Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-11-19 PZC MINUTES• • • I. CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION November 19, 2002 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 in the Englewood Civic Center, Chairman Waggoner presiding. Present: Late: Absent: Staff: Con s ultants : Diekmeier, Lathram, Mueller, Roth , Schum, Welker, Waggoner Krieger, Willis None Senior Planner Langon UDC Project Manager Guetschow Design Consultant Emerson Tina Axelrad and Marlise Fratinardo , Clarion Associates II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES October 22, 2002 Chairman Waggoner sta ted the Minutes of October 22 , 2002 were to be considered for approval. Ms. Krieger entered the meeting . Welker moved: Roth seconded: The Minutes of October 22 , 2002 be approved as written . AYES: NAYS : Diekmeier, Krieger, Roth, Schum , Welker None ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Lathram, Mueller, Waggoner Willis The motion canied. Mr. Willis entered the meeting . III. FINDINGS OF FACT CASE #GP 2002-01 Chairman Waggoner stated the Findings of Fact for the General Plan , Case #GP 2002-01, are to be considered for approval. Welker moved: Krieger seconded: The Findings of Fact on Case #GP 2002-01 be approved as written. H:\G RO UP\BOARDS\PLANCOMM\Minutes\Minutes 2002\PCM l l -19-02 .doc I • • AYES: NAYS : ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Welker, Krieger, Mueller, Roth, Schum, Diekmeier, Willis None Lath ram, Waggoner None The motion carried. Chairman Waggoner noted a memorandum from Senior Planner Stitt along with amended pages for the General Plan were included in the packet. He asked if any discussion was required on this issue. Members of the Commission stated that the amendments noted on the GP pages ap- peared to address all issues raised at the Public Hearing, and no discussion was needed. IV. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE Ms. Langon gave Mr. Roth and Mr. Willis applications for reappointment to the Commission: their terms expire February 1, 2003 . The gentlemen were asked to co mplete the applications and return them to the City Manager 's Office no later than January 3, 2003 , if they are interested in reappointment to the Commission . Ms. Langon then distributed written invitations to the Holiday Open House , scheduled for De- cember 19 in the Community Room of Englewood Civic Center. The Open House will be from 5:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m ., and light refre shments will be served. Ms. Langon noted that in light of budgetary constraints. the open house is in lieu of the formal dinner the Department has hosted for the Board and Commission members for the past few years . V. UNIFORM DEVELOPl\tIENT CODE Ms. Langon introduced Ms. Tina Axelrad and Marlise Fratinardo from Clarion Associates. Ms . Langon also introduced Ms. Suzette Emerson , a design consultant working with s taff and Clarion Associates on the UDC. Ms. Langon stated that a "UDC design workshop" has been sche duled for December 3, begin- ning at 6:30 p.m. This workshop will be held in the community room , and members of the City Council and Board of Adjustment and Appeals will be participating in the workshop. Ms. Axelrad conducted a power point presentation highlighting major points of the Zoning Ordi- nance that will be re vised in the UDC. She referenced two memorandums from Clarion Associ- ates , both dated November 13, 2002. One memorandum and supporting documentation ad- dresses "Revisions to Development Standards in the Unified Development Code". The second memorandum and supporting documentation pertains to "Outline of Proposed Residential Infill Standards and Guidelines ". These two topics are the focus of discussion at this meeting. Chairman Waggoner asked how the "front" of a lot is determined -on a comer lot, for instance . Ms. Axelrad stated that this is defined in the Zoning Ordinance; if one were considering a rec- • tangular shaped lot, the front would be the "short" side of the lot facing the street. H:\GROUP\BOARDS\PLANCOMM\Minutes'u\'linutes 2002\PCM 11 -1 9-02 .doc 2 • • • Ms . Axelrad stated that Clarion and staff want to get feedback from the Commission -are the cited goals appropriate, for instance -this feedback and reaction from the Commission is impor- tant to prepare for the December 3rd workshop. New material proposed for inclusion in the UDC are rules of measurement for density and di- mensional standards; new table format delineating density and dimensional standards; new di- mensional standards for small lots; new bulk plane requirements; pedestrian/bicycle access and connectivity ; screening requirements for outdoor equipment and service areas; erosion control standards; underground utility requirements; residential infill design standards and guidelines; operational compatibility requirements; and increase in residential building height. Ms. Axelrad stated that