Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-06-05 PZC MINUTES• • CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION June 5, 2007 I. CALL TO ORDER The regular meetin g of the City Planning and Zoni n g Commission was called to order at 7 :05 in the Community Development Confere nce Room of the Englewood Civic Center, Ch air Roth presiding. Present: Absent: Staff Present: Roth , Brick, Bleile (ent ere d 7:10), Diekmeier, Fish , Knoth , Krieger, Welker Calonder (a lt ernate ) None Tricia Langon, Senior Planner Nancy Reid , Assist an t C i ty Attorney II . APPROVAL OF MINUTES Min u tes of May 22, 2007 Mr. Fish moved: Ms. Krieger seconded : TO APPROVE THE MAY 22 , 2007 M INUTES AS WR ITIEN . AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Brick, Roth , Fish , Diekmeier None Krieger, Knoth , Welker Bleil e Motion carried . 111. MINIMUM FRONTAGE REQUIREMENTS IN MULTI-UNIT ZONE DISTRICTS Ms. Langon stated based upon discuss i ons at the May meeting the purpose of possible changes for the attached dwellings was to encourage ho u sing upgrades and to adjus t th e zon i ng so not to impede or create barr iers or d iscourage redevelopment. Per last mo n th's discussion on propert i es without all ey access there was a question as to whether to st ay w ith 30 feet per u nit o r go down to 25 feet per unit. Sh e referenced the table that was incl u ded in the meeting packet. The 30 foot per unit wou ld require all ga- rages be p l aced beh i nd the structure, either attached or detach ed. The bonus would be the rear setback would be decreased if the garage was attached to the dwelling. She asked the Commiss ioners to keep i n mind if the development porti on regulations are • necessary an d /or desirable . • • • - A list of development standards for builders to choose from was discussed . Ms. Krieger said she felt having the list would make for a more attractive community and doesn 't feel they would be a hardship for builders. Th e choices may increase cost to build but would also increase the value of the property. Mr. Welker sa id he fe lt they would encourage develop- ment and upgrades. He stated that one of our goals is to not just encourage redevelop- ment, but to have quality redevelopment. Ms. Langon said from an administrative standpoint, regulations are enforceable; guidelines are onl y suggestions. Mr. Welker said he feels the same way, but regulations do not offer as much opportunity for flexibility . The members discussed adding another category to the regulations. Mr. Knoth would like to see what multi-family developers in Englewood have to say about choosing from a list of regulations and how it does or does not hurt their proforma. The Commissioners reviewed pictures of multi-unit homes. Discussion centered on the placement of the front doors to the units. Do they have to face the street or is a side entry acceptable? Do we make it a requirement that one door has to face the street? Is a porch necessary? The Commissioners were split on the issues. Ms. Langon asked for a co nsen sus. Mr. Bleile said he would like to see at least one door/entry face the street. Ms. Krieger said when you take away the garage from the front of the unit you will have less reason to place the door on the side. Ms. Krieger asked if there is another way to have a sense of entry other than a covered porch . Mr. Welker said you could have a courtyard or use a gate to identify the entry. Ms. Langon suggested sample pictures be included for developers to see what is expected. She also suggested developers be given points for each item chosen from the list. The Commissioners discussed how the list of categories would be divided. Development stan- dards categories suggested are: {1) masonry, (2) windows, (3) architectural detail, (4) roof pitch, (5) porch and (6) articulation. There may be sub-categories in several of the above. Ms. Langon asked for a consensus. The Commissioners stated they wanted a developer to choose 3 of the 6 development standards. If there is an appeal to Staff's decision that a de- veloper does not meet 3 out of 6 items, it will come back to Planning and Zoning for an interpretation. All of the Commissioners concurred . Ms. Langon stated the final item to discuss was units with no alley access ..... keep the 30 feet per unit or go to 25 feet per unit requirement. The Commissioners discussed whether or not to require a garage. The Commissioners agreed to not allow duplexes to be built on 50 foot lots without alley access. Ms. Langon summarized tonight's discussion : 1 . 2. 3. Multi-units will be allowed on 25 foot lots only with alley access. Multi-units will be allowed on 30 foot lots with and without alley access. All design standards will apply to both 25 foot and 30 foot lots. 2 - • 4 . 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Must be visible separation between driveways on adjacent properties. Driveways and/or parking pads on properties without alley access can be no wider than 1 0 feet. Garages are not required. Two parking spaces are required per unit. Garage doors that face the street on properties without alley access will be no wider than 9 feet. Two car garages must be bu i lt in back of the unit and developer will be given leeway in the setback requirements as a bonus. IV. PUBLIC FORUM Thei-e was no one present to address the Comm ission. V. ST A FF 'S CHOICE Senior Planner Langon provided an update on upcoming meetings: • June 19111 -Interpretation on corner lots • July 3'd -Meeti ng cancelled • July 17111 -Public Hearing VI. AlTORNEY'S CHOICE • Ms. Reid had nothing to report. VII . COMMISSIONERS CHOICE The Commissioners had nothing further to report. The meeting adjourned at 8:34 . • 3 • • • The recording secretary conducted a poll of 6 Planning and Zoning Commission members via telephone on Tuesday, June 26, 2007 for the approval of the June 19, 2007 Minutes. The June 19, 2007 Minutes were approved. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Knoth, Roth, Krieger, Diekmeier, Brick, Fish None Bleile, Welker None