the Commission. Carson moved: McBrayer seconded: The Planning Commission approve the request for a waiver to the Subdivision Regulations as requested by J. R. Properties for property at 2701 South Santa Fe Drive. AYES: Carson, Magnuson, McBrayer, Venard, Allen, Barbre, Beier NAYS: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Gourdin, Stoel The motion carried. V. COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE Satellite Dishes CASE #19-85 Mrs. Romans introduced Mary Alice Rothweiler, Planner I in the Department of Community Development, to the members of the Commission. Mrs. Rothweiler has researched the issue of Satellite Dishes, and prepared the report and proposed regulations before the Commission this evening. Mrs. Rothweiler introduced Charlie Ergen, president of Echosphere Corpora- tion. Mrs. Rothweiler reviewed the background information she has col- lected on satellite dishes. Mrs. Rothweiler stated that she discussed this issue with three or four dealers who install satellite dishes, and also talked to staff persons in other communities to determine what they are doing in regard to satellite dish installations. In response to a question from Mr. Beier, Mrs. Rothweiler stated that Aurora has passed an ordinance governing the installation of satellite dishes; Westminster is in the process of adopting regulations for satellite dishes, and Arvada is looking into the possibility of adopting regulations on satellite dishes. Lakewood is not doing anything about the satellite dish installa- tion issue at this point in time. -10- Mrs. Rothweiler pointed out that the FCC has pre-empted local zoning for satellite receive-only earth station antennas, and has determined that local communities may control dish antenna zoning only as it pertains to health, safety, or aesthetic objectives. Mr. Ergen suggested that the Commission might want to avoid restricting satellite dish installations to a specific number per block. He pointed out that restrictions on the satellite dish installations vary around the nation, with the western part of the U. S. less restrictive than the eastern part of the country. Mr. Ergen pointed out that with the satellite dish installation, a homeowner could receive over 100 channels on TV; there could be some channels that would be "scrambled", but a decoder can be purchased. He pointed out that in a metropolitan area with a good cable system, there may not be that much interest in the satellite dishes, and that he sells 90% of his system to users in rural areas. He noted that satellite dishes improve reception in mountain communities where receiption of regular channels and cable is poor. Mr. Carson stated that he has a satellite dish, and receives 158 channels; he purchased his dish because he was dissatisfied with the service provided by cable. He asked what color dish and what type dish gives the best reception. Mr. Ergen stated that a light color dish gives the best reception, but one of the problems is that the dish is "manufactured" in that specific color, so it is not easy to change or repaint. Mr. Ergen stated that more mesh or "screen" antennae are being sold than the solid dishes; the mesh dishes do not reflect as much heat as the solid dishes, and people find they can have them in darker colors. Mr. Carson asked about height restrictions on the solid antennae. Mr. Ergen stated that if a solid dish were to be installed atop a house, he would recommend that an Engineer's Certificate be submitted certifying that the house and roof is structurally sound to support the weight of the dish. Mr. Ergen suggested that an Engineer's Certificate should be required for both solid and mesh dish installation atop a structure. Mr. Ergen suggested that an ordinance might be drafted which would re- strict the installation of satellite dishes to rear or side yards. He advised against restricting the size of the dishes, noting that the size of dishes in the future will be considerably smaller than they are now. Mr. Ergen stated that he would be happy to look at proposed regulations and to ref er them to legal advisers in Washington for review prior to the Commission recommendation to Council. Mr. Venard suggested that prior to setting a date for a Public Hearing, he felt the Commission should study the issue more thoroughly, and review the background material presented by Mrs. Rothweiler and also review the proposed restrictions that have been prepared. Mr. Venard stated that he wanted to commend Mrs. Rothweiler for the report she has prepared. Mr. McBrayer discussed problems in citing satellite dishes for houses abutting property that has an "alley" house if the location is restricted to the rear or side yard. Mr. McBrayer also disagreed with stating there is a "carte blanche" 25 foot height on the installation. He felt the height should be in proportion to the height of the house. Height limitations for dish installation were dis- cussed. Mr. Ergen stated that if a homeowner has a two-story house, the 25 • • • • • • -11- feet height limitation is applicable. The pole to support a 25 foot high dish would have to be attached to the house; it could not be free-standing . A typical system could be on an eight foot pole, which would be sunk in the earth, and would be above ground approximately three and one-half to four feet. Mr. McBrayer asked why the height is listed to the "top of the pole", and not the top of the dish if the dish is to be situated on top of the pole; this adds additional height. Mrs. Rothweiler stated that a home- owner who may want to change the dish would not be apt to change the pole. Discussion ensued. Mr. Ergen stated that he felt the Commission could put restriction on free-standing poles that would bring the height into relation to the height of the structure on the site. Mr. McBrayer stated that discussion has been on dishes with 10 foot dia- meter, yet the proposed restriction of (2)(v) is a dish over 36 inches in diameter shall not be mounted on the roof of a residential structure. Mr. Ergen stated that in today's technology, nothing at the 36" size will pro- vide much of a picture; this is aimed for future dish sizes. Mr. McBrayer questioned if this provision is useless today, why it is being included. Mr. Beier pointed out that consideration will have to be given to the problems caused by overhead telephone and