clarification of requirements and ease of interpretation by staff and the general public is a goal of these proposals. Mr. Welker asked if the City was opening the door for subdivisions with "small lots". It was noted that there are a number of lots in the City that are "s ubstandard" in that they do not meet the minimum building site requirement. This proposal wo uld allow co nstruction of a single fam- ily detached dwelling unit on such a lot , with no need to obtain a variance from the Board of Ad- justment and Appeals to allow construction. Ms. Axelrad also noted this provision is intended for "infill'' sites pre-existing before enactment of the UDC , and is not intended to promote subdi- visions with "s mall lots ". Ms. Axelrad stated the pro vis ion for pedestrian/bicycle access and co nnecti v it y is applicable to ne w development. This theory was advocated throughout development of CityCenter, and will be pan of the General Iron Works redevelopment. De velo pers will be required to make it easier to get from "point a" to "point b" within a redevelopment area, as well as provide accessways into and out of a redevelopment site . Screening requirements were briefly addressed. The intent of this pro visio n is to require dump- sters and loading docks, for instance, be adequately screened. This screening provision is in ad- dition to screening requirements existing in the Zoning Ordinance. Erosion control is a new area of regulation for Englewood. Underground utility requirements were then addressed. Chairman Waggoner asked where trace wires would be located. Mr. Schum stated that language addressing trace wires should be in- cluded in the UDC. He asked if the requirement to underground utilities would force citizens to do something that is very costly. Mr. Welker suggested a need to determine a "threshold" where the requirement would kick in-will it be applicable for one building site , or one block to be re- developed-what is the minimum area to trigger this requirement. Ms. Langon suggested this provision might not apply to construction of single-family developments, but to duplex or higher density construction. Mr. Welker suggested the need to determine whether this provision would be applicable on "scraped" sites versus adding onto a residence. Discussion ensued. Ms. Axel- rad suggested that improvements that trigger the provision could be restricted to "habitable space", and not accessory uses . H:\GROUP\BOARDS\PLANCOMM\Minutes\Minutes 2002\PCM l l -19-02.doc 3 • • • Chairman Waggoner asked if the utilities could be contained in the same trench , or would sepa- rate trenches be required. Ms. Axelrad stated that this is a building issue, not a zoning issue. Mr. Welker stated it would be more cost effective if one trench could accommodate all the lines. It would also prevent an entire yard from being excavated to repair or replace lines . Mr. Diekrneier stated that he understood the benefit of underground utility lines for new development areas; however, he questioned the benefit of requiring underground lines for one building site in a de- veloped block. He noted that a lot of homes might sit for 40 or more years with no "trigger" to require underground utility lines. Ms. Axelrad stated: "we have to begin somewhere". Operational compatibility requirements are to assure that new development or improvements are compatible with the neighborhood. The proposal on residential building height increase was discussed. Chairman Waggoner asked what reasoning supports increased residential structure height to 32 feet. Brief discussion en- sued. Ms . Axelrad asked if Commission members fel t information should be added or c larified; are the goals or policy statements appropriate . Residential Infill Standards and Guidelines were then addressed. Ms. Axelrad continued with the power point presentation . Goals and purposes are to enable and encourage residential rein- vestment in the R-1 and R-2 zone district areas , and to encourage reinvestment that is sensitive to but not uniform with the existing R-1 and R-2 district character. Reinve s tment would include substantial expansion or alteration of existing dwelling units , and development of new homes on infill or scraped lots. Commi ssion members questioned what constitutes "substantial" expansion or alteration. Should this be clarified on a percentage basis , or on a square footage basis . Ms. Langon pointed out that landscaping provisions in the zoning ordinance are triggered by im- provements encompassing 15 % of the struct ure , or 500 square feet. Ms. Emerson s uggested that "substantial" is over 50%." Mr. Welker suggested using the square footage requirement, and that 500 square feet is appropriate. Flexibility in design and "alternative compliance " were discussed. Ms. Axelrad stated that alter- native compliance would allow developers or property owners to achieve an overall standard, but possibly not by adherence to each