Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-08-19 PZC MINUTES• • • , Pl anning and Zoning Commission Publ ic Hearing Case #2008-08 August 19 , 2008 Page 1 of8 CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION A UGUST 1 9, 200 8 I. CALL TO ORDER The reg ular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was c alled to order at 7:03 p.m . in the Council Chambers of the Englewood Ci v ic Cente r, Chair Bl eile presidin g. Present: Absent: Staff: Bleile, Roth , King, We lker, Knoth, Fish, Brick, Calonder Krieger (exc us ed) Tricia Langon , Senior Planner Nancy Reid , Assistant City Attorney II. A PPROVAL OF MIN U TES August 5, 2008 Knoth moved: Fish sec onded: TO APPROVE THE AUGUST 5, 2008 MINUTES Chair Bleile asked if there were any modifications or corrections . There were none. AYES: NAYS: Bleile, Roth, Welker, Knoth, Fish , King, Brick, Calonder None ABSTAIN : None ABSENT: Krieger Motion carried. 111. t?lJ PUBLIC HE A RING C ASE #2 008-08: R-1 Su bdi visio n Ex ception to Title 1 6 Welker moved: Brick seconded: THE PUBLIC HEARING ON CASE #2008-08 BE OPENED AYES : NAYS: Bleile, Brick, Knoth, Roth , Welker, King, Calonder, Fish None ABSTAI N: None ABSENT: Krieger Motion carried . • • • .. Pl an nin g and Zoning Commi ss ion Public Hearing Case #2008-08 Augus t 19 , 2008 Page 2 of 8 Ms. Langon, Senior Planner, was sworn in. She stated for the Commission 's consideration is Case #2008-08, a UDC Amendment creating a Subdivision Exception for requirem e nts of minimum lot widths and minimum lot area in R-1 zone districts. For the record she already submitted the proof of publication that the hearing was published in the Engl ewood H eral d on August 8, 2008 and the Staff Report. The Planning Commission is authorized by 16-2-1.B 4 of the UDC to revi ew and mak e reco mmendations to City Council regarding updates to Titl e 16: Unified Developm ent Code. Community Development requests that the Commission review, take publi c testimony and forward to City Council recommendations for approval of the propos ed amendments. The proposed amendments relate to all properties in the zone districts that are identified in the amendments . The y are not associated with any particular property or any on e particular case. Per Table 16-3-1.1: Base Zoning Districts: one unit residential zon e districts are distinguished by relative lot size: R-1-A: "large lot size" district R-1-B: "medium lot size " district R-1-C: "small lot size" district Pursuant to 16-8-4.D Lot Design and Specifications of Title 16, "The minimum dimensions of lots shall be in accordance to Chapter 16 -6 EMC, '"'Development Standards"." This means that no parcel may be created that does not meet the minimum lot w id th or lot area standards. The current lot width and lot area are : R-1-A 75 feet and 9,000 square feet R-1-B 60 feet and 7,200 square feet R-1-C 50 feet and 6,000 square feet These minimums are based on historic land platting patterns and community desires. In 2004 the UDC added a provision that no variances for lot width or lot area be allowed. This was intended to prevent the creation of smaller lots, especially in the multi-unit zone districts. In 2006 Community Development was approached regarding a subdivision of an unplatte d parcel in the R-1-C zon e district. That parcel met lot area requirements , but did not meet the lot width requirements if it was subdivided into two parcels. With no variance being all owed that parcel was not able to be subdivided . Community Development took this issue to Council and by consensus, Council agreed to a policy that allowed subdivisions in the R-1 districts, providing that the lots that were created by the subdivision were within five percent (5%) of the minimum lot width requirement. • • • Planning and Zonin g Commission Public Hearing Case #2008-08 August 19 , 2008 Page 3 of 8 Community Developm ent developed that policy and it was included with pending policies for UDC updates. Those updates were not started until the end of 2007 and are in the housekeeping amendments the Commission just finished reviewin g. In June of 2008 Council reviewed th e housekeeping amendments and the y choose to remove this one issue from the housekeeping amendments. This issue was looked at during a Planning and Zoning Study Session in June and one of the issues was whether this should be an administrative procedure or a public process. By consensus at that time, th e Commission chose the public process. She noted th e proposed amendments are on page 4 of the Staff Report. They apply only in the R-1 zone districts and the new subdivision must meet th e Exception criteria for lot width, lot area or both. Ms. Langon reviewed the table of c urr ent and proposed lot width and lot area standards: Lot Width Standards Lot Area Standards Current Proposed Current Proposed {5% {5% reduction ) reduction ) R-1-A 75 I 71.25 I 9,000 sf. 8,550 sf. R-1-8 60 I 57.00 I 7,200 sf. 6,840 sf. R-1-C 50 I 47 .50 I 6,000 sf. 5,700 sf. The Exception requires public notice through property posting and legal notice, which allows for neighborhood involvement in th e approval process and is designed to protect neighborhood integrity. The Exception allows for first appeal to City Council rather than through District Court which is a less cumbersome process for anyone who is aggrie v ed b y the decision. The Exception provides that no side setback allowances, adjustments or variances be allowed. This allows the separation between buildings to be the same on th e slightly smaller property as on a full size property. The Exception also requires that no variances be allowed to the Exception; the five percent or the zone district could not be varied . The Exception prevents a "zigzag" property line where someone may meet the lot width requirement, but because of an existing structure the y want to zigzag around it. The Exception addresses two goals and objectives in Roadmap Englewood: 2003 Englewood Comprehensive Plan: 1 . Promote a balanced mix of housing opportunities serving needs of all current and future Englewood citizens. Objective 1.2 to "Encourage housing that serves different lifecycle stages including housing for singles, couples, small and large families, empty nesters, and the elderly." 