Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-06-03 PZC MINUTES• • • Plannin g and Zoning St udy Se ss ion Jun e 3, 2008 Page I of6 CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION June 3, 2008 I. CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was ca ll ed to order at 7:02 p.m. in the Community Development Conference Room of the Englewood Civic Center, Vice Chair Knoth presiding. Present: Absent: Staff: Brick, Knoth, Roth, We l ker, Fish , Krieger Bleile (exc used ), Calonder (excused), King (excused), Myers (excused) Tricia Langon, Senior Planner Nancy Reid , Assistant City Attorney 11. APPROVAL OF MINUTES May 20, 2008 Ms. Krieger moved: Mr. Welker seconded: TO APPROVE THE MAY 20, 2008 MINUTES Vice Chair Knoth asked if th ere were any modifi cations or corrections. There were none. AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Brick, Krieger, Roth, Welker None Fish , Knoth Calonder, Bleile, King Motion carried. 111. 2008 UDC HOUSEKEEPING AMENDMENTS Ms. Langon stated there were twelve amendments that were identified at the May 6, 2008 meeting as needing additional work. Staff has worked on th e four that pertained to site d istance with the City Traffic Engineer and are complete . Five others have been completed and were covered in the Staff Report. She asked the Commission if they wo uld like to discuss them further . They stated the y did not. The three areas still needing discussion are: 1 . 2. 3. Hookah Lounges Garage Issue raised on the number of garages allowed Carport Issue regarding temporary structures • • • Pl anning and Zoning Stud y Ses sio n Jun e 3, 2008 Page2o f6 HOOKAH LOUNGES Ms . Langon stated she sent out a research request to all other Planners in the State asking what regulations other communities have if the y do regulate them. She re ceived a dozen or so responses. Ms. Krieger asked if there were any helpful respons es. Ms. Lang on said yes, there are several communities that do regulate them . Some tr eat them as a retail use. It is a tob acco use so does it fall und e r the Colorado Clean Indoor Air Act, whe re it could hav e an exemption as a tobacco bar? Staff received a determination from the prosecuting attorney that it cou ld fall under that exception. Some communities do not regulate th em at all ... the y treat them as ju st a retail establishment just like a cigar or tobacco store. Ms. Welker asked if the lounges are allowed to serve food or liquor. Ms. Langon said most do not serve liquor, but many serve food. Ms. Langon said Boulder and Ft. Collins were the two areas that have regulations down to the le vel of square footage that is allowed. Most of th e communities don't regulate it as a us e; they say it is a retail tobacco store. If there are any issues with the smoking then that falls to the State und er the Colorado Clean Indoor Air Act. Any violations would not fall und er zoning, but would be a criminal violation. Mr. Welker said he's more concerned with their impa ct on adjoining properties and busine sse s, parking, noise at night, etc. Mr. Brick stated he felt the use should be excluded completely due to the health hazard. The rest of the Commission disagreed; people should have a choice to go if the y want to . Mr. Welker said he didn't feel the use should be pushed into the industrial areas; 1t 1s a commercial use and should be in the commercial districts . Ms. Krieger said she sees them in the B-1 and B-2 zone districts. Ms. Krieger asked what Staff's thoughts are on the subject. Ms. Langon said there is currentl y one Hookah Lounge in the City with the possibility of another. She said sh e feels it should be included in the Entertainment/ Amusement: Indoor category. Ms. Krieger agreed . The Commission said it is a social place where you can smoke. Mr. Knoth asked what category a social club, such as the Elk 's Club, would fall under. Ms . Langon said under Assembl y . Ms . Langon said what she is hearing from the Commission is to place the use under Ent e rtainment/ Amusement: Indoor. Mr. Welker said he is still concerned with parking, noise, and im pac t on adjoining businesses. Ms. Krieger said she doesn't see it as any different than an y other resta urant or social gathering place. The other commissioners agreed. Ms . Langon asked about limiting the amount of square footage . The Commission did not want to do that. Ms. Langon said more than likely the y will