Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-09-16 PZC MINUTES• • • I. CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION September 16, 2003 CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:05 p .m. in the City Council Chambers of Englewood Civic Center, Chair Waggoner presiding. Present: Absent: Staff: Adams, Diekmeier, Krieger, Mueller, Roth, Schum, Waggoner Bleile, Welker Director Robert Simpson Senior Planner Tricia Langon Assistant City Attorney Nancy Reid II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES September 3, 2003 Chair Waggoner stated the Minutes of September 3, 2003 were to be considered for approval. Mr. Schum moved: Mr. Roth seconded: The Minutes of September 3, 2003 be approved as written . Chair Waggoner asked if there were any corrections or modifications to the Minutes. None were proposed, and Chair Waggoner asked for the vote. AYES : NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Adams, Roth, Schum, Waggoner None Diekmeier, Mueller Bleile, Krieger, Welker The motion carried. Ill. PUBLIC HEARING Case #ORD-2003-01 Unified Development Code Chair Waggoner stated the issue before the Commission is Case #ORD-2003-01, Unified Development Code. Chair Waggoner stated he understood there were people in the audience who thought the meeting was a hearing on the Broadway car lots; it is not. Chair Waggoner introduced the case by stating it is a public hearing on the Unified Development Code. He asked for a motion to open the public hearing. 1 • • • Mr. Roth moved; Ms. Mueller seconded: The public hearing for Case #ORD-2003-01, Unified Development Code, be opened. Ms. Krieger entered the meeting. AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Adams, Diekmeier, Krieger, Mueller, Roth , Schum , Waggoner None None Bleile, Welker The motion carried. Chair Waggoner asked staff to present the case . Tricia Langon , Senior Planner was sworn in. Ms. Langon stated proof of publication showing the public hearing was published in the Engl ewood H erald on September 5, 2003 and the staff report have alread y been submitted for the record . Case #ORD-2003-01 is the Unified Development Code and will be referred to as the "UDC." It is the repe al of Title 10 Land Subdivision and Title 16 Zoning Re gulations of the Englewood Municipal Code in their entirety and the replacement of those two Codes with the UDC. The request is that the Commission re v iew, take public testimon y, and provide comment on the proposed UDC. Ms. Langon stated the UDC is a single unified, updated regulatory tool to guide development in the City. It is the Zoning Code and the subdivision regulations ; it includes the sign code, parking code, design regulations, as well as administrative and enforcement procedures . Several years of work have occurred on the document; however, it is not a flawless document. Amendments, changes , and additions will occur over time as would with an y document; it is not a static document. The last major rewrite of the Code was in 1985 and prior to that, 1963 . The existing Code has a number of inconsi stencies and contains very few standards; it needs to be updated. It is also not reflecti v e of the community and its n eeds for increased development demand, especiall y residential de v elopment. The majority of the UDC is related to residential ; there are onl y minor adjustments in the commercial and industrial sections. A goal of the UDC is to provide clarity. The UDC is in a different format from the previous Code to make it easier to read , understand, and use. There are charts and tables included, and repetition has been reduced . More flexibility for development standards and opportunities have been provided. It attempts to ensure equity within the districts and uses . Inconsistencies have been removed; administration of the Code has been simplified; and longstanding City policies and processes have been codified through the UDC. Ms. Langon continued; the UDC is the result of a total of four to five years of "off and on" work, with a concentrated focus in the last two y ears. Joint sessions with City Council, the Commission, and the Board of Adjustment and Appeals were held . A community meeting on the residential design standards was also held . 2 • • • The overview provided in the Commissioner's packet is not a complete list of every change or amendment. It provides the broad ideas; identifies what is being carried over from the previous Code; what is new; and what is new policy . Ms. Langon reiterated that the UDC is in a new format and layout with tables and flowcharts. There are no substantive changes to four chapters: Flood Plain and Telecommunications, because they are federally mandated, the Enforcement chapter, and the Nonconforming Use chapter. New sections are included in the Procedure chapter relating to temporary uses and temporary structures. There are new methods of approving unlisted uses not in the Code. It also contains administrative adjustments which allow administrative review and approval of common deviations from the Zoning Code, such as porches . There are guidelines and criteria which must be met and are limited in scope. The UDC also contains more objective criteria for the variance