Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-09-22 PZC MINUTES• • • [?] CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS September 22, 2015 I. CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting of the City Planning a nd Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers of the Englewood Civic Center, Chair Fish presiding. Present: Absent: Staff: [?] Bleile, Brick, Freemire, King, Kinton (arrived 7:03), Knoth, Madrid, Townley, Pittinos, Fish None Mike Flaherty, Deputy City Manager Dugan Comer, Deputy City Attorney John Vobori l, Planner II Brook Bell, Planner II II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES • September 9, 2015 Minutes Knoth moved; Freemire seconded: TO APPROVE THE SEPTEMBER 9, 2015, MINUTES AS AMENDED. Chair Fish asked if there were any modifications o r correctio ns. Mr. Brick requested that on page two of the minutes, his comment regarding City Manager Keck be changed to add that he wou ld like to hear Mr. Keck's comme nts o n the mission and v i sion statement recently adopted by the City. Minutes wil l be amended to reflect this c hange. AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Motion carried. ~ Brick, Freem ire, Kinton , Knoth, Fish None Blei le, King, Madrid, Townley None Ill. Public Hearing Case 2014-02 Walk and Wheel Master Plan and Program Freemire moved; Knoth seconded: To open the pub li c hear in g for Case 2014-02 Walk and Wheel Master Plan and Program AYES: NAYS: Motion passes. Bleile, Br i ck, Freemire, King, Kinton, Knoth, Madrid, Townley, Fish None • • • Staff Presentation !?] John Voboril, Planner II , Community Development Department, was sworn in. Mr. Voboril stated one correction to his staff report, the notice of public hearing was posted on the City website from September 9, 2015 through September 22, 2015. Mr. Voboril presented the staff recommendation for approval by the Commission and a favorable recommendation for adoption by City Council of the Walk and Wheel Master Plan and Program which supports the Comprehensive Plan. Ms . Townley asked about the funding for the study; Mr. Voboril responded that the entire study was paid for by the grant from Kaiser Permanente. Mr. Kinton asked if the list of "quick wins " was exhaustive or if there are other projects that may be included. Mr. Voboril replied that some tasks that were presented during the study will be outlined in a white paper separate from the Master Plan and Program and will be shared with the Commission when completed . l?1l Public Testimony No members of the public presented to testify. ~ Discussion The Commissioners did not have any questions for Mr. Voboril . !?] Brick moved; Bleile seconded: To close the public hearing for Case 2014-02 Walk and Wheel Master Plan and Program AYES: NAYS: Motion passes. ~ Knoth moved; Bleile, Brick, Freemire, King, Kinton, Knoth, Madrid, Townley, Fish None Madrid seconded: To approve Case 2014-02 Walk and Wheel Master Plan and Program as written and forward to City Council with a favorable recommendation. Discussion l?1l Mr. Brick stated that he feels that the Master Plan and Program supports the ideals of the authors of the 2003 Comprehensive Plan and will facilitate implementation of the vision of the Comprehensive Plan. !?] Vote Bleile -Yes, he agrees with Mr. Brick that the plan supports the vision that was laid out in 2003. Brick -Yes , he thanked Mr. Voboril for developing a plan that can be implemented. He stated that he particularly likes the regional cooperation between Sheridan and Greenwood Village as • • • well as the business and employment goal. H e feels that the plan will enhance the quality of life for the residents of Englewood. Freemire -Yes, the plan offers the opportunity for the citizens of Englewood to participate in biking and walking activities and will improve the community. King -Yes, the plan is consistent with the original Comprehensive Plan and supports th e new Comprehensive Plan. Kinton -Yes, he commented that he feels the plan is a step in th e right direction for improvin g the pedestrian and bicycling experience in Engl ewood . Knoth -Yes Madrid -Yes Townley-Yes, the plan ties in well with the goa ls and objectives outlined earlier. She congratulated Mr. Voboril on writing the grant and receivin g the funding. Sh e feels that it is an actionable plan with reaso nabl e recommendations. The plan ties in well with the Surgeon General 's call to action for walking and walkable communities as well as the Governor's initiative to invest in biking and walking infrastructures. Fish -Yes, agrees with the previous comments and thanked th e staff a nd consultants for putting together a great plan that will benefit the Commission by providing a reso urce to guide future decisions regarding projects. AYES: NAYS : Motion passes. ~ Bl e ile, Brick, Freemire, King , Kinton, Knoth , Madrid, Townl ey, Fish None IV. Public Hearing Case 2015-09 4635 South Pearl Street Urban Lot Development Knoth moved; Kin g seconded: To open the public hearing for Case 2015-09 4635 South Pearl Street Urban Lot Development AYES: NAYS: Motion passes. ~ Bleil e, Brick, Freemire, King, Kinton, Knoth , Madrid, Townley, Fish None Staff Presentation Brook Bell, Plann er II , was sworn in. Mr. Bell reviewed the applicable zoning regulations and the history of th e property. The Commissioners were supplied with drawings of the proposed development, a single family home. The property m ee ts all requirements for development of an Urban Lot and staff recommends approval of the case. Mr. Knoth asked if the case would be forwarded to City Council. Mr. Bell respond ed that th e only approva l needed for the case is by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The Unified D eve lopment Code (UDC) requires that d eve lopment on vacant Urban Lots go through the same process for approval as non-conforming lots which includ es a public hear ing. Mr. Bell reviewed the dimensions of the proposed single family home and corresponding dimensional requirements of the UDC. The five criteria to be m et for approval are: • 1. The lot cannot otherw is e be used for any purpose permitted within the zone district app licable to the property. 