Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-11-13 PZC MINUTES• I. CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION November 13, 1984 CALL TO ORDER. The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairman McBrayer at 7:00 P. M. Members present: Tanguma, Venard, Allen, Barbre, Carson, McBrayer, Stoel D. A. Romans, Assistant Director of Community Development Members absent: Becker, Magnuson Also present: Susan T. King, Senior Planner II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES . October 16, 1984 Chairman McBrayer stated that the Minutes of October 16, 1984, were to be considered for approval. Carson moved: Stoel seconded: The Minutes of October 16, 1984 be approved as written. AYES: Tanguma, Venard, Allen, Barbre, Carson, McBrayer, Stoel NAYS: None ABSENT: Becker, Magnuson ABSTAIN: None The motion carried. III. DESIGNATED FIRE LANE VACATION CASE #36 -84 Mr. McBrayer stated that the Commission members have been in possession of the staff report and have had an opportunity to peruse said report; were there any questions from the Commission of the staff. Hearing no questions from the Commission, Mr . McBrayer asked if the staff had any- thing further to add. Mrs. Romans stated that Mr. Mills, representing Mr. Youngpeter, the ap- plicant, is present, and may have additional information for the Com- mission. Mr. Stoel stated that as he understood from the staff report, the fire lane easement will be vacated in one location, and dedicated in another location; it is not an elimination of a fire lane easement. Is this correct. Mrs. Romans agreed. Mr. Mills addressed the Commission, stating that he was representing the applicant. Mr. Mills indicated the location of the fire lane easement as it presently exists, which runs on either side of a line dividing two par- cels . Their client has chosen to purchase both parcels, and the fire lane -2- easement will bisect the property and building; it is for this reason that they are asking that this fire lane be vacated, and another be dedicated running along the boundary of the property in a north/south direction. The change in the location of the fire lane easement will necessitate the relocation of a fire hydrant, which will be done at th e developer's expense. Mr. Allen asked if the Fire Department agreed to the proposed location change for the fire lane easement. Mrs. Romans stated that the Fire Department did agree to the new location of the fire lane easement, and do require the relocation of the Fire Hydrant. Mr. Carson questioned the need for a change in the water service valve location, or a new one in addition to the existing water service location. Mr. Mills stated that the water for the building will be provided from the present water service location; if a new service site is required, the applicant will, at their expense, do whatever is required by the City. He pointed out that t he City will probably do the actual work, and will be billing the app licant. He emphasiz ed that these changes wi ll be at no expense to the City of Englewood . Stoel moved: Carson seconded: The Plannin g Commission approve Case #36-84, the vacation of an exis t ing fire lane easement and the relocation of the fire lane easement as s h own on a plan dated 10/16/84 submitted by Construction Management and Development Corporation. The developer is to arrange for the re- location of the fire hydrant to a location acceptable to the City; this shall be at the expense of the de- veloper. AYES: Vena rd, Allen, Barbre, Carson, McBrayer, Stoel, Tanguma NAYS: None ABSENT: Becker , Magnuson ABSTAIN: None The motion carried. IV. PUBL I C FORUM. Mr. McBrayer noted that Mr. Mills had been the only person in the audience, and that he has now left the meeting. V. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE. Mrs. Romans stated that the packets contained revisions to the Comprehen- sive Zoning Ordinance administrative and general regulation s sections. Mrs. Romans reviewed the sections of the ordinance that have been con- sidered by t he Commission, which is all of the zone district classifica- tions, and pointed out that City Council has enacted the amended R-3, High-density Residence District, the B-1 and B-2 Business Zone Districts, the I-1, Light Industrial Zone District, the P.D. Planned Development Regulations, and the Fence Ordinance. t • ,. • -3- Mrs. Romans pointed out that one of the important reasons the Commission must proceed on the Ordinance revision is that new sections are given a Chapter number in the Englewood Municipal Code, Chapter 16. The sections of the Ordinance that have not been revised are still identified as Chapter 22, and are not included in the E. M. C. Mrs. Romans stated that the staff is still working on the Definitions for the Ordinance, but that all sections of the proposed amendments have been reviewed with Assistant City Attorney DeWitt. The Definitions should be available for consideration at the next meeting. Mrs. Romans