HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-03-18 PZC MINUTES•
•
CI TY OF EN GL EWOOD PL ANNING AND ZONING COM M ISSION
Ma rc h 1 8, 20 08
I. CA LL TO ORDER
The regular meeting of th e City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at
7:05 p.m . in the City Council Chambers of the Englewood Civic Center, Vice Chair Knoth
presiding.
Present:
Absent:
Staff:
Brick, Krieger, Knoth, Roth , Calonder, King, Fish
Bleile (Excused), Welker (Excused), Myers, Alternate (Excused)
Alan White, Director, Community Development
T ricia Langon, Senio r Planner
Nancy Reid, Assistant C ity Attorney
II . A PPROVAL OF MI NUTE S
March 4, 2008
Mr. Fish moved:
Mr. Calonder seconded: TO APPROVE THE MARCH 4, 2008 M I NUTES
Vice Chair Knoth asked if there were any modifications or corrections.
Mr. Fish moved:
Mr. Calonder seconded: TO AMEND THE MARCH 4, 2008 Ml UTES AS FOLLOWS:
1. On page 2 the last sentence of paragraph 2 should read
Envelope 3, n ot Envelope 2.
AYES:
NAYS:
Brick, Knoth, Roth , Krieger, Fish, Calonder, King
None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Bleile, Welker
Motion carried.
Ill. PUBLIC HEARING
Continuation of Case #ZON2008-01
Denver Seminary Planned Unit Deve lopment Amendment 2
Vice Chair Knoth stated the issue before the Commission is the continuation of Case
• #ZO 2008-01, Denver Seminary Planned Unit Development Amendment 2.
•
•
•
Mr. Fish moved:
Mr. Brick seconded: TO RECALL CASE #ZON2008-01 , DENVER SEMI AR Y
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT 2.
A YES:
AYS :
Brick, Knoth , Roth, King, Krieger, Fish , Calonder
one
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT : Bleile , Welker
Motion carried.
Mr. Fish moved:
Ms . Krieger seconded : CASE #ZON2008-01 , DENVER SEM INARY PLANNED UN IT
DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT 2 AS PROPOSED, BE
RECOMME OED FOR APPROVAL TO CITY COUNCIL WITH
A FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION FOR ADOPTION ,
SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS THAT MIGHT BE IMPOSED
BY THE COMMISSION DURING T HIS HEAR ING.
Mr. Fish said he wanted to separate out the four cond itions Staff suggested in the Staff
Report. He stated he did not have any problems w ith the first condition. He felt it was a
valid condition .
Mr. Fish moved:
Ms. Krieger seconded: THE FIRST COND ITION BE ACCEPTED AS WRITIEN .
AYES:
NAYS:
Knoth, Roth, King, Krieger, Calonder, Brick, Fish
None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Bleile, Welker
Motion carried .
Mr. Fish stated Cond ition 2, as put forth by Staff, acknowledged the need for flex i ble
development options by establishing three development envelopes and technical site plan
review of development within said envelopes shall be by the Development Review Team
for compliance with PUD and City development standards. He asked the Commission if
they felt that was acceptable. His position is that that takes any further development and
p lans out of the public domain and out of any review process except the decision process
with City Council. He is uncomfortable with that.
Mr. Brick concurred. He stated what he heard from the public was that they wanted
Planning and Zoning to continue t o be included in the process. He said he fe lt it is in the
general welfare of the public to be able to have input as changes occur. He said he would
like to see the five month turn around time reduced . He asked the Chair to possibly
consider the Commission a time to look at that response time and see if it can be
2
•
•
•
shortened. He said as a member of the Commission and the community he wants to be
sure as the project is developed and if changes are made the Commission has input.
Mr. Calonder asked if imposing that type of restriction on development jeopardizes their
financial ability to maintain and sustain that type of delay. Ms. Krieger said yes. Mr. Fish
agreed and provided additional wording for Condition 2:
In addition, Community Development w ill provide monthly updates to the Planning
and Zoning Commission on significant decisions (i .e. proposed building footprints
and size , proposed uses , etc.). The Planning and Zoning Commission may require a
public hearing process for public input, Planning and Zoning Commission
recommendations, and approval by City Council of a PUD Amendment if so
desired .
