Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-09-16 PZC MINUTES• • • Planning and Zoning Commission Public Hearing Cases #2008-11 and Case #2008-12 September 16, 2008 Page 1 of 12 CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COM M I SSIO N Sept e mber 16, 2 008 I. CALL TO ORD ER 12] The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:03 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Englewood Civic Center, Vice Chair Knoth presiding. Present: Absent: Staff: Roth, King, Welker, Calonder, Krieger, Knoth, Fish, Brick Bleile Alan White, Community Development Director Nancy Reid, Assistant City Attorney Mike Flaherty, Deputy City Manager 11. APPROVAL OF MINUTES September 3, 2008 Fish moved: Roth seconded: TO APPROVE THE SEPTEMBER 3, 2008 MINUTES Vice Chair Knoth asked if there were any modifications or corrections . There were none. AYES: NAYS: Roth, Calonder, Knoth, King, Brick None ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Krieger, Welker, Fish Bleile Motion carried. Ill. PUBLIC HEARINGS ~ CASE #2008-11 Amendments t o T it le 16 Rel ated t o H a rd Surface a nd Comme rcia l V e h icl e Weight Brick moved: Krieger seconded: THE PUBLIC HEARING ON CASE #2008-11 BE OPENED • • • Planning and Zoning Commission Public Hearing Cases #2008-11 and Case #2008-12 September 16 , 2008 Page 2 of 12 AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Brick, Knoth, Roth , Welker, King, Calonder, Fish, Krieger None None Bleile Motion carried. Mr. White, Community Development Director, was sworn in . He stated for the Commission's consideration tonight is case #2008-11, Amendments to the Unified Development Code (UDC) of the Englewood Municipal Code related to hard surface and commercial vehicle weight. He stated he had already submitted for the record proof of publication of which the notice was published in the Englewood Herald on August 29 , 2008 as well as the Staff report. The request tonight is that the Commission review, take public testimony and forward to City Council a recommendation for approval of the proposed amendment. The Planning and Zoning Commission is authorized by the UDC to review and make recommendations to City Council regarding updates to the UDC. The amendments are intended to coordinate UDC terms and definitions with other Titles of the Engle w ood Municipal Code. Please note that recent "housekeeping" amendments re v iewed by Planning and Zoning Commission are not included in the text of the proposed amendments as adoption of proposed "housekeeping" Ordinance is not complete at this time . Two topics are addressed in this UDC amendment proposal: (1) maximum w eight o f a commercial vehicle allowed to be parked on residential property and (2) hard surface driveway and parking pad standards. VEHICLE WEIGHT The proposed amendment to 16-5-4.D2c(1 ) modifies the maximum weight of a commercial vehicle stored on property in any residential zone district from 6,000 pounds to 7,000 pounds. Mr. White said the only place in the Englewood Municipal Code where v ehicle weight limits are restricted to 6,000 pounds is in Title 16. Elsewhere in the Code and traffic signs use the vehicle weight limit of 7,000 pounds. In addition, the City utilizes a 7,000 pound weight limit when restricting truck traffic in certain areas. HARD SURFACE Three proposed amendments relating to hard surface driveway and parking pad standards are part of a set of amendments to Titles 11, 15 and 16 designed to use the same terms throughout the Englewood Municipal Code. Hard surface, as related to driveway s and parking pads, will mean "a durable surface of concrete, asphalt, brick pavers, or similar alternate materials approved by the City." • • • Planning and Zoning Commission Public Hearing Cases #2008-11 and Case #2008-12 September 16, 2008 Page 3 o f 12 Mr. White offered to answer any questions the Commission might have. Mr. Welker said the only clarification he had was that the Commission is talking about commercial vehicles only, not personal recreational vehicles, motor homes, buses , etc. that might weigh in excess of 7,000 pounds. Mr. White stated that was correct. Mr. King asked what determines a commercial vehicle. Ms. Krieger said they are used commercially and Mr. Brick said he thought they were licensed commerciall y through the Department of Motor Vehicles. Ms. Reid said, in her personal opinion, commercial vehicles are licensed as such and that is usually what the police department goes with if they have a question about wheth e r a vehicle is or is not commercial. Even if a van was licensed commercially, it probabl y d o es not weigh over 7,000 pounds. A large moving van, even if it wasn't licensed commerciall y, the police department would consider it commercial for purposes of enforcement. Mr. King said getting back to the issue of parking commercial