Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-04-17 PZC MINUTES• • CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION April 17, 1984 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 Ed McBrayer. Members present: Becker, Carson, Magnuson, McBrayer, Stoel, Tanguma, Venard, Allen Romans, Assistant Director of Community Development Members absent: Also present: Barbre Senior Planner Susan King Planner I Harold Stitt II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. April 3, 1984 Chairman McBrayer stated that the Minutes of April 3, 1984 were to be considered for approval. Carson moved: Stoel seconded: The Minutes of April 3, 1984 be approved as written. AYES: Becker, Carson, Magnuson, Stoel, Tanguma, Venard NAYS: None ABSTAIN: McBrayer, Allen ABSENT: Barbre The motion carried. III. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT Dartmouth Industrial Park Paul Welbourne, Applicant Mr. McBrayer asked for a motion to open the Public Hearing. Carson moved: CASE //20-84 Becker seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #20-84 be opened. AYES: Carson, Magnuson, McBrayer, Stoel, Tanguma, Venard, Allen, Becker NAYS: None ABSENT: Barbre The motion carried . Mr. McBrayer stated that the matter before the Planning Commission is a public hearing on a request for an amendment to a Planned Development known as the Dartmouth Industrial Park. Mr. McBrayer reviewed the course of action open to the Commission on this matter: 1) approve the amend- ment to the P.D. as submitted; 2) approve the amendment with conditions; B -2- 3) refer the proposed amendment back to the applicant for further revision and/or information, Mr. McBrayer asked that anyone addressing the Com- mission be sworn in and limit their testimony to the matter under con- sideration. Mr. McBrayer stated that members of the Commission have the staff report, which was delivered several days earlier, before them; are there any questions of the staff. Mr. Stoel asked if this property has been before the Commission in the recent past. Mr. McBrayer stated that a Mr. Tepe was before the Commission recently to request a subdivision of a small parcel which was a part of the Dartmouth Industrial, and which Mr. Tepe hoped to develop. Mr. Allen stated that it appeared from the staff report that there are charges due to the City by the property owner. Mr. McBrayer stated that he understands that this is being worked out, and is not a factor in considering the amendment to the Planned Development. Mr. McBrayer asked if the staff had anything to add at this time. Mr. Stitt stated that the staff had no further information to present. Mr. McBrayer stated that notice of the Public Hearing was published in the Englewood Sentinel on March 28th; he asked that the staff report be made a part of the record of the Hearing. Mr. McBrayer asked the applicant to present his case. Mr. Arnold Vollmers 420 East 58th Avenue -was sworn in, and stated that he was representing Mr. Wellbourne, the applicant. Mr. Carson asked Mr. Vollmers if he had read the staff report, and the statements regarding the landscaping and asked if the applicant agrees with the staff recorrunendation. Mr. Vollmers stated that he has read the staff report, and that it is his understanding that the applicant needs to continue the landscaping along Dartmouth Avenue. Mr. Allen asked if the landscaping required on the initial Planned Develop- ment was put in, but not maintained and allowed to die. Mr. Vollmers stated that the total landscaping proposed under the original Planned Development was not completed. Mr. Vollmers pointed out that there is no curb or gutter in the area, and points of access are not clearly delineated; motorists have driven over some of the landscaped areas and destroyed what landscaping was planted. Mr. Vollmers stated that he feels the traffic pattern has been improved under the proposed amendment, and will hopefully solve the problem of destruction of the landscaping by motorists, Mr. McBrayer asked if the landscaping plan shown on the amended Planned Development complies with the City's Landscaping Ordinance. Mr. Stitt stated that this is an amendment of a Planned Development which was ap- proved in 1973; at that time, a landscaping plan was submitted. Mr. Stitt cited a provision in the Landscaping Ordinance which provision states that if the value of an "improvement" does not exceed 50% of the total value, landscaping is not required. Mr. Stitt stated that in viewing the total • • • • -3- Planned Development, it is clear that the proposed new building does not exceed 50 % of the total value of the development; therefore, it is the staff's opinion that the provisions of the Landscaping Ordinance do not apply. Mr. Stitt stated that the applicant has indicated a willingness to comply with the wishes of the Commission to add more land- scaping