HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-12-07 PZC MINUTES•
•
•
I.
CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
December 7, 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:
Diekmeier, Hunt, Krieger, Mosteller, Roth, Schum
Bleile, Mueller, Welker
Darren Hollingsworth, Economic Development Coordinator
John Voboril, Planner
Tricia Langon, Senior Planner
Nancy Reid, Assistant City Attorney
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
November 16, 2004
Mr. Diekmeier moved;
Mr. Hunt seconded : To approve the November 16, 2004 Minutes .
AYES:
NAYS :
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Diekmeier, Hunt, Krieger, Roth, Schum
None
None
Bleile, Mueller, Welker
Motion carried.
Ill. PUBLIC HEARING
Case #2004-35, Economic Development Strategy
Mr. Roth moved;
Ms . Mosteller seconded: That the public hearing be opened for Case #2004-35,
Economic Development Strategy
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Diekmeier, Krieger, Mosteller, Roth , Schum
None
None
Bleile, Mueller, Welker
Mr. Schum stated he had a conflict of interest in the case as outlined in a letter he
submitted to the Commission in their packet. Mr. Schum recused himself from the hearing
and stepped down from the dias.
1
•
•
•
John Voboril, Planner was sworn in and entered proof of publication into the record . Mr.
Voboril stated that on behalf of the Alliance of Commerce for Englewood (ACE), the
Englewood Community Development Department, the City of Englewood, and the citizens
of Englewood, he respectfully submits the Economic Development Strategic Plan element
to the Englewood Planning and Zoning Commission for the purpose of conducting a public
hearing.
The Economic Development Strategy is intended to serve as a supporting document to
Roadmap Englewood: The 2003 Englewood Comprehensive Plan. It is intended to be
designed to look out over a seven to ten year time period. It is also intended to serve as a
template for a two to three year staff work program. Finally, the Economic Development
Strategy is intended to be a flexible document wherein strategies can be prioritized
according to changing issues and circumstances.
Staff requests that the Commission make a determination as to whether the Economic
Development Strategy is in conformance with the goals and objectives of the 2003
Englewood Comprehensive Plan.
Darren Hollingsworth, Economic Development Coordinator was sworn in . Mr.
Hollingsworth stated the Economic Development Strategy was developed with a great deal
of public input which was derived from business forums, a city-wide business survey, and a
great deal of input from ACE . This project was a charge of ACE , which is an advisory group
to City Council. They began the project two years ago with the business forums which
involved four key areas -market, physical planning within the community, regulatory
climate, and financial realities of doing business in Englewood. Additionall y, the Economic
Development Strategy was derived from input from a city-wide business surve y which was
conducted in 2002. The survey provided input on business programs, city services, and an
outlook for the Englewood business community .
From all the various input, ACE and staff developed the Strategy, which was completed in
February 2004. After ACE's adoption of the Strategy, it was presented to the public
through a series of open house meetings in July to gather further input. The Greater
Englewood Chamber of Commerce Government Affairs Committee also reviewed the
Strategy and endorsed the concepts and ideas of creating an economic vision for the City.
Following that input, the Commission reviewed the Strategy at a study session in October.
A great deal of input was derived from that meeting which resulted in several changes
which are highlighted in the staff report. Additional strategies were developed to
coordinate closely with the school system to enhance Englewood's involvement with the
schools. Also language and policies were created to support responsible employers .
Mr. Hollingsworth thanked the members of Alliance for Commerce in Englewood, in
particular Margaret McDermott of McDermott Properties, Olga Wolosyn, Council liaison to
ACE, and Nick Panetta, Chair of ACE .
Mr. Voboril stated the following are the three key major points which support a
determination of conformance with the Englewood Comprehensive Plan:
2
•
•
•
Key Major Point #1: The Economic Development Strategy adequately conforms to
the policy directions expressed in the Business and Employment Goals and
Objecti ves found in the Comprehensive Plan.
0 At least one strategy has been specifically articulated to address each
Business and Employment objective that is found in the Comprehensive
Plan.
