Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-02-03 PZC MINUTES• • • I. CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION February 3, 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 City Council Chambers of the Englewood Civic Center, Vice Chair Krieger presiding . Present: Absent: Staff : Adams, Bleile, Diekmeier, Krieger, Mosteller, Mueller, Roth, Schum , Welker Hunt (alternate member) None Anthony Fruchtl, Planner Tricia Langon , Senior Planner Nancy Reid , Assistant City Attorney Vice Chair Krieger welcomed Ms. Mosteller and Mr. Hunt to the Commission . II . ELECTIONS Mr. Welker moved; Mr. Roth seconded: To elect Cyndi Krieger as Chair and Patricia Mueller as Vice Chair of the Planning and Zoning Commission . AYES: NAYS: Adams , Bleile, Diekmeier, Krieger, Mosteller, Mueller, Roth , Welker Schum ABSTAIN: None ABSENT : None The motion carried. 111. APPROVAL OF TELEPHONE POLL January 21, 2004 Ms. Mueller moved: Mr. Schum seconded: To approve the telephone poll conducted on January 21 , 2004 approving the January 6, 2004 Minutes and the continuation of the January 21, 2004 public hearing to Februar y 3, 2004. AYES : NAYS: ABSTAIN : Adams, Krieger, Mueller, Roth , Schum None Bleile, Diekmeier, Mosteller, Welker 1 • • • ABSENT: None Motion carried. IV. ENGLEWOOD ESTATES Englewood Estates Planned Unit Development Englewood Estates Subdivision Case #PUD 2003-01 Case #SUB 2003 -04 Chair Krieger stated the matter before the Commission is for a Planned Unit Development and Subdivision at 1296 West Quincy Avenue . The public hearing was opened on January 6, 2004; continued to January 21 ; and continued to February 3. Ms. Mosteller stated she knows the applicant, but it will not bias her vote. Chair Krieger asked staff to present the case . Anthony Fruchtl was sworn in . Mr. Fruchtl asked that the Staff Report, Notice of Public Hearing for the Planned Unit Development and Subdivision Plat published in the Engle w ood Herald on December 26, 2003 be made part of the public record. Further, he noted that the posting of the property was done 15 days prior to the public hearing. Mr. Fruchtl presented the Certificate of Posting to the recording secretary . Additionall y, certified letters were mailed to adjacent property owners, notifying them of the public hearing for the proposed Englewood Estates Subdivision . Before the Commission are two cases that will be heard concurrently. The first case is PUD 2003-01 regarding the Planned Unit Development (PUD ) which will establish the zone district for the site. The second case is SUB 2003-04 for a Preliminary Subdivision Plat to divide the property into building sites that comply with the PUD District. Further, the Commission will be required to render two separate decisions; the first regarding the requested PUD and the second on the Subdivision Plat. Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission approve the proposed Englewood Estates Planned Unit Development. Staff also recommends that the Commission approve the proposed Preliminary Plat for the Englewood Estates Subdivision and that the applicant be directed to submit a Final Plat for review. If no changes are required for the Preliminary Plat, staff recommends that the Final Plat be administratively reviewed and forwarded to City Council with a favorable recommendation . The Planning Commission must determine if the PUD meets the requirements of the PUD District Plan and the PUD Site Plan . It also must determine if the Subdivision Plat meets the criteria set forth in Title 10 of the Englewood Municipal Code on land subdivision . Mr. Fruchtl noted that the PUD process is the rezoning of the site and establishes zone and development criteria specifically for a given parcel. The District Plan establishes regulations for the PUD. The Site Plan establishes site design requirements. The Subdivision Plat • divides the property into building sites which comply with the PUD District. 2 • • The applicant has submitted all the required documents, and the proposal has been reviewed by the Development Review T earn. The applicant also conducted two neighborhood meetings, and the proposed use is compatible with the surrounding uses. Mr. Fruchtl continued; the PUD applicant is Distinctive Builders, LLC and is represented by Mr. Mike Duggan. The subject property is a vacant parcel of approximately 1.19 acres of land . Adjacent properties to the north, east and south are zoned R-1-C Single-Family Residence District and contain single-family homes. Adjacent properties to the west are zoned 1-1, Light Industrial and are used as automotive sales and engine repair. The Englewood Estates application proposes 7 single-family lots ranging in size from 5, 116 square feet to 6,750 square feet. The proposed use will be limited to single-family development with accessory structures. Although home occupations are permitted, they are limited to the occupants of the residence and must be operated entirely within the home. The home occupations are compatible with the existing regulations in the Englewood Municipal Code and within the recently adopted Unified Development Code which will be effective February 23 . The average lot size of the PU D is 5, 784 square feet, which is comparable to the adjacent R-1-C Zone District which requires a minimum of 6,000 square feet. The proposed height of the principal structures is 32 feet which is compatible with residential maximum heights contained in the Unified Development Code. Setbacks are established by development envelopes specific to each lot as shown on the PUD District Plan. Mr. Fruchtl noted that although the development envelope