Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-03-25 PZC MINUTES• I. CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION March 25, 2003 CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Englewood City Council Chambers, Chair Waggoner presiding. Present: Absent: Staff: Adams, Diekmeier, Krieger, Lathram, Roth , Waggoner, Welker Mueller, Schum Tricia Langon , Senior Planner Anthony Fruchtl , Planner Assistant City Attorney Nancy Reid Chair Waggoner stated the meeting was originally scheduled for March 18. Due to inclement weather, a telephone poll of the members was conducted to continue the public meeting to March 25. Secretary's Note: Notice of the continued meeting was posted on all entrances to the Civic Center and on the official City Bulletin Board . • II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES February 25, 2003 • Chair Waggoner stated the Minutes of February 25, 2003 were to be considered for approval. Welker moved: Krieger seconded: The Minutes of February 25, 2003 be approved . AYES : NAYS : ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Adams, Krieger, Lathram, Roth , Waggoner, Welker None Diekmeier Mueller, Schum The motion carried. Ill. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT Case #CU-2003-01 Lori Burge 4620 South Lipan Street Chair Waggoner stated the Findings of Fact for Case #CU-2003-01 for a Conditional Use to allow a Family Child Care Home at 4620 South Lipan Street are to be considered for approval. 1 • • • Welker moved: Lathram seconded: The Findings of Fact for Case #CU-2003-01, 4620 South Lipan Street, be approved as written. AYES : NAYS: ABSTAIN : ABSENT: Adams, Krieger, Lathram, Roth, Waggoner, Welker None Diekmeier Mueller, Schum The motion carried. Ill. AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE Case #CU-2003-02 Table Steaks South 101 West Floyd Avenue Chair Waggoner stated the issue before the Commission is Case #CU-2003-02 , Table Steaks South. Chair Waggoner stated the public hearing was originally scheduled for March 18 . Due to inclement weather, a telephone poll of the members was conducted to continue the public hearing to March 25. Secretary 's Note: Notice of the continued public hearing was posted on all entrances to the Ci v ic Center and on the official City Bulletin Board. Chair Waggoner introduced the case by stating the applicant is seeking an amendment to the parking conditions in Case #CU-2002-01. He asked for a motion to open the Public Hearing. Krieger moved: Lathram seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #CU-2003-02 be opened. AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Adams, Diekmeier, Krieger, Lathram , Roth, Waggoner, Welker None None Mueller, Schum The motion carried. Chair Waggoner asked staff to present the case. Anthony Fruchtl, Planner, was sworn in. Mr. Fructhl stated the property was properly noticed within the Englewood Herald and was properly posted. Unfortunately, the applicant failed to attach the photograph to the Certification of Posting. After conferring with Ms. Reid, it was determined the Certification of Posting was signed and notarized . The person who took the photograph of the sign is available to testify the property was properly posted . 2 • • • Phil Bradley, 6158 Hoyt Court, was sworn in . Ms. Reid asked if Mr. Bradley saw a posting regarding this hearing at 101 West Floyd Avenue. Mr. Bradley responded that he posted the sign and took a photograph. Ms. Reid asked for the date . Mr. Bradley stated the sign was posted March 3. Ms. Reid directed Mr. Bradley to forward the photograph to the Commission 's recording secretary within 7 days. Mr. Bradley stated he would do so. Secretary 's Note : Photograph has been received. Mr. Fruchtl entered into the record a letter dated March 1 7, 2003 from the Church of Scientology of Colorado, signed by Reverend Patty Allread. Copies of the letter were distributed to the members. Mr. Fruchtl stated the applicant is seeking an amendment/modification to the Planning Commission approval of Case #CU-2002-01, a Conditional Use approvin g the amusement establishment in conjunction with the proposed Table Steaks South restaurant. The proposed amendment/modification would reduce the additional off-site parking from 38 spaces to 36 spaces; strike the provision that the agreement be recorded against the subject properties; and not require a specific location for the off-site parking and eliminate the need to perform improvements to the off-site parking lot. Mr. Fruchtl continued; the proposed amendment/modification is specific to Conditions 1 and 7 of Case #CU-2002-01 which state the following : 1. A shared parking agreement providing a minimum of 38 additional parking spaces shall be recorded against both properties prior to the issuance of a final building Certificate of Occupancy; and 7. The north off-site parking lot shall be constructed to the same standards set for the south on-site parking lot are a; said parking lot shall ha v e improved lighting and maintenance standards shall be written into the shared parking agreement. The applicant is requesting that Condition 1 be revised as follows: 1. A shared parking agreement providing a minimum of 36 additional parking spaces shall be executed and enforced prior to the issuance of a final building Certificate of Occupancy. The applicant is also requesting that Condition 7 be deleted from the requirements of approval. Mr. Fruchtl noted that the public hearing is specific to the proposed changes previously mentioned and contained within the Staff Report, and not to the use approved in Case CU-2002-01 which was approved by the Planning Commission on August 6, 2002. Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission approve Case #CU-2003-02 , a request to amend/modify the Conditional Use in Case #CU-2002-01 , with the following conditions: 3 • • • 1. A shared parking agreement providing for a minimum of 36 additional spaces shall be executed and enforced prior to the issuance of a final building Certificate of Occupancy. 2. Condition 7 contained in Case #CU-2002-01 be deleted. Staff also recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission maintain the original conditions in Case #CU-2002-01, exclusive of Conditions 1 and 7. Mr. Fruchtl noted that on page 3 of the Staff Report, the first condition of approval reads: "A shared parking agreement providing for a minimum of 36 additional parking spaces II Mr. Fructhl stated there was a typographical error, and it should be "38" additional parking spaces . Mr. Welker asked if there was a parking agreement being negotiated. Mr. Fruchtl stated the applicant can speak to that issue. Stephen A. Ward, 2828 Xavier Street, was sworn in. Mr. Ward stated Mr. Burgess was originally working with the Church of Scientology on an agreement for parking. For reasons beyond his control that agreement was never entered into, and the letter submitted to the Commission clarifies the issue. The current parking agreement was negotiated with Situs Investors, the owner of the Wells Fargo property to the west. The proposed parking area is at the intersection of Bannock Street and Floyd Avenue. The parking agreement with Situs is already in place and is ready to be executed pending the outcome of the hearing. Mr. Ward continued; he is asking for a condition of approval to allow them to work within the 400 foot limitation which would enable them to enter into the parking agreement with Situs . If the parking agreement with the Church of Scientology can be enforced, they can move to that particular location. Mr. Ward reiterated that the parking agreement is currently with Situs Investors and can be enforced once it is executed. Mr. Welker asked for the condition of the Situs lot. Mr. Ward responded that the parking lot is improved; it is lit and striped. The lot is an overflow lot for the main parking for the Wells Fargo Bank building. Ms. Krieger stated the Situs agreement is on a month-to-month basis; she asked how the City would know if that agreement is discontinued. Mr. Ward stated the Zoning Department will have an opportunity to check on the validity of the agreement at any time. Notice can be provided to the City if the agreement is not extended beyond the following month . They would then enter into a new agreement with a party within the 400 foot distance as required and provide that information to the City. 4 • • • Mr. Roth asked for the ramifications of not recording the parking agreement. Mr. Fructhl responded; if the parking lot was sold, there would be nothing to carry forth with the land stating the Table Steaks Restaurant has vested rights to use the parking lot. Mr. Welker asked if the Commission could require a stipulation that the applicant needs to maintain a parking agreement beyond the on-site parking. This would require notice to staff to transfer the agreement to another place. Mr. Fructhl responded; in the Conditional Use provisions it states that staff will conduct a yearly check to ensure all the conditions imposed by the Commission or associated with the Zoning Ordinance have been upheld. As the applicant stated , if there were any changes, staff would be notified. Additionally, if a complaint were registered against the property, staff would look into whether the parking agreement was still in effect. Chair Waggoner asked how many spaces were on the lot across the street. Mr. Ward responded there were approximately 100 spaces. It has been discussed to lease more spaces if the business is thriving and there is a need for additional parking . Currently, only 36 spaces are needed, which is 2 spaces over the required amount. Mr. Welker confirmed there are 62 spaces on site . Mr. Ward stated that was correct. There are 62 spaces on-site and 36 spaces across the street. Ms. Lathram asked if signs would be posted to direct patrons to additional parking. Mr . Ward stated there would be appropriate signage, which will be coordinated through the owner and the City. Mr. Fruchtl stated Ms. Reid informed him that the Commission could add a condition that the parking agreement be recorded against 101 West Floyd Avenue, the Table Steaks property. If Table Steaks were sold, the new owners would be aware that