Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-08-05 PZC MINUTES• • • Planning and Zo ning Study Sessio n Aug ust 5, 200 8 Page I of lO CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION August 5, 2008 I. CALL TO ORDER Th e regular meeting of the City Pla nning and Zoning Commi ss i o n was call ed t o o rd er a t 7:02 p .m . in the Community Development Confe ren c e Room of t he En gl ewood Ci v i c C e nter, Chair Bleile presiding. Pr esent: Absent: Staff: Roth, King, Welker, Calonder, Krieger, Knoth, Fish , Bleile, Bri c k None Alan White, Community Dev elopment Director John Voboril, Long Range Planner II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Jul y 22 , 2008 Ms. Krieger mov ed: Mr. Knoth seconded: TO APPROVE THE JULY 22 , 2008 MI N UTE S Chair Bleile asked if there were any modifications or corrections . Mr. Roth asked that the discussion on page 19 regardin g the 24 in c h en c roa c hm e nt i n clu de Mr. King 's statement. Mr. Brick said on page 4 in the ne x t to th e last p a ragr ap h th e Commission noted the subject property~ l ocated in th e Medi c al District Small A re a Pl an. Ms. Krieger accepted friendly amendments for both corrections and Mr. Kn o th seco n ded it. AY ES : N AYS : ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Roth, Welker, Krieger, Calonder, Knoth, King, Brick, Bl eil e None Fish None Motion carried . APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT CASE #USE2008-009 Conditional Use Permit for a Parkin g Lot as a Principal Use at 3598 So uth Pear l Str ee t • • • Pl ann ing an d Zonin g Stud y Sess ion Au gust 5, 2008 Page 2 o f 10 Ms. Krieger moved : Mr. Roth seconded: TO APPROVE THE FINDINGS OF FACT FOR C A SE #U SE2008 - 009 Chair Bleile asked if there were any modifications or corre ction s. Th e re we r e n o n e. AYES: NAYS: Roth, Welker, Krieger, Calonder, Knoth, King, Brick, Bl e il e None ABSTAIN : Fish ABSENT : None Motion carried . CASE #2008-06 Boarding and Rooming House Amendments to Title 1 6 Ms. Brick moved : Mr. Krieger seconded: TO APPROVE THE FINDINGS OF FACT FOR CASE #2008-06 Chair Bleile asked if there were any modifications or corrections . There w er e non e. AY ES : N AYS : Roth, Welker, Krieger, Calonder, Knoth, King, Brick, Bl e il e None ABSTAIN: Fish ABSE T: None Motion carried. CASE #2007-10 2008 Housekeeping Amendments to Title 16 Ms. Roth moved : Mr. Brick seconded: TO APPROVE THE FI N DINGS OF FACT FOR C A SE #2007 -1 0 Chair Bleile asked if there were any modifications or correcti ons . There we re non e. AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN : A BSENT: Roth, Welker, Krieger, Calonder, Knoth, King, Brick, Bleile None Fish None Motion carried . • • • Planning and Zoning Study Session August 5, 2008 Page 3 of 10 Ill. SIGN CODE AMENDMENTS Mr. White said Staff has been asked to bring forward t w o amendments to th e UDC de alin g with signs . The proposed amendments are: 1. An amendment to allow third party (or off-premises ) signs and 2 An amendment to allow the BID to put up BID flags during their one- weekend per month "Sale Day". THIRD PARTY SIGNS City Council wants to explore placing a sign at the intersection of Bro adway and Englewood Parkway on City owned land that wou ld let people tra v eling 011 Broa d way know there is a shopping district to the west of Broadway. In order to accomm oda te tha t request the sign code would need amending. At this time you cannot ad v erti se b u sin esses except on the property where they are located. The only exception is for joint t e nan cy sig n s for shopping centers . The question is, if Council is going to allow that sign or third party signs in general , sho uld there be some limitations on how many can go 011 a property the busines s is not lo ca t ed on , should it count towards a businesses allowed signage, how many businesses can b e ad v ertised on a sign , could it be narrowly defined such as these signs can onl y be perm itted on City owned property or government property, etc. Chair Bleile asked if it had to be a third party sign . Could it be a road map pointing to th e shopping district? Mr. White said it had been suggested some type of way-finding sign be used , but Council wou ld like more than that. Mr. Welker said that has done before. It was a City Council action; it