2. Improve the quality of the city's existing housing stock . • • Planning and Zoning Commission Public Hearing Case #2008-08 August l 9, 2008 Page4of8 Commun ity Deve lopment supports the proposed amendme nts. The Subd iv ision Except i on wo uld prov i de st i mulus t o ne w residential deve lopment, improve the housing stock w ith ne w structures, provide res i dents with housing op ti o n s i ncluding smal l e r ya r ds, co uld i ncrease th e opportunity for home owne rshi p in R-1 dis tri cts by creat in g add iti onal R-1 l ots, provide city r evenues through bu il d i ng pe r mits, u se and property taxes and it supports th e goa ls and object ive of Roadmap Englewood. She offered to answer any questions the Commiss i one rs might ha ve. Mr. l<ing asked how item 5 (c) gets determ in ed. It reads "The resulting su bdivision wi ll not have a significant negati ve impact on those prope 1·ti es sur rounding th e subdivided property and that th e genera l publ ic hea lth, safety and we lfare of the community are protected ." Ms. Langon stated first the main c rit er ia i s that the r es ultin g properties wo uld n ot be sma ll er t han th e five percent of th e zone district requirement e ith e r for l ot width or for lot area. The Comm iss i on wou l d ha ve to find th at there i s n oth in g si g ni fica nt that the nei ghbor hood o r surrou n d in g prope rt y owne rs feel wou l d jeopardize th e integrity and th e general health , welfare and safety of the neighborhood. If no one came fo rward the probable assumption wo uld be t hat there are no iss u es. If m ultip l e peop l e came forwa rd in opposition and felt the re was going to be some negati ve i mpact to the properties th e Commission wo ul d ha ve to t ake that into co n siderat i o n . Mr. Kin g said it wo ul d be more of public input on that particular ite m . Ms. Lango n stated that was co rr ec t sinc e it is not someth in g t hat can be measured in a quantitative manner. It is someth in g th e Commission will need to review 011 a case b y case basis. M r. Fi sh asked ho w Staff arrived at the fi ve percent number. Ms. Lango n sa id basically using the c u rrent num bers for the sma ll est lo t size. On a 50 foo t lot five percent i s only two and a half feet. That st ill gives you w hat Staff hopes wo uld be e n o u gh room t o have t he same separat i on between structures 011 both sides and build a h o u se. The f ive percent was reasonable and 011 a 50 foot w id e prope1·t y you p robably can't tell t he difference between a 50 foot l o t and a 47.5 foot l ot. Mr. Knoth asked why this i ssue i s co min g thr o u g h the Pl a nnin g and Zoning Commission in stead of being handled admi ni str ati ve ly. Ms. La n gon said because of opportunity for neighborhood input (pub li c forum ). The on ly other option wo uld have been t o cha n ge th e Code to al low varia nces and th at brings u p t he question of h ow much va ri ance. It was an i ssue th e D epartm e nt felt, if it was going t o be a process that was considered in a public way from a l a n d use perspecti ve, it wo uld best be handled by Pl ann in g Commission since the Commission is familiar wi th Jan el us e i ss u es. Mr. Fish wan t ed to know if anyone had asked for th is in the r ece nt past. Ms . Langon stat e d • yes over th e yea rs th e re have been inquiries . • • • Pl anning and Zoning Commission Publ ic Hearing Case #2008-08 Au gust 19 , 2008 Page 5 of 8 Knoth moved: Calond e r seconded: THE PUBLIC HEARING ON CASE #2008-08 BE CLOSED AYES: NAYS : Bleile, Brick, Knoth, Roth , Welker, King, Calonder, Fish None ABSTAIN : None ABSENT : Krieger Motion carried. Knoth moved: Fish seconded: CASE #2008-08, AMENDMENT TO 7 6-8-4 D LOT DESIGN A ND SPECIF/CATIONS ALLOWING THE SUBDIVISIO N OF PROPERTY IN R-7-A , R-7-B AND R-7 -C ZO N E DISTRICTS PROVIDED THE WIDTH ANO/OR LOT AREA OF EACH N EWLY CREATED PARCEL ARE NOT REDUCED BY MORE THA N FIVE PERCENT (5%) OF THE ZO N E DISTRICT'S MI N IMUM DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS, BE RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL TO CITY COUNCIL WITH A FAVORABLE RECOMME N DATION FOR ADOPTION . Mr. Brick stated he was pleased to see the setbacks maintained since people who li ve in an R-1 district are living there because they want that spacing between the houses. Mr. Welker said it is an appropriate amendment. It gives some relief for thos e f ew properties that are a little less than the zoning standard and yet it is a limit that is not going to open the floodgates for substandard things. It is in keeping with our intentions of Roadmap Englewood: 2003 Englewood Comprehensive Plan . He