than was approved on the original Planned Development. Mr. McBrayer asked if there is a proposed use of the building. Mr. Vollmers stated that there is not at this time. They have had some inquiries from businessmen who are looking for a smaller space than could have been pro- vided in the other buildings in the Dartmouth Industrial Park, and these inquiries are the basis for the design of the proposed building. Mrs. Becker discussed her concern with the landscaping as shown on the Plan. Mr. Vollmers stated that the applicant is trying to work with the adjacent property owners to improve the landscaping along Dartmouth Avenue, and pointed out the areas which are to be landscaped and shown on the Plan before the Commission. Mr. Stoel asked if the only place landscaping is proposed is along Dart- mouth. Mr. Vollmers stated that this is a strip of approximately 90 to 100 feet in length, by 14 feet in depth, which will be grassed. Mr. Stoel stated that it is his opinion that the issue before the Commission is the landscaping and what is proposed for the landscaping. This information is not shown on the plan. Mr. Vollmers stated that as landscaping relates to this site, there would be the 14 foot strip of grass along the property frontage on Dartmouth; they will plant the grass, and put in a sprinkler system. Mr. Allen noted that the Department recommendation is that the landscaping be installed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy; if no landscaping is required, how can this be done. Mrs. Romans pointed out that the request before the Commission is an "amendment" to a Planned De- velopment which was approved back in 1973; the landscaping which was shown in the 1973 Planned Development was never actually planted; the staff is asking that the landscaping shown on the 1973 Plan be planted, in addition to the landscaping that is proposed for the subject site prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Mrs. Romans stated that the staff has tried over the years to work with Mr. Wellbourne to get the landscaping planted, but without success; now, however, Mr. Welbourne has applied for approval of the amendment, and the City is saying that the landscaping as shown on the original Planned Development is required, and must be planted prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy on the proposed new building. Mr. Stoel questioned the meaning of the staff recommendation; did it apply to the landscaping on the site which is the subject of the amend- ment, or to the total site. Mrs. Romans stated that the recommendation is meant to apply to the landscaping on the total site. Discussion ensued. Mr. McBrayer suggested that the recommendation be reworded to state that "the landscaping required under the original Planned Development approved by the Planning Commission on June 19, 1973, must be installed and extended into the area newly proposed for develop- ment as shown on the amended Development Plan submitted on March 16, 1984". Further discussion ensued. -4- Carson moved: Stoel seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #20-84 be closed. Mr. McBrayer asked that the record reflect that there was no one else present in the audience to address the Commission on this matter. Mr. McBrayer then asked if Mr. Vollmers had anything else to discuss with the Commission. Mr. Vollmers stated that if the intent of the Commission is to refer to the original Plan, possibly there is a need to take into consideration the modificati.ons as shown on the latest, larger landscape plan, which modifications show the traffic control more clearly. Mr. Vollmers pointed out that there is no curb or gutter, and no clear indication where the edge of the public street lies, and that people have been in the habit of cutting back and forth from private property to the street at any point, and not at designated points of access. Mr. Vollmers stated that the original Development Plan did indicate the location of the curbing and the landscaping, but the latest revision will modify some of the curbing. Mr. Allen asked if the curbing will be installed now. Mr. Vollmers stated that he understood that this would be a requirement. Mr. Venard expressed concern that Mr. Vollmers's understanding of what the Commission was requiring is the same as Mrs. Romans's understanding. The vote on the motion to close the Public Hearing was called. AYES: Magnuson, McBrayer, Stoel, Tanguma, Venard, Allen, Becker, Carson NAYS: None ABSENT: Barbre The motion carried. Mr. McBrayer reviewed the wording of the proposed recommendation. Carson moved: Stoel seconded: The Planning Commission approve the proposed amendment to the Dartmouth Industrial Park Planned Development, with the following condition: 1. The landscaping required under the original Planned Development approved by the Planning Commission on June 19, 1973, must