Key Major Point #2: The Economic Development Strategy addresses the following
policy directions stated in other sections of the Comprehensive Plan:
o The Economic Development Strategy addresses Housing Objective 2-2:
Increase workforce housing opportunities
o The Economic Development Strategy addresses Parks and Open Space
Objectives 3-1 and 5-2: Promote and enhance community parks, trails, open
space, and recreational facilities as well as implement the South Platte Ri ver
Open Space Plan in order to facilitate development.
o The Economic Development Strategy supports Transportation Objectives 3-1,
3-2, 3-5, 4-1, 4-2, 4-3, and 4-5: Invest in streetscaping projects along the
Broadway and Englewood Parkway Corridors; Work to improve public
transit; Enhance the pedestrian environment and pedestrian connections;
Promote bicycling as an alternative means of transportation; Encourage
mixed-use redevelopment along major transportation corridors; and Maintain
an appropriate parking supply for mixed-use districts.
o The Economic Development Strategy addresses Environmental Quality
Objective 3-2 : Promote environmentally responsible business operations .
o The Economic Development Strategy addresses Cultural Arts Objectives 3-1,
3-3, and 5-2: Promote the Downtown Broadway/CityCenter Englewood area
as the premiere location for cultural activities in the South Metro Area;
Implement community art programs at key locations; and Identify potential
locations for new sit-down restaurant, entertainment, and cultural venues.
Key Major Point #3: The Economic Development Strategy is reasonably complete
and comprehensive.
o The Economic Development Strategy has been recently revised to include a
new introductory section which details Englewood's economic development
outlook. This includes sections on Englewood 's historical industry clusters;
identified future industry growth clusters for the Denver metro area ; barriers
to attracting industry growth clusters in Englewood; and a rationale for
targeting specific industry clusters .
3
•
•
•
o The Economic Development Strategy identifies strategies focused on business
retention and attraction. These include communication, financing grant
programs, technical assistance, marketing and promoting Englewood,
identification and removal of financial and regulatory barriers, workforce
training, workforce housing, municipal services and capital infrastructure,
attraction of higher wage employers to Englewood, and business prospect
tracking.
o The Economic Development Strategy identifies targeted industries for
recruitment, including retail, health/medical, technology, cultural and
entertainment, restaurants, office, hotel, and light industrial/manufacturing
and services, and sports related products and services.
o The Economic Development Strategy identifies strategies focused on
improving the local business environment. These include cultural arts , parks,
trails and open space, streetscaping, pedestrian safety, environmental quality,
design standards, enhanced pedestrian environment and connections, transit
and bicycle enhancements, technology infrastructure, and parking.
In light of these three major key points that support a determination of conformance of the
Comprehensive Plan, staff recommends the following motion for the Commission:
1. That the Commission finds the Economic Development Strategy to be consistent
with the intent of the goals and objectives of Roadmap Englewood: The 2003
Englewood Comprehensive Plan.
2. That the Commission recognizes the Economic Development Strategy as a
collection of action strategies designed to further the goals and objectives of
Roadmap Englewood: The 2003 Englewood Comprehensive Plan.
3 . That the Commission endorses the adoption of the Economic Development Strategy
by City Council as a supporting document to Roadmap Englewood: The 2003
Englewood Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Diekmeier asked how revisions will be made to the Strategy as economic conditions
change. Mr. Voboril responded the strategies are focused on a ten year time frame; certain
strategies may rise to the top of the priority list and others may fall farther down the list
depending on the situations, issues, and circumstances the City is facing at the time.
Mr. Hollingsworth stated that as a flexible document if something was not envisioned
within the document, there is still flexibility within the broader framework of the Strategy to
be able to move on a particular idea as it arises .
Margaret McDermott of McDermott Properties, 91 Dartmouth Avenue was sworn in. Ms .
McDermott testified that she was the past chair of Greater Englewood Chamber of
4
• Commerce and currently sits on the board. She is also a member of ACE. Ms. McDermott
read a brief statement:
"The proposed Economic Development Plan is a comprehensive vision of the future
of our community. I believe that well thought out economic development has the
potential of elevating every aspect of community life . The citizens of Englewood and
those who work within the city limits are the beneficiaries of a well thought out plan .
