Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-09-20 PZC MINUTES' I ' CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION September 20, 1983 I. CALL TO ORDER. The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:00 P. M. by Chairman Becker. Members present: Stoel, Tanguma, Venard, Becker, Barbre, Carson, Allen Romans, Ex-officio Members absent: McBrayer II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. Chairman Becker stated that the Minutes of September 7, 1983, were to be considered for approval. Tanguma moved: Stoel seconded: The Minutes of September 7, 1983 be approved as written. AYES: Stoel, Tanguma, Venard and Becker NAYS: None ABSTAINING: Barbre, Carson, Allen ABSENT: McBrayer The motion carried. III. COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE. Chairman Becker stated that the R-2 Medium Density Residence District section of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance was open for discussion. Mrs. Romans listed permitted uses for the R-2 Medium Density Residence Dis- trict: single-family detached and attached dwellings, two-family dwellings, multi-family dwellings, religious institutions, educational institutions and public facilities. Mr. Tanguma asked if duplexes could be sold as separate units. Mrs. Romans said that at the present time, they would have to get Board approval, and have fire separation fire walls, separate meters and services. She stated that the Planning Division is presently suggesting that builders plan new duplexes as possible condominiums, with the separate services and fire walls. Mrs. Romans said that in the R-2 District, four or more units which are attached, must have Planned Development approval. She told the Com- mission that the Board had approved a fourplex at 3550 South Downing Street on a substandard lot, and this development will have to go through the Planned Development process. The variance request did have neighborhood approval and support. She stated that the phrase "Public Facilities" is used instead of "Public Buildings" to include water and sewer lines, fire plugs, etc. These do not have to comply with the area, frontage or setback requirements. -2- Mrs. Romans said the main change in this section is the provision for the single-family attached dwelling, which is being limited to four units at- tached, The single-family detached units require the same frontage (50 feet) and lot area (6,000 sq. ft.) as in the single-family district. The single-family attached unit can have 25 foot frontage and 3,000 square feet of lot area; the duplex requires 50 feet and 6,000. The triplex re- quires 75 and 9,000, and the fourplex must have 100 foot frontage and 12,000 square feet of lot area. Mr. Barbre asked why the day care centers were taken out as a permitted use. Mrs. Romans said that the City wants to regulate and inspect the day care centers, and the Planning Division had changed the use to a Con- ditional Use, which will require a public hearing and give the neighbors a chance to comment. Mrs. Romans said that it is proposed that the setbacks will remain the same in the R-2 District. The Commission asked that the section conform with the changes made in the R-1 areas, requiring a 200 foot frontage and 24,000 square feet of lot area for religious, educational and public facilities, and changing the minimum front yard from 25 feet to 15 feet, or a formula based on the setbacks of the neighboring houses. Mrs. Becker asked if the Commission had not suggested the requiring of letters of approval from the neighbors for setbacks which are substantially different from the neighbors'. The minutes did not show such a decision, and discussion followed. Mr. Allen said he did not want neighbors involved. Mrs. Romans said that the letters are required for fences. Mr. Allen stated that it causes problems between neighbors. It was decided to check with the at- torney to see what could be done about notification of neighbors. Mrs. Romans said that 50% of usable open space would be required in the R-2 District, and the attached dwellings would have a O' lot line setback. Susan King said that the setback for public, educational and religious buildings would also have to be increased from 20 feet to 25 feet to go along with the increased frontage requirements. Mrs. Romans said that for the minimum rear yard, all permitted principal uses would be required to have 25 feet; the floor area for dwellings is not changed, and there are no minimum floor area for "All Other Permitted Principal Uses." She said that we currently are not counting garages as part of the lot coverage, and the result is sometimes a very bulky building. Ms. King said that, with the dropping of the different treatment of the detached and attached garages and carport, the Commission should consider counting garages and carports as part of the lot coverage. Mrs. Romans described the envelope treatment for lot coverage, which requires the minimum setbacks, then allows any building area desired, as long as the open space requirement is met. She said that they were trying to avoid the necessity of so many people having to apply for variances, as it is expensive and time consuming. It is anticipated that the Board will soon receive a number of Sign Code variance requests. The garage section should be amended to match the R-1 sections, eliminating the rear yard setback difference between attached and detached garages. The storage shed requirements should be changed to make the maximum height 10 feet, and the side and rear setbacks should be checked with the Fire Department to see if they can be eliminated. -3- Mrs. Romans said that home occupations have been a problem, and they have tried to clarify rules. They wanted firm rules especially to regulate dangerous occupations such as ammunition making, as well as occupations which would annoy the neighbors or affect the residential character of the neighborhood. Chairman Becker asked why barbers, hairdressers and cosmetologists