be installed and extended into the area newly proposed for development as shown on the amended Development Plan submitted on March 16, 1984. The required landscaping shall be installed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Mrs. Becker stated that she realized the Commission has no authority to require additional landscaping than that which is shown on the original Development Plan, but she is of the opinion that there is enough parking area where something could be done to soften the visual impact. Mrs. Becker further stated that she feels there is a difference between land- scaping and "grass"; she is of the opinion that landscaping means planting of trees, shrubs, etc., in addition to the grass. She stated that she hoped the builder would consider some other kind of landscaping than just planting the grass strip along Dartmouth Avenue. • • ' ' • -5- Mrs. Romans pointed out that the Commission is being asked to amend the original Development Plan, and that the Commission may ask that specific conditions be complied with. Mrs. Romans stated that if the Commission members feel that the landscaping on the development is inadequate, it is her opinion that they can ask that a plan with an improved landscaping plan be submitted. Mrs. Becker stated that this has been her concern; she understood that the Commission was tied to the approved Plan of 1973 regarding the landscaping. Mrs. Becker stated that if it is possible to require an improved landscaping plan, she would vote in opposition of the motion to approve. Mr. Carson suggested that if it is possible to ask for an improved landscaping plan, he would withdraw his motion to approve the amendment to the Development Plan. Mrs. Becker stated that she wants to see something more than a grass strip along Dartmouth Avenue on this development. Mr. Magnuson stated that he wants to see what the original landscaping plan was, and to see a more defined landscaping plan as now proposed. Mr. McBrayer stated that as far as the landscaping proposed on the original Development Plan, he felt if the Commission can assure that it is in place prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy this is as much as the Commission can do. Mr. Allen stated that the landscaping shown on the original Development Plan either was not planted, or was allowed to deteriorate and die; he stated that he would like to see the applicant do what they were supposed to do in the first place. It appears, based on the Landscaping Ordinance, that additional landscaping cannot be required on the total area. Mr. Stitt reiterated the provisions of the Landscaping Ordinance and the requirement that the improvement be over 50 % of the value of the existing development before landscaping can be required. Mrs. Becker asked what constituted an "improvement". Mr. Stitt stated that an "improvement" may be the construction of a new and separate building; an "improvement" need not be confined to additions or improve- ments to an existing building. Mr. McBrayer stated that it appeared that the Landscaping Ordinance does not apply on the one hand; on the other hand, the Planned Development regulations appear to allow the Commission to take into account the original Development Plan, or add to it. Mr. McBrayer stated that he feels the consensus of the Commission is they would like to see a Develop- ment Plan with the provisions of the original proposal on it, and addi- tional landscaping for the property proposed for development under the proposed amendment. Mr. Allen stated that when one considers the notation in the staff re- port of the unpaid sewer charges which are due the City, when one con- siders the poor performance on planting and maintenance of landscaping from the date the original Development Plan was approved in 1973, this does not add up to a "good track record" for the applicant. Mr. Allen stated that he feels the Commission "needs something nailed down." He emphasized he felt the landscaping proposed on the original Development Plan should be installed and maintained as was approved in 1973. -6- Discussion ensued. Mrs. Becker stated that she felt it would be better for the developer to have another attempt to bring in what the Commission is looking for rather than to vote on the motion and have it fail. The developer should have the opportunity to bring in the information required. Becker moved: Magnuson seconded: The decision on the amendment of the Dartmouth In- dustrial Park Planned Development be tabled until May 8. 