suggested that the Commission review the proposed amendments this evening, and possibly on December 4th, and schedule a Public Hearing on December 18th. The proposed amend ments could then be considered by the City Council shortly after the new year. Mrs. Romans reviewed the Title Page to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, and asked if there were any questions. Mr. Tanguma stated that he did not like the word "restricting" in Line 10. It was the consensus that "and restricting" in line 10 of the Title Page shall be stricken from the pro- posed text. Section 16.1, Introduction was considered. Mrs. Romans pointed out statements that were additions to existing text. Mrs. Romans stated that reference is made to solar access in the text of the "Purpose". Solar energy is .addressed in several places in this text, because regu- lations on solar access will be considered at a later time. In Section 16.1 on Page 3, Lines 24 through 29 should be in small case; this is contained within the existing ordinance and should not be capitalized to indicate an addition. Page 4, Line 20: than "annexed". Mrs. Romans suggested use of the word "zoned" rather Commission members approved this change. Page 4, Line 19, the word "consider" should be used rather than "review". This also met with approval of the Commission. Mrs. Romans discussed the intent of Section 16.1-5, which places the burden to initiate zoning proceedings on any property without a zone classification directly on the Commission. Page 4, Line 29: Add Special Permit System following " ... ZONE DISTRICT/ ... " Page 5, Line 2: Add "which permits certain other uses." Mrs. Romans suggested that there should be a footnote pertaining to Dis- tricts such as the Flood Plain District and the Planned Development Dis- trict, that these zone districts overlay the entire city. This was ap- proved. Page 6, §16.1-7, §16.1-8, and §16.1-9 were considered. Mrs. Romans stated that §16.1-9 would require documentation of any amendment to the Official Zoning Map to be shown on maps in the Council Chambers and in the Planning Department. This is an addition to the existing ordinance provisions. Page 7 was considered; Mrs. Romans pointed out that Lines 4 through 6 were a clarification of an existing provision. -4- Page 7, Line 28 , and Page 8, total page, were changes and clarification to be followed if prop e rty is divided by two zone districts, Section 16.2, Administration of the Ordinance, was then consid e red. The staf f is suggesting that the ord inance be administered by the Director of Community Development ... or by persons designated by the Director rather than by the Building Inspector, as p resently provided. Mr. Tanguma discus sed his concern with §16.2-1 b "Righ t to Trespass." Mrs. Romans pointed out that this section is in the current ordinance. Discussion ensued . Mr. McBrayer asked the definition of "premises". Mrs. Romans stated that the definition would be both land and st ructures. Further discussion en- su e d. I was suggested that the title of this sect i on be changed to "Right to Inspec t". Mr. Venard suggested that Mrs. Romans check this further with the City Atto rney 's office. Page 2, §16.2-3, Certificate of Occupancy, was considered. Mr. McBrayer expressed concern with the wa y this s ection is written; it appears to him that before he can d o any work to b ring about a change in character of a buil ding or u s e, he must obtain t he Certificate of Oc cupan cy. Discussion ensued. Mrs . Romans discus sed the purpose of obtaining a Certificate o f Occup ancy, which is pri maril y to de termin e that the building has been constructed and/or modi f ied to meet the codes applicable to the use wh ich is proposed. Further discussion ensued. Mrs. Romans stated that she would check the wording on this sect i on further. Mrs. Rom ans noted that the st a f f members of th e Planning Division and of the Code Enforcement Division are working t o ge ther t o address the is s ue of Certificates of Occup a1cy, and may devise changes in the use of the Certificate of Occupancy. Page 2, §16.2-5, Interpretation, was considered. Mrs. Romans stated that t his section has been rewritten to give the Commission the authority to "interpr et" th e provisions of the Ordinance . Page 3, ~16.2-8, Jurisd i ction of th e Board was addressed. Mrs. Romans discussed the time element on postin g and publication, and noted that Assistant City Attorney DeWitt has suggested that po s ting time be de- creased to s even day s, and that legal pub lication time be decreased to 10 days prior to the Hearing. These changes were mad in the text on Page 3 , Line 22, a nd on Page 4, Lines 3 and 4. Mrs. Rom ans tated sections of the Ord inance in Lines 15 a n d 16 on Page 4 which were era s ed out s hould be left in the Ordinance. Page 5, (vi) was discussed. Mr. McBrayer stated that he did not agree with this s e ction, and stated tha t i t would take away the flexibility that he feels