never cam e throu gh the Ordinance. There is a sign on Hampden Avenue that was done for the shoppin g c e 11t e 1· where Hobby Lobby is now and the other one is on the other side of Hampden for Spo rt s Authority. That was done by a special Ordinance; it was never changed in th e Or d in anc e we are talking about tonight. It was done on a single case basis and never ca m e t hro u gh the Planning Commission . Council chose to do those as their action because the y did n o t want to deal with land use issues; they were dealing more with advertising for bu sine sses. The sign for Sports Authority does not advertise an accessible retail business an y more. It advertises a company that is in the same building where the retail business was formerl y located . Mr. Bleile said which businesses do you then advertise 011 the s1g11 011 Broad way. Mr. Welker said that is something that will have to be defined . • • • Planning and Zoning Study Ses sio n August 5 , 2008 Page 4 of 10 Ms. Krieger asked Mr. White if Wal-Mart and the other bu sinesses along En glewood Parkwa y are interested or is it just Council that is interested . Mr. White said he kn ew of a couple of businesses that have approached Council regarding signage . Mr. Knoth asked what the developer had to say about maintaining th e sign, doing that fo r eve ry bod y and adding the cost to each of their CAMs? Mr. White said the n ex t step , if Staff can figur e out a way to do it and control it; the idea is to go those businesses t o see if the y will pa y for it. Mr. Welker said both of the existing signs and this sign will be on City land. It w ill n ot be on personal property so the City has complete control o ve r what the y w ill allow. Mr. Wh it e asked if the two signs you cited as examples w ere clone by a special ordinance? Mr. Welker said that wa s correct. Mr. White asked if he kne w w hat yea r those we re done. Mr. VVe lk er said h e thought it was between 1995 and 1998. Mr. Brick said if this were to pass what is the worst thing that could go wrong . Mr. Bleile said as an example, K-mart offers someone $1,000 to erect a sign right in front of some other business. Mr. Welker said we are going to control it so that doesn't happ en . Mr. Bleile said he would be inclined to limit the signage on Broadway to say "Addition a l City Center whatever", more of a generic sign . Mr. Welker said he thought Council reall y does wa nt the identity of certain stores. The businesses pay a reasonable amount of ta xes and th ey want to support them . Mr. King suggested the use of the sign be put up for bid . Ms. Krieger asked the members if they all agreed third party signs should not be allowed anywhere except on City owned property. They all concurred . Mr. Brick suggested a directional sign such as those used on major high ways and interstates with an arrow pointing west and stating there is a shopping district there with va ri o u s nam es of tenants listed . What bothered all the Commissioners is how you draw the line on w h o can be li sted a n d who cannot. Mr. Fish said it is the containment issue that bothers him . Ms. Kri eger ag reed . Chair Bleile said most likely it would be allocated to one master and several sma lle r businesses . Mr. Welker said that is why the previous ones did not come throu gh Planning Commission ; the y did not want to codify the rul es for it. He said he has not he ard a lot of negati ve things about the two current signs. Mr. White said maybe that is how this situation should be handled rath e r than try in g t o control the issue City-wide . It could be done in the same manner as the two current signs . Mr. Knoth felt it would be better to have a general shopping district sign rath e r th an ha v ing just a fe w businesses named on the sign . Mr. Calonder said he felt City Council has set a precedent and may be this requ est shou ld go through them also. • Planning and Zoning Study Se ss ion August 5, 2008 Page S of 10 Mr. Welker said he would rather have Council make it a unique situational Ordinance . There would be no appeal to what they decide. Mr. King said there should be some kind of revenue tied to it. Mr. White liked the Commission 's approach . Mr. Fish said if the Commission is go in g t o explore the issue it is going to be a long discussion . Ms. Krieger said