Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-02-18 PZC MINUTES• • • CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING CITY COUNCIL CONFERENCE ROOM February 18, 2015 V' I. CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Conference Room of the Englewood Civic Center, Chair Fish presiding. Present: Absent: Staff: Other: Bleile, Brick, Freemire, King, Kinton, Knoth , Madrid (a rri ved 7:10), Townley, Pittinos, Chair Fish None Eric Keck, City Manager Alan White, Director, Community Development Chris Neubecker, Senior Planner Dugan Comer, Assistant City Atto rn ey Matthew Casey , Local Real Estate Developer II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES • January 2 1, 2015 Revised Minutes Knoth moved: Kinton seconded: TO APPROVE THE JANUARY 15 , 20 15 MINUTES Chair Fish asked if there were any modifications or corrections . There were none. AYES: NAYS : ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Motion car ri ed. 17, Bleile, Brick, Kinton, Knoth, Madrid, Tow nl ey, Fish None Freemire , King None APPROVAL OF MINUTES • Febru ary 3, 20 15 Knoth moved : Townley seconded: TO APPROVE THE FEBRUARY 3, 20 15 MINUTES Chair Fish asked if there were any modifications o r co rr ect io ns. There we re non e. AYES: NAYS: ABSTA IN: ABSENT: Bleile, Brick, Freemire, King , Kinto n, Knoth , Madrid, Townley, N one Fish N one • • • Motion carried. fll1 Ill. STUDY SESSION Accessory Dwelling Units 2014-01 Chris Neubecker, Senior Planner, sha red the PowerPoint presentation from the previous meeting to bring members who we re not present at the last meeting up to date. Vario us types of ADUs (Accessory Dwelling Units) we re pictured as well as in format ion regarding the benefits and disadvantages of allowing ADUs. The impact on the value of surrounding properties has not been determined as of yet. Parking will be an issue and wi ll need to be addressed. fll1 The 2003 Comprehensive Plan cites the object ive of having a mi x of housing and specifically mentions accessory living units. Different types of ho u sing are desirable in order to accommodate different I ife stages. fll1 Zoning is another issue to conside r; different zone areas have unique character istics such as R-1-A with larger lots. Design standards, size and occupancy limits w ill also need to be d iscussed . Determining a maximum size for the ADU can be done in several different ways: based on the size of the lot or the size of the primary structu re, by zone district or a predetermined size. fll1 Concern over rental units and how to enfo rce code regulations is an issue for the Commission to consider. Regulation and enforcement is difficult. fll1 Mr. Fish asked if a definition of ADUs has been established , Mr. Neubecker stated that the definiti on is to be determined by the Commission. Mr. Neubecker spoke about ex istin g non- conforming st ru ctures and believes that addit io nal , existi ng non-conforming structures and uses will be revea led shou ld ADUs be permitted by the City. This wi ll need to be addressed by the Commission as to how they want to hand le these situations. fll1 Mr. Neubecker presented drawings of var ious lot sizes w ith a prima ry residence and accessory unit to i llu strate how multiple structu res wo uld affect lot cove rage. He demonstrated various ways that parking and pr ivate entrances co uld be accommodated. Discussion continued regarding parking opt ions including park in g in the front, avai lab le st reet parking and off-alley parking. fll1 Mr. King commented that the height on garages wou ld need to be raised in order to build a dwelling unit above a garage. Mr. Bleile mentioned the PUD (P l anned Unit Deve lopment) that was recently approved that includes ADUs above the garages for a total height of 24 feet. fll1 Duplexes are all owed in the R-2 zone d istr icts and recently there has been a considerab le amount of development where the orig in al house is scraped and a duplex constructed . The size of the units would be cont rolled by maximum lot coverage regu l at ions . The Commissioners agreed that it would be acceptab le to have two primary st ru ctures that are not attached in the R-2 zone d istrict. Current regu lations requ ire the residences to be attac hed . fll1 Mr. Keck asked Mr. Neubecker if he had gathered information regarding the impact on utilities and addressing. Mr. Neubecker responded that his understanding is that if there is one owner, the sewer and wate r tap can serve both res id ences. Electric service can be upgraded to accommodate the second unit on a property. If the property is subdiv id ed, each unit wou ld have ind epende nt sewer and water taps. Mr. Knoth feels that if the lot cannot be subdivided, the additional • • • residence should be considered an ADU, Mr. King agreed. After discussion, the Commissioners agreed that if a property has a duplex, ADUs would not be allowed as additional dwelling units on the same lot. l?l1 Mr. Neubecker polled the Commissioners regarding allowing ADUs in R-1-A, R-1-B and R-1 C. Mr. Brick expressed that he does not feel they should be allowed in those districts. Director White explained that there are three different minimum lot sizes for the residential zone districts. The maximum lot coverage is 35% for R-1-A and 40% for R-1-B and R-1-C. Mr. Neubecker asked the Commission if ADUs should be allowed on Urban Lots; it was agreed that Urban Lots should be excluded from allowing ADUs. Mr. Brick feels that ADUs are not appropriate for R-1-A or R-1-B because they are not in character with the neighborhoods but may be appropriate for R-1-C. l?l1 Mr. Freemire expressed concern that the recent change in the bulk plane regulations combined with allowing ADUs would result in significantly larger structures. Mr. Knoth pointed out that the maximum lot coverage would not change, Ms. Townley remarked that the setbacks would still be i~lace. Discussion continued regarding how to improve the housing stock and whether or not allowing ADUs would be beneficial to that goal. Mr. Neubecker remarked that this is just one piece of the solution in that it would allow for flexibility for homeowners. Mr. Freemire asked the Commission if they feel that allowing ADUs makes Englewood more attractive and desirable than communities to the north and south of the City. Mr. Bleile commented that adding an ADU to a property may be more