Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-04-03 PZC MINUTESCITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION April 3, 1984 I. CALL TO ORDER. The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Vice-Chairman Marjorie L. Becker at 7:00 P. M. Members present: Venard, Barbre, Becker, Carson, Magnuson, Stoel, Tanguma Romans, Assistant Director of Community Development Members absent: Allen, McBrayer Also present: Senior Planner Susan T. King II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. March 20, 1984 Mrs. Becker stated that the Minutes of March 20, 1984 were to be considered for approval. Carson moved: Stoel seconded: The Minutes of March 20, 1984, be approved as written. AYES: Barbre, Becker, Carson, Magnuson, Stoel, Tanguma, Venard NAYS: None ABSENT: Allen, McBrayer The motion carried. III. COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE §22.4-14 Planned Development Mrs. Becker asked for a motion to open the Public Hearing. Tanguma moved: CASE 1116-84 Carson seconded: The Public Hearing on Case 1116-84 be opened. AYES: Barbre, Becker, Carson, Magnuson, Stoel, Tanguma, Venard NAYS: None ABSENT: Allen, McBrayer The motion carried. Mrs. Becker stated that notice of the Public Hearing was published in the Englewood Sentinel on March 14, 1984. Mr. Becker stated that there was no one present in the audience to address the Commission. Mrs. Becker stated that the Commission members have had the staff report regarding the proposed amendments to the Planned Develop- ment District for review for several days; she asked if there were questions of the staff regarding the proposed amendments. -2- Mrs. Becker asked for clarification on Page 8, (f)(i), and asked if this meant that if the developer chose to provide the decorative fence, could he build to within five feet of the property line. Mrs, Romans stated that one of the purposes of a Planned Development is to allow for flexi- bility in setbacks, and the setback would be determined by the Develop- ment Plan. Mr. Venard questioned the wording of the last sentence in (f)(l) on Page 8, and suggested that perhaps a "screened" decorative fence was redundant. Mrs. Romans suggested that the word "screened" could be eliminated. Mrs. Becker questioned Page 9 (3) regarding an internal street system on Planned Developments. She suggested that the wording be changed to state that Private, internal streets may ee ~efll!f~~ea f{ eaey MUST comply with City Standards. Discussion ensued. Mr. Stoel suggested that the wording remain as proposed by staff so that a developer can determine just by reading this section that an internal street system is allowed. Further discussion ensued. It was the consensus that the wording on this section shall not be changed. Mr. Venard suggested that the word "THAN" be inserted at the end of the last sentence on Page 10. It was agreed that this was needed. Mrs. Romans suggested that on Page 5 (c), mid-paragraph the following change be made: "If the plan is disapproved, the plan shall be returned TO THE APPLICANT together with the ... " Mrs. Becker noted that one person had entered the meeting and was seated in the audience; she asked if this person had any questions regarding the Planned Development District amendments. The gentleman, who did not iden- tify himself, stated that he did not have any questions. Carson moved: Tanguma seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #16-84 be closed. AYES: Becker, Carson, Magnuson, Stoel, Tanguma, Venard, Barbre NAYS: None ABSENT: McBrayer, Allen The motion carried. Mrs. Becker stated that it would appear that this document will accomplish the intent to clean up the process in approving Planned Developments. Mr. Barbre asked what procedure and time element applies to PD approvals now. Mrs. Romans stated that this has been a real problem, and noted that there is no provision to "abandon" an approved PD if no development has taken place. Mrs. Romans cited instances of approved Planned Developments where the development has not occurred by the same owner that made the applica- tion for approval; a subsequent owner may make minor modifications and still use the approved Plan layout, but this does not always work well. Carson moved: Stoel seconded: The Planning Commission approve the Planned Development District amendments as proposed and modified at this meeting, and refer this zone district to the City Council for approval. -3- AYES: Carson, Magnuson, Stoel, Tanguma, Venard, Barbre, Becker NAYS: None ABSENT: McBrayer, Allen The motion carried. IV. COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE §22.4-16 Design Guidelines Barbre moved: CASE #17-84 Carson seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #17-84 be opened. AYES: Magnuson, Stoel, Tanguma, Venard, Barbre, Becker, Carson NAYS: None ABSENT: McBrayer, Allen The motion carried. Mrs. Becker stated that she has in hand a copy of the public notice of the time, date and place of the public hearing which was published in the Englewood Sentinel on March 14, 1984. Mrs. Becker suggested that the staff should make a presentation on the proposed amendments before the Commission, inasmuch as there is an audience. Ms. Susan King was sworn in, and testified that she is Senior Planner in the Department of Community Development. Ms. King gave testimony on the problems that the staff has incurred in administering the Design Guidelines, which, when written, were meant to facilitate the facade improvement pro- gram on South Broadway, and not intended to apply to a new construction program. The scope of the Downtown Redevelopment project has changed dramatically in the last two years, and there will be considerable new construction along South