2. The waiver, or modification, if grant ed, is necessary to afford relief with the least modification possible of the development or dimensional standards otherwise appl i cable to the property. 3. The proposed development is co nsistent with the sp irit and intent of the Comprehens ive Plan. 4. The lot coverage, bu l k plane, height, setbacks and massing of the proposed deve lopment wil l not vary substa nti all y from the surroundin g properties or a lter the essential character of the neighborhood. 5. The proposed development is compatible with the established deve lopment patterns and intent of the zone district. Mr. Fish asked how the lot was created, Mr. Bel I rep I ied that research of the property records revealed that the lot has been vacant sin ce at least 1952. The result of the research is inconclusive w ith regards to the origins of the lot. Mr. Freemire asked how the lot coverage of the proposed development compared to the rest of the neighborhood. Mr. Bell responded that it was his est im atio n that most of the homes in the • neighborhood were built to less than th e 40% maximum with many near 30% l ot coverage. • Mr. Madrid commented on the property to the south of the subject property that has a structure bu i It over the property lin e. The properties are under the same ownership but have not been combined; however if the st ru ct ure were demolished, two single fami ly hom es could be constructed. Mr. Bell provided clarification to the Commission regarding the reason for the hearing. The hearing is for the Commission to approve development on an Urba n Lot based on the drawings submitted by the app li cant. The drawings were supp li ed to illu strate the proposed setbacks, lot coverage and bulk p l ane dimensions of the structure. rt] Applicant Presentation Christine Martin, 598 Leicester Lane, Castle Pin es, CO 80108, was sworn in. Ms. Martin and her husband, Matthew, are go in g to purchase th e lot co ntin ge nt o n approval of the deve lopm ent by the Commission. Their intent is to build a single fami ly home for sale at a future date. She and the bu ild er, Carl Fuhri, have previous ly completed two sin gle fami l y homes in Englewood, 4785 South Sherman Street and 4136 South Grant Street. Both of the homes were purchased by you ng coup les. She believes that their development activities are in co nform ance with the Comprehe nsive Plan by providing housing to suit a variety of life cycle stages. rt] Mr. Brick asked if the homes on eithe r sid e of the lot are rentals; Ms. Martin responded that she d id not know. Mr. Brick asked if the intention i s to se ll the property, Ms. Martin replied that they do intend to se ll the property once the hom e is comp leted . • • • Mr. King asked if they intend to have a basement; Ms. Martin explained that it will be slab grade, 24 inches deep. lfll Public Testimony Karen Schwartzkopf, 4616 South Pearl Street, was sworn in. Ms. Schwartzkopf is opposed to the development because the lot is too narrow and she feels that it is not aesthetically pleasing. lfll Stacy Denbow, 4609 South Pearl Street, was sworn in. Mr. Denbow is opposed to the proposed development because the architecture is inconsistent with the other homes on the street. Mr. Kinton asked for clarification on his comment that it is inconsistent; Mr. Denbow replied that there are no other small lots on the street and a two story home would look strange. lfll Chris Ransick, 4654 South Pearl Street, was sworn in. Mr. Ransick agrees with Mr. Denbow that the lot is very narrow and a two story structure would be out of character. He encouraged the Commissioners to visit the site. He is concerned about the home becoming a rental. lfll Katie Coons, 4655 South Pearl Street , was sworn in. Ms. Coons expressed concern about a structure on such a small and narrow lot. She has concerns about construction disrupting the residents in the neighborhood. [?] Mr. Bleile asked if Ms. Coons is aware that Englewood does not have design standards. She is aware and fears that without oversight the development in the neighborhood will be very inconsistent with the original homes . lfll Rebuttal Ms. Martin stated that the home will be substantially similar to the elevation drawing submitted for the hearing. It is her opinion that because Englewood is more affordable than Denver for young families it will most likely be sold to a young family. Mr. Madrid asked if the value of the home will be comparable to other homes in the neighborhood. Ms. Martin said it will be comparable and may possibly help improve property values in the area. lfll Mr. King asked how Ms. Martin learned that the lot was for sale; Ms. Martin replied that there was a sign on the property and it was listed in the MLS (Multiple Listing Service). Mr. Madrid asked about the setback requirements; Mr. Bell stated that the required setback for an Urban Lot is three feet. Mr. King added that there are many homes in the vicinity that were built with three foot setbacks. Mr. Madrid asked if there are any other uses for the property; Mr. Bell responded that there are no other uses for the property other than a single unit dwelling. lfll Ms. Townley asked if other properties could be modified with a second story; Mr. Bell responded that any of the other homes in the area could be changed without approval from the Commission. lfll Bleile moved; Freemire