That allows the developer to go through the development process, move forward and
change things appropriately, but keeps the Planning and Zoning Commission in the loop.
Mr. Knoth stated the Commission has imposed fairly tight restrictions on the development
and does not feel giving them a little leeway in where they can build and where the
footprint is, is out of th e question.
Ms. Krieger agreed with Mr. Knoth. In general , in a PUD you have a building envelope and
you can build only in a certain area and have guidelines you must follow .
Mr. Fish said we have an area that we essentially have thrown away all the zoning
requirements for. Ms. Krieger disagreed. She sa id the Commission has created new zoning
requirements for the PUD. Mr. Fi sh said he is not proposing the developer come to public
hearing all the time, the additional wording gives the Commission a chance to review the
progress and if the Commission sees a problem to do someth in g about it. Ms. Krieger said
the developer is not going to have any progress until they come before the building
department with finished plans and that is the wrong time to be telling somebody that
they've got to go back and spend tens of thousands of dollars redesigning a building
because we don't like it. Mr. Fish said everyone that comes to the Community
Development Department to build something must submit a plan. Ms. Krieger said they
submit a plan that fits within the requirements. We already have the requirements for this
project and they should have the same rights as everyone else. Once we have given the
developer the basic requirements for their zone they should have the right to come forward
with something that fits within those requirements that were given to them and have a
reasonable assurance that it is go in g to be approved. Mr. Fish agreed, but all PUD's have to
go through a public process, don 't they? Ms. Krieger said this is the public process . Mr. Fish
said aren 't we abdicating that right? Ms. Krieger said no, we are saying as long as the
developer meets the requirements already approved that is fine . Mr. Fish said he feels the
requirements are too broad and there's too much potential for something to go wrong. The
original site plan has been completely changed .
Mr. King said right now the developer has an approved PUD and they could build to 179
feet. He said he is guess in g the developer is com in g to the Commission to ask for help due
3
•
•
•
to market changes and if the y proceeded with the existing plan, because that is the onl y
choice the y had , and it failed we would be sitting with a project that is half built and
bankrupt. It seems that the developer is asking for a little help to make it successful. He
doesn't' see that what they are asking is that much different in height and bulk plane than
what was previously approved.
Mr. Fish said that is not the issue. The issue is removing public process, Commission re v iew
and Council approval. That's what Condition 2 does. Mr. King asked if there were definite
plans previously. Mr. Fish said there were precise plans that showed where the buildings
were going to be. Ms. Krieger said in Amendment 1 we voted to give the developer an
envelope for the tallest building. Mr. Fish said it wasn 't an envelope, but a footprint. He said
the envelope concept is new to Amendment 2. Ms. Krieger noted at the hearing for
Amendment 1 the developer stated they had no idea what that building would look like;
they just had an area they could build in.
Mr. Knoth asked if any of the other Commissioners had a motion they would like to make
to Condition 2. There were none.
Mr. Fish said he believes the PUD process within itself, is a process designed to basically
loosen up and in some cases completely eliminate zoning restrictions. Because of that, the
restrictions placed on the developer, if the Commission gives them leeway, which we have,
will then require a rigorous process .
Mr. Fish moved:
Mr. Brick seconded: THE SECOND CONDITION BE ACCEPTED WITH THE
FOLLOWING CONDITION ADDED TO WHAT STAFF
RECOMMENDS:
AYES :
NAYS:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Motion failed .
Brick, Fish
1. In addition, Community Development will provide
monthly updates to the Planning and Zoning
Commission on significant decisions (i .e. proposed
building footprints and size, proposed uses, etc.). The
Planning and Zoning Commission may require a public
hearing process for public input, Planning and Zoning
Commission recommendations, and approval by City
Council.