The ACE committee has proudly been a contributor of the design . We have studied
the draft over numerous meetings, asked very difficult questions, made suggestions,
and have given our ideas to the Plan. We believe that the implementation over the
next several years will make our community even more dynamic and economically
viable . I am proud to support the Plan. 11
Nick Panetta, Market President of Bank of the West, formerly Community First National
Bank of Englewood, was sworn in . Mr. Panetta stated he has worked in Englewood for 28
years and he is currently the Chair of ACE . He testified that an important fact is there has
been a broadbased opportunity for various members of the community to make their
comments known regarding the Strategy. He has attended several sessions where there
was little citizen representation , but it is important to recognize that the City has taken the
necessary steps to obtain the broad based input. He agrees the document is flexible and is
also a very well thought out plan for the business community and citizens. As a member of
ACE , he highly endorses the hard work put forth by the City and feels it is a workable Plan.
• Ms. Mosteller thanked staff for the work they did to involve the business community, as
well as the community at lar ge in developing the Strategy. She also thanked staff for
considering the ideas put forth by the Commission at the study session in October, and is
glad to see those ideas in the document. She encouraged staff to develop annual targets
and measures associated with some of the objectives to see the progress that is being
made. It is a great Plan and it would be good to share those successes at the end of each
year since it is a two to three year planning document.
•
Mr. Hunt agreed with Ms. Mosteller.
Mr. Roth moved:
Mr. Hunt seconded: To close the public hearing for Case #2004-35, Economic
Development Strategy.
AYES :
NAYS:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Diekmeier, Krieger, Hunt, Mosteller, Roth ,
None
None
Bleile, Mueller, Schum, Welker
Motion carried .
5
•
•
Mr. Diekmeier moved;
Ms. Mosteller seconded: To forward Case #2004-35, Economic Development Strategy
to City Council with a favorable recommendation.
AYES:
NAYS:
Diekmeier, Krieger, Hunt, Mosteller, Roth
None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Bleile, Mueller, Schum, Welker
Motion carried.
Mr. Roth stated he had one issue on page 8 of the Strategy regarding Objective 3-2, last
bullet "Adjustments to traffic signal timing to slow traffic." Mr. Roth stated he doesn't
believe the statement belongs in the document. We want to create an improved business
atmosphere and then this statement indicates that the City wants to keep traffic from
driving on the streets. He stated he feels the statement is counterproductive.
Mr. Hunt stated he read the statement to mean that it is the idea to create an efficient flow
of traffic within a safe and healthy framework. Mr. Hunt stated he had no major issue with
the statement. Mr. Roth stated his issue is that he doesn't believe it belongs in the
document.
Chair Krieger stated that if the intent is to ensure that traffic is not speeding through then it
would fit under the objective. Mr. Roth countered that the bullet above it addresses
pedestrian safety which is adequate . He feels that adjusting the traffic signal timing to slow
traffic aggravates people and then they don't want to come to Englewood because the y are
always having to stop at stop lights as they go through town. Chair Krieger agreed; she has
been at other hearings where she has heard similar comments, particularly at the Broadway
Plan hearings.
Mr. Hunt asked if they could receive clarification from staff. Ms. Reid stated that the time
of taking testimony passed when the public hearing was closed . Someone could reopen
the public hearing to ask staff a question; someone can also make an amendment to the
motion to address the issue; and staff can also take note of Mr. Roth 's comments. Chair
Krieger stated comments will be in the Minutes for City Council to read as well.
Mr. Roth moved: To remove the bullet "Adjustments to traffic signal timing to
slow traffic" from Objective 3-2 Provide a safe , healthy, and
attractive business environment located on page 8 of the
Economic Development Strategy.
Motion failed due to lack of a second.
Chair Krieger called for the vote on the original motion. Ms . Mosteller stated she found
• the Strategy consistent with the intent of the goals of the Comprehensive Plan and it should
6
•
•
•
be adopted as a supporting document of the Comprehensive Plan. The secretary called the
roll.
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Diekmeier, Krieger, Hunt, Mosteller, Roth
None
None
Bleile, Mueller, Schum, Welker
Motion carried.
Mr. Schum rejoined the Commission at the dias.
IV. PUBLIC FORUM
There was no public to address the Commission .
V. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE
Ms. Langon stated the next meeting is scheduled for Januar y 4, 2005 . She further stated
she received a letter from Commissioner Mueller resigning from the Commission effective
December 31 , 2004. A copy will be provided in the next packet. City Council will be
making Board /Commission appointments in February .
Ms. Langon also stated that she and Mr. Bleile are working on a new member guide . She
will be asking each Commissioner to complete and return a short biographical sheet and
will be taking photographs at the January 4 meeting for the guide. Staff will also be
included in the guide. The goal is to have it completed by the time new members are
appointed in February .