vehicles the amendment sa ys they cannot exceed 7,000 pounds and in event shall more than one commercial vehicle be stored on a property. If you had two commercial vehicles stored on a property because they had a plumbing company sign on the side how does that fit into this . Ms. Reid said all she can talk to is the enforcement of the commercial. Ms. Krieger said she also wondered how that would work, although that is not really what we dealing with tonight. Technicall y, we are only dealing with the change to 7,000 pounds. Mr. Welker said he understands that, but feels it is something that should be looked at. The definition of commercial vehicle is vague . Ms. Krieger said she did not disagree. He said if he were a plumber and had a vehicle loaded full of pipe it would definitely be over 7,000 pounds. It may not have a sign on it and may not even be a large truck. There are discrepancies that are not enforceable by our terms. Ms . Krieger said she also wondered what storing it on the street means .... parking it on the street, parking overnight on the street....what is storing it on public property or public right- of-way? Mr. Welker said he was disturbed by the section that states that an over the road tractor trailer wasn't considered a commercial vehicle . Ms. Krieger said they are not allowed. Mr. Welker said he understands that. Mr. White read the definition for commercial vehicle from the Code book. It reads : An y vehicle designed, maintained or used primarily for the transportation of property. He said that definition is fairly broad . • • • Pl anning and Zon ing Co mmission Public Hearing Cases #2008-11 and Case #2008-12 September 16 , 2008 Page 4of12 Mr. Welker said the problem with this part of the Code is that it is so vague. Why make one small change in the Code to try to make it clearer and leave huge gaps in what we are allowing to be parked? Mr. Fish said are y ou asking Staff if they are prepared to review and discuss that tonight. Mr. Welker said he doesn 't believe we are read y to ha v e a p u b li c hearing if you can't answer simple questions about what's a commercial veh icle . Ms . Krieger said Mr. White read the definition, but it is just extremel y vag ue. Mr. Brick said based on the definition Mr. White read, would the Commission be w illing to move from 6,000 to 7,000 pounds? He said he also believes the definition needs to be chan ged, b ut w ould we be comfortable making the change to 7,000 pounds . Mr. Welker said if he were driving around the City trying to enforce this particular provision, 7,000 pounds is pretty hard to figure out if the vehicle weighs that without a scale. Ms. Krieger said yes, but ca n see why it needs to be changed to 7,000 pounds. Mr. Welker said we are try ing to clarify something, but are only doing part of the job that needs to be done. As Zoning Commission this is one of the issues that we need to consider .. .wha t veh icl es a re bei ng parked around our City. Mr. Brick asked if th e Commission could p roceed by making an amendment to the proposed language. Mr. King said he doesn 't see where it says th at no ve hicle can weigh over 7,000 pounds; it says no c ommercial vehicle can weigh ove r 7,000 pounds. Mr. Welker said that's why I asked the first question about w hether this pertains t o only commercial vehicles because I also know that motor homes can easily w eigh over 7,000 pounds. Mr. King said that's not a commercial vehicle even thou gh it we ighs over 7,000 pounds. Ms. Krieger said you could park it on your property. Mr. King said it's an interpretation of what a commercial vehicle is. Mr. Fish asked if the only issue is that commercial vehicle is poorly defined or are there other issues . Mr. King said his point was that this amendment is to try to limit the weight of ve hicl es, but it reall y only speak s t o commercial vehicles ye t commercial vehicles aren 't really defined. If th ere becom es an issue the person will just say it's not a commercial vehicle and it w ill be up to enforcement to prove it is . Mr. Brick said instead of trying to decide this tonight the Commission might think about tabling this particular issue for further discussion at a study session . Vice Chair Knoth asked Mr. White if he wanted the Commission to discuss ju st the change from 6,000 to 7,000 pounds and come back to the other issues that have be e n brought up at a later time. Mr. White said he believed some of the issues brought up were addressed in other parts of the Code, but he said he only had Title 16 with him . What we are talkin g about is parkin g of commercial vehicles on private property. In answer to Mr. King 's question regar d in g having two commercial vehicles parked on yo ur property, Mr. White said the Code states "in no event shall more than one (1) commercial ve hicle be stored on property in any