Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-08-21 PZC MINUTES• • • I. CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION August 21, 2007 CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting of the City Plannin g and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:04 in the Community Development Conference Room of the Englewood Civic Center, Chair Roth presiding. Present: Absent: Staff Present: Guest: Roth, Brick, Bleile, Fish, Knoth, Krieger, Calonder Myers (alternate) Welker (excused), Diekmeier (excused) Alan White, Community Development Director Tricia Langon , Senior Planner Nancy Reid, Assistant City Attorney Jill Wilson Chair Roth asked everyone to introduce themselves since this is the first meeting Mr. Myers and Mr. White have attended . 11. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Minutes of August 7, 2007 Mr. Brick requested his discussion regarding snow removal be expanded to include the three questions he asked. Mr. Brick moved: Mr. Calonder seconded: TO APPROVE THE AUGUST 7, 2007 MINUTES AS AMENDED AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT : Brick, Krieger, Calonder, Roth , Knoth None Bleile, Fish Diekmeier, Welker Motion carried . APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT Case #ZON2007-002 Amendment No. 1 to the Englewood Estates Planned Unit Development Chair Roth noted the case number was stated incorrectly on the first page ... #ZON200 7-003 should read #ZON2007-002: 1 • • • Ms . Krieger moved : Mr. Calonder seconded: TO APPROVE THE FINDINGS OF FACT FOR CASE #ZON2007-002 AS AMENDED AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN : ABSENT: Roth, Krieger, Calonder, Knoth Brick Bleile, Fish Welker, Diekmeier Motion carried. Case #ZON2007-003 Base Rezoning Request: 3520, 3530, 3546 and 3556 South Clarkson Street Mr. Brick mov ed: Ms . Krieger seconded : TO APPROVE THE FINDINGS OF FACT FOR CASE #ZON2007-003 AS WRITIEN AYES: NAYS : ABSTAIN: ABSENT : Brick, Roth , Krieger, Calonder, Knoth None Bleile, Fish Welker, Diekmeier Motion carried. 111. MINIMUM FRONTAGE REQUIREMENTS IN MULTI-UNIT ZONE DISTRICTS The recording secretary distributed a summary of past Planning and Zoning discussions re- garding attached dwellings prepared by Senior Planner Langon . Ms. Langon noted the properties were divided into two categories; those with alley access and those without alley access . The first part of the summary deals with the common ele- ments of both categories. She briefly reviewed the requirements. Ms . Langon asked if the Commissioners were all in agreement. Everyone stated they were . The next category reviewed was properties with alley access. Ms . Langon noted all the common requirements apply plus she reviewed the requirements specific to properties with alley access. The Commission agreed to the requirements. The final category reviewed was properties without alley access. Ms. Langon noted she added several new items to those the Commission has previously agreed upon . Ms. Langon referenced pictures of attached dwellings she had on display for the Commissioner's re- view. Mr. Knoth suggested adding the word behind to the 4th requirement.. ... garages, car- ports and parking pads shall be off-set behind the front building line of each unit by a mini- 2 • • • mum of 5 feet. Mr. Knoth noted that a maximum garage door width of 9 feet on the front fa<;ade was also agreed upon. Staff will add that requirement. Ms. Langon asked the Com- missioners if they agreed on the requirements for this category. They all agreed. Development Standards were discussed. Ms. Langon noted they applied to sites with and without alley access. She reviewed the six standards the Commission discussed at a previ- ous meeting. Previously, the Commission agreed that a developer would have to include at least three of the six items in their development. The six items include : widow detail, roof pitch, off-set or articulation , architectural detail, porch and masonry. Ms. Langon said without getting into detail, she asked the Commis- sioners if they felt these elements are development standards or are design and /or architec- tural standards and are they necessary. Several Commissioners said they felt they had al- ready determined they are necessary. Ms . Langon said from a planning and administrative perspective she would like to have that discussion again . She noted the Commission has had several discussions on whether the items are design /architectural elements rather than developmental elements. Staff's concern is that they might stifle creativity, the market and they are not necessarily going to guarantee good design. Mr. Brick said he thought the Commission talked at length that it is not really a market prob- lem because the cost of the elements is not high. Mr. Knoth stated they did not know that. Mr. Bleile said he felt they need to be called "Design Minimums" because he firmly believes the City needs to ha v e some sort of minimum standards for attached multi-unit housing . Breaking out properties between those with alleys and those without alleys is a major step, but he feels the bar needs to be raised on the multi-unit housing in Englewood and Design Minimums is the best way to do so. Mr. Fish said everyone wants good development. The questions is , will the design