is the area in which development may occur, provisions within the PUD District Plan Development Standards prevent the development envelope from being fully developed. Landscaping requirements are compatible with Section 16-5-26 : Landscape Standards of the Englewood Municipal Code. Additional provisions to the development envelope require garage doors to be set back a minimum of 24 feet from the West Quincy Circle to prevent overhang into the roadway. Access to the proposed development will be through a private drive, West Quincy Circle, and is accessed from West Quincy Avenue. Since West Quincy Circle is not a public street, a note has been placed on the District Plan stating the roadwa y does not meet City standards and will never be maintained by the City. West Quincy Circle will be maintained by the homeowners association which will be formed. West Quincy Circle will travel in a one-way direction entering at the west intersection of West Quincy Circle and exiting at the east intersection of West Quincy Circle and West Quincy Avenue . One-way signs are proposed at each intersection as shown on the Plan. All the lots will be accessed via individual private driveways that connect to West Quincy Circle. A note has been placed on the Plat that prohibits access to Lot 1 from West Quincy Avenue. Parking on the private drive will be limited to two parking spaces located at the southwest corner of West Quincy Circle, and two parking spaces located at the southeast corner of West Quincy Circle, for a total of four off-street parking spaces. To prevent snow from • being plowed onto West Quincy Avenue, the parking spaces have been designated for 3 • • • snow storage areas. Parking will not be permitted anywhere else along West Quincy Circle, and "No Parking" signs will be posted as indicated on the Plan. Electrical service is available from Xcel Energy and will be underground. Drainage issues have been addressed and will be monitored through the development permit process . Additionally, a drainage report was submitted to the City and was reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department. Water and sanitary sewer service has been reviewed by the City of Englewood Utilities Department and will also be monitored during the development permit process. The proposed development is consistent with the overall intent of the Comprehensive Plan. It is the opinion of staff that the Subdivision Prelimi nary Plat is consistent with the provisions of Title 10 of the Englewood Municipal Code, Land Subdivisions. If no changes are made to the Preliminary Plat are required, staff would recommend an administrative review of the Final Plat and that it be forwarded to City Council with a favorable recommendation . Ms. Krieger distributed a conceptual drawing, provided by the applicant, to the Commissioners . Mike Duggan , 5984 South Iola Way, was sworn in. Mr. Duggan stated it was his great pleasure to present the Plan for Englewood Estates; the City's newest subdivision . The Plan before the Commission is a culmination of three years of hard work on the part of the development team , the City staff, and the community. It has been a team effort which has required countless meetings, new ideas, and a willingness to see a vacate piece of land from a new perspective. Mr. Duggan stated he originally received the idea for the project from Larry Nesbitt with Englewood Schools. At that time, the school district was addressing a problem of shrinking enrollments and how it might increase enrollments. As a realtor who is active in the community, Mr. Duggan provided his insights -the community is growing older and less families are moving to Englewood . Englewood is a fantastic city with many positives, such as short commutes to downtown and the Tech Center, light rail , schools, evolving CityCenter, and arts district. With all this going for the City, it is hard to imagine more families weren 't moving to Englewood. However, the City has lost approximately 300 students since 1999, and nearly 700 since 1995 . Mr. Duggan stated the key component in Englewoodis housing . The average house size is 1,063 square feet. During the second quarter of 2003, Englewood saw a 26 % decrease in the number of housing sales . During the same period of time, Arapahoe County experienced a 6 % increase, and the Denver Metro Area experienced a 5% increase of housing sales during the same period of record low interest rates . The City's demographics post single-family houses within a mile radius of CityCenter, or 4,013 in 1980 census, and projects 4,004 households in the year 2006 . Mr. Duggan stated the City of Englewood has the following to say about housing: "The Community Development Department offers a number of housing programs, all with the goal of promoting a mix of housing opportunities through the provision of 4 • • • affordable housing, expandable housing for different life-cycle stages, workforce housing opportunities, and housing for special needs. In order to achieve this goal, the City encourages housing which will improve opportunities for workforce housing, improved neighborhood links to cultural, civic, recreational, transportation, and commercial activity cente rs; promote homeownership opportunities; increase citizen 's ability to live near major transportation infrastructure; and improve community quality of life standards by encouraging all designs and materials in homes, landscape, and public facilities." It has been his goal since the beginning of the project to provide quality family housing at an affordable price . The project is on track to accomplish that goal, along with those of