The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2002-12-03 PZC MINUTES• • CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION December 3, 2002 In lieu of a regular business meeting for the City Planning and Zoning Commission , a "work- shop" on the Unified Development Code was held in the Community Room of the Englewood Civic Center. Members of Englewood City Council and Board of Adjustments & Appeals were invited to participate . The workshop began at 6:30 p .m. Commission members present: Commission members absent: Council members present: Council members absent: Board members present: Board members absent: Staff present: Clarion Representatives present: Waggoner, Willis, Welker, Roth , Schum, Mueller, Kreiger, Diekmeier Lathram (previous notice given ) Bradshaw , Garrett , Moore, Nabholz , Wolosyn , Yurchick Grazulis Carlston , Baker, Bode , Da vi dson , O 'Brien , Se ymour Smith Robert Simpson , Ex-officio Tricia Langon , Senior Planner Jennifer Guetschow , UDC Project Manager John Voboril, Planner I Suzette Emerson , De sign Consultant Gary Sears , Cit y Manager Dan Brotzman , City Attorney Nancy Reid , Assistant City Attorney Leslie Bethel , Tina Axelrad, Marliese Fratinardo Mr . Simpson provided an overview of goals and intent of the workshop , that being to reach con- sensus on several issues and receive guidance for staff and consultants working on the UDC. Ms . Leslie Bethel provided a background of Clarion Associates, reiterated goals cited by Mr . Simpson , and cited topics scheduled for consideration. >-Lot Coverage > Front Yard Coverage > Setbacks > Height/Bulk Plane Standards >-Garages > Design Standards > Design Guidelines • Ms . Tina Axelrad addressed technical aspects of proposals. H:\GROUP\BOARDS\PLANCOMM\i\1inutes\Minutes 2002\PCM 12 -03-02.doc 1 • • • Residential Design Standards= General Intent Enable and encourage residential reinvestment in Englewood's R-1 and R-2 Zone Districts. At the same time , encourage reinvestment that is sensitive to , but not uniform with, the existing character of Englewood's R-1 and R-2 districts. Lot Coverage. Comments from participants: > R-1-A District should have different standards than other residential zone districts. > Given standards for lot coverage should be established. > Integrity of R-1-A District should be preserved. > Mandatory versus voluntary guidelines. What constitutes Lot Coverage? Comments from participants: > Permanent structures -houses and garages. > Determine what is included in "lot coverage". > Inclusion of paved or concrete areas? > Front yards s hould remain pretty "open ". > Do we provide driveways to get vehicles off-street, or have vehicles parked on-street. > Define lot coverage as "roofed area". > Protect "front yard" from too much "impervious material" -concrete , paving, etc. > If new construction permits "off-set" of residences (some built to the front of the lot; oth- ers built to the rear), where would "play sets" for children be placed on those lots with dwellings placed to the rear. > Construction of large dwellings is dictated by economics: is it affordable to scrape exist- ing development to construct a large residence. > Do we want to encourage remodeling of old homes or encourage demolition and recon- struction ? > Are we limiting ·'reinvestment" in residential neighborhoods to remodeling existing structures? > Don't want to become another Washington Park or Bonnie Brae area -small homes scraped, large structures constructed on small lots. > Don 't want to see character of Englewood neighborhoods change because of desire for large dwellings . > Need to realize old housing stock will be scraped eventually -too many maintenance problems. > Seventy percent (70%) lot coverage isn 't realistic -40% lot coverage is more realistic for all residential districts but R-1-A. > R-1-A District lot coverage should be no more than 30% to 35%. Consensus: Lot Coverage l. Lot coverage percentage for R-1-A District-30 to 35% maximum. 2. Lot coverage percentage for remaining R-1 Districts and R-2 Districts -40%. Front yards/front loading garages. Comments: > Can we restrict impervious coverage (concrete/paving) in front yards to no more than 30 %. H:\GROUP-BOARDS\PLANCOMM\Minutes\Mi nutes 2002\PCvl 12-03-02.doc 2 • • • > > > " , > > > > > > > Require a "driveway" to lead to a garage or carport. Eliminate parking pads in front yards. People may not use garages to house vehicles; park on driveway or pad. No alleys -need parking pads for storage of RVs, boats as well as daily-used vehicles. Concern about "temporary" carports and "tents" housing vehicles showing up in neighborhoods. Lack of parking pad may necessitate parking personal vehicles a considerable distance from residence. Width of driveways -narrowed at street front, widened at garage entrance? No Hollywood driveways. Existing maximum width of curb cut is 20 feet. Better off limiting driveway width. Twenty feet (20 ') is standard width of two-car garage . " , > Need freedom for off-street parking in front yard when there is no alley access or garage . Narrow the driveway down from 20 feet ; want to see less concrete in front yards. Consensus: Front Yard Coverage 1. Preserve open lawn and limit "hard paving". 