residential zone district, whether in a private garage or carport, in an off-s treet parking space, or in an open-space area" even if they are less than 7,000 pounds. You can have zero if more than 7,000 pounds and one if less than 7,000 pounds. He said he did not believe the amendment was meant to address motor homes, RV 's, trailers, etc. • Planning and Zoning Commission Public Hearing C ases #2008-11 and Case #2008-12 September 16 , 2008 Page 5 of 12 Mr. Welker said on a personal basis, he has a neighbor across the alley from him parking a flat bed truck that is sometimes loaded, a wood chipper and a trenching machine; all parked on private residential property. The City has been citing another neighbor for parking landscaping equipment on public roads. Without being able to define that these are commercial vehicles parked on private properties we have several violations and he doesn 't believe we have clear definitions of what they are in the City's Code. He believes they need to be addressed. If the Commission makes the one little change tonight w e may never see this issue back again in my lifetime. Ms. Krieger said that also concerns her and she is also concerned that the Code is telling you what you can park in your garage and doesn 't believe what is in someone's garage is anybody's business. She said she feels that if a resident has a vehicle identified as for business and is parked in the garage she doesn't feel that is impacting anyone in the neighborhood, but we don 't want numerous large commercial vehicles parked on the street either. Mr. Welker said that is what he basically has going on in his neighborhood. Mr. Welker said we need to define what is going on here, because as a zoning issue it's a little different than simply the weight. Mr. Fish asked Mr. Welker if he was prepared to put forth an amendment. Mr. Welker said he is not; he wants Staff to look into the issue further before they present it to the Commission as a simple amendment so the Commission can deal with the issue of parking commercial vehicles in our neighborhoods. Ms . Krieger said we need a definition at the very least. • Mr. Fish said we don't have a solution so all we can do is reject it or pass it. Mr. Welker said whether we table the amendment for a future time or deny it, by bringing it up now it is going to go back and be discussed. • Ms. Krieger asked Ms . Reid what the Commission's options are. Ms. Reid said you could table this motion as it is and ask Staff to look at it again or you can make a motion to reject the amendment based on the fact that this is not sufficient and the whole issue as you have discussed tonight needs to be addressed. Ms. Krieger asked Mr. White if there was any pressing reason this amendment should go forward tonight. Mr. White said none other than for making the job of code enforcem e nt officers easier. Mr. White said there will always be instances where you will have to do interpretations of whether a vehicle is commercial or not. Mr. Welker said he feels this amendment is not addressing the real problem within the zoning ordinance about what we can have around our City. He doesn 't believe it is a weight issue because you can 't verify the weight of most vehicles. In his opinion the w eight is not the real problem in Englewood to the zoning ordinance . He said if he doesn 't stand in the way of it right now and try to get at the point of what we have as an issue within the City then he 's not doing a good job for the City . • Plan ning and Zonin g Conunission Public Hearing C ases #2008-11 and Case #2008-12 September 16 , 2008 Pag e 6 of 12 Mr. Fish said tonight's amendment was meant to be just for housekeeping; what you are raising is a much larger issue that we have not been briefed on or discussed. He said he feels Mr. Welker is right in that there are many problems in the Code, but didn 't feel making the change to 7,000 pounds is a problem. Ms. Krieger said there isn 't any reason not to fix all of it while the issue is before us . Mr. Fish said we would need Staff and we would need to look at other parts of the Code and we haven't done that y et. Ms. Krieger said that is why we want to table the issue . The Commission asked Mr. White what is on the Commission's schedule for the next month to six weeks. He stated there is a Study Session scheduled for October 7th and a Public Hearing on October 21 st. He said this issue could be included in the Stud y Session on October 7th and the Public Hearing could continue on the 21 st. Ms. Krieger asked if that was enough time for Staff to prepare. Mr. White said that was enough time to at least provide the information from the other sections in the Code and see if that addresses yo ur concerns or not. Ms . Reid explained if the Commission continues the hearing once it has been opened it has already been