the City. Englewood Estates is a subdivision consisting of 7 homes with an average lot size of 5,784 square feet, which is approximately 466 square feet less than the average lot in Englewood or approximately 9.3 feet less of lot depth. The homes are accessed by a private, one-way road known as West Quincy Circle . The homes will be a minimum of 1,2 00 square feet of living space. Each site will include a minimum of 4 off-street parking spaces, including a 2- car garage. Mr. Duggan stated he welcomed questions and that the engineer, Rick Weed from Carroll & Lange, was also available for questions . Mr. Adams asked for clarification on the growth of Arapahoe County and Denver. Mr. Duggan responded that during the second quarter of 2003, Englewood had a 26% decrease in the number of sales. Whereas during the same period of time, Arapahoe County had a 6 % increase, as a whole. Denver Metro, as a whole, experienced a 5% increase. Mr. Welker stated there is a proposed water line running outside the property along the west property line . He asked if that was a dedicated easement. Mr. Duggan stated the easement has been agreed upon. He received wording from City staff indicating what they would like that easement to say. As a condition between the property owner and himself, they decided not to put the easement into effect until after approval of the Plan. Mr. Welker stated he a problem approving a Plan without the easement included . The easement needs to be documented before the Commission approves the Plat. Mr. Duggan stated he believes staff received an agreement from Mr. Lacy which states they are willing to place the easement on the Plat, but it did not seem prudent at the time to do so in case the project did not get approved . Mr. Welker stated he understood. Mr. Welker clarified that the Plan proposes a fence down the west property line, the south and east property lines, across the northeast property of the north side of Lot 1, and along the north side of Lots 6 and 7. Mr. Duggan stated that was correct. Currently the fencing surrounding the property is not all within or on the property lines. Through community input at the neighborhood public meetings, it was determined the neighborhood would be better served if all the fencing surrounding the project was replaced with a standard type 5 • • • fencing. A proposed 6-foot wood, privacy fence will be constructed around the property . Mr. Welker stated he had a concern with fencing the west side of a drive. The Plan encloses a another property, and he would like to receive input from that neighbor because it fences in their property and view on three sides. Currently that neighbor may see a parking lot, but he would like input from them . On the northwest corner of Lot 1, there is a violation with site triangles for someone turning out of the development onto Quincy Avenue; Quincy is a busy street. Mr. Welker stated he has some issues with a 6-foot fence in that spot. Ms. Mueller agreed. Mr. Welker stated fencing is usually in line with the front of the house, but since there is only a 10 foot front yard on the development, he has a concern that perhaps the development is being enclosed too much. Mr. Duggan responded; the ultimate goal was to try to make the entire development flow as well as they could with the community. Most of the homes directly east and south of the project were built with 6-foot privacy fences; most are very deteriorated. Mr. Duggan agreed that a 3 or 4 foot fence might be better served, or possibly an angle at that location. Chair Krieger asked if there was a reason a 6-foot fence was placed in that location. Mr. Duggan stated their goal was to continue the same type of fencing around the property. Ms. Mueller asked if there were any requirements on the 6-foot privacy fence with regards to the materials. Mr. Duggan stated he believed the fence would be standard cedar . Mr. Welker stated there was no sound benefit from the wood fence. Mr. Duggan stated he believed there was a benefit to some extent; wood privacy fencing is what has been used, up until TREX started a few years ago, along 1-25. The main issue they were attempting to accomplish was replacing the existing, deteriorating fences which separated this property from the other property owners. Addressing Lots 6 and 7, Mr. Duggan stated that fence was requested by the property owners at 1294 West Quincy because they want more privacy between the neighbors . Mr. Welker confirmed that the neighbors have been a party to the proposed fence on Lots 6 and 7. Mr. Duggan stated that was correct, and the owners are in the audience. Mr. Welker stated he thought the property was too enclosed by fencing. Six foot fences are usually held back the 25 foot setback so there isn 't a barrier. Cherry Hills and Greenwood Villages are examples of fenced communities. This proposed fencing would portray that it is an exclusive development, which is not an image he would like to see. Mr. Fruchtl noted that under "K 2(A)" in the PUD Development Standards it specifically states: " o fences shall be constructed in front of the main entrance side of the principal structure ." For example, on Lot 1 with the front facing on West Quincy Circle, fences cannot be built in front of the front line, eliminating that point. Mr. Welker stated he is talking about a 6-foot frontage when normally there is 25; therefore the site triangle needs to be mitigated. Mr. Fruchtl stated the frontage is on West Quincy Circle not West Quincy Avenue. With regards to the site triangle issue, Mr. Fruchtl stated it is reviewed during the permitting process. Mr. Welker stated the Commission doesn't need to permit the applicant to place it on the Plat if there is a conflict. Mr. Fruchtl stated the Commission could add it as a condition to their approval. Mr. Welker stated he still questions having a fence all the way down the west property line. There needs to be some type of definition, but he doesn't believe it needs to be a 6-foot fence. 