it's a huge issue. It was suggested a reference to the light rail station also be placed on the sign . Mr. Knoth said he would also like to see a business sign coming off the light rail. Mr. Welker said the good thing about that area is it is an area the City can control. BID "SALE DAY" FLAGS The BID is seeking to display a flag to be designed and used exclusivel y by BID m embers. It will be displayed once a month throughout the year on Sale Day. Right now th e Cod e allows only the display of flags for cities, states or nations. They would be on flag poles placed in brackets where currently the American flags are placed on the 4r1i of July and other holidays. To accommodate their request the Code needs to be amend ed . Do we do it very narrowly and just say this particular BID can do this or broaden it to say this BID and any other future BIDs, the Chamber of Commerce, non-profits, etc.? • Mr. Calonder felt it was a great idea and is for it. Mr. Welker said he is not against it, but would like to see it in other areas also. Mr. Calonder asked if it was just for the BID District. Mr. White said that is the area the request is for, but thinking forwards what if ther e 1s another merchant's association that would like to do the same thing . Mr. King asked what the flag would look like; would it have different business logos on it. Mr. White said it would have the BID logo on it and that's all. There would be no advertising of specific businesses . Mr. Brick stated the size would need to be considered. Discussion ensued regarding whether this should be allowed only by the Bl D specific or should the Ordinance allow other types of flags. Chair Bleile said if businesses have banded together to create their own business improvement district they ought to be able to advertise it. Mr. Welker agreed. Ms. Krieger did not want to limit it to just th e one BID when you could potentially have other business districts and /or this business district could become something else, which then would not even be covered. Mr. Knoth said be believed the Commission should maybe push through this one for the BID district. He asked when Ms . Langon would be going over the rest of the sign code . Mr. White said it would not be for a while. Mr. Brick agreed with Mr. Knoth. Ms. Krieger said she felt it should be limited to business associations. Mr. King said it seems like the BID would like to get the flags up ASAP. The members agreed . Mr. White said if it was kept to • just this group and /or other merchant associations the Ordinance could probably be P°ianning and Zoning Study Session August 5, 2008 Page 6 of 10 • completed fairl y quickly. Corporate flags and other issues could be dealt w ith during th e sign code revision . • Mr. White said he will start the Ordinance process and when completed bring a draft back to the Commission for their review. IV. ENGLEWOOD MEDICAL DISTRICT SMALL AREA PLAN REZONING Mr. Voboril stated he needed to finish the discussion on the Englewood Medical Di st ri ct Small Area Plan Rezoning in the near future. The final discussion is scheduled for Wednesday, September 3'd . Mr. Voboril began his PowerPoint presentation at this time . PARKING REQUIREMENTS Proposed parking location and screening regulations were discussed . Mr. Voboril stated the information was taken from the Denver Colfax Main Street Zoning. Basicall y, the parking lot would be restricted to an area behind, underneath, on top of, or on the side of the building. No parking would be allowed in the front of the building. An y surface parking v isibl e from a street must be screened by a 30 to 42 inch tall screening device. Types of screening devices were discussed . Mr. Welker asked if a berm could be allowed. Mr. Voboril said yes, that could be added as an option. Mr. King asked if there would be a lighting requirement around the walls. Mr. Voboril said the Commission could look into that issue. He said there would also be a requirement of a five foot landscaped buffer between the commercial and residential along the rear wall. After discussion it was decided the side street screening should be no high e r than 30 inches . The size of a parking lot stall and aisle widths were discussed. Englewood standards were compared with Denver standards. The Board felt the Denver standards were too