go into an existing building that has existing parking standards and regulations. She said the communities she heard from that have dealt with them said they are usually short-lived. Staff will develop a definition . • • • . Planning and Zoning Stud y Session June 3, 2008 Page 3 of 6 NUMBER OF GARAGES Ms. Langon said in the MU-R-3 districts th e Maximum Total Floor Area applies only to one unit so there is no ne ed for multi-unit to be included. Staff revi ewed this in a number of different ways. In the end, it was decided that all single unit garages and carports would remain at a total floor area of 1 ,000 square feet. The 1 ,000 square feet per unit would apply to all districts. Under the maximum number column th e word ing has b ee n changed to read "1-unit dwelling: 1 garage and 1 carport. 2-unit dwelling: 1 garage and 1 carport per unit. More th an 2-un it dwelling: 1 garage or carport per unit". In th e first t wo categories, you could ha ve a garage and a carpo rt as lon g as you do not go over th e 1 ,000 square feet. Ov e r 2 units it can only be one garage or o ne carport. The Commissioners approved th e wording. CARPORTS Ms. Lang o n distributed a m emo she wrote to City Council dated Jun e 5, 2006 re gard in g Materials for Temporary Accessory Structures. Th e Commission revie wed the m em o. Th e memo showed pictures of a membrane structure and a metal stru cture. She spoke to Lan ce Smith, Chief Building Official, and he said what you need to consider regardin g the m embran e sys t em is that no building permit is required since it is considered a temporary structur e and it does not m ee t wind or sno w load requirem e nts . Staff is concern ed for several reasons. Tho se being aes thetics, wind load, snow load, permits are not required, it is a temporary structure, and there are no fees associated with the building. Staff feels the membrane sys tem temporary structures should continue to not be allowed in the City. The seco nd type of stru c ture is the metal roof t ype structure. Ri g ht no w the Code says no salvage doors, corrugated or sheet metal. She asked the Commission if the y wan ted t o acid fib e rglass to the list. Discussion ensued. Ms. Langon said Mr. Smith r eco mmended making them fit th e building code requirem e nts , wh i c h would be to meet snow load, wind load, and anchoring, and permit requirements . Th e Commission said the y agre e with Mr. Smith 's recommendation . The ne xt question Ms. Lan gon asked was w here the carports are going t o be allowed on th e property. Are the y going to be allowed in the front ya rd? The y cannot be in th e front setback, but can they be in front of th e structure? Discussion ensued. Ms. Lan gon summed up th e discussion sa y ing membrane type structures w ill not be allowed and an y type of carport, no matter what type of material it is made of, must be structurally sound and the setback requirements must be met. Ms. Langon asked if the Commission would agree to grandfather the existing ill ega l structur es . She asked Ms. Reid for clarification . She stated if the structures were illegal when the y were put up the owners can be told to remove them at any time . • • • Plannin g and Zonin g Stud y Se ss ion Jun e 3, 2008 Page 4 o f 6 SUBDIVISION LOT WIDTH Ms . Langon said she had one more amendment to discuss that came about be c ause of an appeal. There was a property that was 96 point something feet in width in an R-1-C distri ct. They wanted to subdivide and create two lots. Each lot would be 48 point som e thing, just short of the 50 foot requirement. The current Code says no variances for lot width . Several y ears ago Council said they were in support of a policy allowing a subdivision in R-1 single-family districts if the subdivision created a lot that was 5% or less than the minimum lot width requirement. On the subject property the 5% would be 2.5 feet...the property could go clown to a 47.5 foot lot, so the 96 point something could be subdivided since they would have slightl y more than the requirement. Mr. Brick asked how many situations in the City were like that. Ms. Langon said not too man y . Staff saw it as an opportunity to create more single-family homes . It would not be used in multi-unit districts . She stated Staff allowed a subdivision to proceed based on the 5 % requirement. A neighbor appealed the decision and it went to the Board of