6 • Addressing the fence along the west property line, Mr. Duggan stated the adjacent property is commercial and currently has a 6-foot chain link fence with barbed wire on the top . In a residential neighborhood, that type of fence does not fit. He thought it would be a cleaner look for the City to have a fence that matches more closel y to the subdivision rather than breaking off so strictly in the commercial. • • Chair Krieger confirmed there were mitigation or buffer requirements between the industrial and residential zones. Mr. Fruchtl stated there are no requirements specifically with the PUD; however, within the 1-1 District it states a 10-foot buffer is required between residential and industrial properties with regards to fences and barbed wiring. Mr. Welker suggested moving the very north end of the fence back similar to another street so there isn 't such a strong line . This also could be accomplished b y taking the fence down to 3 feet. Mr. Duggan stated he thought it made sense to step the back fence down from 6 feet where it meets the adjacent property at 4301 South Lipan Street. The fence could b e stepped down some given rate to a 3 or 4 foot level. Mr. Welker stated 3 feet is the standard height and 6 feet is the maximum. Mr. Schum stated it is a good idea to step down the fence; however, their backy ard will have an area with a 6 foot fence that goes down to 3 feet. The 3 feet could be a problem if the owners have a dog. It might be better to cut off the corner and accept a little bit less land for the development. The 6 foot fence could then come across at an angle in order to maintain a good fence for that property. Mr. Welker stated that it also happens to be the high spot on the development. The Plan indicates a storm sewer at the very south side of the street. He confirmed that was the low spot on the site where all the development's water drains to . Mr. Duggan stated that was correct. Mr. Welker asked where the gas and electric easements were located. He noted they are underground but asked where they would be located. Mr. Duggan responded that they would be primarily located in the roadway and in the front, adjacent to Tract A. Richard Weed with Carroll & Lange , 165 South Union Boulevard, Suite 156 was sworn in . Mr. Weed stated the gas easements are located in the front of the lots adjacent to the tract the private roadway goes in. The electric, cable, and telephone easements are located on the rear of the lots. Mr. Welker stated he assumed all those easements were new, dedicated easements, except for the sanitary sewer along the west line . Mr. Weed stated that was correct. The easements will be on the Final Plat when it is recorded . Mr. Schum confirmed that the power runs behind the property; he asked if that was the same for Lots 6 and 7. Mr. Weed responded yes ; Lots 6 and 7 have a 10 foot utility easement in the rear for that purpose . Mr. Welker asked how that connected to the other easements; he asked if it went through Lots 1 and 2 to the east. Mr. Weed responded; generally what happens with Xcel Energy is once there is an approved Plan, the Plan is submitted to Xcel and they will come up with their own design . If it is prior to the Plat being recorded, they generally 7 • • • will meet with the engineer and ask them to add additional side line easements to bring their electrical in between lots if needed. Otherwise, they generally will get the easements themselves and have the landowner grant those easements to them for their exclusive use. That comes about when Xcel gets into the design phase of the electrical service for the subdivision. Mr. Welker stated it is obvious that gas, electric, cable, and telephone need to be connected and there is not any real connection. Mr. Welker asked if Mr. Weed is assuming that will be done by someone else. Mr. Weed confirmed that the electric and cable would be done by someone else . They are done by the individual utility companies. He asked the Commission to keep in mind that Tract A, which is the private road, is also dedicated as a utility easement for crossing purposes. With regards to the utility easement, Mr. Fruchtl stated that under General Notes 1 on the District Plan it states: "Tract A is designated as a private street, emergency access, fire lane, and utility easement." Referring to the conceptual drawing, Mr. Diekmeier asked for the orientation. Mr. Duggan stated it is from the corner of Quincy Avenue and Lipan Street. Ms. Mueller stated the drawing does not show a fence. Mr. Duggan stated that was correct. The drawing is strictly an artist's rendering. The rendering doesn 't show fences; the trees are larger than what will be planted. An artist doesn 't take into account the entire Plan when he develops a rendering. Mr. Welker asked who would do the design of the houses, and would they be sold to individual contractors to build out with certain guidelines. Mr. Duggan stated his company, Distinctive Builders, will be the houses . The company has built a number of homes in the City; most recently at 4020 and 4030 South Elati Street. Mr. Bleile asked what caused the delay in moving the project forward; he noted the coding for the PUD is a year old. Mr. Duggan responded ; the project has taken approximately 3 years, primarily because