Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-11-16 PZC MINUTES. , • • • I. CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION November 16, 2004 CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Englewood Civic Center, Chair Krieger presiding. Present: Absent: Staff: Bleile, Diekmeier, Hunt, Krieger, Mosteller (e ntered at 7:05 p .m.), Mueller, Roth , Schum, Welker None Mark Graham, Senior Planner Tricia Langon, Senior Planner Robert Simpson, Director of Community Development Nancy Re id , Assistant City Attorney II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES October 19, 2004 Mr. Roth moved; Mr. Schum seconded: To approve the October 19, 2004 Minutes. AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Diekmeier, Hunt, Krieger, Roth , Schum, Welker None Bleile, Mueller Mosteller Motion carried. Ill. PUBLIC HEARING Case #2004-3 7 4301 South Broadway Historic Preservation Application for Commercial Federa l Bank Mr. Diekmeier moved; Mr. Schum seconded: That the public hearing be opened for Case #2004-3 7, 4301 South Broadway. AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Bleile, Diekmei e r, Krieger, Mueller, Roth , Schum, Welker None None Mosteller 1 • • • Mr. Graham, Senior Planner was sworn in. Mr. Graham stated the case has a defect in the notification of the public hearing that staff was aware of at the time the staff report was sent to the Commission. The case was properly published in the Englewood Herald on October 29, 2004; however, the property posting of hearing was not completed. According to the rules contained in the Zoning Ordinance, the Commission has two options . Regarding an error of notice, it provides: "If there has been a failure to comply with any applicable notice requirement, the public hearing or consideration may be continued and/or action on the application may be postponed until such time as the notice requirements are fulfilled." Staff's recommendation is for the Commission to determine whether or not there is any potential for the property to be properly noticed and if not the case be postponed until that requirement can be fulfilled. If there is the potential for the requirement to be met, the Commission can continue the case to a date certain after the property has been posted for 15 consecutive days. Di ane Wray, 3058 South Cornell Circle was sworn in . Chair Krieger asked the applicant if sh e belie v ed posting could be ac c omplished in the case . Ms . Wray responded; she was given two options by Community Development to post the property. One was to request that the owner of the property post, and the second was that the City post. She stated she was rej ected in both cases ; she knows of no third option whereby she can legally post the property without trespassing. George Quittner, a representative of Commercial Federal Bank was sworn in . Chair Krieger asked if the owners or representatives of the Bank would permit the property to be posted. Mr. Quittner responded no; the property does not fulfill the requirement of a historic property, therefore there is no need to post. Chair Krieger confirmed the Commission will need to postpone the hearing until the property can be properly posted. Ms. Reid stated Mr. Graham was correct according to 16-2-3 :G (5 ), Errors in Notice. Mr. Welker moved: Ms. Mueller seconded: To close the public hearing for Case #2 004-3 7, 4301 South Broadway. AYES: NAYS: Bleile, Diekmeier, Krieger, Hunt, Mosteller, Mueller, Roth , Schum, Welker None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None Motion carried . Chair Krieger stated it appeared the only course of action is to postpone the hearing until the property can be properly posted. Mr. Schum stated it appears the City won 't be changing its position on posting within the right of way, and the owners feel strongly about their position . It will, however, put the case in "limbo." 2 • • • Mr. Hunt moved; Mr. Welker seconded: To postpone Case #2004-37, 4301 South Broadway until proper posting can occur. AYES: NAYS: Bleile, Diekmeier, Krieger, Hunt, Mosteller, Mueller, Roth, Schum, Welker None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None Motion carried. IV. PUBLIC FORUM Chair Krieger stated the meeting is open to take public comments. Comments are not part of the public hearing of the previous case ; they are however part of the Minutes but will not affect any further decision the Commission might have on the previous case. Commission decisions are based only on testimony received in a public hearing. Chair Krieger further stated the Commission will limit comments to five minutes. George Quittner asked what postponing the case did to the owner's ability to act in the future on the property. Ms. Reid stated public forum is a time for the public to make comments, not to ask questions of the Commission. Ms. Reid advised Mr. Quittner to direct his questions to staff after the meeting. Diane Wray stated there is an Ordinance in place that is very clear in its purpose to protect buildings. It specifically reads: " .... e stablishes historic ar eas and landmarks for the