Knoth, Roth , King, Krieger, Calonder
None
Bleile, Welker
4
•
•
•
Ms. Krieger moved:
Mr. Calonder seconded : TO APPROVE CONDITION 2 ESTABLISHED BY THE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPME T DEPARTMENT AS WRITIEN.
A Y ES :
AYS:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Knoth , Roth, King, Krieger, Calonder
Brick, Fish
None
Bleile, Welker
Motion carried.
Mr. Fi sh read Condition 3 recommended by St aff. It states: That Envelope 2 shall be limited
to us es perm itted in the "Househo ld Living" category of the PUD's Table of Allowed Uses.
He suggested adding the wording .... with the exception that Visitor Accommodations, Bed
and Breakfast be removed as an allowed use. He stated in Amendment 1 there were two
additional commercial uses permitted ... hotel use and bed and breakfast use. He said neither
the Kent Village representative nor I want to see a bed and breakfast in En velope 2.
Ms. Reid stated, from her recollection , that "Household Living " does not include bed and
breakfa st. It is already excluded. She informed the Commission that even though the
hearing is closed, they co ul d ask Staff for clarification. Mr. Calonder asked Staff to provide
clarification .
Ms. Langon approached the podium. She stated on the first page of the PUD under the
Table of Allowed Uses there are various categories. Under "Residential Uses" the second
category is "Household Living ". There are seven uses listed and fo u r of those uses are
permitted. About two-thirds of the w ay down the second column under "Commercial Uses"
is the "Visitor Accommodations " category . Visitor Accommodations includes bed and
breakfast and hotel. As written, the uses in Envelope 2 shall be limited to uses permitted in
the "Household Living" category of the Table of Allowed Uses. Bed and breakfast and hotel
is not listed under "Household Living ". As written there would be no commercial use within
En v elope 2.
Mr. Calonder moved:
Ms. Krieger seconded: TO A PPROVE CONDITION 3 AS WRITIEN.
AYES:
NAYS:
Knoth, Roth , King, Krieger, Calonder, Brick, Fish
None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Bleile, Welker
Motion carried.
Mr. Fish read Staff's recommendation for Condition 4. He suggested accepting the
condition as written with the exception of removing hotel use from Envelope 3.
s
•
•
•
Mr. Fish moved:
Mr. Brick seconded: TO APPROVE CONDITION 4 WITH THE FOLLOWING
CONDITION:
1. Remove hotel use from Envelope 3.
Mr. Fish said to the north side of the development is a residential zone and he would like to
see, at a minimum, multi-unit housing there and not commercial use. Also , one of the basis
for the parking requirements was that there was to be shared parking with the hotel and the
retail space. He said he doesn't see where there is retail space in Envelope 3 to be shared
and feels commercial use is simply not appropriate there because it is close to the R-1-A
1·esidential zone. It potentially creates parking issues with the current PUD statement that
they are required to have only .5 parking spaces per hotel room.
Mr. King said it is in the best interest of the developer to study the parking very carefully
since there is no outside parking. If they don't have enough parking it will be a deal killer
for a lot of things.
Mr. Roth said when the Commission originally approved the development the building
heights and positions were set, now they are not. One of the possibilities he heard
mentioned was that we could end up with the tower in Envelope 3 and not in Envelope 1,
which would be the worst case scenario for the residents. He would like to see a stipulation
on height in Envelope 3 . He suggested adding hotel use back into Envelope 3. He
suggested the building in Envelope 3 be no higher than 29 feet above the elevation of the
highest structure in Envelope 1 B. Mr. Fish agreed, but felt that issue should be a separate
condition.
Mr. Fish repeated his motion for the Commission.
Mr. Knoth called for a vote .
AYES:
NAYS:
Roth, King, Krieger, Calonder, Brick, Fish
Knoth
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Bleile, Welker
Motion carried.
Mr. Fish moved:
Mr. King seconded: THAT THE ENVELOPE 3 BULK PLANE BE MODIFIED TO A
MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 150 FEET AND TO 2 -1 FEET ABOVE
GRADE TO 60 FEET IN FROM THE NORTH ENVELOPE EDGE
AND 25 FEET FROM THE EAST EDGE .