it is not an easy site to develop. When the project began, the roadway was not wide enough. The owners of 1294 West Quincy sold them an additional 5 feet of land to achieve the 20-foot roadway. He originally worked with a different engineering firm that might have steered them in the wrong direction. The Plan started to take a little more shape when they hired Carroll & Lange to put the project together. They thought it was a good viable option and a good development for the City, but there were a lot of obstacles to overcome during the last few years. Mr. Bleile confirmed that the surrounding property owners were contacted. Mr. Duggan stated that was correct; through the process two community meetings we re held. Notification of the meetings were sent out to all property owners within a 500 foot radius. There was also a certified mailing that went out to adjacent property owners which was overseen by the City staff. He feels they did a good job of communicating with the neighbors. There was good discussion at the meetings explaining the overall value and benefit to the community. There has been a lot of positive feedback from the community. Mr. Bleile asked what the houses would range in price. Mr. Duggan stated that has not been completely decided. The company is a semi-custom builder so people will be able to choose, based on lot, which house plan they want. The ultimate goal is to price them $250,000 on average; some may be a little less and some may easily crest $300,000 . 8 • Chair Krieger asked if spec houses would be built or if he would wait to build when there is a buyer. Mr. Duggan stated it would be a little bit of both. The goal is to build a semi- custom home for each person on each lot. If there is not enough pre-sales, the project will continue by building spec homes; the project has to keep moving from one point to another to keep costs at a minimum. • • Mr. Welker stated there is a requirement for 4 parking spaces on each lot, which means there will be a 20-foot wide driveway. Mr. Duggan stated that would be a minimum; some of the lots that are wider could have a 3-car garage which could increase the width of the driveway. Ms. Mueller stated she didn 't think that was going to work too well with the new Unified Development Code. Mr. Welker stated there is a maximum driveway width in the UDC of 20 feet. Mr. Bleile asked if the project would follow the UDC. Mr. Fruchtl stated with the establishment of the PUD District Plan , it sets the zoning which also sets the minimum widths and requirements for parking . This specific development would not be governed b y the UDC. Ms . Mueller stated she has a problem with a dri v eway wider than 20 feet; the lots are smaller than most Englewood lots. Mr. Schum stated there would be large houses on the lots as well, and the lot coverage is probably 55-60 %. Mr. Schum asked if the lots would be developed with small side yards . Mr. Duggan stated most of the lots will have sm all side yards , as is typical with most new dev elopments . Primaril y, he wants to build good famil y housing which makes sense to the Englewood citizens, or to those people considering moving to Englewood. The average size home being built in the development is approximately 1,600 square feet. On some of those lots where it works, the owners ma y want something larger than a 2-car garage . That could mean there is an extra 2 foot overhang on the garage, not necessarily driveway width . Mr. Welker stated his concern is that it is a PUD, and a PUD does not specifically have to follow requirements that have been written. The UDC has specific requirements on garage doors per frontage and driveway widths. The Commission is considering a PUD. Mr. Duggan stated all the PUD is requiring is minimums as far as the number of off-street parking spaces , primarily because of the private roadway issues. Mr. Welker stated he understood; however, the PUD provides different requirements from those written in the Code. The Commission discussed in great detail the width of driveway s when writing the new Code. Some lots have narrow frontage ; some have larger frontage and could have a larger driveway. The Commission has to figure out how it all fits; he doesn't want to vote for "carte blanche." The Commission has to maintain the spirit of what they are restricting with other developments in the City. Mr. Fruchtl noted that District Plan Development Standards, J 1 (B) states 40 % of the area must remain open for landscaping, which should ease some of the concerns with regard to the driveway widths . Further Development Standards, A. General Restrictions states: "The provisions found in this zone district shall be subject to the requirements and standards found in the City of Englewood Municipal Code, unless otherwise provided for in this PUD or an amendment hereto." There are no specific requirements with regard to driveway 9 • • • widths; therefore, the UDC requirements would be effective. Mr. Welker asked if it would revert back to the current zone district. Mr. Fruchtl stated it would revert back to the Ordinance in effect upon approval. Chair Krieger stated it wouldn 't be approved by City Council until after the UDC is in effect. Mr. Fruchtl stated it would then revert back to the UDC requirements. Chair Krieger confirmed that unless something is specifically stated on the PUD, it follows the regular requirements. Mr. Welker asked which zone district requirements it would follow. Tricia Langon, Senior Planner was sworn in . Ms. Langon recommended the PUD be tied to the Ordinance in effect at the time of development. Mr. Welker stated the Commission needs