She and Mr. Bleile are also working on the Commission handbook. Chair Krieger asked
Commissioners to e-mail Ms. Langon or Mr. Bleile if they had something they felt should be
included in the handbook. Ms. Langon stated the Commission will re v iew and discuss a
draft before it is finalized.
Ms. Langon reminded the Commission that the second meeting in January and Februar y are
on Wednesday evenings due to holidays . Cha i r Krieger asked if there would be any public
hearings in Januar y . Ms . Langon responded none were scheduled. Ms . Langon briefl y
reviewed the Commission 's schedule for the next quarter.
VI. ATTORNEY'S CHOICE
Ms. Reid stated she would not be at the study session . If any legal questions arise , she
suggested Commissioners e-mail or call her .
7
•
•
•
VII. COMMISSIONER'S CHOICE
Mr. Schum stated the fence along the General Iron Works property is falling down, and he
is not sure who is in charge of that particular section of the property. He asked if staff
could inform him who is in charge or pass along that the fence needs to be repaired. Mr.
Schum stated it appears to be on the Barton side of the property. Ms. Langon asked if the
fence is on Elati Street. Mr. Schum stated it is on Bates Street. Ms. Langon stated she
would pass the information along.
Ms. Mosteller asked for an update on the Auto Use Ordinance. Ms. Reid stated it is her
understanding that Council discussed the Ordinance at first reading and agreed to the
version recommended by the auto use committee with a minor change. It is scheduled for
public hearing on December 20. Mr. Schum asked what the time period was on the
Ordinance. Ms. Reid responded that it was 10 years and was a date certain. Chair Krieger
stated she did not receive an e-mail copy of the auto use committee's draft version. Other
commissioner's indicated that they received their copy. Chair Krieger asked the secretary
to please verify that she had her correct e-mail address. Ms. Mosteller asked Ms. Reid how
Commissioners could submit comments to Council as citizens if they could not attend the
meeting. Ms. Reid stated letters can be sent to the Council via the City Manager's office,
and it will be included in Council's packet.
The regular meeting adjourned at 7:55 p.m. to a study session 1n the Community
Development Conference Room on the third floor .
VIII. STUDY SESSION
a. Case #2004-33, Fence Ordinance
The study session of the Englewood Planning and Zoning Commission convened at 8:05
p.m. in the Community Development Conference Room of the Englewood Civic Center,
Chair Krieger presiding.
Present: Diekmeier, Hunt, Krieger, Mosteller, Roth , Schum
Absent: Bleile, Mueller, Welker
Staff: Tricia Langon, Senior Planner
Ms. Langon stated the study session is on corner lot fence regulations, which is an issue
City Council has requested the Commission revisit. In the former Ordinance, there was a
provision for when the rear lot of a property was adjacent to the side lot of another
property, the fence on the rear lot line could be no taller than 42 inches. That regulation
was designed to provide some sense of openness for the interior lot. From an
interpretation standpoint, it was never clear as to whether or not it was just that portion of
the fence that was on the rear line, whether it included the whole side of the yard, or what
it really included. There were a number of people that had corner lots on a standard lot
who felt they were being penalized because they could not provide privacy with a 42 inch
8
•
•
•
fence. That regulation was deleted from the Ordinance with the adoption of the Unified
Development Code. Ms. Langon reiterated that City Council has asked the Commission to
revisit the issue and consider whether the regulation should be reinstated.
By a quick survey of the County assessment maps, Ms. Langon stated it appears that there
are approximately 280 of these particular corner lot properties and it is probably fair less. It
is less than three percent of the properties in the City which this issue may or may not
affect.
Ms. Langon stated she outlined various options from maintaining the UDC to reverting
back to the former Ordinance, as well as variations . She has also listed pros and cons on
each option. Before they proceeded further, Ms. Langon asked the Commission if they
were clear on the issue of rear lots and side yards coming together. Ms. Mosteller stated
she read through it a few times and still needs clarification; she stated it would help to use a
drawing.
Ms. Langon used a drawing to clarify the issue and demonstrate the pros and cons of the
various options. Ms. Langon stated the question for the Commission is an equity issue ;
how does one property owner not feel blocked in by a fence but y et how does another
property obtain the privacy they wish to have? Discussion ensued.