Mr. Fish said If you look at the bulk plane on page 4 of the PUD, basically on the northern
edge in 3 7 feet from the setback you can construct a building up to 21 feet. You can then
go in another 50 feet and up to 1 79 feet. On the east edge the current plan shows the
6
•
•
•
setback from 14 and 21 feet and then you can go up 21 feet, back 25 feet and up to 1 79
feet. He feels the Commission is allowing a tremendous increase in density and
commercialization in this area and we need to respect this neighborhood as much as
possible. He said he does not want to stop development and believes this project is a great
asset to Englewood, but feels the City needs to be sensitive to the northern neighborhood
that has been impacted at a high level.
Mr. Brick suggested adding a condition that states any buildings over 150 feet must be
located in the southern one-third of the property.
Mr. Fish said you could then raise the height in Envelope 1, but that would be a separate
condition. He would like to see high buildings not be allowed next to the northern
property. Mr. King said if the developer put all the residential space allowed in Envelope 3,
in that 66 ,000 square foot envelope, space limitations would limit the building to 10 stories
tall . Mr. Fish said in addition to the bulk plane the developer can extend balconies out
another eight feet to the north beyond the bulk plane . Mr. King asked Mr. Fish if he was
trying to eliminate the shadowing from the balconies. He stated he was. Ms. Krieger said
those balconies would not extend the shadow. Mr. Fish disagreed.
Mr. Fish again read his motion.
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Motion failed.
Fish
Knoth , Roth , King, Krieger, Ca/one/er
Brick
Bleile, Welker
Mr. Brick moved:
THAT ALL BUILDINGS ABOVE 150 FEET BE IN THE
SOUTHERN ONE-THIRD OF THE PROPERTY
Ms. Krieger stated the Commission cannot do that. The height restrictions are already in
place and the only place you can have a building higher than 150 feet is in Envelope 3
where the height restriction is 1 79 feet.
Motion died for lack of second.
Mr. Fish moved:
THE DORMER SPECIFICATION IS NEGOTIATED IN GOOD
FAITH WITH KENT VILLAGE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION
Ms. Reid stated that the City cannot enforce private negotiations. She suggested the
Commission require the developer and Kent Village Homeowners Association to have
good faith negotiations and nothing more.
7
•
•
•
Mr. Fish withdrew his motion. He asked that it be noted in the record that the Commission
would like the p arties to negotiate in good faith to tr y to resolve the dormer specifications .
Mr. Fish moved :
Mr. Brick seconded: THAT FOR HOTEL PARKING THERE BE AT LEAST THREE (3 )
PARKING SPACES PER FIVE (5 ) ROOMS RATHER THAN THE
.5 PER ROOM CURRENTLY REQUESTED
Ms. Krieger said she believes the current parking is sufficient as is. Mr. King again noted that
he feels it is a deal killer for the project to not be sure there is sufficient parking on site
since there is no other place to park. It is in the best interest of the developer to provide
ample parking regardless of what the City code may be. Ms. Krieger said she feels if th e
developer needs to adjust the parking as the project proceeds, they will do so.
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSTAIN :
ABSENT:
Motion failed.
Fish
Knoth , Roth , King, Krieger, Calonder, Brick
None
Bleile, Welker
Mr. Knoth asked if anyone els e had a comment.
Mr. King said he is a little concerne d w ith the dormers on the west property line . Mr. Fish
stated there are specifications regarding the dormers. Mr. King said he would like to limit
the dormers to a certain square footage.
Ms. Krieger said for the record she would like to see City Council look at the dormer issue
and see what kind of progress has been made and take that into account when the y are
holding their hearing. Hopefully, by that time Kent Village and the developer will have
come to an agreement.
Mr. Roth moved:
Mr. Fish seconded: THE BUILDING HEIGHT IN ENVELOPE 3 SHALL BE NO
MORE THAN 29 FEET ABOVE THE TALLEST BUILDING IN
ENVELOPE 1 B.