to reach an agreement as to what the PUD reverts back to for a zoning reference. Chair Krieger stated the PUD states it will revert back to a zone district; they are asking what zone district it will revert back to . Mr. Duggan stated from the developer standpoint, it is not easy to plan for things that City Council or Planning Commission is c ontemplating or considering. The y don 't receive that information until it is already done; they did not develop the PUD as an intentional way of upsetting anyone. Their goal was to make sure the y did what they were instructed to do, primarily by the Fire Department. The Fire Department instructed them that no cars could be parked on the street. In order to accomplish that, he has to provide a minimum of 4 off- street parking spaces. If there are issues with garage door widths and driveway widths, many 3-car garages can be built with a 2-car door that has a tandem set up. Mr. Bleile confirmed the garage can be a maximum of 1,000 square feet. Ms. Mueller stated that was correct; the concern is with the driveway width. Mr. Welker stated the UDC will be in effect when the PUD is approved. He feels a reference needs to be made on the PUD as to what zone district requirements need to be followed if driveway width is not defined on the PUD. Ms . Langon stated she didn 't think the Commission needed to reference which disttict, because "A" states: "The provision found in this zone district shall be subject to the requirements and standards found in the City of Englewood Municipal Code." Ms. Langon stated that is all regulations, unless they have been stated on the PUD. The driveway width would revert back to the regular driveway width. Chair Krieger stated there are different percentages of coverage for different zone districts so it would be important to state that the non-identified requirements revert back to standards of a certain zone district. Ms. Langon stated she understood, and that it would be the R1 C zone district requirements. Mr. Welker stated because it is now zoned R 1 C and surrounded by R 1 C, it is the appropriate place to reference to encompass all the other limits. Ms. Langon agreed . Mr. Welker stated what needs to be stated on the PUD is that if something is not specifically stated on the PUD to be allowed to be different, it would need to comply with the R 1 C requirements. Ms. Langon stated she would recommend also specifying that it is the R 1 C standards for the Code in effect at the time it is developed. Mr. Welker stated he agreed. Mr. Bleile stated the Plan states chain link fencing is prohibited. He asked how the owner of Lot 1 would install a fence if the north boundary is changed. Mr. Duggan stated they would only be decreasing the height of the fence not the material. Mr. Bleile stated a 3- 10 • • • foot fence is not going to hold a dog. Ms. Mueller stated the owners would then have to keep the pet in the rear yard. Mr. Duggan stated a 3-foot chain link fence typically doesn't hold a dog either. Mr. Welker stated the standard the Commission is discussing is a visual standard. Ms. Reid stated the Commission can make the final approval conditioned upon the utility easement being shown on the Plat and compliance with the standard regulations for fences. That would address the issues of the site triangle and the 6-foot fence. Mr. Welker stated he would rather be very specific since it is a PUD. Mr. Bleile asked if the Traffic Division had reviewed and approved the Plan with regard to the site distance triangle issue. Mr. Fruchtl stated there was no specific feedback regarding site distance triangle; however, it will be reviewed during the building permit process. Mr. Duggan stated it is his understanding that Ken Ross reviewed the submittal and stated it worked. Ms. Mueller confirmed that the sidewalk does not continue all the way through the development. Mr. Duggan stated the sidewalk starts at the north end of the property on the east side of West Quincy Circle and continues around to the west portion of the property at Lot 5. There is a point where there is a crossover because there is no way to address Lots 6 and 7 with the limited spaced. There is a sidewalk for Lots 6 and 7, but a person would need to cross over the private road. Ms. Mueller confirmed that a person can walk on the sidewalk on the east side of the PUD, but can't walk back out on the west side along the drive. Mr. Duggan stated that was incorrect; the expectation is that a person would cross over to the sidewalk on the east side. Ms. Mueller stated that on the west side of Tract A, there is no sidewalk on either side. Mr. Duggan stated that was correct. The ultimate goal was to have everyone cross over to the west or south side of West Quincy Circle and continue around to the east and north. Ms. Mueller continued; with no sidewalk on that part of the drive and a 6-foot fence keeping that area in shadow most of the day, a person would have to walk on an icy street in the winter. Mr. Duggan stated that could be correct; however, the way the lot faces it doesn't necessarily have an icy spot. It will primarily receive southern exposure. The only house that would block the southern exposure is Lot 5. Mr. Welker asked if any street lights were proposed for the subdivision. Mr. Weed stated during the review process the Engineering Department determined the existing street lights at the entrances of the development were adequate for the length of the road . There are no street lights proposed within the development. Mr. Schum confirmed that the City feels the street lights on the corners of West Quincy Avenue are sufficient to light up the