published, it's already been noticed and therefore it does not need to be republished. If anyone is interested in the issue and are here tonight they have been informed that it will be continued. • Mr. Knoth asked if the Commission wanted to discuss the issue of hard surface tonight or continue that part of the amendment also. The Commission stated the y wa nted to continue the amendment in its entirety as it is all one case. • Welker moved: Krieger seconded: THE PUBLIC HEARING ON CASE #2008-11 BE CONTINUED TO OCTOBER 21, 2008 AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Brick, Roth , Welker, King, Krieger Fish , Calonder Knoth Bleile Mr. Fish voted no because he said he didn 't feel the Commission needs to hold Staff hostage in this way. He said he felt the Commission could pass this amendment and deal with the other issues separately. Mr. Brick vote yes because he feels a month's wait is not that crucial. Mr. Welker said yes as he believes there some issues to consider that there aren 't answers to tonight. Mr. Krieger votes yes and agrees with Mr. Welker. • • • Pl ann ing and Zoning Commission Pu blic He aring Cases #2008-11 and Ca se #2008-12 September 16 , 2008 Page 7 of 12 Mr. Roth voted yes as he feels there are other issues that need to be discussed. H e's not even sure weight is really the real issue as it's something that can't be measured by an enforcement officer; you should be dealing with height and weight. Mr. King voted y es and said he doesn't feel the Commission is holding Staff ho stage ; w e're just try ing to get some clarification. Motion carried. CASE #2008-12 Amendments to Title 16 Related to the Sign Code and Flags Krieger moved: Fish seconded: THE PUBLIC HEARI NG ON CAS E #2008-12 BE OPE N ED AYES: NAYS: Brick, Knoth, Roth, Welker, King, Calonder, Fish , Krieger None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Bleile Motion carried . Mr. White, Community Development Director, was sworn in . He sta te d for th e Commission 's consideration tonight is case #2008-12, Amendments to the Unified Development Code (UDC) of the Englewood Municipal Code allowing the displ ay of fl ags connected to activities of a business district or merchant association. He stated he had already submitted for the record proof of publication of which the notice was pub li shed in the Englewood Herald on August 29, 2008 as wel l as the Staff report. The requ es t tonight is that the Commission review, take public testimon y and forward to City C o un c il a recommendation for approval of the proposed amendment. The Planning and Zoning Commission is authorized by the UDC to revie w and make recommendations to City Council regarding updat es to the UDC. This topic was discussed with the Planning and Zoning Commis sion at a study session o n August 51 2008. There was some discussion about includin g m ercha nt associa ti o n s, but upon further reflection by Staff they felt that should not be included in the Or dinance as there is really no control of merchant's associations b y the City. The Business Improvement District wants to display "Sale Day" flags one day per m o nth within the Business District. Currently, the Code do es not allow the disp la y o f flags for • • • Planning and Zonin g Commi ssi on Public Hearing Cases #2008-11 and Case #2008-12 September 16 , 2008 Page 8 of 12 anything other than cities, states or nations. This Code amendment would extend the ability to display flags to city approved business improvement districts. Flags of cities, states or nations are limited to 35 square feet in area and are not subject to any permitting process . Staff suggests the BID "Sale Day" flags not be subject to an y permitting process as well, but Staff did suggest the size be limited to 15 square feet. The y will be displayed from flag holders that will suspend the flags over the public sidewalk. Mr. White offered to answer any questions the Commission might have. Mr. King said in an effort to make it easier on Code Enforcement, since it seems that the conventions in this particular election cycle are approximately 60 da y s from the election day, the Code says elections signs shall not be posted more than forty-five (45 ) calendar days prior to the election date, would it make sense to extend that date out to 60 days. Mr. Brick said he also saw that and it is a violation and code enforcement should go aroun d and collect the signs. Mr. Welker said there probably have been signs up continuously for three months or more already this year. Mr. White said it has been discussed at study session that the whole sign code needs to be updated. The Commission decided to leave corporate flags and other sign issues for w hen the entire sign code is discussed. He said he would be happy to take a recommendation back to Staff regarding the election signs, but tonight's