standards do that. He said he believes the argument is they will not. Mr. Bleile disagreed with that statement. He said he doesn't see how not establishing minimums is better. He said he still feels some type of minimum standards are needed to raise the bar . Mr. Fish said what we are discussing does not do that. Mr. Bleile disagreed . Mr. Fish said he agrees with Ms. Lan- gon that the suggested guidelines are too loose to accomplish what we want. Mr. Bleile said he would like to see articulation kept because it offsets poor design . Ms. Krieger also said she would like to keep articulation. Mr. Fish asked Ms. Langon if she felt they would be difficult to deal with from an adminis- trative point of view. She stated she felt they would be because of the potential arbitrary nature of the standards. Ms . Langon asked Director White if he would like to share his thoughts. Director White said he felt if the standards are implemented they need to apply to all multi-family residential structures whether they are two, twenty or 240 units . He said in his experience it is the ones that are over ten units that are the most problematic design-wise in a community. Prior to his departure from Wheat Ridge they had completed very similar design standards for multi-family residential units, but they were restricted to three units and above. The sin- gle family and two-unit properties were left alone . He suggests that if the Commission 3 • • • wants to raise the bar they need to go beyond requiring three of the six standards and maybe even expand the list. He said his experience has been a lot of jurisdictions imple- ment residential design standards when they are dealing with tract homes in large subdivi- sions where you tend to get the same style of house over and over. He said he agrees with Ms. Langon that there is no guarantee of good design, even with standards . Ms. Reid suggested the Commissioners vote as to whether or not they would like to see the standards move forward. Ms. Langon noted that if the Desi gn Standards were implemented and down the road a y ear or two they do not seem to be working they could be changed . The consensus was 4 to 2 the design standards would not have a positive impact on the city. Chair Roth suggested the articulation element be moved up to a requirement for both properties with and without alleys. The Commission agreed . Mr. Fish moved: Mr. Calonder seconded: TO NOT IMPLEMENT DESIGN STANDARDS AYES: NAYS : Krieger, Calonder, Knoth, Fish Brick, Bleile, Roth ABSTAIN: None ABSENT : Diekmeier, Welker Motion carried . Ms. Krieger moved: Mr. Brick seconded : TO MAKE THE ARTICULATION ELEMENT A REQUIREMENT FOR PROPERTIES WITH AND WITHOUT ALLEY ACCESS AYES : NAYS : ABSTAIN: ABSENT : Brick, Krieger, Calonder, Roth, Bleile, Fish Knoth None Diekmeier, Welker Motion carried. M s. Langon stated she and Ms. Reid will take the co nsensus and start lookin g at ho w it w ill fit into the Code. After the wording has been decided upon and where it will fit into the Code it will be brought back to the Commis sion at a study session so that the members can see it in context with the Code. She stated there may be other areas of the Code that will need to be adjusted because of these changes . After that it will start going through the for- mal amendment process . Ms. Langon noted the Commission needs to look at what happens when there are three units side by side with a driveway, now that we have a direction. She said Staff may also need to discuss this . 4 , ' . • IV. PUBLIC FORUM Ms. Wilson stated she is running for City Council at large and is sitting in on various Board and Commission meetings to better familiarize herself with the City. She said she also serves on the Code Enforcement Board . She said she felt tonight's discussion was very interesting. She asked if any of the properties in the pictures were in Englewood . The Commissioners noted they all are, primarily in the northwest area where there are no alleys. V. STAFF'S CHOICE Senior Planner Langon provided an update on upcoming meetings: • September S1h -Meeting cancelled • September 18th -Tentative discussion on historic preservation amendments Ms. Langon asked the Commission if emailing of some packets is acceptable. Mr. Brick stated he did not feel he should have to print it and bring it to the meeting .... it should be supplied . He stated he reads the entire packet and brings his notes to the meetings. Mr. Fish said he prints his at work to save on toner at home. Mr. Knoth said he also prints his at work. Mr. Bleile said he is good with the electronic copy .... he does not print the entire packet, only the Agenda . • After discussion it was decided that when practical, the packets will go out electronically and if members want a hard copy they are to call the Recording Secretary and request one . One full set of the packet will be supplied at each meeting. • Chair Roth asked about reducing the large format plans for the packets . Ms. Langon stated that had been suggested before, but it was decided to keep the 24 x 36 size in order to be able to see and read everything easier. The Commission agreed . VI. ATTORNEY'S CHOICE Ms . Reid welcomed Mr. Myers to the Commission. VII. COMMISSIONERS CHOICE Mr. Fish welcomed Mr. Myers and Mr. White. The meeting adjourned at 8:31 . 5