electrical lines, as well as lines in the alleys . Mrs. Rothweiler stated that in discussing this with the Building and Safety division, the Chief Building Inspector had indicated he would pre- fer that no permit system be required for the installation of such dishes. At present, no building permits are required to install a satellite dish. Mr. Ergen stated that overhead lines will not affect the reception, but they should not hit the dish, either. Mr. McBrayer stated that if no permits are required to install a satellite dish, there is no way to determine if they would comply with the ordinance. He questioned why an ordinance controlling the installation of the satellite dishes would be written, if permits for the installation would not be re- quired. Mr. Carson stated that he is of the opinion that property owners should have to get a permit to install the satellite dishes. Mr. Venard asked if the term "Engineer's Certificate" is sufficient to cover the Commission's concerns. Mr. McBrayer stated that this is a standard phrase used throughout the building industry, and did not see any problem. The members of the Commission expressed their appreciation to Mr. Ergen for his attendance. The staff was asked to look at the proposed regulations in light of the concerns expressed by the Commission at this meeting, and to report back to the Commission at a future meeting. Mrs. Romans sug- gested that this issue will be placed on the agenda for the next meeting • VI. RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION Miramonte Road CASE 1117 -85 Mr. Sanford Metzel, applicant, stated that he is requesting the vacation of Miramonte Road south of Belleview Avenue. The street serves no public -12- purpose, and bisects property that he has assembled for development. Mr. Metzel introduced Mr. Doug Wagner, architect, and asked that Mr. Wagner make the presentation to the Commission. Mr. Wagner displayed an aerial photo of the properties assembled by Mr. Metzel, with the right-of-way for Miramonte Road shown as it bisects the properties. There is an eight-inch water line in Miramonte Road, which must be retained in a 20-foot easement until such time as the location of the water line can be determined. Mr. Wagner stated that Mr. Metzel has agreed to dedicate a 20-foot easement for the water line in the vacated right-of-way, with the stipulation that the easement will be vacated upon the relocation of the water line and the new easement con- veyed to the City. Mr. Allen asked the location of this property in relation to the K-Mart Store. It was noted that this property is immediately west of K-Mart. Mr. Carson asked Mr. Wagoner if he has read a copy of the staff report, and if he and the applicant agree with the staff recommendation. Mr. Wagner stated that he and Mr. Metzel have read the report, and do agree with the recommendation; they will work with the Utility Department to resolve the issue on the water line relocation. McBrayer moved: Magnuson seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council that right-of-way for Miramonte Road be vacated; that a 20-foot easement for the water line be dedicated to the City of Englewood by Mr. Sanford Metzel before the vacation is fact. AYES: Magnuson, McBrayer, Venard, Allen, Barbre, Beier, Carson NAYS: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Gourdin, Stoel The motion carried. VII. PUBLIC FORUM. No one was present to address the Commission. VIII. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE. Mrs. Romans suggested that the satellite dish ordinance be considered at the meeting of August 20, inasmuch as Mrs. Rothweiler will be out of the office on August 6. Mr. Venard stated that there was no probl~ on the August 20 date. Mrs. Romans gave members of the Commission copies of Council Bill No. 54, Series of 1985, which was considered by City Council at the meeting of July 15. This would put to a vote of the qualified electors of the City the question regarding the means of residential trash pickup in the City. Discussion ensued. Mr. McBrayer stated that he had been in Florida for the last two months, and at Key West, they have a "solid waste impact • • • • • • -13- fee" which is paid as part of a building permit. This solid waste impact fee cost him $500 when he obtained a building permit for a house he is building in that community. The cost of this fee is a formula based on the number of bedrooms, bathrooms, and kitchens, but passes on to the developer a proportionate cost of handling the refuse to be generated by the development. Mrs. Romans stated that the amendments to the B-2 Zone District regarding used car lots was referred to City Council; this issue was tabled until the meeting of August 5, 1985. Mrs. Romans reminded Commission members of the tour scheduled for July 27 at 7:30 A. M. Members of the City Council have been invited to go on this tour also. This will be to view the areas of zoning concern that have been discussed by the Commission, and also to view. areas that might be considered for annexation. Mrs. Romans stated that she has arranged for the group to stop at "Unique Mobility", a business located at West Kenyon Avenue and South Jason Street, which business manufactures electric cars, does work on defense contracts, etc. IX. COMMISSION'S CHOICE. Mr. Allen stated that Mr. Carson has received additional information from DRCOG on the trash problem. Mr. Carson stated that he had received the information earlier on this date, and has not had an opportunity to read the information. Mr. Allen discussed his concern with the proposed Amendment No. 2, con- tained in Council Bill No. 54, Series of 1985. He noted that this may not be the route the Commission determines to reconnnend. Mr. Magnuson stated that he felt it was a step in the right direction. Further dis- cussion ensued. Mr. Venard stated that this procedure will get the situa- tion before the public eye. Mr. Allen reiterated that the procedure out- lined in Amendment #2 may not be what the Commission determines to recom- mend, and will fall short of what needs to be done to properly address the problem. Mr. Venard noted that the Commission has received copies of Minutes from the Englewood Downtown Development Authority in response to a request from the Commission. The meeting adjourned at 9:15 P . M. · rtrude G. Welty ecording Secret ry