Mr. Roth said the current maximum heights for each envelope would remain. Mr. Fish
stated if Envelope 3 is built fi r st that then requires the developer to build a higher building
in Envelope 1 B. Mr. Roth st ated that is correct. Mr. Roth said the developer would be
required to build in Envelope 1 B first. Mr. Fish said that is not part of the condition . Ms.
Krieger stated it is by default. Ms. Krieger said what Mr. Roth proposes is if you didn't have
a building i n 1 B you could not tell how high you could build in Envelope 3. Mr. Fish said it
may create conflicting issues with other items on the PUD such as maximum size and
number of units. Ms. Krieger said she agreed and it could make things extremely difficult.
Mr. Knoth asked Mr. Roth to please r estate his motion. He did so.
8
•
•
•
Mr. Roth said he wanted to make sure the Commission does not include artificial towers in
1 B in order to bu il d a higher structure in Envelope 3.
Ms. Reid asked Ms. Langon if there is a clarification o r definition for useful structure ve1·sus
decorative.
Ms. Langon stated there are defin iti ons with in the PUD itself for the height of the building
and what can go above. She said she bel ieves it is written in the PUD that everyth in g has to
be within the set height of the envelope. Ms. Roth sa id he un derstands that, b ut wants to
prevent the developer from constr uctin g a three story st ru cture with an 80 foot tower so
they ca n build a 14 story building in En ve lope 3. In order t o do th at Ms. Lango n said you
wou ld need to define tower and eve ry thin g else w ith in th e PUD .
Ms. Reid asked th e Comm iss ion if the y would like to take a break in order to look at the
Ordinance. Before doing that Mr. Fish asked if there was a consensus on the C omm iss ion
to approve. Mr. Knoth called for a vote and said i f app rov ed th e Commission will take a
break to allow Staff to have time to look at th e wording.
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Motion failed.
Bri ck, Roth
Knoth , King, Krieger, Cal onder, Fish
Non e
Bleile, Welker
Mr. Roth asked the Commission if anyone had an alternat ive solution or is the Commission
going to let it go as is.
Mr. Brick said w hat h e h eard is th at th e Commission would like to see the d eve lopm en t go
in that directi on, but does not want t o leg islate it that way. For th e record he wo uld ask th at
City Council look at this is sue.
Mr. Knoth asked if the Commission had anything further .
Ms. Krieger wanted to comment on how much she appreciated Mr. Fi sh's thoughtfulness
and discussion during tonight's heari n g.
Mr. Fi sh m oved:
Ms. Krieger seconded: CASE #ZON2008-01 , DENVER SEMINARY PLANNED UNIT
DE V ELOPMENT AMENDMENT 2 AS PROPOSED, BE
RECOMME OED FOR APPROVAL TO CITY CO UNCIL WITH
A FAVORABLE RECOMME DATION FOR ADOPTIO N,
SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING APPROVED
CONDITIONS:
9
•
•
•
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
1. All approved conditions and requirements established
under the Denver Seminary PUD and Denver Seminary PUD -
Amendment 1 shall apply unless amended by Amendment 2.
2 . Amendment 2 acknowledges the need for flexible
development options by establishing three (3 ) development
envelopes. Technical site plan review of development within
said envelopes shall be by the Development Review Team
review for compliance with PUD and City development
standards.
3. Envelope 2 shall be limited to uses permitted in the
"household living11 category of the PUD 's Table of Allowed
Uses.
4. Hotel Use shall be limited as follows:
a. Hotel use shall be located within Envelope 1
only.
b. Hotel use shall not be a separate, stand-alone
use.
c.
d.
The maximum number of hotel rooms shall be
150 .
If hotel use is approved, the following guest
accommodation allowance approved in the
original PUD shall be amended to:
"3. The number of residential units does
not include proposed guest
accommodation for guests of residents of
the project. Such spaces shall not exceed
900 S.F . and no more than two such
spaces per residential condominium
tower building (12 total) shall be
provided.11
Knoth, Roth, King, Krieger, Calonder
Brick, Fish
None
Bleile, Welker
Motion carried.