or beauticians were excluded from Home Occupations. Mrs. Romans said that this is sometimes controversial, but the arguments have concerned the increased load on drains and the difficulty of supervision for sanitary conditions. The people who wish to operate a barber or beauty shop in their home still have the option of going before the Board of Adjustment and Appeals for a variance. Ms. King stated that "(2) Group Homes" should be included in the Conditional Use, so that it is possible for a group home to be included in the neighbor- hoods. Mrs. Becker asked why developmentally disabled 'were allowed in any zone, while other disabilities were not. Mrs. Romans said that the State law requires provision for the developmentally disabled, but not the mentally or socially disabled. Mr. Tanguma said that there should be no objection to group homes for the elderly. Mrs. Becker agreed that group homes should be permitted under Conditional Use. Mr. Allen referred to a group home for girls close to his office, saying that, while he could see reasons neighbors would object, he felt the homes should be permitted. R-2-C District. Mrs. Romans said that this district is the same as the R-2, except that there cannot be more than two units attached. Triplexes and fourplexes will not be permitted. Mrs. Becker said that she thought that the progression of the sections of the ordinance would get less and less restrictive, but this zoning was more restrictive. Mrs. Romans said that in this case, the dis- trict was developed for the citizens in Northwest Englewood and for people on Lincoln, Sherman and Grant south of Kenyon. The people in these areas did not want the bulk of multi-unit housing, but were willing to have two attached units. Mr. Carson asked if the alleys were developed in Northwest Englewood. Mrs. Romans said that the streets were being developed. The Board granted a variance at the last meeting for six two-unit attached homes with the provision that the utility poles be removed from the center of the roadway and access be made available for the Fire Department before a building permit is issued. Mr. Venard asked what the difference is between the R-2-C and the R-2-C SPS. Mrs. Romans said that the R-2-C and R-2-C SPS are the same, except that the R-2-C SPS has a built-in Special Permit System with a formula allowing neighborhood standards to be applied to any new development. The Northwest Englewood Citizens Committee is pleased with the formula and the Board is requiring the process for variance requests in that area. She said that the Special Permit System is not proposed to be applied to any area except the Northwest area of Englewood at this time. The Citizen's group has been working with the Planning Division for two years developing the standards. Mrs. Romans asked that the minimum lot area for "All Other Permitted Uses" be changed to 24,000 square feet, with 200 feet for the minimum lot front- age. The minimum front yard should be 15 feet and should also include the attorney's anticipated recommendation for averaging with the neighbors. -4- The sideyard for the "Other Permitted Principal Uses" should be changed to 25 feet on each side. The detached and attached garages and storage shed sections should conform to the changes made in the other zone district regulations. Home Occupations remain the same; however, if the Commission does decide to permit beauty shops, barber shops, etc. the change should probably be the same in each of the R-2 zones. Mr. Carson asked Mrs. Romans to check with the Building Division to :see if a beauty shop requires a larger drain pipe. Mrs. Becker asked Mrs. Romans to check with the Health Depart- ment to see if they regulate these shops. Mr. Tanguma said they could be allowed if they were regulated. Mr. Carson agreed, provided the shops com- plied with the Building Code. Mr. Stoel reminded the Commission that neighbors may not like a shop in the neighborhood. R-2-C SPS District. Mrs. Romans said that the regulations for this district were developed with the assistance of the citizens of Northwest Englewood and the Planning Division. She used an application submitted to the Board of Adjustment by Dennis Niernberg to show how the Special Permit System works. Mr. Carson asked what happens if one of the applicants before the Board does not want to go through the system, Mrs. Romans said the Board is requiring it as a condition for a variance in that neighborhood. Ms. King stated that Mr. Niernberg wanted to build twelve units in six buildings on Vassar and Hillside. He had enough land for only five build- ings. He needed a variance for lot area and frontage and also the off- street parking. He was providing a one-car garage and planned to have a pad between the buildings for parking. The Citizens Committee did not like the pad as it made most of the front yard cement and there would be little green area. They said they would support the front yard off-street parking if there could be more landscaping, so Mr. Niernberg applied for a variance to have one parking space in the required front set back. Ms. King said the units would have a full basement, two full bedrooms and a study, and a family room with a door leading to the back yard. They have fireplaces, and a master bedroom which is 11 x 14. The applicant has said he hopes to sell these units for around $60,000, Mr. Niernberg said that if he could get the extra units on the property, it would lower his construction costs. Mrs. Becker asked about the point system. Ms. King said that there are certain criteria which must be met, and there are 12 standards which are considered in trade-offs, including passive solar, screening of off-street parking, building scale, orientation of the building, screening of service areas, encouragement of open space, trees and landscaping, building exterior design and architectural style. To obtain permission to build, a plus score is required. She explained the way she evaluated Mr. Niernberg's