2 . Consider difference with alley versus no alley access. 3. Consider difference with garage access versus no garage. 4. Maintain flexibility to park in front of residential unit as needed. 5 . No Holl yw ood driveways . 6 . In ves tigate limiting width of curb cuts -verify that 20 feet is not too wide. Setbacks. Front Yard. Comments: > Preserve "open " feeling. > Englewood is older community, with a variet y of front "setbacks" in a block or a nei ghborhood. > Administrative issue for staff -creation of more intensive staff time. > Present code allows for "averaging" of front yard setbacks. > Adhere to standard 25 ft. setback. > Do we want to "mandate" a 25 foot front setback. > Do we want to retain the option of "averaging" front setbacks. Consensus: Setbacks -Front yard 1. Preserve open lawn area. 2 . No change in front yard setback. 3 . Eliminate "contextual" option on setbacks. 4. Continue to look at attractive alternatives. Setbacks, Side Yard= minimum separation between buildings. Comments: > Minimum setback in R-1-C -3 feet, minimum total setback 10 feet. > Minimum separation between buildings in R-1-C -10 feet. > Equity issue created for new construction between existing developments to comply with building separation standards. H:\GRO UP\BOARDS\PLANCOMM\M inutes\M inutes 2002\PCM 12 -03-02.doc 3 • • • -, Proposed elimination of minimum separation between buildings to allow more room for expansion. >-Need to maintain minimum 10-foot separation -Fire Code requirements. -, Verify Fire Code/Safety issue on building separation distances. > Allow new construction to have 5-foot setback on each side -meet minimum total 10- foot setback requirement. > Existing R-1-A minimum requirements: 7-foot minimum setback; minimum total 18-foot setback. > Existing R-1-B minimum requirements: 5-foot minimum setback; minimum total 14-foot setback. > Increase of minimum setback requirements will create non-conforming houses, necessi- tating applications for variance to pop-the-top and adhere to existing wall line of house. -, Point of measurement -eave line or footprint of foundation -what is correct? -, Measurement taken at grade at outside foundation measurement -not taken at eave line. -, Extension of eaves into setback is Building Code issue. -, Extension of bay windows into setbacks? Currently allowed. Consensus: Setbacks -Side yard l. Maintain privacy 2. Maintain minimum of 10-foot total setback between buildings in R-1-C. 3. New construction side-yard setback be increased to 5-feet in R-1-C. 4. Additions to or remodeling of existing structures may maintain the minimum setback of 3 feet wi thout appealing to BOA. Height/Bulk Plane Standards. Comments: ..., Do not have bulk plane standards in place at present time . -, If bulk plane standards are adopted, construction can occur "within" a designated build- ing envelope. -, Construction of "long houses" within bulk plane may create shadow problems for adjoin- ing properties. -, Develop bulk plane envelope using side setback requirements. -, Adding second story to older homes that have higher ceilings can "overpower" adjoining properties. > Maximum residential height in Englewood is 25 feet. >-Majority of Englewood homes are one-story in height. -, Bulk plane standards should be developed. > Increase maximum height to 30 feet. > Height is measured to peak of roof -not wall height. > Chimney height is allowed above 30-foot maximum. Consensus: Building Height and Scale l. Bulk plane is good tool. 2. Research existing building angles. 3. Maximum building height increase to 30 foot maximum . H:IGROUP\BOARDS\PLANCOMM\i'vlinutes\J'vlinutes 2002\PCM 12-03-02.doc 4 • • • Garage Location. Comments: > New residential construction in Englewood has attached garages accessed from street - not alley. > Need to minimize visual impact of front-yard garages. > Limit amount of front fa9ade devoted to garage doors. > Recessing of attached garages versus recessing residence and making garage visual focus from street line . > Location of garage with alley access versus location of garage with no alley access. > Fac;:ade used by garage doors limited to less than 45%. > Northwest Englewood development -all new construction has garages on front of house. Consensus: Garage Location 1. Investigate 40% front fa9ade maximum -lineal foot measurement in R-1 Districts. 2. Investigate 45% front fa9ade maximum -lineal foot measurement in R-2 Districts, stan- dards for compatibility. 3. Address issue of alley access versus no alley access. Recap of Workshop: The workshop facilitators and staff asked participants if the workshop was helpful, addressed issues of concern , and clarified issues considered in the UDC. Participants suggested a second workshop be scheduled to address agenda topics not considered in this workshop . ..,. / Gertrude G. Welty, Recording Secretary H:\G RO UP\BOARDS\PLANCOMM\Miautes\i'vt inutes 2002\PCM 12-03-02.doc 5