discussion is in regards to the "Sal e Day" flags. Mr. Welker suggested in 16-6-13 E3(b) the name specifically of the business improve ment district or to require them to have a logo that has their name in it be included. Mr. Knoth asked if the flags were limited to 15 square feet per side . Mr. White said that was correct. Krieger moved: King seconded: THE PUBLIC HEARING ON CASE #2008-12 BE CLOSED AYES: NAYS: Brick, Knoth, Roth, Welker, King, Calonder, Fish, Krieger None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Bleile IPll Motion carried. Krieger moved: Welker seconded: CASE #2008-72, AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 16 UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE RELATED TO THE SIGN CODE AND • • • Planning and Zoning Commission Public Hearing Cases #2008-11 and Case #2008-12 September 16 , 2008 Page 9 of 12 FLAGS BE RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL TO CITY COUNCIL WITH A FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATIO N FOR ADOPTION WITH THE FOLLOWING AME N DME N T: 1. THE FIRST SENTENCE OF 16-6-13 E 3 (b) SHALL READ : FLAGS OF CITY APPROVED BUSINESS IMPROVEME N T DISTRICTS, PROVIDED THE FLAGS DISPLAY ONLY THE N AME, EMBLEM AND/OR THE LOGO OF THE ORGA N IZATIO N A N D NO INDIVIDUAL BUSINESS NAMES. AYES: NAYS : Brick, Knoth, Roth , Welker, King, Calonder, Fish, Krieger None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Bleile Motion carried . IV. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROIECTS ~ · Mr. White stated there is a section in the Charter that requires the Planning and Zoning Commission to submit a list of recommended capital projects to the City Manager. Mr. White introduced Mr. Flaherty, Deputy City Manager. Mr. Flaherty said one of his functions at the City is to provide for initial review of capital project requests and to make preliminary recommendations that go to City Council. Mr. Flaherty reviewed the two spreadsheets included in the meeting packet. One is a very detailed and extensive spreadsheet that lists all capital projects on a city-wide basis , including those that are proprietary, enterprise, special revenue and restricted funds . The projects for which you have authority to recommend on relate to Funds 30 and 31. Fund 30 is the Public Improvement Fund and Fund 31 is the Capital Projects Fund. The second spreadsheet identifies all of the projects that were submitted by department directors for 2009 consideration . The total number of projects submitted has a dollar figure of nearl y $8.7 million. Unfortunately, the City only has about $2 million to spend. Revenue projections for 2009 are just slightly over $2 million, which is considerably lower than it has been in most recent years. Slightly more than $4 million was approved in 2 008 for public improvement capital projects funds. The source of funding for capital improvement and public improvement funds come from the PIF or the use tax funds. Revenues for 2009 we re presented. Total projects recommended at this time amount to $1 , 998, 9 80 . Council has not acted on this yet and could very well make changes. The recommended projects were reviewed . Mr. Flaherty said the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendations are certainl y of value to City Council and to the City Manager's office and we appreciate your time. He offered to answer any questions the Commission might have. • • • Planning and Zoning Commission Public Hearing Cases #2008-11 and Case #2008-12 September 16 , 2008 Page 10of12 Mr. Knoth asked if anyone had any questions. Mr. Welker said he believes this is a waste of our time. The information we received and in the format it was in was virtually unreadable to me. He said he spent about an hour on it and decided it was completely a waste. He didn 't know what the codes meant, what funds we were looking at that the Commission has any input on, the timing sucks and we've had better information in the past. Mr. Brick seconded that. He said the document was poor to read. He said if you really want my recommendation I need to understand the material. It probably would be better brought to a study session and if we needed to do something official we could do it in a public hearing format. Mr. Flaherty said he would certainly accept those criticisms and try to provide better information in the future. Mr. White asked the Commission if there was something they have received in the past that was in a better format. Mr. Welker said when you look at a spreadsheet that each page is two pages horizontally with no headings it is virtually a chore to try to straighten it out. He said he would rather see it in microprint and use a magnifying glass to read, plus he said he did not know what the codes and abbreviations meant. He said he virtually could not prepare for the meeting with what