develop- ment. Mr. Niernberg did not have any provision for passive solar, so he received no points on that. For screening, he was going to supply some trees, and she gave him one point for that. The building scale for the pro- posed development was not in keeping with the area, so he got a 0 on that. He received a negative point because the orientation was not east/west. There was no score given on screening of trash areas as it did not apply to this property. His open space was 43% so he received a O. Mr. Niernberg was not removing any trees, so he was not given a negative score on that. He was providing grass and small shrubs, which gave him one point. The colors of the buildings were to be earthtones, so he received one point. The exterior design is similar to what is being built in the neighborhood, so he received one point. The architectural style was compatible with the -5- houses in the area. Mr. Niernberg came out with a positive score, which made the neighbors and Planning Division feel that they could ~etonnnend the variance. The Board made a condition that grass must be planted before the Certificate of Occupancy was granted. Mrs. Romans said that this system is very flexible, and can be changed as conditions change. Mrs. Becker said this neighborhood likes to have control over the development in the area. Mrs. Romans said they hoped to have this an official zone classification in this area. Ms. King said that at the last meeting of the Board of Adjustment, Mr. Niernberg was requesting similar variances for a new single-family attached development. Some of the neighborhood did not approve of the project, but the Citizens Committee did feel that it met the requirements of the Special Permit System. Mr. Carson asked if this system were adopted, if it would apply to the whole of Englewood. Mrs. Romans said that it is proposed that it would apply only to the northwest Englewood area. Mrs. Becker said that this neighborhood had felt isolated, and this would help them be a part of their development. Mrs. Romans said that an encouraging feature of this system is that Council- men Bilo, Fitzpatrick and Bradshaw, and Mayor Otis, attended Saturday morning meetings with the Citizens Committee as did Mr. Carson. The Commission agreed that, because they had been through the Special Per- mit System before, it was unnecessary to go through it again. Mrs. Romans said that she would give the Commission a score sheet. R-3 District. Mrs. Romans gave the Commission copies of the R-3 Zone District, and they decided to discuss it at the next zoning ordinance session. Mrs. Romans said that the R-4 Section would be sent out to the members. She said that the downtown district would have to be redone because of the changes in the Plan. She suggested that the Public Hearings be divided so that not all sections of the Zoning Ordinance would have to be heard on the same night. Mrs. Becker asked if the Public Hearings could begin as soon as the Commission had finished going over the residential sections. Mrs. Romans said that they could be done then. There was no further discussion on the Zoning Ordinance. IV. PUBLIC FORUM. There was no Public Forum. V. ATTORNEY'S CHOICE. There was no Attorney's Choice. VI. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE. Under Director's Choice, Mrs. Romans asked the Commission to mark their calendars for 7:30 A. M. on Wednesday, the second of November. Swedish Medical Center has invited the Planning Commission and the City Council to meet with them at that time for an update on their Master Plan. -6- The Littleton Planning Commission Chairman has invited the Englewood Planning • Commission to meet with them. The Commission members asked Mrs. Romans to suggest October 6 as a date for the meeting or a Saturday morning breakfast. VII. COMMISSION'S CHOICE. Under Commission's Choice, Mr. Tanguma said that he was having problems with water pressure, and asked what the status of the water tower is. Mrs. Romans said the matter is in the courts. Mr. Tanguma discussed the Urban Renewal Authority Minutes of August 3rd and August 17th. Mr. Allen asked what was happening with the Redevelopment Plan. Mrs. Becker said that there had been so many changes, she assumed it would have to come back before the Commission. Mr. Allen discussed the concern some business people feel because there is no longer an Englewood Chamber of Commerce. The Centennial Chamber of Com- merce has suggested that they form a task force designed to take care of Engelwood's problems. The Centennial Chamber covers Engelwood, Littleton, and parts of Jefferson, Douglas, Arapahoe and Denver counties, and some businessmen feel the Chamber is more concerned about development in the Tech Center area than in Englewood or Littleton. Mr. Allen reported on a trip to Longmont and the information he gathered on their trash collection. He said that the new trucks, cans and employment program are so effective that the workers are off by noon each day, and the City is receiving a profit of $200,000 a year on charges of $4.25 per house. He said that in Englewood, citizens are paying $7.00 and more. Mrs. Becker expressed an interest in the National Jewish Hospital program of methane burning, and she said she would look into it. Mr. Allen said that there could be problems with taking over a business from the companies which are now doing the trash collection. Mrs. Becker stated that there was a request from the Executive Board in the GOAL MINER, a magazine for the Colorado Chapter of the American Planning Association, requesting the appointment of a Planning Commissioner to serve as an advisor to the Chapter. She said that she would be interested in serving and asked if there were any other Commissioners interested. No one said that they would like to serve, and Mrs. Becker said that with the Commissioners' approval, she would have her name submitted, There was no further b.usiness, and the Chairman adjourned the meeting at 9:24 P. M.