the Board should have. Dis cussion ensued. Mrs. Romans stated that this is a new sugg e stio n, and the staff would b e willing to eliminate t h is section if tha t i s the desire of the Com- mis sion . t • -5- Mr. Allen suggested that the staff should have the authority to grant ap- proval up to a given percentage on variances, and anything above that per- centage would have to go to the Board for formal action. Mrs. Romans stated that the staff would support limited administrative variances wholeheartedly. Mr. Barbre supported setting guidelines f o r the staff to grant some ad- ministrative variances, with the additional right to go before the Board of Adjustment. It was the consensus that Page 5 (vi) be eliminated from this section of the ordinance. Mrs. Romans suggested that administrative variance guidelines could be addressed elsewhere. Mrs. Romans addressed further amendments to the section pertaining to the Jurisdiction of the Board, and reasoning behind some of the proposed changes. Mrs. Romans addressed Page 7, §f, Expiration of Variance. Mr. Tanguma suggested that "or Director" would have to be left in if Administrative Variances are approved. Page 8, ·Line 16, Vote to Reverse Decision. Mrs •. Romans suggested that this section should. be "Vote Required". Page 9, Line 1: Add "Such appeal shall be filed within not more than 30 days from the date of the Board action." Section 16.2-10, Public Notices, has been removed from the Definition Section, and placed here at the advice of the City A~torney's office. Mrs. Romans displayed a proposed sign the size of 28" x 22" which has been suggested to be used for public notice. It is proposed that the City provide the signs which the applicant may then purchase from the City to properly post their property. The signs would still have to be installed 4 feet above ground. Commission members indicated they felt the proposed sign size was adequate. Mr. McBrayer suggested that review of the ordinance stop at this meeting, to begin again on Tuesday, November 20, inasmuch as there is nothing on the agenda for that meeting. Review will begin with §16.3 Procedure for Initial Zoning of Property and Rezoning. Mr. Carson suggested that the meeting be in Conference Room A in a more informal setting. VI. COMMISSIONER'S CHOICE. Mr. McBrayer stated that he had attended the Northwest Colorado Council of Governments/APA meeting in Copper Mountain on November 2, and participated as a panel member on the topic of rapport between Planning Commission mem- bers and staff. Ms. Susan Powers, Assistant City Manager for Economic De- velopment for Englewood, was panel moderator. Mr. Tanguma stated that he also attended this Conference on November 2, and that it was very good. -6- Mr. McBrayer stated that one top i c of discussion centered aro und the n eed for a study session prior to every Commission meeting; the consensus ~ was pretty evenly divided on this issue. Mr. Tanguma stated that one of the statements he thought was very p e rtin ent is that the "Go al of the Planning Commission is to serve t h e entity; the goal of the entity is to serve the community." Mr. Carson suggested that the Commission should p u rsue the i ssue of trash pick-up and disposal in the Ci t y of Englewood. Mr. Tanguma agreed that this issue should n o t be ignored. Discus s ion ensued. Mr. Carson stated that he felt a comp r ehensive study should be done this next year, and im- plementation of the program follow the study. Mr. McBrayer pointed out that City Council has said they don 't want to address the trash issue right now; he stated that he did not know of anything that the Commission and/or Council is ready to do. Mr. Tanguma suggested th a t a plan should be developed to determine what system is best for Englewood. He pointed out that the sub-committee headed y Mr. All en and Ms. Becker obtained a considerable amount of data and he felt this could be put t o use in d ev eloping and planning the sy stem. Further d is cussion ensued. Mr. Stoel pointed out that a mong points to be considered is whether private enterprise will b e involved in the program, or will the City alone be involved; is this just for trash pic k- up, or will it encompass the disposal and/or conversion of the trash. Mr. Al l en stated that he felt the matter had been pursued about as far as it can be with out support and funding from the City. Mr . McBrayer suggested t hat the ad hoc committee draft a resolution pertaining to the trash issue for consideration by the Commission at a later meeting, and possible referra l to the City Co uncil. Mr. Ca rson sug g ested t h at trash removal could be contracted out, paid by t h e City, a n d reimb ursed to the City by way of an increas e on the water bil l . F urther di scus s ion ensued. Mr. McBrayer sugges t ed that the resolution be prepared by t h e Committee for consideration at the meeting on December 4th. The meeting adjourned at 8:50 P. M. a /zL_/!€ .~4-~~·Welt Recording S: ~ }