economically feasible than remodeling a house. Mr. Freemire asked if allowing ADUs is the best way to improve the housing stock . Ms. Townley commented that ADUs are appealing to a~rticular market that may not necessarily want to scrape a house and rebuild. Mr. Freemire suggested that the Commission take a comprehensive view of the housing stock to determine the best way to facilitate improvement. Because ADUs were set as a priority for the Commission to address, the consensus of the Commissioners is to continue pursuing the topic. Ms. Townley mentioned that the chart that Mr. Neubecker presented shows that other communities are currently addressing ADUs and that Englewood should continue to consider it as an option to remain competitive in the housing market. Mr. Kinton agrees with Mr. Freemire that the housing stock is an issue but the particular topic of ADUs should at least be examined. l?l1 Mr. Brick does not feel that discussing ADUs is the best use of the Commission's time. Mr. Pittinos feels that because of trends locally and nationally, it needs to be addressed. Mr. Freemire does not support going forward with the discussion but will follow the lead of the Commission. Ms. Townley requested illustrations to study the massing effect of various sized buildings on different lot sizes . l?l1 Mr. Fish recommended that the Commissioners seek out examples of homes with ADUs that currently exist to help them visualize potential development. l?l1 Mr. Freemire noted that there is a difference in the setbacks for the R-1-A, R-1-B and R-1-C zone districts . It was agreed that the lot coverage and setback regulations will not be changed. Mr. Pittinos stated that he has studied the model codes for ADUs of other cities and feels that the Commission should focus on the issues that need to be tailored to Englewood. Mr. Keck cited Seattle as an example of an area with many ADUs and expressed concern because of the • • unknown impact on utilities, the condition of the alleys and the resident 's quiet enjoyment of their property . Increased density should be approached carefully. [?] Director White suggested resources that could be used to determine the direction of the discussion. Mr. Neubecker recounted the benefits of increased density such as increased vibrancy and business activity. Chair Fish referred to the chart supplied to the Commissioners for s~estions on what aspect of ADUs should be discussed next. Mr. Freemire feels that it is important to go through each issue. Mr. King added that the current building codes will establish many of the regulations for ADUs. [?] Discussion regarding minimum structure size; Director White will research if there are minimums in place in the building code that would determine the minimum size of the structure . The Commissioners agreed that a minimum size does not need to be established. The maximum size will inherently restrict the number of people and the impact on infrastructure. Mr. Kinton suggested that the size should be representative of the second unit as being "accessory " to the main house. The Commissioners are split on whether the size of the ADU should be determined by a size limitation or a percentage of the main structure . [?] Mr. Neubecker will present additional information and suggestions at the next meeting. [?] IV. PUBLIC FORUM Matthew Casey, a local developer considering development in Englewood, expressed his appreciation to the Commission . He is interested in the activities of the Commission to determine the attitudes toward development in Englewood and if the Commission is progressive. He encouraged the Commissioners to be creative in solving the housing issues facing Englewood . [?] V. ATIORNEY'S CHOICE Assistant City Attorney Comer did not have any additional comments. [?] VI. STAFF'S CHOICE Director White reminded the Commissioners of the meeting on Wednesday, February 25 th at 6:00 p.m . at which the consultants for the Next Steps study and Walk and Wheel study will provide an update to City Council. City Manager Keck expressed his thanks to the Commission for serving the community. He shared with the Commissioners that on Monday, February 23rd, a presentation will be made to City Council for rebranding of the City that will reflect a newer, more contemporary image . The City is undertaking a new priority based budgeting process to help achieve the goals of the City. Mr. Bl eile asked about the Englewood Forward public meeting that was held last week. The meeting was well attended by the community . [?] VII. COMMISSIONER'S CHOICE Mr. Knoth asked Mr. Keck about the priorities set by the Commission last year and if he had any comment on what those priorities should be. Mr. Keck recommended that the Commission communicate regularly with Council either through a memo or Director White. He encouraged the Commissioners to assist City Council by continuing to take the lead on future plans and • priorities. • • • Mr. Brick commented on the Englewood Forward meeting and felt that it was very well done. He is glad to hear about the new budgeting process and is considering becoming involved with the budgeting process . [/] Ms. Townley asked about the water rights that Englewood owns and how an increase in density could affect the water supply. Mr. Keck responded that the City does sel I water and the rights are well protected. With the excess available, the impact from increased density should not affect the supply. She asked what can be done as a citizen to help the City. Mr. Keck explained that the current mil levy is 5.88 per thousand equaling income of $2.9 million; the City budget is currently about $40 million. The City relies heavily on sales tax which is cyclical in nature. [?] Mr. Bleile commented on the shifting priorities of the Commission and feels that without the priority list they would not have been as productive as they have been the last few years. He feels that the Planning and Zoning Commission is well suited to advance the priorities of the City . [/] Mr. King expressed his gratitude that Mr. Keck is here and brings positive energy to the City . [?] Mr. Kinton feels that some processes could be streamlined, he feels that communication between C~ Council and th e Commission is important for long range planning and the vision for the City. Mr. Fish welcomed Mr. Pittinos to the Commission. The meeting adjourned at 9:20 p .m .