1984. Mr. McBrayer asked that the staff supply copies of the landscaping plan as proposed on the original Development Plan, and that the applicant supply a landscaping plan that more clearly defines what the proposed landscaping plan for the "amendment" area would be. The vote was called: AYES: Stoel, Tanguma, Venard, Becker, Carson, Magnuson, McBrayer NAYS: Allen ABSENT: Barbre The motion carried. Mrs. Romans pointed out that the City may not have a reproducible of the original Development Plan, and asked if -it would be acceptable to incorporate the original and revised landscaping on one plan. Mrs. Becker stated that she felt this would be a good idea to have every- thing on one plat. IV. COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE Fences and Retaining Walls CASE ff18-84 Mr. McBrayer stated that this is a continuation of a Public Hearing that was opened on April 3rd, and continued to this date for further informa- tion. Mrs. Becker stated that since the last meeting, she has taken particular notice in driving through the City and was surprised at the number of lots that have a side yard abutting the rear yard of another property. She stated that she felt the wording which the staff has suggested: "IF THE REAR YARD OF ONE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY ABUTS THE SIDE YARD OF AN ADJOINING PROPERTY, NO FENCE SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED ON OR ADJACENT TO THE COMMON PROPERTY LINE WHICH EXCEEDS THE HEIGHT OF 42 INCHES, UNTIL A NOTARIZED AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OWNERS IS FILED WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT. IF AN AGREEMENT IS SIGNED AND FILED WITH THE DEPARTMENT, THE FENCE ON OR ADJACENT TO SUCH COMMON PROPERTY LINE MAY BE INSTALLED TO A HEIGHT NOT TO EXCEED 72 INCHES" is appropriate. The proposed wording would give both property owners a voice in the matter. Mr. McBrayer proposed a hypothetical situation wherein a property owner has junk in his back yard, but would refuse to sign an agreement for a six foot fence an abutting property owner may request for visual improve- ment. Mrs. Becker stated that the agreement would have to be signed be- fore the six foot fence could be erected. Discussion ensued. ' ' • I ' • -7- Mr. McBrayer stated that he could not be too sympathetic to the problem that Mrs. Becker has cited. Mrs. Becker stated that it would appear two rules would apply: the one for the side yard on her property, for in- stance, and the one for the rear yard on her neighbor's property. How could such a problem be resolved if it arose. Mr. McBrayer stated that he would not want to see a six-foot fence along the front yard portion of any property, but questioned that a six foot fence on the "side yard" is that much of a problem. Mrs. Becker stated that she felt the wording, as proposed by staff, is a good process for the resolution of possible conflicts. Mr. Venard asked what would happen if two abutting property owners could not come to an agreement on fence height; could this matter be appealed to the Board of Adjustment. Mrs. Romans stated that it possibly could be; however, the City's position has been that fence disputes are a civil matter between two property owners, and the City has not gotten involved. Mr. McBrayer suggested a provision that a six foot fence could not be built beyond the front setback line on adjacent properties; a fence in this area could not be more than 42 inches in height. Mrs. Becker stated that she is aware of an instance where a property owner constructed a six foot fence on three sides of his property; it was constructed two feet away from a chain link fence, which allowed weeds to grow in this two foot area. Is there any provision other than the weed ordinance to handle this situation. Ms. King stated that the weed ordinance would apply in this instance. Mr. McBrayer noted that there was no one present to address the Com- mission on this matter. Becker moved: Venard seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #18-84 be closed. AYES: Tanguma, Venard, Allen, Becker, Carson, Magnuson, McBrayer, Stoel NAYS: None ABSENT: Barbre The motion carried. Discussion ensued. Mrs. Romans suggested the following wording as an addition to the Ferice and Retaining Wall Regulations: "IRREGARDLESS OF WHETHER OR NOT A REAR YARD OF ONE PROPERTY ABUTS THE SIDE YARD OF AN ADJOINING PROPERTY, THE HEIGHT OF A FENCE CONSTRUCTED IN FRONT OF THE FRONT BUILDING LINE OF THE HOUSE ON THE ADJOINING PROPERTY SHALL NOT EXCEED 42 INCHES, AND SHALL BE AT LEAST 50% OPEN. Mr. McBrayer be 50 % open. read by Mrs. asked what members felt about the provision that the fence Mr. Allen stated that he felt the proposal is fine as was Romans Mrs. Becker stated that she still felt a signed agreement between the property owners is needed. Carson moved: Allen seconded: -8- The Planning Commission refer the proposed Fence and Retaining Wall regulations to City Council, with the addition of the following statement: IRREGARDLESS OF WHETHER OR NOT A REAR YARD OF ONE PROPERTY ABUTS THE SIDE YARD OF AN ADJOINING PROPERTY, THE HEIGHT OF A FENCE CONSTRUCTED IN FRONT OF THE FRONT BUILDING LINE OF THE HOUSE ON THE ADJOINING PROPERTY SHALL