seconded: To close the public hearing for Case 2015-09 4635 South Pearl Street Urban Lot Development AYES: Bleile, Brick, Freemire, King , Kinton, Knoth, Madrid, Townley, Fish • • • NAYS: None Motion passes. !?J Knoth moved; Madrid seconded: To approve Case 2015-09 4635 South Pearl Street Urban Lot Development Discussion l?] Freemire -The zoning is the same for all properties within the district and provides protection to all properties equally and affords equal rights to all property owners. Housing styles change over time in all communities due to market conditions, personal preferences and demand. The proposed structure is in compliance with the zoning code and allows developm e nt to take place impartially. The dwelling is consistent with what is available in the zone district. Brick -The Commissioners are community rep resentatives and the Commission is ruling not only on th e conformity but also the appropriateness of the development. Fish -The Commission should focus on the criteria that applies and whether or not the development meets the criteria in the zoning code. While the Commission does have th e authority to apply a condition to the development, he is unsure that restricting the structure to one story is the correct action. ~ Townley -It would be difficult to restrict the structure to one story since all property owners in the surrounding neighborhood have the right to add a second story to their homes . l?] Kinton -H e has personal experience with a home in his neighborhood that was demolished and a two story home was constructed. H e does not feel that a height restriction should be imposed. l?] Madrid -The property owner has the right to build a two story home. King -The proposed house does not vary substantially from the surrounding properties because they have the right and ability to build a two story house if they choose. lt] Knoth -He is glad to see e mpty lots developed. lt] Vote Bleile -He is glad that the Commission spent time creating the Urban Lot Development standards. He expressed appreciation to the neighbors who attended the hearing and the applicant. There are no negatives that contradict the Comprehensive Plan and the owners have a legal right to build. His vote is yes. l?] Brick -No, he feels that this particular property is not in character with the ne ighborhood . H e agrees with Mr. Freemire's opinion that the owner does have rights but feels that th e proposed house does not promote the general welfare of the area. 0 Freemire -Yes, he appreciates that this is a difficult decision but using the criteria put forth in the code, the development is acceptable. • • • ~ King -Yes, it is a tough decision but it is more difficult when the Commission goes through the public process to change the code without citizen involvement until it becomes a relevant issue. ~ Kinton -Yes, it has been estab lished that there is no other use for the lot and this use is compatible with the neighborhood. It is his hope that the developer will work with the neighborhood to minimize the impact of the construction. Knoth -Yes Madrid -Yes, neighborhoods are not static and there is no way to predict future development in the neighborhood. He agrees with Mr. Bleile and he does not agree with taking away use of th e property. ~ Townley-Yes, this is not an easy decision and it i s difficult to look at a vacant lot and and visualize the change that would occur especia lly with a small lot like this. Change is happening across the City and this is positive for the community and will help create a variety of different houses in Englewood. Property owners have the right to change the character of their homes. !?] Fish -Yes, he agrees with the other Commissioners in that they completed the public process to allow owners of Urban Lots to develop to the standards in the code. Motion passes 8-1. ~ IV. PUBLIC FORUM No members of the pub I ic were present to add ress the Commission. ~ V. ATIORNEY'S CHOICE Deputy City Attorney Comer advised the Commission that he will be bringing information regarding alterations to the sign code to the study sessio n October 6th. l?J VI. STAFF'S CHOICE Mr. Bell informed the Commissioners that staff has formu lated some ideas about how to proceed with the sign code revisions. He wil l share inform ation regarding a Council Request on the topic of development standards in the R-2 zone districts. Future meetings will include a PUD (Planned Unit Development) revision , the sign code and the Comprehensive Plan public hearing. Chair Fish requested an electronic copy of the Comprehensive Plan be distributed to the Commission as soon as possible. It should be avai labl e to the Commissioners by October 2l5l when the public meeting is held. Mr. Flaherty added that lot coverage and so lar access will be included with the examination of development standards. 0 V. COMMISSIONER'S CHOICE Mr. Knoth commented on a recent Denver Post edition that featured the Governor biking but did not expand on the improvements that are planned. Ms. Townley added that funding should be avai lable with the Governor's program to mitigate air pollution issues . • Mr. Brick congratulated Mr. Voboril on his work on the Walk and Wheel Plan and Program. • • Mr. Kinton commented on the upcoming election and the lack of information that has been available to date. He stated that the local election will have more impact on the Community than the national election. Mr. Madrid commented that there seems to be an increasing number of vacancies on Broadway. He asked what the City is doing to actively market the City; Mr. Flaherty responded that he will arrange to have Darren Hollingsworth, Economic Development Manager, attend a Commission meeting. The meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. u ~cording Secretary