process and more efficient procedures for review of development activities, such as subdivisions and PUDs . The Zone District chapter renames and reorders the existing districts. No land is being rezoned by the UDC; it is onl y a renaming and reordering for a logical progression . One new zone district is being created; the Transit Station Area district which is a mixed-use district centered on the transit station areas and light rail. Ms. Langon re iterated that no land is being rezoned with the new district. The R2C /SPS District, which has been in the Code for more than 15 years and never had land designated to that zone district, has been deleted . The Use chapter contains new charts and tables to mak e it easier to understand where a use is permitted in a district. In the current Code, staff must flip from district to district to determine if a use is permitted . The new chart shows both district and use. A temporary use section and a limited use section have been created with limited administrative review. An example is a live/work situation in an industrial district where currently living above the workplace is not permitted unless the person is a caretaker . The table identifies permitted, conditional, accessory, temporary, and limited uses. The largest section in the UDC is Chapter 6, Development Standards which are currentl y centered on residential uses . The residential design standards include bulk plane requirements, lot coverage requirements, location of garages, parking in the front, and various other standards. Ms. Langon reiterated there would be a Phase II as well as continuing changes and amendments . Those areas being considered in Phase II include parking standards, signs , commercial design standards, and landscaping . Ms. Langon stated there are a few edits from the draft the Commission received that need to be addressed. The first change is on the title page; Englewood City Code needs to be changed to Englewood Municipal Code. On page 206, Section 16-6-10 :B5 (D )(4 ) Permitted Driveway Paving Materials, greencrete should be replaced with "grasscrete." A definition for hard surface was omitted from the draft. Those are the three areas staff asks the Commission to address and recommend those three changes be made prior to the 3 • • • document being forwarded to City Council. Ms. Reid stated those three amendments should be included in the motion. Harry Lester, owner of Harry's Specialty Cars, 3247 South Broadway was sworn in . Mr. Lester stated he wanted to make an appearance because he has done everything the City has asked him to do for the 25 years he has been in Englewood, and now the City is on a mission to run all the car dealers and pawn dealers out of Englewood. He suggested that the City go east of Galapago and see the houses that are next door to the people who are building cars in their back yard. Industry exists next to residential. The City wants to make a fac;ade on Broadway, but it doesn't want to go three or four blocks west of Broadway and see the mess . He never hears anything about cleaning up that area. He stated he wanted to go on record that if the City wants the car dealers off Broadway he will be the first to sell the City his property. Chair Waggoner asked how his testimony relates to the Unified Development Code. Mr. Lester stated that the Unified Development Code never came by and talked to the business owners. The y never came by and asked the business owners how the y felt about the changes. Chair Waggoner clarified that the UDC is a change to the existing zoning regulations. Mr. Lester stated he understood, but it would be a good idea if the City talked to the business owners before it arbitraril y makes all these changes to determine if the business community has an y input. He has paid property taxes to Englewood for 25 years and no one has ever asked for his input on these matters . There were no other persons present to testify. Mr. Diekmeier moved; Ms. Krieger seconded: The public hearing on Case #ORD-2003-01 be closed . AYES : NAYS: Adams, Diekmeier, Krieger, Mueller, Roth , Schum, Waggoner None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT : Bleile, Welker The motion carried. Chair Waggoner stated staff has recommended the Commission recommend to City Council the repeal of Title 10 Land Subdivision and Title 16 Zoning Regulations of the Englewood Municipal Code in their entirety and approval of the proposed Unified Development Code. Mr. Roth moved; Mr. Schum seconded: TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL THE REPEAL OF TITLE 10 LAND SUBDIVISION AND TITLE 16 ZONING REGULATIONS OF THE ENGLEWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE IN THEIR ENTIRETY AND APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED 4 • • • UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS: 1. CHANGE TITLE PAGE TO REFLECT "ENGLEWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE"; 2 . CHANGE SECTION 16-6-1 OB5 (D )(4 ) PERMITIED DRIVEWAY PAVING MATERIALS TO REPLACE "GREENCRETE " WITH "GRASSCRETE"; AND 3. CHANGE 16-11 DEFINITIONS TO INSERT A DEFINITION FOR "HARD SURFACE ." Mr. Roth stated he had a number of comments he wanted on the record for City Council to review