educational, cultural, and economic benefit of Englewood citizens. Due to various pressures that may result in the destruction, impairment, or alteration of historic resources that reflect elements of Englewood's cultural and architectural heritage, it will be the policy and responsibility of this Section to: 1. Preserve and protect buildings, structures, sites, and areas that are reminders of past eras, events, and person(s) important in local, stat e or national history ... " Ms. Wray stated she cannot imagine a case for which the Ordinance could be more clearly tailored. The property has an out of state owner who has announced they intend to demolish what she believes is an historic building in Englewood. She believes it is clear that based on the events during the last month that the Ordinance is inadequate to the task. There have been two major roadblocks to the nomination; the first is the idea that buildings less than 50 years old are not eligible for landmark status. However in reviewing the Ordinance, it appears to grant certain exceptions for districts. Englewood already has a national registered historic district which was designated when it was less than 50 years old. There are numerous conflicts within the Ordinance and within the City with regards to what is happening with regards to buildings less than 50 years old . 3 • • • It is also clear that since the period from the late 40's to the early 60's can be objectively identified as a "golden age", one of the most significant periods of Englewood's residential and commercial development, that the 50-year rule is inadequate to protect many of the buildings in the community that are most likely to merit landmark status, such as the bank building. The second roadblock is the refusal of the building owner and the City of Englewood to allow the posting. Englewood has only two buildings on Broadway that are of nationally architectural significance; the first is Colonial Bank and the second is William Muchow's First Federal Savings Building, now Commercial Federal. Commercial Federal should become a centerpiece of Broadway's revitalization, not its first victim. The City of Englewood should be encouraging public debate on historic preservation not obstructing it. By the inclusion of the Broadway Plan in the Commi ss ion's packet, the City must consider historic preservation; it is an important tool in what begins to happen in the rev italization of Broadway. The Historic Pre serva tion Ordinance needs to be addressed as do the posting is sues . The whole issue of historic preservation also needs to be addressed and what it means to the community. As CityCenter was built, the City placed an emphasis on culture and arts, and architecture is part of that. Ms. Wray urg ed the Commission to speak as citizens who are key to the planning a nd development of the City to deal with the issue and speak wi th City Council so a public he a ring can be held to discuss the merit of the building. George Quittner stated the building does not meet the test of an historic building since it is not 50 years old which is the primary reason why the bank representatives are against the building receiving any type of historic designation. As a structure, business is currently being conducted in the adjacent building which was built six years later. It is questionable whether Muchow designed that building or whe ther someone in his firm did. There are no drawings or records to indicate such . The banking is not done in the building in question; the building in question is currently vacant. It does not provide adequate facilities toda y for anyone to conduct business; it does not meet current Code with respect to ADA; th ere are issues with HVAC systems ; and renovating and remodeling the building, because of its inherent design, would be too difficult and too costly for the bank. The question of preserving the building as a bank building in which the bank no longer conducts business is also a questionable argument. The other building also does not meet the needs of today's banking customers nor of the bank's employees; for this reason the bank would like to redevelop the property and construct an appropriate building which meets the needs of the community as well as the bank's customers and employees. Ray Tomasso, 2998 South Bannock, reminded the Planning and Zoning Commission that they are sitting in a building that was scheduled for demolition; the building was classified as a building that would never serve anyone's needs . The need was a 12-theater movie house. The Commission is now sitting in a very nice building that serves the City's purposes well. Buildings have a second life; they can be designed for other purposes. The City has a lot of vacant property that can be developed into a state of the art bank facility. The current bank building can be maintained . 