and every requirement of development. Brief discussion fol- lowed. Mr. Welker stated that he basically supports this concept but doesn 't know what needs to be done-some issues will need to be taken to the Board of Adjustment and Appeals. He ac- knowledged it is difficult to accomplish improvements on smaller lots and there are constraints on what can and cannot be done. He agreed there does need to be some provision for administra- tive discretion, and that not everything should have to be taken to the Board. Discussion ensued. Mr. Schum asked if change in personnel might create problems on alternative compliance or ad- ministrative discretion issues -one individual may interpret a provision one way, and a new hire have a different interpretation -this could lead to problems in a neighborhood if one property owner was allowed to do something, but a neighboring property owner was denied the right to do the same thing by a different City employee. Ms. Langon stated this scenario would be allevi- ated with development of specific criteria applicable to administrative discretion issues. She H:\GROUP\BOARDS\PLA COMM\Minutes\M inutes 2002\PCvl 11-19-02.doc 4 • • • pointed out that not all issues would be allowed under adrrtinistrative approval. Ms. Axelrad stressed the need to keep good records, the need for consistency and explanations or reasons set forth to support approval or disapproval of an issue . Ms . Axelrad cited five elements that must be addressed in standards to assure compatibility; these elements are: Total lot coverage ; building scale and height; front yard setbacks and imper- vious coverage within the front yard setbacks; garage location and scale; and building design. Ms . Axelrad discussed lot coverage, emphasizing the need to encourage reinvestment in the resi- dential neighborhoods , while assuring compatibility between older homes and newer develop- ment. She noted that in Englewood, the lot coverage is really "building coverage", and does not take into account sidewalks and driveways or other impervious uses on a lot. The R-1 zone dis- tricts restrict lot coverage to no more than 40%, but in the R-2 and higher density districts, lot coverage ma y encompass up to 70 % of lot area. Ms. Axelrad stated that lot coverage is a "defi- nition issue " -what is included as "lot coverage". Mr. Welker s tated that lot coverage is important if patios, swi mming pools , sheds and other ac- ces sory uses are included as part of the overall "coverage". Discus sion followed. Ms. Langon stated it is unusual to see 40 % lot coverage: sheds and other accessory st ructures have been counted as part of lot coverage . Building Scale and Height were then discussed. Ms. Axelrad stated that the proposed increase in height will enable a property owner to "pop the top " to increase Ii vable floor area in a home if they so choose . Ms. Axelrad noted that Englewood 's single-family homes are primarily one- story above-grade . Ms. Axelrad stated that Ms . Emerson has developed depictions of the "b ulk plane " concept indicating what a block face might look like with va ryi ng building heights al- lowed. Ms. Emerson discussed the various bulk plane scenarios prepared, showi ng how structures might appear with various roof pitches and height differentials. Ms. Emerson stated that the standard 50 ft. wide building site with 5 ft. side yard setbacks on each side was used in developing the scenarios. Mr. Willis asked from what point were setbacks figured-from the property line? Mr. Welker stated he has found that typically setbacks are figured beginning at property lines -both front and back. He noted use of dormers might present a problem , eaves will not; but chimneys need to be above the roofline to draw properly. He noted that use of dormers is a way to allow a house to "grow ". Mr. Welker noted bulk plane impacts would be different for developments on 50-foot lots from developments on 75-foot lots. He suggested the need to have different defini- tion/ guidelines for different lot sizes. He noted the City of Denver is now proposing "stagger- ing" of developments -if one structure is located toward the front of the lot, an adjacent struc- ture would be located toward the rear of the lot. He commented the use of bulk plane concepts on 32 ft. to 35 ft. height structures is pretty standard, and on larger lots the height could be in- creased . H:\GROUP\BOARDS\PLANCOMM\Minutes\Minutes 2002\PCM 11 -19-02.doc 5 • • The issue of "s hadow cast" by higher structures was briefly discussed, as was structure orienta- tion . Additional discussion and suggestions were offered to Ms. Emerson regarding the bulk plane de- pictions. Mr. Welker suggested an "overlay" be prepared for use at the meeting on December 3rd. Mr. Welker also suggested that a similar depiction for the R-1-A district , using a 75 ft. lot frontage with the appropriate setbacks be prepared; and further , that the existing 25 ft. height