back part of the "U." Mr. Weed stated he doesn 't believe they try to light up everything; they try to light up intersections. Street lights are generally spaced 200-500 feet on a normal street. Mr. Schum stated his concern was that at night two of the corners become blind corners. Mr. Bleile stated it's a one-way street. Mr. Weed asked the Commission to keep in mind that it is a private driveway with 7 lots. The traffic and speeds on this street will be very minimal. This is the type of roadway you would normally see in a semi-rural type area where there would be no sidewalks. Due to the low volume of traffic, people generally walk in the streets. lL • • Nancy Baker, 1294 West Quincy Avenue was sworn in. Addressing Mr. Welker's fence issue along the industrial property, Ms. Baker stated they would love to loose the view of the parking lot with a 6-foot fence. Also, the industrial property has street lights which would probably light up the "U." She and her husband wanted to buy the vacant lot and turn it into a park, but they never "won the lottery." She has seen the houses the applicant has built, and they received a very nice garage built by the applicant in exchange for the 5 feet needed for the street. The applicant does quality work. Mr. Diekmeier asked if a 45-foot moving trailer could maneuver on the 20-foot roadway. Mr. Weed stated the turning radius for the roadway was designed for full-sized fire trucks. A semi could negotiate around the roadway. Also, the sidewalk provides an extra edge as it would come around the curve. Mr. Schum confirmed that the Fire Department felt the road was wide enough for their trucks. Mr. Weed stated that was correct and is also the reason why no parking is permitted on the street. Mr. Bleile confirmed that a homeowner's association would handle snow removal; he asked if that would also take care of lawns and house maintenance. Mr. Duggan stated there are a number of item the homeowner's association will cover. Maintenance and upkeep of the properties is addressed. There is an architectural review provision. The main goal with the homeowner's association is to give the community a method of dealing with problems such as street maintenance. Mr. Bleile asked Ms. Baker if she had talked with any of the other neighbors along South Lipan Street. Ms. Baker responded; they talked to the neighbors across the street. The only neighbor who had a serious issue with the development at the first town meeting has sold the house and moved. Mr. Bleile asked if there had been "give and take" on both sides. Ms . Baker responded yes; no one they talked to has been negative about the project. Mr. Duggan stated when they purchased the property, the previous owner had used the property for a number of purposes -storage, parking lot for an auction -and had not kept the property up. Everyone would love to see another park in Englewood, but financially it doesn't work. Mr. Schum stated there is a good park already in the area, Jason Park. Mr. Baker stated he had a question. Ms. Reid clarified that a public hearing is for the Commission to hear input, not to answer questions. Mrs. Baker stated she thought staff could answer her husband's question after the meeting. Referring to the artist's rendering, Mr. Roth stated the fence issue could be solved if the house faced Quincy as it is depicted in the drawing. The PUD states the proposed height of structures is 32 feet; however, the drawing does not depict 32 feet. He asked for clarification. Mr. Duggan responded that the picture shows the rear of the house . That same house was built at 4030 South Elati Street. They directed the artist to look at other houses they had built in Englewood and adequately depict what the development might look like on the lots. Both of the houses in the drawing are actual homes; the drawing is purely conceptual. Because they were going through the PUD process, they were given • the option of setting the height standards or waiting for the City to adopt new standards. 12 • • Since they didn 't know what the standards would be, they thought it best to actually put it in writing. Ms. Mueller asked if an accessory building in the UDC could be 32 feet. Mr. Fruchtl stated it could not. The Plan states the maximum height of accessory buildings is 9 feet. Ms . Mueller apologized; she was looking at the garage height. Mr. Fruchtl stated detached garages are not permitted; attached garages are considered part of the principal structure and can be 32 feet. With regard to access off of Quincy Avenue, Mr. Fruchtl noted the Plan restricts that access. The front yard for all the homes will be on West Quincy Circle, which puts the side yard on West Quincy Avenue. Mr. Bleile moved : Ms . Mueller seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #PUD 2003-01 be closed . AYES: NAYS: Adams, Bleile, Diekmeier, Krieger, Mosteller, Mueller, Roth , Schum , Welker None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None The motion carried . Discussion ensued regarding conditions for the PUD . Mr. Schum moved; Mr. Bleile seconded: To forward Case #PUD 2003-01, Englewood Estates to City Council with a recommendation for approval with the following conditions : 7. Applicant shall obtain and provide documentation for th e utility easement for the water line on th e adjoining property along the west property line . 2. Fenc e along West Quincy Avenue cannot b e constructe d within 20 feet of the West Quincy Circl e property line . 