4 • • • Diane Wray stated that due to the situation she was informed in writing by Community Development that the public hearing could not take place which is the reason why no one is present to testify for the case. She was also informed that the only issue the Commission could address was the posting of the property; therefore, she told all those interested in testifying in support of the case not to attend. She made it clear to those people that the Commission would be dealing with a bureaucratic technicality . Since there are no other people to testify does not mean there is not a broader interest in the subject building. Secondly, Ms. Wray stated that she is by profession a historic preservation consultant; she also does construction consulting. She has been working as an advocate and professional in the historic preservation field in Denver for the past 15 years. She has written over $1 million in grants for business owners of historic properties; she has secured millions of dollars in historic preservation tax credits at a federal and state level for a number of downtown developers. She is currently working on the redevelopment of the Elitch 's theater site, the old El Jebel a block from the Capitol building, and a variety of other historic properties, including the new campus of the Rock y Mountain College of Art and Design. There are people in the city who are looking at historic buildings and who are making the right decisions and are earning money in the process . There are economic incentives available. Looking at various economic redevelopment in areas surrounding Englewood, such as Larimer Square and downtown Littleton, anyone can see that historic preservation has played a key role in economic redevelopment at the retail and commercial level. Ms. Wray stated she would be happy to assist the Commission, staff, and City Council in how preservation can take place . Keith Basham of Holland Basham Architects stated his firm has been working with Commercial Federal on a lot of their new branches as well as renovating some of their other branches. He pointed out that they have renovated a branch in north Denver that was architecturally designed by Mr. Muchow. Commercial Federal is not against preserving buildings if it makes economic sense. The building in north Denver had a working mechanical system ; it has access and did not have any asbestos. The building in question has asbestos. His firm is familiar with preservation; his company is located in a renovated 1938 structure in Omaha, Nebraska which was a synagogue. They have looked at the current building and have tried to make sense of the structure to make it immediately serviceable as a branch bank. They have been unable to find anyway to make it economically feasible to make a business plan for the bank to work. VI. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE Mr. Simpson stated he had nothing further. VII. ATTORNEY'S CHOICE Ms. Reid stated the Auto Use Ordinance will be going to City Council on December 6 for first reading. The Commission 's recommended version will be presented to Council; there is also another draft of the Ordinance which the auto use committee will be recommending. It will be Council's determination as to which version will be considered. 5 • • • VIII. COMMISSIONER'S CHOICE Mr. Schum stated he moved to another residence within Englewood. The regular meeting adjourned at 7:20 p.m. to a study session in a conference room on the third floor. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Study Session a. Case #2004-33 Fence Ordinance The study session of the City Planning and Zoning Commission convened at 7:40 p.m. in the Community Development Conference Room of the Englewood Civic Center, Chair Krieger presiding. Present: Absent: Staff: Bleile, Diekmeier, Hunt, Krieger, Mosteller, Mueller, Roth , Schum , Welker None Tricia Langon , Senior Planner Nancy Reid , Assistant City Attorney Regarding the consensus items reached at the October 19 meeting, Ms. Langon asked if there were any changes. The Commission stated there were none. Ms. Langon stated she would like to concentrate on the additional research items to reach consensus on those issues . Ms . Langon stated her research of other communities regarding concrete was that if they permit concrete it is either textured or integrally colored, not painted on . Her recommendation is to permit concrete with a textured surface and internal color. Mr. Diekmeier asked if stain would be permitted. Ms. Mueller stated the problem with stain is that it wears off, whereas integrally colored will last. It was the consensus of the Commission to permit concrete as a fencing material if it is textured and integrally colored . Ms. Langon stated most communities prohibit electrically-charged fences except in agricultural districts. She spoke with the City's Fire Marshall, and he is unaware of any electric fences in the city other than the underground dog barriers. His main concern with electric fences is a safety issue for police and fire personnel. The discussion at the last meeting was that electric fences be placed back from the property line; since there doesn't appear to be any electric fences in the city and there are safety issues, she would recommend prohibiting electric fences. Someone who feels they need an electric fence for security reasons can utilize the variance process. Mr. Welker confirmed that electric fences would be prohibited even in industrial areas. Ms. Langon stated that would be her recommendation. The Commission agreed . 