NOT EXCEED 42 INCHES AND SHALL BE AT LEAST 50% OPEN. Mrs. Becker stated that she is of the opinion that the Commission does need to address the issue of the side yard. Mr. Tanguma agreed. Mrs. Becker stated that she would vote in favor of the motion, but is still of the opinion that there should be a signed agreement required when property lines fall as they do in her block, and in other locations throughout the City. Mr. Tanguma stated that he would have to vote in opposition to the motion; he feels the issue of side yards abutting rear yards must be addressed. Mrs. Romans suggested that a new Section 7 be added on Page 5, which section would read: "THE HEIGHT OF MATERIALS OR EQUIPMENT STORED SHALL NOT EXCEED THE HEIGHT OF THE REQUIRED SCREENING FENCE OR WALL." Mr. Carson asked that this provision be included as part of his motion. The second agreed. Mr. Tanguma asked that the Commission consider including an amendment requiring a signed agreement between two property owners on the issue of a six foot fence where a rear yard abuts a side yard. Mr. Allen asked i .f it would be appropriate to rewrite the fence code before a determination is made. Discussion ensued. Mr. Allen asked for clarification of "equipment and materials" referred to in Mrs. Romans's proposed addition to the Fence regulations. Ms. King pointed out that this provision will also be included in the industrial districts, and that fencing in the industrial districts can be of a height up to 12 feet. Mrs. Romans stated that the fence code is not retro-active according to legal counsel. Mr. Tanguma stated that he did not want to vote against the proposed fence and retaining wall regulations, or the amendment proposed by Mrs. Romans, but he feels he will have to vote in opposition because it does not cover some of the problems that people have where side yards abut rear yards. Mr. McBrayer pointed out that passing the proposed fence and retaining wall regulations as written does not creat any new problems. Mr. Tanguma acknowledged this, but stated that this does not mean the present or proposed regulations are right. The vote was called: AYES: Allen, Becker, Carson, McBrayer, Stoel NAYS: Venard, Magnuson, Tanguma ABSENT: Barbre The motion carried. . ' • I • • -9- V. FINDINGS OF FACT Planned Development Amendments Case #16-84 Mr. McBrayer stated that the Findings of Fact are to be considered for approval. Carson moved: Magnuson seconded: The Findings of Fact on Case #16-84, proposed amend- ments to the Planned Development regulations, be ap- proved as written and referred to the City Council. AYES: Allen, Becker, Carson, Magnuson, Stoel, Tanguma, Venard NAYS: None ABSTAIN: McBrayer ABSENT: Barbre The motion carried. FINDINGS OF FACT Design Guidelines for South Broadway Incentive Area Case #17-84 Mr. McBrayer stated that the Findings of Fact on Case #17-84 were to be considered for approval. Carson moved: Stoel seconded: The Findings of Fact on Case #17-84, proposed amendments to the Design Guidelines for the South Broadway Incentive Area, be approved as written and referred to City Council. AYES: Becker, Carson, Magnuson, Stoel, Tanguma, Venard, Allen NAYS: None ABSTAIN: McBrayer ABSENT: Barbre The motion carried. VI. PUBLIC FORUM. Mr. McBrayer noted that there was no one present to address the Commission. VII. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE. Mrs. Romans stated that members of the Commission are invited to attend the Arbor Day Activities on April 20, 10 A.M. at the Municipal Golf Course. Also, tree seedlings will be given away from noon to 3 P.M. on April 20 at Miller Field. Mrs. Romans stated that a map has been prepared showing the school dis- trict boundaries within and adjoining the City of Engelwood. The code on the bottom of the map is as follows: 0 -Denver; 1 -Englewood; 2 -Arapahoe County Sheridan; 5 -Arapahoe County Cherry Creek; and 6 -Arapahoe County Littleton. Mrs. Romans noted that the Brock property will be split between the Englewood and Littleton School Districts. -10- VIII. COMMISSIONER'S CHOICE. Mr. Allen stated that he will postpone his presentation on trash collection to a later date. Mrs. Becker stated that she will be attending the APA National Conference in Minneapolis/St. Paul May 4th through May 9th, and will not be at the next regular meeting of the Commission on May 8th. Mr. McBrayer read a draft of a letter that he has written on behalf of the Commission regarding construction of a new City Hall with historical decor; this has been done as a part of the Commission's Goals/Work Pro- gram. Members of the Commission approved the content of the letter; Mr. McBrayer stated that he would have it in final form for the next meeting. There being nothing further to come before the Commission, Mr. McBrayer declared the meeting adjourned at 8:40 P. M. G~rtrude G. Welty Recording Secretary .. •