Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-08-20 PZC MINUTES• I. CITY OF EN GLEWOOD PLANNIN G AND ZONING COMMISSION August 20, 1985 CALL TO ORDER. The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairman Venard at 7:00 P . M. Members present: Members absent: Stoel, Venard, Allen, Barbre, Beier, Carson Magnuson, McBrayer, Gourdin Also present: Assistant Director of Community Development Romans Senior Planner King Planner I Rothweiler Chair man Venard declared a quorum of the Commission in attendance. II . APPROVAL OF MINUTES. August 6, 1985 Chairman Venard stated that the Minutes of August 6, 1985 were to be con- sidered for approval. It was noted that the Minutes are dated "August 7, 1985", and the agenda indicated "Au gust 6, 1985." Carson moved : Beier seconded: The Minutes of August 6, 1985 be approved as amended by changing the date on Page 1. AYES: Stoel, Venard, Allen, Beier, Carson NAYS : None ABSTAIN: Barbre ABSENT: McBrayer, Gourdin, Magnuson The motion carried. III. T. W. ANDERSON Off -Str eet Parking Joint Use -Off ice/Residential CASE #23 -85 Mr. McBrayer entered the meeting at 7:05 P. M. and took his place with the Commission. Mr . Venard asked if the applicant was present. Mr . David Anderson was present representing T . W. Anderson. Mr . Venard asked if the staff had any comm ents or additions to the staff r e port at this time. Mrs. Romans stated that t he staff had nothing to add at the moment. Mr . Venard asked that the applicant present his case. Mr . David Anderson stated that the propos e d development is a mixed us e d e v e lopment c ombinin g office/res idential u se . It is th e opinion of th e app li ca nt tha t this typ e o f mi xe d us e i s such th a t th e applica nts sho u l d • not have t o th ese us es . residential conflict in -2- provid e all the parking required by the Ordinance f o r ea ch of The office usage will b e during the daytime hours, and the usage will be after 5:00 P. M., thus, there should be no the use of the parking ar eas . Mr. Beier asked the percentage of reduction from the parking required, and what is proposed by the applicant. Mr. Anderson estimated 10 %. Mr. An derson pointed out that there will be spaces designated for standard-sized vehicles, compact vehicles, and there will be spaces marked for handicapped parking. Mr . Stoel stated that it appears there is a 14 space shortage on the parking provided, and this is what the Commission has to consider. Mr. Venard stated that this is equal to a 21 % reduction in parking the applicants are requesting. Mr. Anderson stated that from their initial contacts, some of the potential office buyers are interested in purchasing the residential units above the office space . Mr . Venard stated that he would have to regard this as an "assumption" that purchasers of the office spaces would also purchase residential units. Mr. Anderson stated that they do not have actual con- tracts at this point in time, but expect to have signed contracts in the near future . The office and residential units will be sold. Mr . Beier asked what rights the residential owners would have to the parking space . Mr . McBrayer suggested that the parking spaces would be considered "common" areas . Mr. Stoel inquired as to the number of r esidential units and office units proposed. Mr . Anderson stated that there will be 11 residential units in each building, for a total of 22 residential units. There will be a total of 12 office spaces, six in each building . Discussion of the proposal ensued . Mr . McBrayer pointed out that there is very limited parking around office buildings during the evening hours. Mr. Stoel suggested that if there is a shortage of parking spaces, it will occur during the daytime business hours . Mr. Carson commented that he felt a 21% reduction in the r equired parking spaces is considerable. Mr. Anderson stated that t hey will be providing 50 parking spaces total. Mrs . Romans addressed the Commission, and pointed out that the Comprehen- sive Zoning Ordinance does provide for the joint use of parking areas upon approval of the Planning Commission . This approval/agreement on joint use of parking areas has been traditionally recorded with the County, and has been with another property owner . Mr . Anderson does own property across the street, which is also used as a parking lot, so if there is congestion on the subject site, additional parking could be provided on the adjacent site. Mrs . Romans further pointed out that in October, 1982, the Planning Commission approved a request from Mr. Anderson for a plan that is almost identical to the plan under consideration at this time; that plan also provided for the joint use of parking and a 21 % reduction in the number of off-street parking spaces. Mr. Anderson will be selling the units, and will have some control over the development; he has indicated that he does feel there is a market for this type of development. Mrs . Romans summarized that this plan being considered at this meeting is very • -3- s imilar to a plan approved by the Commis s ion three years ago, and does fal l withi n the requirem e nts of the Ordinance. Mr. Stoel stat e d that he felt this was a new concept for a lot of jurisdic- tions, and that a lot of people d o want to