Ms. Mosteller asked if both property owners have to agree to build the fence, or can both
property owners build a fence on their property line? Ms. Langon responded that fences
are built on the applicant's property; permission does not have to obtained from a
neighbor.
Ms. Langon stated Option A is to maintain the current UDC which does not have any
provisions for exceptions to the corner lot, which means the interior lot could potentially be
enclosed on the side by 6 foot privacy fences built on the rear line of the corner lot.
Ms. Langon stated Option B is to reinstate the corner lot regulation with a 42 inch
maximum height. Some of the cons are that it reduces privacy on the corner lots; any
existing 6 foot fences become nonconforming and could not be replaced without a
variance . This option provides open frontage for non-typical lots, but reduces privacy
options for rear yards of corner lots. It still remains unclear whether the regulation relates
to just the fence or the side setback on the corner lot.
Option C is to reinstate the regulation, but the fence can be built out to the front building
line or front setback of the interior lot whichever is less . The area would extend from the
corner lot's rear line to the front property line, and the fence height would be maintained at
42 inches. One of the cons is that the privacy option of the corner lots is now controlled
by the abutting property. Again the existing six foot fence would be nonconforming, and
variances would be required to replace or build six foot fences .
9
•
•
•
Option D is a new corner lot regulation which allows a six foot fence even with the
building line of the corner lot principal structure. This option provides some degree of
open frontage for the non-standard lots and the privacy options on the corner lots are self-
controlled; however it provides a lesser degree of open frontage than options B or C.
Ms. Langon stated Option E creates a site triangle requiring a 42 inch maximum height in
the 25 foot site triangle abutting the front setback of the non-typical lots. This was an
option she found in another municipality.
The Commission discussed the pros and cons of each option. Mr. Schum stated he knows
a person who owns a non-typical lot, and he enjoys having the 6-foot privacy fences
enclosing his property.
Mr. Hunt stated his leaning, whenever possible, is towards property rights. Unfortunately, it
is a no win situation ; there are situations where you can 't please everyone. He can't go
along with restricting the rights of a property owner because the lot beside it is between
two corner lots. He believes the owners of the corner lots should be able to build six foot
privacy fences in their rear yard. That person bought the property and it is his rear yard.
He is not going to vote to restrict his right to build a rear fence at six feet.
Mr. Roth stated he disagreed 100 percent. The City needs an ordinance for the property
owner in the middle to have some sort of voice. Ms. Langon stated a property owner on a
"normal" lot wouldn 't have a voice on how their neighbor builds a fence. Mr. Hunt stated
he may want to have the majority of his yard open, but if his neighbor puts up fences, his
lot is enclosed. Three of his four sides are enclosed . He does not see it being any different.
Mr. Roth stated in the non-typical lot configuration, it would be a front yard as opposed to
sides and rear; that is the difference. Mr. Roth stated he would lean toward the lower
fence line; if the corner lot property owner wants a higher fence, then the neighbors get
together and apply for a variance . Chair Krieger stated that creates a problem when you
sell the property and the subsequent property owner doesn't want the higher fence. Mr.
Roth stated that is a case of you know what your getting when you purchase the property.
Mr. Hunt stated that if a fence is not on the property, it is the buyer's responsibility to
determine what can be built on the property or on their neighbor's property. Mr. Roth
disagreed . Mr. Hunt stated he is not insensitive to the issue; there are cases were
everyone is not going to be pleased. Mr. Roth agreed, but in that event there should be a
mechanism for the owner in the middle to have some voice in what happens. Discussion
ensued.
Mr. Hunt asked if existing fences would be grandfathered in if the Ordinance changed. Ms.
Langon stated language would need to be written in , otherwise replacement fences would
need to meet any new regulations. Mr. Hunt reiterated that these properties are less than 3
percent of the properties in the City; these are not the "normal" lots. Ms. Langon stated
that was correct.
Ms. Langon asked the Commission for a consensus. Mr. Roth voted for Option D. Chair
Krieger, Mr. Schum, Mr. Hunt, and Mr. Diekmeier, voted for Option A. Ms. Mosteller
10
•
•
•
stated she liked A, but if the Commission goes with D she would want language added that
existing fences could be replaced. Ms. Langon stated the consensus was Option A which is
to maintain the language within the UDC.
The study session adjourned at 8:55 p.m .
11