Broadway. In attempting to apply the design guidelines to the new construction, it was determined that the design criteria for new construction was too restrictive, and the matter of height limitation was also questioned. After considerable discussion, it was felt it would better to drop the guidelines for new construction; the guidelines would still apply to buildings on South Broadway that will not be razed, but would undergo a facade improvement. Ms. King stated that modifications to the Design Guidelines signage requirements have been previously recommended by the Commission, and will be submitted to City Council. Mr. Venard asked if it is necessary to reference back to the B-1 Zone District on the matter of height restrictions. Ms. King stated that the Design Guidelines appl y to the B-1 Zone District, and did not feel it necessary to incorporate a cross reference. Mrs. Becker asked if there were other comments from the Commission, or if the member of the audience wished to ask any questions. There were no further comments from Commission members, and the gentleman in the audience indicated he had no questions. Carson moved: Stoel seconded: The Public Hearing on Case . #17-84 be closed. -4- AYES: Stoel, Tanguma, Venard, Barbre, Becker, Carson, Magnuson NAYS: None ABSENT: McBrayer, Allen The motion carried. Carson moved: Venard seconded: The Planning Commission approve the proposed amendments to §22.4-16 Design Guidelines for the South Broadway Incentive Area, and refer the proposed amendments to City Council for their approval. AYES: Stoel, Tanguma, Venard, Barbre, Becker, Carson, Magnuson NAYS: None ABSENT: Allen, McBrayer The motion carried. V. COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE §22.8 Fences and Retaining Walls Carson moved: CASE #18-84 Magnuson seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #18-84 be opened. AYES: Tanguma, Venard, Barbre, Becker, Carson, Magnuson, Stoel NAYS: None ABSENT: Allen, McBrayer The motion carried. Mrs. Becker stated that she has in hand a copy of the public notice of the time, date and place of the public hearing which was published in the Englewood Sentinel on March 14, 1984. Mrs. Becker asked for the staff presentation. Mrs. Dorothy Romans was sworn in, and testified that she is the Assistant Director of Community Development, Planning Division. Mrs. Romans stated that a few years ago during a codification process of the Municipal Code, the section of the Code pertaining to fences and retaining walls was omitted. The staff has continued to adhere to the standards for fence and retaining wall construction when permits for fences and retaining walls are issued; however, there has been no support for the staff determinations because the fence and retaining wall requirements are not in the Municipal Code. Mrs. Romans stated that the staff is of the opinion that it is very important that the standards for the fences and retaining walls be incorporated as part of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. Mrs. Romans then reviewed the standards for fences and retaining walls which are before the Commission. The standards establish the types of fences that would be permitted within the various Districts of the City, the height of the fences is established, and a provision requiring that fences be kept in good repair has been added. Fences/retaining walls may not obstruct the visability of the motorist at intersections. Mrs. Romans pointed out that the regulations before the Commission are very similar to the ordinance on fences that was previously in effect. Height of fences has not been changed: 42" maximum in front yards, and a 6' maximum in the rear yards. Mrs. Romans asked if the Com- mission members had questions regarding the proposed regulatioas. -5- Mr. Carson referred to Page 3 and Page 4, and the sections pertaining to the use of barbed wire above six feet; he felt this limitation should be changed to state that barbed wire may be used at a height of eight feet or above. Mrs. Romans pointed out that the height limitation of fences is six feet. Page 3 refers to fencing in the Business areas, and Page 4 refers to fencing in the industrial districts. The fences in an in- dustrial area may exceed the six feet. Mr. Carson reiterated his opinion that barbed wire should be used only above eight feet in height. Discussion ensued. Mr. Carson suggested that use of barbed wire should be eliminated in the business zone districts, and in the industrial districts it should not be used below the eight foot height. Further discussion ensued. Mrs. Becker pointed out that fences with barbed wire atop them are above the six foot height and the barbed wire is on poles slanted inward; if individuals get "caught" in the barbed wire, "they are in the wrong place." Mr. Tanguma pointed out that if someone wanted to scale a six foot fence, they would just as easily scale an eight foot fence. Mr. Tanguma referred to Page 1, and asked why fences of Class 5 and Class 6 (Solid fences less than 50% open, or solid hendges, respectively) would not be allowed in a residential zone district. Mrs. Romans stated that the primary concern would be the obstruction of view for motorists at intersections, and the restriction of light and air movement to the prop- erty. Mr. Tanguma stated that he wanted to construct a retaining wall using railroad ties in his front yard; it does not appear that he would be allowed to do so under the proposed regulations. Mrs. Romans stated that the purpose of a retaining wall is the "support" of the earth to prevent erosion, and that a fence is constructed above grade; she stated that if a property owner has property which slopes, and wantes to con- struct a retaining