live c lose to wher e they work . Th e ar ea propos e d to be developed is not badly congested at the present time, and he did not feel th e re would be a probl e m with parking shortage . Sto e l moved: Allen seconded: The Planning Commission approve the mixed-use parking plan as requested by Mr. T. W. Anderson for 3650 South Galapago Street/3629 South Fox Street . Mr. Carson indicated that he would vote in favor of the motion, eve n though he feels the 21 % reductio n in parking spaces is too much. He stated that the potential use of parking across the street is a factor in his giving approval to this proposal. Mr . Venard pointed out that the 21 % reduction is the same figure pre- viously approved by the Commission, and that he doesn't feel there will be a problem with the parking congestion. AYES: Stoel, Venard, Allen, Barbre, Beier, Carson, McBrayer NAYS: None ABSTAIN : None ABSE NT : Gourdin, Magnuson The motion carried. IV. FINDINGS OF FACT 4171 South Cherokee Street CASE #16 -85 Mr . Venard stated that the Findings of Fact on Case #16-85, a Conditional Use at 4171 South Cherokee Street, were to be considered for approval. Carson moved: Stoel seconded: The Findings of Fact for Case #16-85 be approved as written. AYES: Venard, Allen, Beier, Carson, McBrayer, Stoel NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Barbre ABSENT: Gourdin, Magnuson The motion carried. V. COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE Satellite Dish Antenna CASE f!19-85 Mr. Venard stated that a couple of meeting s prior, the Commission dis- cussed a proposed satellite dish ordinance, and referred it to staff for modification. This has been redrafted, and is back to the Commission for additional review. -4- Mr. Allen di scu ssed his concerns with th e height limitations as cited in th e proposed ordinance. Page 2, (2)(a)(iii) was suggested for amendment by ad di n g : TI1e hei gh t OF FRE E-STANDING GROUND-MOUNTED SATE LLITE DISH ES shall be limited to ten feet at th e to p of the pole . Mrs . Ro thwei ler pointed out that at th e previous meeting, the Commission felt that the 25 foot height limitation was too high for a free-standing p o l e . Mrs . Rothweiler also p o inted out that the proposed o rdinance before the Commission c ontains no provis ion for the issuance of permits for the installation of the satellite dishes. Mrs. Rothweiler stated that Page 2, (b) should be amended b y adding: "VERIFYING THAT THE ROOF-MOUNTING IS STRUCTURALLY SOUND AND STABLE. A BUILDIN G PERMIT SHALL BE OBTAINED AND PROPER INSPECTIONS SECURED DURING INSTALLATION." Mr. Allen asked if the satellite dishes were dangerous to children, noting the provision on Page 3, (iii). Mrs. Rothweiler stated that the dishes are not harmful to childr e n; this provision was added more for the protec- tion of the dish, which could be an attractive nuisance to children, and could be dama g ed. Mrs. Rothweiler stated that the wires to the satellite dish should be enclosed in cable and underground so there would be no danger to the child . Mr. McBrayer asked about the permit system; does the Building Department feel p e rmits should be required only with roof mounts. Mrs . Rothweiler stated that there is no clear-cut opinion on this issue. She stated that Littleton, for instance, requires no permits for installation in a residential area , and controls are done on a "complaint" basis. Mrs. Rothweiler sugg ested that the satellite dishes could be called an "acces- sory use" rather than having a separate ordinance dealing with dishes; however, the accesssory use approach would require amendment of the indivi- dual zone districts to include the satellite dishes as accessory uses . Mr. McBrayer felt that the proposed ordinance pertaining to satellite dishes alone is a better approach to the problem . Discussion ensued. Carson moved: McBrayer seconded: The Planning Commission schedule a public hearing on September 17, 1985 to consider the proposed satellite dish ordinance, which is to be modified to require permits for all satellite dish installations, the deletion of (iii) on the top of Page 3, and that (b) on the top of Page 2 be modified as follows : "VERIFYING THAT THE ROOF -MOUNTIN G IS STRUCTURALLY SOUND AND STABLE . A BUILDING PERMIT SHALL BE OBTAINED AND PROPER INSPECTIONS SECURED DURING INSTALLATION." AYES: Allen, Barbre, Beier, Carson, McBrayer, Stoel, Venard. NAYS: None. ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Gourdin, Magnuson. Th e motion carried. City Attorney Olsen entered the meeting at 7:45 P.M. • -5- Vl. DENSI TY CONTROLS CASE f/21-85 Additional inf o rm a tio n on den s ity controls in othe r p a rts o f th e metropolitan area wer e inc lud e d in th e Commission's pa cket . Mrs. Romans su gges ted tha t this in f orma tion is som e thing th e Commissio n may want to consider at another time. Mr . Stoel asked if Englewood does n o t achieve a form of density control throu g h the us e of Planned Developments . Ms King stated that ther e may be minor varia tions to the location of building s handled throu gh a Pl a nn ed Development, but density may not be inc reased via Planned Dev e lop- men t approval. Mrs. Romans sugg ested that the City Council can increase the density throu gh the Planned Development process, and there is one case which may come b ef ore the Commission, that being in the 3300 block of South Clarkson . This wo uld be a request for an increase in density from two to six dwelling units through the Planned Development process. The gentleman has appeared before the City Coun c il and discussed the situation, and he was advised to file a Planned Development and take it through channels. VII. PUBLIC FORUM . Mr. Olsen stated that r egarding satellite dishes, there was a case recently decided in Wisconsin which the Commission may be interested in, and he will forward that case to the memb e rs when he has obtained a copy . VIII. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE. Mrs. Romans stated that the City Council has scheduled a hea r ing on the amendments to the B-2 Zone District for September 9, 1985. Some modifica- tions have been made to the Commission recommendation pertaining to setbacks and landscaping requirements for auto dealerships/used car lots. The City Council also received the amendments to the Zoning Ordinance on Sections 16.2, 16 .3, 16.4-17, 16.4-18 and 16.4-19 and directed the City Attorney to draft a bill for an ordinance . No date for public hearing has been scheduled on these amendments. Mrs . Romans expressed the r egrets of the s t aff on Mr. Venard 's r esignation from the Commission. IX . COMMISSION'S CHOICE. Mr. Venard stated that he has received a letter from Mayor Otis, and the City Council has agreed to meet with the Planning Commission. He stated that he assumed the Commission would want to work out the details on points of discussion with Council well ahead of any date for th e meeting . Mrs . Romans stated that Acting Director of Community Development Vargas has not indicated a date for the meeting with the City Council at this point in time. Mr . Allen stated that he had occasion to discuss the matter of solid waste disposal with a member of the State Legislature, and was informed that the State of Colorado is doin g nothing about this matter . While the legislators realize it is a world-wide concern, it is being left up to the local jurisdic- tio ns to deal with the problem of waste disposal. He stated that he wanted to mak e a presentation to th e City Council on this matter sometime af ter th e • • -6- first of September. He stat ed that he is of th e opinion that his ad ho c committee is makin g progress. Mr. Venard commented that th is is to be a topic t o be discussed at the Coun c il/Commission meeting. Mr. McBrayer said that he had received a disturbin g letter from Mayor Otis essentially asking for his resignation from the Commission because of his attendance at Commission meeting s this year. Mr. McBrayer stated th at he h as chosen not to resign from th e Commission; he is of the opinion th a t his a ttendance record over the past five years has n ot been bad, and that h e d oes contribute somethin g to the Commission. He stated that a great deal of his absenteeism durin g the second quarter of 1985 was on business in Florida. Mr. McBrayer sugges ted that with Mr. Venard's resigna tion from the Commission, and Mr. McBrayer's continued business interests in Florida, h e felt that someone sho uld be elected Chairman of the Commission at this time. He stated that he anticipated being in Florida for some period of time this Fall, and felt that he could not preside as Vice-Chairman or assume the position of Chairman in light of his projected schedule. Discussion ensued. Carson moved: Barbre seconded: Mr. Walt Stoel be appointed to the position of Chairman until February 1, 1986. AYES: Barbre, Beier, Carson, McBrayer, Venard, Allen NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Stoel ABSENT: Gourdin, Magnuson The motion carried, and Mr. Stoel took his seat as Chairman. Mrs. Romans pointed out that the attendance records are compiled by the secretaries of all commissions and boards and forwarded to the City Council quarterly for their consideration. This is a routine procedure that has been followed for a number of years. Mr. McBrayer stated that he was disturbed to receive such a letter from the Mayor in light of his attendance record for the last 5+ years. Mr. McBrayer stated that every one of the Council members knows him personnaly, and if anyone has a complaint about his absenteeism, they could call him rather than writing a form letter. Discussion ensued. Mr. McBrayer was advised to reply to the City Council letter on a personal basis, not through the record of this meeting. Mr. Venard stated that this is his last meeting as a member of the Commission; he stated that his time on the Commission has been interesting, frustrating, and rewarding, and he regretted having to resign. He stated that he felt the Commission does make an impact on the City, and advised the ad hoc committee on trash removal/waste disposal to "hang in there" and get some- thing done. • • -7- Mr. Allen stated that he did not like to see Mr . Venard leave th e City of Englewood and his membership on the Commission; he stated that Englewood 's loss is Littleton's gain. Mr. Stoel and Mr . Carson stated that Mr. Venard has been an asset t o th e Commission, and expressed regret at his resignat ion. The meeting adjourned at 8:15 P.M. Gertrude Welty, Recording Secretary