and consider. Referring to page 2 5, Mr. Roth stated he is concerned that the TSA District has been extended to one-half mile; originall y it was one-quarter mile. Chair Wa g goner clarified that Mr. Roth was not recommending a change; Mr. Roth stated that was correct. On page 133 , Mr. Roth stated the Exemptions for Calculation of Lot Coverage includes swimming pools, hot tubs, and ornamental ponds . Hot tubs are generall y covered with an impervious cover when the y are not in use and should not be exclud ed from lot co ve rage. Ms . Krieger stated if hot tubs are counted then swimming pools should be also . Discussion ensued. Referring to page 14 7, Mr. Roth stated he is concerned with a 12 foot hei ght for the beginning of the bulk plane; it is totall y different than an ything currentl y in Engl ewood. Mr . Schum stated the 32 foot height will limit the bulk plane . Mr. Roth responded that the problem with the 12 foot bulk plane, the 32 foot height limit, and the ability to extend into the bulk plane with gables, is that someone could build a 2 112 -3 story house in a neighborhood that is all single story. Discussion ensued . Mr. Roth stated on page 260 of the Telecommunication section regarding radio frequenc y standards, it refers to a written complaint about radio interference and that the City ma y require corrective action within a reasonable period of time. Mr. Roth asked Ms . Reid what a "reasonable period of time" meant. Ms. Reid responded there are experts the City calls to determine how long it should take to fix a frequenc y. Ms. Reid stated she thought it would be a minimum of 30 days but could be up to a year if there is a technical issue. Mr. Schum asked what is considered "temporary " for temporary structures and uses . Ms . Langon stated each of the temporary uses have their own criterion for duration. Mr. Schum stated he agrees with the suggested bulk plane and likes the 32 foot height limit. In the UDC, limited powers are given to the City Manager. He cautioned about giving the City Manager so much authority in the future that it takes awa y the ability of the citizens to interject and have a chance to be the government. He stated he was concerned with whether the UDC went too far and if that power would be abused in the future . Overall, he stated the UDC is a lot better than the current Code. Referring to page 205, Ms . Krieger stated during the joint sessions there were concerns that the entire front yard of the house could become a parking pad ; however with the lot 5 • • • coverage and front yard impervious surface limitations that possibility was eliminated . She stated she didn 't believe eliminating parking pads was the answer; off-street parking needs to be provided. It was discussed making an allowance for a parking pad if an alley and garage didn't exist; however, it is not included in the UDC. Her other concern is on page 213 regarding the articulation of street facing building facades . She stated she understands the City wants to add some interest and keep the buildings from being boring; however, she is concerned it will add staff time, drag out the review process on a building permit, and not accomplish what the City intended. Ms. Langon stated parking pads are permitted in the rear and side; the prohibition is only in the front setback and front yard. Front setback is the 25 feet from property line; front ya rd is the area from the structure to the property line. Ms. Langon clarified that only new parking pads would be prohibited. She stated it was the intent that if a garage was converted to habitable space, any existing driveway would need to be removed . Mr. Diekmeier stated he lives near the high school; and when he returns home there is no off-street parking. He is glad he has a parking pad; and when it is time to replace the concrete, he would like to be able to replace it. Discussion ensued . Ms. Krieger stated she would like City Council to review this issue. Ms. Reid stated she and Ms. Langon will revisit and discuss the parking pad issue before it goes to City Council. There was no further discussion. The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members. AYES: NAYS : ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Adams, Diekmeier, Krieger, Mueller, Roth , Schum , Waggoner None None Bleile, Welker The motion carried. IV. PUBLIC FORUM No one was present to address the Commission. V. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE Robert Simpson , Director of Community Development, thanked the Commission for their efforts and persistence on the UDC. Mr. Simpson also thanked Ms. Langon for her efforts; she has been tremendous on the project. Ms. Langon also thanked the Commission for their support. VI. ATTORNEY'S CHOICE Ms. Reid stated she had nothing further. 6 • • • VII. COMMISSIONER'S CHOICE Mr. Schum thanked Ms. Langon for her work on the UDC. He stated he understands there is a lot of concern regarding the Broadway Plan and would like the business community's input. He stated the Commission will be conducting a public hearing on the Plan next Tuesday, September 23 and invited Mr. Lester to attend. There was no further discussion. The meeting was declared adjourned at 7:50 p.m . 7