wall the staff would work with them. Mrs. Romans discussed some of the security problems that occur with the construction of solid fences. Mr. Stoel asked if he wanted to plant a hedge in his front yard, would he have to get a building permit to do so. Mrs. Romans stated that he would not; the primary concern is that it be planted at least one foot back of the sidewalk, again for protection of pedestrians walking by. Mr. Stoel asked about fences using a combination of masonry walls and ornamental iron, and what classification would a fence of this type be given. Mrs. Romans stated that if the masonry is used as a pillar, with the wrought iron for the basic fence, it would be considered an "open" fence. Mrs. Becker stated that she approved the location of dog runs in the rear one-third of the lot. Mrs. Becker then discussed the location of her particular property, and the fact that the neighbors property to the west faces west, therefore their rear yard abuts the side yard of Mrs. Becker's property; the same is true on the east side of Mrs. Becker's property, and the rear of her property abuts the rear of the property to the south; thus, her property is bounded on three sides by the rear yards of the surrounding properties. If a property owner is allowed to construct a six foot fence across the rear of their property, this could mean her property would be surrounded -6- by a six foot fence on the west, south and east. She asked how such a situation would be handled; would it be permitted, in fact, or would the side-yard restrictions apply on fence height. Mrs. Romans acknowledged that this is a unique situation, and stated that she did not know how the City could prevent the installation of the six foot fence in the rear yard if the adjoining property owner wanted to do so. Mrs. Romans stated that an agreement between property owners has been used by the Board in considering fence heights from the rear of the house to the front of the house. Mrs. Romans suggested that perhaps a provision could be included to state that if a rear yard abuts the side yard of another property, the property owner would have to obtain permission of the adjoining property owner before installation of a fence in excess of 42" in height would be approved. Mrs. Becker stated she felt there were enough situations similar to her property that it warrants considera- tion, and felt that the proposed statement would be fair to both property owners. Mr. Venard asked if the Commission is being consistent in requiring screening fences in some sections of the Zoning Ordinance, but not allowing them in the section on fences. Mrs. Romans pointed out that if adjoining neighbors do not want a solid screening fence, the staff works with both property owners to see that a fence acceptable to both parties is constructed. Mrs. Becker asked if there were any other questions from the Commission or from the audience. No questions were asked. Mrs. Becker suggested that this public hearing be continued to a date certain to give the staff an opportunity to make the modifications to the proposed regulations and bring them back to the Commission for further review. Carson moved: Venard seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #18-84 be continued to April 17, 1984 at 7:00 P. M. AYES: Venard, Barbre, Becker, Carson, Magnuson, Stoel, Tanguma NAYS: None ABSENT: Allen, McBrayer The motion carried. VI. FINDINGS OF FACT CASE #9-84B I-1, Light Industrial Zone District Mrs. Becker stated that the Findings of Fact on Case #9-84B were to be considered for approval. Carson moved: Stoel seconded: The Planning Commission approve the Findings of Fact on Case #9-84B, I-1 Light Industrial District, and refer said Findings of Fact to City Council. AYES: Barbre, Becker, Carson, Magnuson, Stoel, Tanguma, Venard NAYS: None ABSENT: Allen, McBrayer The motion carried. • -7- Mrs. Becker expressed her appreciation to the Planning staff for their work in preparing the information for the Commission. VII. GOALS/WORK PROGRAM. Mrs. Becker noted that two members of the Commission were absent this evening, and suggested that consideration of this item be postponed un- til the next meeting. After brief discussion, the Chair declared this item postponed to April 17th. VIII. PUBLIC FORUM. Mrs. Becker asked if the gentleman in the audience wished to address the Commission. He did not wish to speak to the Commission. IX. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE. Mrs. Romans stated that it appears the agenda for April 17 ·will be a "light" one; the one case that was scheduled may be withdrawn. She asked if the Commission wanted to have a work session beginning at 5:30 P. M., and go into a regular meeting at 7:00 P. M. to continue the hearing on the Fence regulations. Mrs. Romans suggested one or two topics for the work session. Mrs. Becker asked if the staff has pictures in the files of mixed use developments that could be viewed by the Commission. Mrs. Romans stated the staff would attempt to obtain pictures of mixed use developments. Mr. Carson asked if there is a map showing school district boundaries. Mrs. Romans stated that such a map would be obtained for the Commission members. It was the consensus of the Commission to meet at 5:30 P.M. on April 17 for a work session; sandwiches will be served. X. COMMISSIONER'S CHOICE. Mr. Carson reported on his attendance at the Denver Regional Council of Governments annual banquet. The City of Englewood received a second place award on municipal cooperative projects, and former Councilman Donald Harper received an award for his work on the In-house Service to Elderly People committee. The meeting adjourned at 8:05 P. M. Gefrtrude G. Welty Ricording Secretary