6 • • • Ms. Langon stated the toxicity issue was more difficult to research. She thanked Mr. Roth and Ms. Mosteller for the information they provided. One of the other communities uses the language "naturally rot resistant" such as cedar or the wood had to be pressure treated which is generally creosote. Creosote is primarily used on telephone poles and railroad ties. It has no residentially approved use; it is only for commercial uses, but there is nothing that stops someone from selling it as re-used materials. Mr. Welker stated the issue would need to be revisited when the Commission considered retaining walls. Mr. Roth stated he would like to somehow tie it to the EPA standards. Ms. Langon stated that is something she and Ms. Reid can work on ; perhaps they can find some way so if the EPA standards change the Ordinance wouldn 't have to keep changing to keep up. Discussion ensued . Mr. Welker suggested adding redwood to the naturally rot resistant woods along with cedar . Ms. Reid asked if adding "EPA approved for residential use" would be sufficient for covering the toxicity issue. Ms. Langon stated she had a concern with the wording "residential use"; what about industrial districts, or can residentially approved products be used anywhere in the City? Mr. Welker stated the only difference between the districts is fence height and location. Mr. Schum stated he believes industrial districts should be held to the same standards as residential districts . Ms. Reid stated she and Ms. Langon will continue to work on "tightening up " the language . Ms. Langon stated the Ordinance currently doesn 't contain a definition of a solid fence . She would recommend adding a definition. It was the consensus of the Commission that a solid fence is more than 50 % . Mr. Hunt sug gested open be up to 50 %, solid 50-80 %, and then obscuring 80-100%; that way the fencing types progress. Chair Krieger disagreed; she stated a solid could be a obscuring fence, but it doesn 't have to be obscuring as Ms. Langon laid out in her material. The solid definition can be more than 50 % and the obscuring definition can be whatever the Commission determines, but it doesn 't necessarily mean a obscuring fence can 't be a solid fence. Mr. Hunt stated he agrees, but it seemed logical to make the percentages a progression. Discussion ensued. Ms . Langon stated the obscuring fence probably won 't be within the Fence Ordinance, but it will be a definition within the Municipal Code for Code Enforcement Advisory Committee to refer to within Title 15. Ms. Reid there isn 't anything in Title 16 that would require an obscuring fence. All the Fence Ordinance does is lay out the permitted fencing materials, placement, and height. Ms. Langon stated she would check the Landscape Ordinance which has the screening requirements. An obscuring fence would be a solid fence; the Commission agreed; therefore, the definition is for the benefit of the Code Enforcement Advisory Committee. It was the consensus of the Commission that anything greater than 50% is considered a solid fence. Obscuring is considered anything at least 90% or greater . Ms. Langon stated the next issue she would like to discuss regarding fencing is how to address the non-typical properties. 7 • DIRECTOR'S CHOICE • • Ms. Langon stated a public hearing will be held on December 7 meeting regarding the Economic Development Strategy. She also reminded the Commission that there is no meeting on December 21. Also, the second meeting in January is moved to Wednesday due to the Martin Luther King holiday. ATTORNEY'S CHOICE Ms. Reid stated the Commission had recommendations to the Auto Ordinance which will go to Council for first reading on December 6. The auto use committee has also been making recommendations to the Auto Ordinance. Staff will also be presenting a draft of the committee's recommendations to Council. Council will discuss both versions, and then make their decision. Ms. Reid stated staff will e-mail a copy of the committee's black-lined version to the Commission for their review . Ms. Reid provided a brief overview of the changes. Chair Krieger asked Ms. Reid for direction on how the Commission could have input on the is sue as a "Commission " not just as citizens. Ms. Reid stated a special meeting wo uld n eed to be called before Decemb e r 6 . Chair Krieger asked if the Commission could w rit e a letter or appoint a Commissioner to speak at the Council meeting. Ms. Reid stated th e Commission could do those things, but she would advise the Commission to review the committee's version first and then hold a special meeting. Mr. Roth pointed out that the D ecembe r 6 meeting is only first reading; the public hearing would be held after the Commission holds a regular meeting. Discussion ensued. Chair Krieger asked that staff add this issue to the December 7 agenda as a discussion item. The study session adjourned at 8:25 p.m . 8