they need to provide 36 additional parking spaces, either by continuing an agreement with Situs Investors or with other owners within the 400 foot limit. Chair Waggoner clarified that the Commission would add it as a condition. Mr. Fruchtl stated that was correct. Ms. Krieger asked if the City Attorney advised such an action. Ms. Reid responded; since the negotiated parking agreement cannot be recorded against the Situs property, it would be notice to any future buyer that this particularly property can only be used for the Conditional Use if there are a certain number of parking spaces as the Commission originally required . The Conditional Use specifically stated where those parking spaces needed to be located. With the Amendment, the Commission should not specify as to where the spaces are to be located, only that a certain number of parking spaces must be provided for this use . Marcella Embry, 3281 South Bannock, was sworn in. Ms. Embry stated her concern with the parking is related to her concern about the building use in general, which is the impact upon the neighborhood. She stated she lives two houses from the proposed parking . Currently the overflow parking is used during day, but is usually empty by 6 p.m. When she drove to the meeting, there were no vehicles in the lot. The house next to the parking 5 • • lot is currently for sale, which she was going to put a bid on tomorrow but probably will not now. She stated she is concerned that every night there will be people standing in the parking lot next to her house talking and "carrying on." She asked what could be done to reduce the impact on the neighborhood. She is relieved that an alternate overflow parking lot was found because the lot on Bannock is directly across from her house. Chair Waggoner asked Mr. Ward if the parking lot was fenced. Mr. Ward stated he believed the parking lot is currently fenced along the residential section. Ms. Lathram asked if there was lighting in the parking lot. Mr. Ward responded; the parking lot is currently lit. Generally, the Situs property and the adjacent parking lot are developed and fairly well lit from a safety standpoint. Ms. Lathram asked if the lot was asphalted and striped. Mr. Ward stated the lot is striped and asphalted. Chair Waggoner asked if were any outlets onto Floyd Avenue . Mr. Ward stated the access is on Cherokee Street. In terms of mitigating, there are Ordinances in place . He does not anticipate people congregating in the parking lot. There also will be video surveillance of the lot. Ms. Lathram asked staff if there was a Noise Ordinance which could be enforced . Mr. Fruchtl stated there is such an Ordinance. Mr. Adams stated he drove by the property. He confirmed the building is existing and will be remodeled. Mr. Ward stated that was correct; a building permit has been pulled and the y are in the process of beautify ing the property. Mr. Adams stated the plans indicate parking lot improvements. Mr. Ward stated the y are planning on incorporatin g approximately 15 percent of landscaping within the parking lot. Mr. Adams asked if the on- site parking lot had the original 38 spaces . Mr. Ward responded that the parking lot originally had 61 spaces; after the modification there will be 62 spaces . Ms . Lathram clarified that the on-site parking has not changed from the original hearing; it is the additional parking that has changed. Mr. Adams clarified that the Commission is considering a condition that the parking agreement is carried from owner to owner. Ms. Krieger stated that was correct. Lathram moved; Krieger seconded : The Public Hearing on Case #CU-2003-02 be closed. AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN : ABSENT: Adams, Diekmeier, Krieger, Lathram, Roth, Waggoner, Welker None None Mueller, Schum Motion carried. • Chair Waggoner asked the pleasure of the Commission. 6 • • • Lathram moved; Diekmeier seconded: To approve Case CU-2003-02, a request to amend/modify Conditional Use Case #2002-01 with the following conditions: 1. A shared parking agreement providing for a minimum of 36 additional spaces shall be executed and enforced prior to the issuance of final building Certificate of Occupancy. 2. Delete Condition 7 of Case #CU-2002-01. 3. Maintain original conditions from Case #CU-2002-01 exclusive of Conditions 1 and 7. 4. The applicant will notify the City of any change in the parking agreement to ensure the required number of parking spaces are maintained. 5 . The Conditional Use and the Amendment to the Conditional Use will be recorded against 101 West Flo y d Avenue. Ms. Krieger clarified that the condition requiring notification to the City of any change in the parking agreement was included the motion. Chair Waggoner stated it was. AYES: NAYS : ABSTAIN : ABSENT: Adams, Diekmeier, Krieger, Lathram, Roth , Waggoner, Welker None None Mueller, Schum Motion carried. Chair Waggoner asked if the conditions would be recorded with the property location . Ms. Reid stated the Conditional Use as well as the Amendment to the Conditional Use will be recorded against 101 West Floyd Avenue . V. PUBLIC FORUM No one was present to address the Commission. VI. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE Ms. Langon reminded the Commission a short study session will be held following the meeting. Also on April 16 the City will be hosting a community meeting regarding the design standards for the Unified Development Code . Staff plans to have that section completed by that time along with the illustrations. The meeting will be held in the Community Room at 7:00 p.m. Mr. Welker asked if there was a meeting before April 16. Ms. Langon stated there would be a meeting on April 8 . 7 • • • VII. ATTORNEY'S CHOICE Ms. Reid stated she had nothing to bring before the Commission. VIII. COMMISSIONER'S CHOICE Chair Waggoner asked if members of the Commission had anything they wished to bring forward for discussion. There was no discussion . The Commission adjourned to a study session. IX. STUDY SESSION Ms. Langon asked which issue the Commission wished to discuss first -attachments or UDC chapters. Chair Waggoner stated he felt the attachment issue was a higher priority. Ms. Langon stated there is currently no definition within the Zoning Ordinance for "attached structure ." She asked the Commission to consider the following issues: • What constitutes an attachment? • How much of an attachment is necessary for structures to be "attached ." • Should breezeways and/or hallways be considered attachments . Ms. Langon stated the current policy regarding attachments is that the structure has a common wall, common roof, and common foundation pinned together. Ms. Langon stated if structures connected onl y at the "corner" are considered attached, it could lead to separate residential uses which would violate the R-1 district standards. Mr. Welker stated he believed there needed to be a specific amount of attachment and did not agree with attachments which would create nonconforming uses. For example, connecting the house to a detached garage if the garage doesn 't meet the setbacks for the principal structure. Mr. Adams asked whether or not the breezeway would need to be enclosed . Discussion ensued . It was the consensus of the Commission that the attachment would need to be enclosed. Ms. Lathram asked if a studio or office could be built over a detached garage if the garage were connected to the house. Ms. Krieger stated that situation could easily turn into a separate unit which could be rented out, which again would violate the R-1 district standards. Ms. Langon stated she would like to postpone that discussion to a later session. Discussion ensued. It was the consensus of the Commission that an attachment would have a minimum common wall of 4 feet or an enclosed space which meets all other applicable building codes, and meets all district requirements in such a manner that does not create a nonconforming use . 8 • • • Ms. Langon directed the Commission 's attention the Chapter 16-1 of the Unified Development Code. Ms. Langon stated the chapter provides the legal portion of the Title and a broad overview. Ms. Langon asked the Commission for their comments. Mr. Welker stated it would like to see it condensed. Referring to Page 2, paragraph 5, Chair Waggoner suggested adding the word "living" so it reads "Preserve and protect living trees and vegetation ... " Referring to Page 7, paragraph 2, Chair Waggoner asked what was the significance of "18,000 square feet." Ms. Langon stated she didn't know; it was a carry over from the old Ordinance. Mr. Adams stated Clarion Associates is named on all the pages and asked who they were. Ms. Langon responded that Clarion Associates is the consulting firm that did the initial work. The company is made up of attorneys and planners. Mr. Adams asked if they use a standard template to write the Code. Ms. Langon stated the UDC is not a "cookie cutter" Code. Input for revisions was gathered from interviews conducted with City Council, Planning Commission, Board of Adjustment, and staff. Some of the previous Code has transitioned into the new Code. Referring to Chapter 16-10, Chair Waggoner asked whether or not it was necessar y to use the wording "this UDC." Ms. Reid stated there are ongoing discussions regarding that issue. Since Chapter 16 is part of the larger Municipal Code, Ms. Langon and she are working on making the wording consistent with the Municipal Code. Mr. Welker stated he preferred that the wording is more specific; he suggested using Title, Chapter, or Section. Ms. Langon reviewed the zone district designations in Chapter 16-3. Ms. Langon stated no zone districts boundaries are changing. Mr. Welker suggested renaming the TSA district to MU-TSA since it allows mixed use. Ms. Langon stated not everything would be "fixed" in the first phase ; however, it is important to make as many changes as possible since the entire UDC will need to be published in the Englewood Herald for the City Council hearing. The current estimate for the publication is $80,000.00. If there are a lot of substantive changes after the publication, it would need to be republished at additional cost. The meeting was declared adjourned at 9:15 p.m . 9