Adjustments and Appeals for appeal. The Board did not uphold the Department decision. Option include taking out the clause under Variance that says lot width variances are not allowed, but an applicant would have to demonstrate that it is not a self-imposed condition. If you want to subdivide to place two houses on the lot, that would be self-imposed and not qualify. Staff is looking at a provision that would put it in as an exception in the subdivision regulations where it would still be 5% of the lot width or the lot area but it would be an appeal to the Planning and Zoning Commission with posting of the property and notice to neighbors. Mr. Welker said he felt this issue was a good fit for granting a variance administrativel y . He said he also felt people outside of the applicant should be able to give their input, which would require a hearing. He said it needs to be incorporated into the Code. Everyone agreed . Ms . Reid asked if everyone agreed to the 5% rule. They did. Ms. Krieger stated she believed it should be done administratively. Ms. Reid said the problem with that is that the neighbors would not have input. Should they have input? Mr. Welker said they would have input at the hearing . Ms . Reid said if a decision is made administratively by Staff and the neighbors do not agree the procedure is you appeal it to the Board of Adjustment and Appeals and then to District Court. If a 5% adjustment is allowed and it goes to the Planning and Zoning Commission and if they find there are justifiable reasons why you can do that there would be a public hearing where everyone would have their say and then if the neighbors have an issue it would go to City Council. It would be legislative and not go to court. Vice Chair Knoth asked for an informal vote as to whether the Commission wants it to be an administrative adjustment or it comes to the Planning and Zoning Commission . The consensus was the members wanted it to go to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Ms. Langon stated Staff would establish criteria to judge it by; it would be appealable to City Council and in the R-1 districts onl y . The next step concerning the housekeeping amendments will be to verify everything we have found and then schedule a public hearing. • • • Plannin g and Zoning Stud y Session Jun e 3, 2008 Page 5 of 6 IV. PUBLIC FORUM There was no on e present to address the Commission . V. DIRECTOR 'S CHOICE Director White was not present. V I. STAFF 'S C HOICE Mr. Langon reviewed the next few meetings . June 17th meeting will be a Stud y Session on the Small Area Plan w ith John Voboril. July 8th meeting will be a Study Session on Boarding Houses. July 22 "d meeting will be a Public Hearing on a Conditional Use for a parking lot. Future meetings will include Public Hearings on Boarding Houses, the 2008 Housekeeping Amendments, more on the Small Area Plan and land scaping amendments. The Recording Secretary distributed a copy of the spring 2008 Planning Commi ss ion ers Journal . Ms. Lan go n said there are several good articles in the issue. One is Chairing th e Plannin g Commission and Ms . Reid will talk about the articles on Ex Parte Conta c ts and Site Visits: Necessary But Tricky. Ms. Lan go n noted that she will be on vacation next week. V II. ATTORNEY 'S CHOICE Ms. Reid reviewed the article on Ex Parte Communication. She said if someone tries to t alk to a Commission member regarding a case .... don't. If someone does something that make yo u un co mfortable, bring it up at the public hearing so it is on the record . You ne ed t o make everyone on both sides feel you ha v e given them a fair and impartial h ea rin g. The difference between materials that might be received before in gen eral and then when som ething becomes a case was discussed . If yo u do a site visit you need to state at the public hearing that you went to look at the site and you are going to make your decision based upon the testimony heard tonight and all yo u ar e going to take from the site visit is what you saw. Ms . Reid will not be at the June 17th meeting due to attending the Colorado Muni c ipal League meeting . • • • Plannin g and Zoning Stud y Sess ion Jun e 3, 200 8 Page 6 of 6 VIII. COMMISSIONER'S CHOICE Mr. Fi sh will not be availab l e to atte n d the Ju ly 8 11i or Jul y 22"d meetings . Th e m ee ting adjourned at 8:26 p.m . Bar ba ra Krecklow, ecording Secr etar y