Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-10-19 PZC MINUTES• • • I. CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION October 1 9, 2004 CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was ca ll ed to order at 7:05 p.m. in the Community D evelopment Conference Room of the Englewood Civic Center, Chair Krieger presiding. Present: Absent: Staff : Guest: Diekmeier, Hunt, Krieger, Mosteller, Roth, Schum, Welker Bleile (unexcu~ed), Mueller (excused) Tricia Langon, Senior Planner Nancy Reid , Assistant City Attorney Ryan Jobes II . APP ROVAL O F MINUTES October 5, 2004 Mr. Diekmeier moved: Mr. Schum seconded: To approve the October 5, 2004 Minutes . AYES : NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Diekmeier, Krieger, Mosteller, Roth , Schum , Welker None Hunt Bleile, Mueller Ms. Mosteller stated she had a correction; on page 9, third paragraph the sentence "the population of people 16 and over" should read "the population of people 60 and over." The Commission accepted the amendment. Motion carried. Ill. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT Case #2004-10, Master Bicycle Plan Mr. Roth moved; Mr. Diekmeier seconded: To approve the Findings of Fact in Case #2004-10, Master Bicycle Plan. AYES: NAYS : Diekmeier, Krieger, Mosteller, Roth , Schum, Welker None 1 • • • ABSTAIN: Hunt ABSENT: Bleile, Mueller Motion carried. Ms. Langon stated the Commission had a guest and asked him to introduce himself. Ryan Jobes stated he is from Durango, Colorado and is a student at Metro State, majoring in Urban Planning and lives in Englewood. IV. STUDY SESSION Fence Ordinance Ms. Langon stated the Commission heard an interpretation case in July regarding fencing material; Council recently ~eld a study session on fencing material. In that discussion, Council determined that fence materials should be reconsidered and their consensus was that telephone poles should not be considered acceptable fence materials . Ms. Langon distributed a document showing a list of materials permitted and prohibited in Englewood and seven other communities in the metro area. Other communities' Fence Ordinances ranged from 2 pages to 14 pages ; Englewood's falls in the middle. The second page of the document breaks the materials into the five classes which currently exist within the UDC -masonry, metal, link/wire, alternative, and wood. Englewood appears to be in line with the other communities . Mr. Welker stated he has an issue of combining retaining walls with fences. Ms. Langon stated that from the previous discussion and from looking at other ordinances, she agrees the y should be split out. Ms. Langon stated she would like to only discuss fencing materials and postpone a discussion on retaining walls for a later study session. The Commission reviewed and discussed the fence materials list. Mr. Roth distributed photos showing various fences constructed of different fence materials. Regarding masonry, it was the consensus of the Commission that brick, CMU, stone, and stucco are permitted fencing materials. Under the masonry category, the Commission continued to discuss concrete as a permitted material and whether it should be permitted. Ms. Langon asked if the Commission would want the concrete broken up with some type of pillar every few feet. Discussion ensued . Ms. Langon stated other communities included "o ther materials as approved by the City." These would be materials approved at the City Manager's discretion. Ms. Reid stated that decision could then be appealed to the Commission. Ms. Langon stated she would research other communities on concrete; she knew several had requirements for fences along stretches of highways which required it be broken up. It was the consensus of the Commission to permit concrete with conditions. Regarding the metal category, it was the consensus of the Commission to prohibit the use of aluminum siding, automotive parts, corrugated metal, and sheet metal as fencing materials . Wrought iron and decorative metals would be permitted fence materials. 2 • • • Ms. Langon stated the City currently p ermits woven wire and chain link fencing. Ms . Langon showed a diagram of chicken wire. The Commission determined chicken wire should be prohibited as a fencing material within the City. The Commission discussed chain link with plastic slats /weaving. Mr. Schum stated from the chart it appears Englewood is the only city who has a problem with the slats. Ms. Langon stated none of the other communities mention the material. The Commission discussed whether or not to permit aluminum slats or slats made of non-plastic material. It was the consensus of the Commission to prohibit chain link with any type of slats or weaving. The Commission further determined that woven wire des i gned for fencing should continue to be a permitted fencing material. Ms. Langon stated that barbed wire is permitted within the industrial districts; there is a prohibition within the industrial districts if it abuts a non-industrial district. It was the consensus of the Commissio.n that the section on barbed wire was okay as written. Ms . Langon stated electric fences are also permitted within industrial districts unless they are adjacent to a non-industrial district. Mr. Welker clarified that invisible dog "fences " are not considered electric fences. Ms. Langon asked if the electric fence section was oka y as written. Mr. Diekmeier asked for clarification ; was the section referring to agricultural electrical fencing. Ms. Langon stated that is one type . Mr. Hunt clarified that the wa y it is currently written there are no guidelines on where an electric fence is placed on the industrial property. Mr. Diekmeier asked if there was a reason for electric fences in the City. Chair Krieger stated they are used for security on industrial properties. Discussion ensued. Ms . Langon suggested conditions for electric fences could be that the y be behind the property line b y a certain distance, behind a solid fence, and that the property be posted b y some type of uni v ersal warning sign . The Commission agreed with those conditions . Moving on to alternative materials, Mr. Welker stated he doesn 't think the green or orange construction /temporary fencing should be used