Mr. Brick voted no because he does not like seeing the project going out of the process of
Planning and Zoning reviewing changes. He is in favor of the project and believes it is
going to be excellent for Englewood, but feels all changes need to be brought before the
Commission. He feels the five month review time is excessive and needs to be looked at.
10
•
•
•
He believes it is not in the general welfare of the community to not h ave Planning and
Zonin g included in the review process .
Mr. Ro th stated Amendment 2 is in conformance with the District Plan requirements and
does not alter the Comprehe nsi ve Pl an for Housing, Cultural Arts and Business and
Empl oy ment id entified in th e original PUD. All th e appropriate documents concerning
Amendment 2 to this point have been received. As the project proceeds all future
documents and drawin gs will be reviewed for the City's d eve lopment standards b y the
Deve lopment Review Team. Amendment 2 Distri ct Plan remains consistent with the
accepted development standards established by the City of Englewood. Amendment 2
conforms to all other Ordinances and laws and requirements of the City.
IV . PUBLIC HEARING
Case #2008-02
Public Notice Amendments to Titl e 16
V ice Chair Knoth stated the issue before the Commission is Case #2008-02, Public Notice
Amendments to Title 16.
Mr. Fish moved:
Ms. Kri ege r seconded: THE PUBLIC HEAR ING ON CASE #ZON2008-02 BE OPENED .
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Brick, Knoth , Roth , King, Krieger, Fish , Calonder
None
None
Bleile, Welker
Motion ca rried .
Ms . Tricia Langon, Senior Planner was sworn i n. She stated for your consideration is CASE
#2008-02, Amendments to the Unified Development Code of the Englewood Municipal
Code allowing the publication of public notices on the City of Englewood website in
addition to publication in the newspaper designated as the official newspaper of the City .
Already submitted for the reco rd is proof of pub licat ion that the notice of the hearing was
published in the Engl ewood H erald on February 29, 2008 and also the Staff Report.
Community Development requests the Commission revie w, take public testimony and
forward to City Council a recommend ation for approval of the proposed am e ndments to
Title 16 .
The purpose of a Public Notice is to disseminate information of public concern to the
greatest number of citizens possible. City Council discussed this issue at a Study Session in
early February at the request of the City Clerk. The C ity Clerk asked Council to consid er
publication of legal notices by either postin g on the City's website or by publication in the
official ne w spaper. At this time the official newspaper of the City as desig n ated by Council
is the Englewood Hera/cl. The reason for the request is that citizens are requestin g and
11
•
•
•
receiving information from the City through the World Wide Web. At this point there are
only approximately 550 p a id subscribers to the Englewood Hera/cl in the City of Englewood.
Ms. Langon submitted copies of an example as to why the City Clerk is interested in placing
the Public Notices on the Web in addition to publication in the newspaper. She referenced
a copy of a recent publication that was sent to the newspaper of record and what was sent
back to the Community Development Department for proofing. You will notice a major
error in the proof copy which would have caused a month 's delay in the Public Hearing
had it not been corrected by Staff. The Recording Secretary handed the exhibits to the
Commissioners for review.
Ms. Langon stated legal notices are required for any public hearings before the City Council
or any City Board or Commission. The request to allow notices on the web affects Titles 1,
4 , 51 71 81 11 12 and 15 as well as Title 16: Unified Development Code. The Commission 's
role in this process tonight is consideration of amendments to Title 16 only. In Title 16 all
development review procedures requiring a public hearing are listed in Table 16-2-2.1
Summary of Development Review and Decision-Making Procedures. She noted a copy of
Table 16-2-2.1 was included with the Staff Report in the meeting packet.
According to 16-2-6: Amendments to the Text of Title 16 of the Unified Development Code
any amendment to Title 16 must first be considered at a public hearing before the Planning
and Zoning Commission before going to City Council. Therefore, when the City Clerk takes
amendments to the various Titles that contain information relative to public hearings,
including Title 16, you must first act on Title 16 so that the City Clerk can take those
amendments along with the others.