small . Mr. Voboril asked which of the current dimensions were more critical to maintain. Several said the width. They felt the l ength of the stall was the problem . Mr. Welker said for years the standard has been to have a certa in percentage of larger spaces and a smaller percentage of compact spaces. Mr. Bleile said he agreed with Mr. Knoth and would lean to the current standards plus a percentage of smaller spaces. A 50-50 mix was suggested as it appears cars are getting smaller . LOADING Mr. Voboril read the proposed loading requirements. Mr. Welker asked if the proposed • requirements would allow someone to park in the street to unload . The members said it Planning and Zoning Study Session August 5, 2008 Page 7 of 10 • wo uld. Mr. Welker said a big development definitely needs requirement s, b ut for small businesses double parking is acceptable . • • Current Engle woo d off-street loading standard s we re compared w ith current D e nver off- str ee t loadin g standards for residential and retail. After di sc ussion it was decided to propose go ing to th e D enver standards . LAND SCAPING Mr. Brick asked Mr. Voboril if he had asked Keep Englewood Beautiful if th ey wou ld like to be part of this discussion. He said he mention ed it to a staff person and th ey stated the y were too busy at this time to be included. Mr. Voboril stated there is a push right now to update the landscapin g requirem e nts for the entire City, but Ms. Langon has been extremel y bus y and hasn't been able t o get started on it ye t. H e said the discussion tonight is a possibility, but not by an y m ea ns what is going to be done for sure. The current landscaping requirements require a minimum of 25% co ve rage of a lot in the MU-R-3-B district and 15 % in the MU-B-2 district. The req uirement competes w ith building footprint and parking spaces , especially on small lots. St aff is p roposing the area of th e landscaping be reduced based on lot siz e . Mr. King asked if there was a way to not u se th e percentage req uir eme nt and just u p the numb e r of shrubs required. Mr. Voboril sai d his ne xt slide addressed that issue. Mr. Welker asked if that can be used as an incentive; ca n t hey decrease their gro und coverage if the y in c rease the density. Discussion ensued. Th e Commission rev i ewed several landscaping slides. It was suggested future meetings b e h eld to dis c uss this further. Mr. Voboril sa id at the encl of the discussion on the Medical District Small Area Plan h e has some sl ides that show some simplified parking layouts and ho w development might occur on a small lot. H e said he could do the same for landscaping as we ll . NON-CONFORMING RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES Mr. Voboril said this section deals with the non-conforming residential structure clau se in th e UDC. Basically, this is the issue of the old apartment buildings being considered as non- conforming residential structures . Staff receives a number of calls regarding t hese structures. Since the y are old they do not conform to the current zonin g code in t e rm s of density or parking and that is a problem for financial groups when a buyer is looking for financing or the owner wants to convert the units to condos. Mr. Welker said he feels when an owner is looking to convert the units t o condos th ey should be required to do something to bring the building closer to the current standards . Mr. Voboril said some of the current standards may not be possible t o do . • • • Planning and Zoning Study Sess ion Au g us t 5 , 2008 P age 8 of 10 Mr. Voboril read a clause Staff proposes to be added to 16-9-3: Nonconformin g Stru ctur es . As an example, if a building was destroyed, the City would allow them t o build to th e o ld standard again . Mr. Welker asked if this wasn 't granting them a Use Vari an ce, w h ic h we d o n o t want. Mr. Voboril said they are not changing the us e. Mr. Welker said he would remove the words "unless the City grants a va ri an ce " fr o m th e cl aus e. M s. Krieger agreed. Mr. Welker would like to see something in th e cl a u se requi r·in g the owners to upgrade parking for their buildings when th ey remod e l. It n ee d s t o b e cl o n e befor e they are converted to condos. Ms . Krieger suggested adding in lan g u age su ch as "for