as residential fencing materials. Ms . Mosteller stated the UDC reads: "vinyl, plastic or composite fence products designed specific for fencing purposes and that mimic the high quality of Class 1, 2 or 4, but not including chicken wire, snow fencing, chain link with plastic slats, plastic weaving or other similar materials ." Mr. Welker suggested adding plastic construction fencing . Discussion ensued . It was the consensus of the Commission to prohibit construction /temporary and snow fencing in residential districts. Mr. Welker clarified that PVC fencing, not PVC pipe, was permitted . The Commission agreed. It was further determined that vinyl was an acceptable fencing material. Ms . Langon suggested adding an introductory statement to the fencing section which would state that fences must be constructed of materials customarily used for fencing in the Denver metro area and approved by the City." Chair Krieger suggested adding to the alternative section: "Other material not commonly associated with fencing is prohibited ." The Commission agreed . 3 • • Regarding wood, the consensus of the Commission was that plywood and fiberboard would be covered under the general introductory statement, and did not need to be specifically prohibited. Mr. Welker stated it would be useful to add the "material customarily used for fencing in the Denver metro area" statement to the wood section as well. Mr. Welker asked if the Commission wanted to be specific as to what was allowed for fence posts . He agrees that telephone poles should not be used for fence pickets, but he doesn 't necessarily have a problem using them for the post if they are not treated with a toxic preservative. Mr. Hunt believes that would be covered under the general statement since telephone poles are not used as a customary fencing materials in the Denver metro area. Chair Krieger stated they coul d be used as a fence post. Mr. Welker stated that is what he is trying to distinguish ; he also wants to ensure telephone poles or any wood are not treated with corrosive preservatives. Discussion ensued. Ms. Langon directed the Commission to sheet one of the t able; Lakewood referenced their wood material as naturally rot resistant, pressure treated or coated to be rot resistant. Ms. Langon asked if that was what the Commission wanted to consider. Mr. Welker stated that was acceptable. Mr. Diekmeier stated that could be creosote. Mr. Roth suggested a treated wood product that is EPA approved . Mr. Welker stated he wants to prohibit an y salvage treated wood that is toxic. Discussion continued. Ms. Reid stated staff will do some research and craft general prohibition language for toxic treatments for salvage wood materials . She confirmed the Commission was only talking toxicity, not size or shape. The Commission stated that was correct. Chair Krieger stated that by having the general statement at the beginning of the section it should cover what materials are permitted and prohibited . Ms . Langon stated the other statement "other materials approved by the City" covers some of Mr. Welker's concerns and allows for some creativity . Ms. Langon stated the other item she wanted to discuss was solid and open fencing. Ms. Langon stated a solid fence means a vertical surface with less than 50 percent open; therefore an open fence is more than 50 percent open. For example, a 4 inch picket and a 6 inch gap is an open fence; a 4 inch picket and a 4 inch gap is a solid fence . When Code Enforcement Advisory Committee developed the Inoperable Vehicle Ordinance and wanted to screen vehicles, they used the UDC's term "solid" fence which creates a problem because it is 50 percent open. Since the purpose is to screen vehicles, Ms. Mosteller suggested not calling it a fence but rather a screen. Ms. Langon asked if the definition of solid needed to be adjusted or create another definition of screening, opaque, or obscuring. She distributed definitions from an American Planning Association advisory report regarding fencing . Mr. Welker agreed there should be a third category. Ms. Langon pointed out that the APA report has a definition for "fence, obscuring" which appears to be the appropriate definition for screening which would assist Code Enforcement. The Commission continued discussing various definitions and screening inoperable vehicles and recreational vehicles in the City. Ms. Langon stated at the next fence study session the Commission will revisit solid and open, and will also consider height and location. Mr. Schum asked if the Commission will see the fence revisions as it moves along. Ms. Langon responded that she will attempt to • give the Commission the agreed upon changes as it goes along. 4 • • • V. PUBLIC FORUM No one was present to address the Commission. VI. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE Ms. Langon suggested not meeting on December 21 since she and Ms. Reid would not be able to attend. It was the consensus of the Commission to not meet on December 21. Ms. Langon stated a study session on the Economic Development Strategy and the Fence Ordinance is scheduled for November 2, which is election day. Ms. Langon asked if the Commission wanted to meet that evening. Discussion ensued. It was the consensus of the Commission to not meet on November 2. Ms. Langon stated a public.hearing is scheduled for November 16 to consider a historic preservation application for the Commercial Federal building at 4301 South Broadway. The Commission discussed the scheduling of the Economic Development Strategy study session . It was determined the study session would be rescheduled to December 7. Ms. Langon stated an error was found in the use classification table within the UDC. The classification for hospitals in the R3A and R3 B categories were reversed. Ms. Langon distributed a policy correcting the error. Since the UDC has already been codified, it will need to be corrected on the next "go around" of housekeeping items . In January or February, staff will begin a clean up of those policy items. VII. ATTORNEY'S CHOICE Ms. Reid stated she had nothing further . VIII. COMMISSIONER'S CHOICE Mr. Schum stated Mr. Roth did a great job on his report; other commissioners agreed. The meeting adjourned at 8:55 p .m . 5