The proposed amendments are as follows :
16-2-3: Development Application Procedures
G. Notice Requir~ments
1. Published Notice: Notice shall be by one publication on the
City of Englewood website or in the official newspaper of the
City at least ten {1 O) days before any hearing before the
Council, the Commission, or the Board. The City shall be
responsible for all required published notices, and for providing
evidence of timely published notice at the time of the hearing
or consideration.
16-11-2: Definition of Words, Terms, and Phrases
Public Notice: The advertisement of a public hearing in a paper of
general circulation in the area, or the City of Englewood website. or
the . posting of the property, or the mailing of written notice, indicating
the time, place and nature of a public hearing.
12
•
•
•
Ms. Langon said using the web is necessary to provide information of public interest, has
the potential to reach far more citizens and the City has more control over publication of
notices. It does not eliminate the notices placed in the paper, but is in addition to and the
amendments in Title 16 are generated to provide consistency with the other Titles.
Ms. Langon offered to address any questions the Commission might have.
Mr. Knoth asked if the wording says it will be either on the website or in the paper. Ms.
Langon stated it would be in both at this time, but could be either or. If there is an error in
either location the City will go with the one that is correct.
Ms. Krieger asked for clarification regarding Table 16-2-2.1. Clarification was provided by
Ms. Langon and Ms. Reid. Mr. King asked if the intention was to place the notices in both
media and if there was a discrepancy the City would go with the correct one. Ms. Langon
stated that was correct.
Mr. Fish asked if there are any rules for how and where the notices will be placed on the
web or is that a premature discussion. Ms. Langon stated that is premature at this point. At
this time the only issue before the Commission is the changes for consistency purposes
within Title 16 .
Ms. Krieger said she believes it is a good idea and in the public's best interest to see it on
the web. Mr. Fish agreed .
Mr. Knoth asked if there was any public comment. There was none.
Ms. Krieger moved:
Mr. Calonder seconded: THE PUBLIC HEARi G 0 CASE #ZON2008-02 BE CLOSED .
AYES:
NAYS:
Brick, Knoth, Roth , King, Krieger, Fish, Calonder
None
ABSTAI
ABSENT:
None
Bleile, Welker
Motion carried.
Mr. Fish moved:
Ms. Krieger seconded: CASE #ZON2008-02 PUBLIC NOTICE AMENDMENT TO
TITLE 16 UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE BE
RECOMMENDED AS WRITIEN FOR APPROVAL TO CITY
COUNCIL WITH A FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATI0 1 FOR
ADOPTION.
Ms. Krieger said she believes the amendment is in the public's best interest to reach as
wide an audience as possible and in any way the City can. She said she feels as everyone
gets more and more digitized it's very important to be on the web and it is in the City's
Comprehensive Plan as well that we get as wide and as well educated a public as we can.
13
•
•
•
Mr. Fish said he agreed with Ms. Krieger 100% and wo uld encourage Staff to use whatever
vehicles we have such as the City newsletter to publish notices.
Mr. Knoth called for a vote.
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Brick, Knoth, Roth , King, Krieger, Fish, Calonder
None
None
Bleile, Welker
Motion carried.
V. PUBLIC HEARING
Case #2007-05
Amendments to Title 16: Unified Development Code, Minimum Lot Width
Vice Chair Knoth stated the issue before the Commission is Case #2007-05, Amendments
to Title 16: Unified Development Code, Minimum Lot Width.
Ms. Krieger moved:
Mr. Calonder seconded: THE PUBLIC HEARING ON CASE #2007-05 BE OPENED .
AYES:
NAYS:
Brick, Knoth, Roth , King, Krieger, Fish, Calonder
None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Bleile, Welker
Motion carried.
Mr. King read a disclosure statement.