was brought to him. He said he came to the meeting with only the expectation of information on it and basically what I am hearing is we don 't have any money and we're not going to do anything anyway so it doesn't matter what you say. That may be the truth, but it's not what I like to hear when I'm being asked to give my time to the City for something like this. Mr. White asked if a summary would have been easier to understand. Mr. Welker said something that was decipherable, with a legend so that the Commission could understand, and identification of which categories we were looking at. Mr. Flaherty said the inclusion of all the City-wide funds probably should not have been included because you are not taking action on all of the funds. He said the Commission's criticism is well founded and he will take it back with him for future reference. Mr. Brick said some of the columns can be eliminated from the material presented to the Commission. Mr. Welker also asked that the spreadsheet show how a project might be funded over a period of years. Ms. Krieger said she has always felt it is a waste of the Commission 's time to review the projects. She said she doesn't feel as most of what we are looking at has anything to do with the Planning and Zoning Commission . • • • Planning and Zoning Commission Public Hearing Cases #2008-11 and Case #2008-12 September 16 , 2008 Page 11 of 12 Mr. Calonder asked if the Charter could be changed so this issue does not come before the Planning and Zoning Commission. Ms. Reid said changes to the Charter require an election. Mr. Welker said the idea of the Charter is that is has some public input and this is the t y pe of Commission that might provide that. Ms. Krieger said she can understand that, but short of hours and hours of study we can't get anything out of this to give worthwhile input. Mr. Welker said in past years we have had better meetings where we actually made some recommendations and discussed some projects that people cared about such as the pedestrian bridge across Hampden. There were issues that had something to do with land use and patterns of use in the City that nobody else in the City was looking at. Ms . Flaherty said let me tell you what I have heard and see if you agree with my assessment: 1. Don't present information that the Commission cannot act on . 2. Show information in a context that is more than one year. 3. Present in a form the Commission can understand. 4. Present information in a timelier manner. Mr. Brick said on the 2009 Preliminary Capital Projects Recommendation Revised chart is would be helpful to sort by department as it would be easier to read. Mr. Flaherty said they were intended to be at least marginally prioritized, but if you prefer by department we could certainly do that. Mr. Brick said since the priority number was not included on the spreadsheet we did not understand that. Mr. Welker said part of the Commission's role is to establish that priority so if you give the list to us in an order we have to look at it in I have a problem with that. He said he would like to see the list before the City sets the priorities. Mr. Flaherty said if the Commission would like to see the items as they were submitted by each department he would be happy to do that. Mr. Brick said he would like to see it by department and by priority. Mr. Welker said next year he does not want to see the same thing, he would like to ha v e a chance to look at the things the Commission may be able to have some interest in. Mr. Fish asked for a better description of items. Some on the current document didn 't mean a thing. Mr. Flaherty thanked the Commission. Ms. Krieger thanked Mr. Flaherty for his time. Mr. Fish asked if the Commission needs to make any recommendations on this issue. Ms. Reid said the Commission does need to vote. She offered several options. Brick moved: Krieger seconded: THE COMMISSION RELUCTANTLY RECOMMENDS THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS BUDGET AS PRESENTED DUE TO THE FACT THERE WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TIME OR • • • Planning and Zoning Commi ss ion Public Hearing Cases #2008-11 and Case #2008-12 September 16 , 2008 Page 12 of 12 INFORMATION PROVIDED FOR THE COMMISSION TO REVIEW AND DO AN ADEQUATE JOB. AYES : NAYS: Brick, Knoth, Roth, Welker, King, Calonder, Fish, Krieger None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Bleile Motion carried. V. PUBLIC FORUM There was no public present. VI. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE ~ Mr. White had nothing further to report. VII . STAFF'S CHOICE Ifill Staff had nothing further to report. VIII. ATTORNEY'S CHOICE ·~ Ms . Reid had nothing further to report. IX. COMMISSIONER'S CHOICE ~ Mr. Brick said he would not be in attendance at the October 71 " meeting. The meeting adjourned at 8:25 p.m .