be indicated on all display boards by a "line " or some readily apparent means to identify presently allowable height. Impervious coverage in front yard setbacks was discussed. Pictures were displayed wherein an attached garage had been converted to Ii ving space, but the driveway had not been removed, or a home had a circular drive bisecting the front yard. Ms. Axelrad advised that paved/concrete ar- eas in front ya rds should be limited-perhaps a narrow driveway to the rear if a garage is ac- cessed from the street , and the walkway to the front of the house from the s treet. The averaging of front setbacks was discussed. Mr. Welker pointed out that there is t y pically nothing to indicate where property line s are located, and it is very difficult to determine ; also, ho w much of a block is considered when "averagi ng " front se tbacks -the e ntire block, or o nl y properties on either side of the subject s ite. Mr. Welker emphasized the need to have clear stan- dards for this procedure. Ms. Langon suggested use of one side of a street, excluding ·'alley houses " from the averaging . Ms. Langon stated this procedure is currently used in instances where an owner of an older home wants to add a porch or stoop to the front of the house and it may encroach into the setback . Mr. Welker commented that if a lot is scraped, new construction should be able to be pl ace d in an approximate footprint location of the original s tructure . He also commented on a definition of "fro nt " -does this include uses s uch as porches and stoo p s. Mr. Welker further noted that there are some people who like the circle drive in the front yard. Ms . Krieger stated that the ty pi cal 50 ft. building site is too small to accommodate a nice circular dri ve; she suggested that this issue would also be part of the lot coverage percentage. Ms . Axelrad noted the landscaping provisions for front yards exclude sidewalks and driveways. Ms . Langon asked about the homeowner that does not have access to an alley; access to a garage or carport must be from the street and driveways must be in place . Garage location was discussed. Does the City want to see developments with garages "hanging" on the front of the residence , or is the preference for side or rear access garages . It was again pointed out that there are some areas in the City wherein residents do not have access to dedi- cated alleys; access to garages must be from street side of the block. Building Design was considered. Ms. Axelrad stated that standards are intended to provide vari- ety and visual interest, and yet retain compatibility within blocks. • Ms. Axelrad posed several issues for the Commission to consider. These issues include: H:\GRO UP\BOARDS\PLANCOMM\Minutes\Minures 2002\PCM 11-19-02.doc 6 , . • • • • How prescriptive does the City want to be in terms of mandating specific residential de- sign features? • How do we balance regulating residential design, and ensure continued ability to do sim- ple and inexpensive house improvements? • How do we balance regulating residential design, and what is the city's willingness to add resources/staff to administer these regulations, or risk a longer tum-around time on residential review before issuance of a building permit? Ms. Axelrad recommended using a "blended approach" regarding building design issues, and cited compatibility standards such as roof pitch; roof overhang ; exterior building material; shape, size , and alignment of windows and doors; orientation of front door to street; placement and ori- entation of attached garages in relation to the habitable portion of a dwelling; and provision of front porches or porticos. At least three of the cited features on new development must be "s ub- stantially" similar to existing development. Mr. Schum excused himself from the meeting . Ms. Langon expanded on a point made by Ms . Axelrad: if new standards and guidelines are adopted , additional staff time will be required to assure compliance with the standards and guide- lines . Ms. Axelrad agreed that assuring compliance with new standards and guidelines will take more staff time and more resources. The Englewood staff is capable of interpreting and applying the standards -it is only a matter of additional time needed to do so . Ms. Axelrad closed her presentation by asking Commission members to let staff know if the y are aware of really good or really bad residential examples in their area; staff and/or Clarion will take pictures and may cite the examples in the December 3rct session. VI. COMMISSIONER'S CHOICE Mr. Willis commented on the photographs hanging in the Conference Room , and also on the old aerial map . He asked where a copy of the map might be obtained. No one else had anything to bring up for discussion. The meeting was declared adjourned at 9:00 p .m . ! ... J , Gertrude G. Welty, Recording Secretary H:\GROUP\BOARDS\PLANCOMM\Minutes\Minutes 2002\PCM 11-19 -02 .doc 7