The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2009-03-03 PZC MINUTES• • • ., Pl ann ing and Z on ing Co mmi ss io n Study Sess ion -Landsc apin g Cas e #200 8-04 M arch 3, 2009 P age 1 of4 CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MARCH 3, 2009 I. CALL TO ORDER ~ Th e regular meeting of the C it y Planning and Zoning Commission w as calle d t o order at 7 :06 p .m . in the Community Development Conference Room of th e Engl ewood C iv ic Center, Chair Blei l e presiding . Pres ent: Abs ent: Staff: Bleile, Roth , King, Welker, Krieger (e nt e re d 7:08), Knoth, Brick, Calonder, Kinton Fish Tricia Langon, Senior Planner Brook Bell, Planner Nancy Reid, Assistant C it y Attorney 11. APPROVAL OF MINUTES February 18, 2009 ~. ~. Mr. Knoth mov ed: Mr. Roth second ed : TO APPROVE THE FEBRUARY 18, 2009 MINUTES Chair Bleil e asked if there were an y modifications or corrections. Th ere w er e none . AYES : N AYS : ABSTAI N: ABSENT : Bleile, Roth , Welk er, Krieger, Knoth, Calonder, King, Bri c k None Fish None Motion carried . 111. STUDY SESSION Amendments to Ti t le 16: Rel ated to Landscaping Ms . Langon stated at the last meeting t he Commission discussed residential landscaping. Tonight's discuss ion will be centered on landscaping in i ndus t ria l zones . Staff has sp l it i n dustria l from t he comm e rcial beca u se there are too many differences. She distributed a memo entitled Landscaping in Indu strial Zones. The categories are : Principals, Industrial Zone Features, Current Req u irements and Industrial Zone Landscapin g Issues . • • • Pl~uming and Zoning Commission Study Session -Landscaping Case #2008-04 March 3, 2009 Page 2 of 4 Under Principals Ms. Langon stated Staff talked about simplifying requirements, encouraging trees, discouraging a sterile, total concrete view and encouraging landscapin g that is visible from the public right-of-way. Mr. Bell discussed the Features section. He referenced 16 pictures of properties that were taken in the 1-1 (light industrial ) and 1-2 (heavy industrial) zones of Englewood. He said Staff tried to brainstorm what some of the commonalities and differences in industrial zones were. The setbacks in the industrial zones are much more liberal than in any of th e other zones. The parcels tend to be much larger, there isn't as much City ri ght-of-way that goes beyond the sidewalk, and there can be long curb cuts. Dimensionally the properties are much different even before you bring the uses in . Discussion ensued regarding the landscaping shown in the 16 pictures. The key element is that there is not a standard development pattern that you can base things off. Mr. Brick asked if Community Development had heard comments or complaints from the public regarding the aesthetics of industrial buildings. Mr. Bell said he has had several nuisance complaints; it is usually the developer asking why he has to do something. Ms. Langon said Staff hears more on the commercial side. Mr. Kinton cautioned against doing one size fits all requirements . Ms. Langon asked if landscaping should be a requirement in the industrial zones. Mr. King said he didn't believe it should be in the 1-2 zones. Ms. Krieger and Mr. Calonder agreed. Mr. Welker said he's not so concerned with the percentage as long as Staff can look at the location of landscaping . He believes the street fronts should be addressed and there is a big need for buffering between industrial zones and residential and commercial zones. Mr. King noted there are some areas of industrial that have been redevelop ed and they look very nice. Discussion centered on requirements being specific to certain locations within the City. Mr. Welker noted it is not easy to write a code based on location . Chair Bleile said he believes the Commission shouldn't spend a lot of time discussing 1-2. He would like to spend more time on the 1-1 zones . He asked the other Commissioners what they thought. Mr. Brick said all he heard in 1-2 was screening and access. Mr. Welker said he felt buffering was important in the right places. Mr. Knoth asked about TOD properties. He said he would like to see within 1,000 feet of any light rail station or planned light rail station there be a higher standard required. Ms. Langon moved on to discuss the Current Requirements section. The current Ordinanc e requires 15% of the site be landscaped. That works for the smaller, average sites, but when you have a 4 or 5 acre site that's a lot of lan d to landscape. Developers comment about the amount of landscapin g that is required. Mr. Welker noted the street right-of-way counts to wards a developer's landscaping requirement. Ms. Langon said developers want less than • Plkning and Zoning Commi ss io n Study Ses sion -Land sc aping Case #2008-04 March 3, 2009 Pag e 3 of 4 the 15 % requirement to maximize the developable land. One major problem Staff has had, especially on larger sites, is on a lot that is narrow and deep, the building is placed up front with the storage yard behind. The only place that is left for landscaping is the area wa y at the back of the lot where no one can see it. Staff would like to focus on quality and where the landscaping is. Mr. Welker said he would rather see quality in lieu of quantity. Mr. Kinton asked how the 15 % requirement in Englewood compares to other cities in the area. Ms. Langon stated she did not have that information. He asked if there may be way s to use carrots as well as a stick. Mr. Bell said yes, we will be discussing that. Ms. Langon said she has looked at many codes and they vary greatly. Ms . Langon distributed a list of Ideas to Consider. The first item to consider is whether to decrease the 15% requirement for required landscaped area or consider appl y ing percentage only, a perimeter area only, or a combo of both . Next, should the fee -in-lieu eligibility be relaxed? The fee-in-lieu does not apply to new properties . Other items Staff discussed were differentiating between 1-1 and 1-2, encouraging trees, more stringent screening material requirements, less stringent screening width requirements, enforce maximum 30 ' access point width, whether all properties be required to have a 5' perimeter of landscaping along the frontage, and fee-in-lieu (close to the cost of installing the landscaping), and an exemption for drives less than 24 feet wide. • Ms. Langon reviewed what she heard at the meeting: • 1. Differentiate between 1-1 and 1-2 . 2 . Consider where on the property the landscaping should be placed . 3 . Consider where the property is located within the City . 4 . Options for the 15% requirement (sliding scale). 5. Look at screening options. 6 . Landscaping requirements along street frontage. Ms. Langon stated if Staff can write code that fits 80% of the situations out there we are doing really well. We will never have a code that fits every possible property 111 ever y possible situation. That's the purpose of variances and administrative adjustments. Mr. Welker asked if the landscaping requirement should be dropped in the 1-2 zone . Chair Bleile said absolutely not. Ms. Krieger said she would like to mention that she doesn't believe the Code should require trees in industrial zones because it is not workable in a lot of places . Chair Bleile asked if Staff could provide drawings for the next meeting of how the 15 % required landscaping would look on different size sites. Mr. Roth asked if the fee-in-lieu could be done as a yearly assessment. Ms . Reid said it could not. • Plfurning and Z on in g Co mmis sion Study Sess ion -Landsca ping Cas e #2008-04 March 3 , 2009 Page 4 of 4 Ms . Langon stated Staff would continue to work on what has been discuss e d so far. IV. PUBLIC FORUM There was no public present. V. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE ~ Director White was not present. VI. STAFF'S CHOICE ~ The next meeting will be held on Tuesday, March 17111 • Continuation of the landscaping discussion is scheduled . VII. ATTORNEY'S CHOICE !fll Ms. Reid had nothing further to report. VIII. COMMISSIONER'S CHOICE ~ There were no further comments. The meeting adjourned at 8 :28 p .m . • ~:i;;~ry •