"/ am a homebuilder in the City of Englewood I made some statements and offered my
opinion regarding the proposed UOC change to the frontage requirements for multi-unit
dwellings during the Planning and Zoning Commission Study Ses sion under the public forum
before becoming a member of the Pl an ning and Zo ning Commission. I offered my opinion
from a builder's perspective with the intent of providing insight on what a builder would be
looking for should this change in the frontage requirement be passed and my opinion on
modifying the bulk plane w ith respect to multi-unit dwellings. I do not own any property in
the R-2 zone other than my personal residence, have no immediate plans to purchase
property for multi-unit development and at this time I am only building single-family
residences. I believe I can be fully objective in any decisions that I make regarding this iss u e."
Ms. Krieger moved:
Mr. Calonder seconded: THE PUBLIC HEARING ON CASE #2007-05 BE CONTI UED
AT THE APRIL 8, 2008 MEETING OF THE PLANNI G AND
ZONING COMMISSION.
14
•
•
•
Mr. Brick sa i d he appreciates the public that came tonight and hopes they show up on April
8th . Mr. Fish sa id he feels the material to be c overed is fairly complex and perhaps needs
more review . Mr. Calo n der expressed co n cern the pub lic will not come back a second
time . Mr. Fish suggested St aff proceed with their presentation and the public testim o ny and
then co ntinue from that point on at the April 8th m ee ting . Mr. Calonder agreed . Mr. Roth
said he believed the Commi ss ion does not have all of the facts Staff wanted to present
t o ni ght. Ms. Krieger stated she personally would rather conduct the entire hearing on April
81h and not part of it tonight and part of it on April 8th for the sake of continuity.
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSTA IN:
ABSE T:
Brick, Knoth , Ro th , Krie ger
Fish, Calonder, King
None
Bleile, Welker
Motion carr ied.
VI. PUBLIC FORUM
Mr. Knoth asked if there was anyone who w ished to address the Commission.
Mr. Mark Wood asked if at th e April 8th meeting CASE #2007-05 would be the first issue of
th e ni ght. T he Commission stated it would be .
VII. DIRECTOR 'S CHOICE
Director White did not ha ve anything to bri n g before the Commission .
VIII. STAFF 'S CHOICE
Ms. Langon read an email from Mr. Carl Welker stati n g he i s out of the hosp ita l and hoped
to be well enough to attend the April 8th meeti n g. She asked the Commiss ioners to please
sign a get well card for him .
Ms . Lan go n stated the next meeti ng will be April 81 2008, which will be the continuation of
the Public H earing for CASE #2007-05 , Amendments to Title 16 : Unified Development
Cod e, Minimum Lot Width Requirement s for Multi-Unit Dwellings. She asked the
Commissioners to note on their calendars that is the second T uesday of the month, not the
first Tuesday .
The April 22nd meetin g w ill be a Stud y Session on the Small Area Plan .
In th e future there will be Study Sessions to disc u ss other U D C Amendments .
Sh e stated she appreciates all the hard work the Commission does. She thanked V i ce Chair
Knoth for chairing tonight's m ee ting on short notice.
15
•
•
•
IX. ATTOR N EY'S CHOI CE
Ms. Reid thanked the Commission and said she was really impressed with the job they did
tonight.
X. COMMIS SIO N ER 'S CHOICE
Mr. Fish said he appreciated everyone allowing him to put forth so many amendments. He
also thanked Staff for all the prep aration material they provided and for helping the
Commission through the hearing.
Ms. Krieger said she appreciated what Mr. Fish did; all the issues needed to be brought up
and discussed and he did it in a ver y professional and very thoroughly thought out fashion .
Mr. Brick sa id he felt most of the public's concerns that were expressed at the last meeting
were discussed ton ight and credited Mr. Fish for do i ng so.
Mr. Roth referenced an article in the October 2007 issue of the Colorado Municipalities
magazine. It is an article about how the City of Brush approached zon i ng issues and
suggested the Commissioners take a moment to read it. He also congratulated Mr. Knoth
on a job we ll done tonight.
Mr. King thanked Mr. Fish for his attention to detail regarding tonight's hearing .
The meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m .
16