3 . PUD District Plan -Development Standards A state: "Gen e ral Regulations: The Provisions found in this Zon e District shall be subje ct to the requirements and standards for Z o ne District R-7-C of the City of Engl e woo d Municipal Code as amended, unle ss oth e rwise provide d for in this PUD or an amendment hereto." AYES : NAYS : Adams, Bleile, Diekmeier, Krieger, Mosteller, Mueller, Roth, Schum, Welker None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None • The motion carried . 13 • • • Mr. Bleile moved: Mr. Schum seconded: To approve Case #SUB 2003 -04 with the conditions stipulated in Case #PUD 2003-01. AYES: NAYS : Adams, Bleile, Diekmeier, Krieger, Mosteller, Mueller, Roth, Schum, Welker None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None The motion carried. Ms. Langon clarified that the Commission is not requiring the applicant to return to the Commission for final review. Chair Krieger stated City Council can verify the conditions have been met. V. PUBLIC FORUM No one was present to address the Commission. VI. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE Ms. Langon welcomed Ms. Mosteller and Mr. Hunt to the Commission. The next meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, February 18 and asked if the Commission had any issues the y would like to discuss at that meeting. At the December meeting, Mr. Bleile asked about the striping on the upper parking deck. To market the restaurant pad, Miller Weingarten paid for the striping to provide better traffic flow to the lower deck to allow people to gain access to proceed east on Hampden Avenue . Mr. Bleile thanked staff for the follow up . Ms. Langon stated City Council directed staff to indicate Commissioners ' attendance as "present, excused absence, or unexcused absence." An absence is considered excused if a Commissioner informs staff prior to a meeting that he /she will not be in attendance. If staff is not contacted prior to the meeting, the absence will be considered unexcused. The Commission 's attendance policy is 75% attendance of the scheduled meetings. Discussion ensued . Ms. Langon stated it is also useful to know before the meeting who will be attending to determine if there is a quorum. Ms. Langon stated at the Februar y 2 City Council study session, Council reviewed staff's priorities for Phase II of the UDC and chose home occupations a:s the issue the y would like to see addressed first. There will be a notice in the Englewood Citizen which is part of the community outreach. If citizens have comments regarding home occupations, they may contact staff. 14 • • • Every January Community Development prepares a work program for the year for each section of the department. Ms. Lango n stated she wanted to discuss what the Commission would like to do in the area of training and education to assist them in doing their job as a Commissioner. Mr. Bleile stated it would be very helpful to have some type of checklist for the new members; a checklist showing the processes, the flows, and the regulations, and how the Commission fits within the current structure. He has learned a lot since being appointed, but it would have been helpful to see how the Commission works procedurally and how projects move through the system. Chair Krieger stated the Commissioner's Handbook does that to a certain degree . Discussion ensued . Ms. Langon stated staff started to update the Handbook, but other projects pushed it to the "back burner." Ms. Langon stated she would appreciate the Commission 's assistance in updating the Handbook. She asked if the Commission wanted to work as a group to update the Handbook or only have a couple Commissioners work with staff. Mr. Bleile stated it is something the entire Commission should review . Chair Krieger agreed; the entire Commission should review the Handbook and then a couple of Commissioners can work with staff to rewrite it. Mr. Bleile volunteered to assist staff in that effort. Mr. Welker stated the DRCOG planning seminars are very helpful. The seminar deals with Planning Commission issues and how the Commission should work. Ms. Lan gon stated she would do some research to determine if those seminars are still available . Chair Krieger suggested having a study session to discuss and develop guidelines on the role of the Planning Commission . Chair Krieger also stated the book Role of the Planning Commissioner is very helpful, and recommended providing copies to the new members. The Planning Commissioner's journal is also very helpful. Discussion ensued. Ms. Langon stated there are no cases for the February 18 meetin g; she asked if the Commission wished to meet. It was the consensus of the Commission to not meet on February 18. Ms. Langon stated the recording secretary will conduct a telephone poll on February 18 to approve the Minutes and Findings of Fact. Staff will develop an educational program for the March 2 meeting. VII. ATTORNEY'S CHOICE Ms . Reid welcomed the new members. She stated she is available for legal advice during public hearings and Commission meetings; Commissioners can also call her with questions . Mr. Welker cautioned Commissioners about discussing cases before the public hearing. No one should presume the Commission has made a decision before the meeting and not on the testimony it hears at the public hearing. Discussion ensued . Ms. Reid also reviewed the Sunshine Law. VIII. COMMISSIONER'S CHOICE Mr. Diekmeier commended Mr. Roth for perfect attendance in 2003 and welcomed the new members . Commissioners introduced themselves . 15 • Mr. Roth stated in 1962 the Ordinance made it illegal for anyone under 16 to play pool in the City of Englewood. Mr. Roth asked if that was still in the Ordinance; Ms. Reid stated that it is no longer in effect. The meeting adjourned at 9:20 p.m . • • 16