sale " when converting to condos . The Commission encourages condo c o nve rsio n as long as the owner takes steps to bring the property up to current standards . M r. V o bo ril said he believes that has been a barrier to people coming into the City. It is v er y diffi c ult t o increase parking .... you need someone who is willing to sell a lot close b y . If no o ne is goi n g to do that.. .. you can't make people sell. Discussion ensued. Mr. Welk e r ask ed if th e Commission can get to a point where we can create that incentive to get an up gra d e of th e apartments in the City. Mr. Voboril stated when an owner converts to condos the y generally upgrade the building in the process. If the City doesn 't encour age cond o conversion the City will not see much of an investment in these apartments; th e re w on 't be any incentive. Chair Bleile feels the City needs to do something, but that somethin g n ee d s to be more of a financial incentive. He asked the members to contact an y on e t hey kn ow who could come to a Planning and Zoning meeting to speak on this subject. Eve ry on e f elt further discussion on this issued was needed . NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL -COMMERCIAL TRANSITION OVERLA Y ZO N ES Mr. Voboril pointed out the different zones on a map. Staff decided to keep th e und e rl y in g zoning, but also allow more flexibility. The first zone is north of Girard . He reviewed the new standards that w oul d b e applie d t o properties in this area and the standards that would remain in place . The Commis sio n approved of what Staff is proposing. The second zone is south of Hampden Avenue. He reviewed the ne w standards th at wo uld be applied to properties in this area and the standards that would remain in place . Mr. Welker asked what the current height limit is in MU-B-2 . Mr. Voboril st at ed it is 60 f ee t and in R-2-B it is 32 feet. Staff is proposing to raise the 32 feet to 35 feet. Mr. We lk er questioned as to whether the three feet makes any real difference . We have basi c all y dra w n a 50 foot line beyond the MU-B-2; why don 't we make that greater than 50 f eet. It's hard t o get a decent parking lot in 50 feet. Mr. Voboril stated that was debated and St aff f elt 50 f eet w as appropriate . Ms. Krieger said she agreed with the 50 foot depth . D isc u ss io n continued regarding increasing the height limit to 35 feet. The Commission ag re ed th e height limit should be left at 32 feet. 0 Pl anning and Zoning Study Session August 5, 2008 Page 9 of 10 • REVISITING PORTIONS OF SUB-AREAS 2 AND S SUB-AREA 2 • • Th e question of a portion of Sub-area 2 being includ ed in the Medical Di st rict rezoning was discussed. The area is west of Logan to Sherman and south of Girard t o Hampden . Mr. Voboril asked the Commission if they would want to make this area MU-M-1 or MU-M-2 or something between what it currently is in density and what MU-M-1 and MU-M-2 are . Aft e r discussion the Commission felt the MU-M-1 zoning designation would be app ropriate but wi th lo wer height limits, retail along the south border only and t o allow office buildings . SUB-AREAS Sub-area S is bordered by Lafayette on the east, Emerson Street on the west, Hampden Avenue on the north and US HWY 285 on the south. Ms. Krieger asked if th ere was any feedback from the stakeholders in that area. Mr. Voboril said the voices th at were heard said they didn't mind if sections of the area we re improved . Mr. Knoth said he favored higher density and more commercial. The Commission agreed. It was suggested the entire area be zoned MU-R-3-B. Due to the lateness of the hour the discussion wi ll continue at the Pl ann in g and Zoning meeting on September 3'd . Chair Bleil e thanked Mr. Voboril for doing a good job and said he is enjoying participating in the discussions. V. PUBLIC FORUM There was no one present to address the Commission. VI. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE Director White reminded the members of the Board and Commission Night to be held on Monday, August 11th at Pirate 's Cove. VII. STAFF'S CHOICE Staff had nothing further to report. VIII. ATTORNEY'S CHOICE Ms. Reid was not present. • • • Planning and Zoning Study Session August 5, 2008 Page LO of LO IX. COMMISSIONER'S CHOICE There were no fur th er comments .