believes the issue of who hears it and how it is resolved is that it is in a public forum rather than administratively . In this forum it will be published and so noted. He said he feels the Commission has taken a reasonable approach to this problem in the zoning code. Chair Bleile agreed with Mr. Welker. Mr. Fish liked the fact there is a specific prohibition from taking the exception higher with no allo w ances for variances and that the five percent is truly the limit. Mr. King would like to see in the am e ndment the fact that if the property has alle y access it must have a rear loading garage to minimize the impact of the garages on the front of th e house if the lots are going to be a little smaller. Mr. Welker said that would be true because that's part of new construction and applies t o the other parts of the Code that the Commission dealt with earlier this year. We hav e that provision for 50 foot wide lots and alle y access already in the Code. • • • Planning and Zoning Commi ssion Public Hearing Case #2008-08 Au g ust 19 , 2008 Page 6 of 8 Mr. King asked if it is required for single-family residential to have a rear loaded garage on alleys or is that just for multi-family. Mr. Fish said he believed it was just for multi-housing. Mr. King said the point he was making is that if the lots are going to get smaller rather than having a massive driveway and garage on the front, where possible with alle y s, that ma y be the requirement is the garages are off the alley. Chair Bleile said that was a good suggestion and he would like to see that issue discussed at a future Study Session to make sure the code for single-family houses addresses that. He said the Commission addressed that issue for multi-family dwellings, but he did not believe it included single-family dwellings . Motion on amendment. Mr. King moved: Mr. Fish seconded: Amend motion to make it a requirement that in exchange for the five percent reduction in lot width on properties that have alley access , the developer agrees to place the garage off the alley. Ms. Langon asked for clarification from Mr. King. She asked if he meant just for lot width or for lot area also. Mr. King said what he is thinking is on a 50 foot wide lot in an R-1-C zone . Chair Bleile asked if he wanted to see this as a condition to this amendment or would he like to see it as a blanket across the board regarding any construction . Mr. King said no, he would like to see it as a condition as part of this approval because the lot width is getting narrower than 50 feet. Mr. King said just width. It is the streetscape I am th i nking of. Mr. King moved: Mr. Fish seconded: Amend motion to make it a requirement in the R-1-C district to be granted the five percent reduction in either lot area or lot width where alleys are accessible, the garage becomes rear loaded on all ne w construction. Chair Bleile said he was not prepared to take on that discussion during this Public Hearing. He said he wasn't sure the issue of alley access should be tied to the five percent amendment. Mr. Welker did not think it was a bad idea, but believed there are som e wording issues that need discussing. Chair Bleile stated he didn't believe the Commission was prepared to take on that discussion tonight. Mr. Knoth agreed. Ms. Reid asked if that was a motion to continue the hearing . Chair Bleile said no, he felt that the alley access requirement should not be placed into this amendment but be reviewed from a broader perspective at a future Study Session. Mr. Welker felt it should be thought through for all three zone districts . Mr. King said his only reason for bringing it up now is that somebody is asking for something and in exchange for that we'll agree to give them something. Mr. Welker asked • • • Planning and Zoning Commission Public Hearing Case #2008-0 8 August 19 , 200 8 Page 7 o f 8 Mr. King if he was afraid the Commis sion will not incorporate that if the Commis sion passed the change in zoning without it. Chair Bleile said if som eb ody who has a 50 foot lot does new construction and doesn 't ha ve to go through the subdi v ision th ey are allowed to build a house with a garage in th e front where someon e who has a 4 7.5 foot lot will be required to build th e garage in th e back. Neighbors will hav e different standards to build to. He said he fe els th at is wrong to put into this public hea rin g. He said he pe rsonall y would like to see th e Commi ssion close out thi s public hearing and then l ook at that issu e from an overall broader perspecti v e across all three zone districts and an y ne w construction with alley access period . Mr. King said he agreed with that. Mr. King withdrew his motion. Vote on original motion. AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT : Bleile, Brick, Knoth, Roth , Welker, King, Calonder, Fish None None Kri ege r Motion carried . IV. PUBLIC FORUM There was no one present to address the Commission. V . DIRECTOR'S CHOICE Directo r White was not pr esent. VI. STAFF 'S CHOICE ~ Ms. Langon provided an update on future meetings: Wednesday, Sept ember 3rd john Voboril will hold the final Engl ewood Medical Distri ct Small Area Plan discussion. Tuesda y, September 16th will be two public hearings for UDC amendments: BID Sale Day Flags and parking surfaces and weight of commercial veh icl es in resid entia l districts. In October the Commission w ill hopefull y start Stud y Sessions on land scaping . VII. lflJ ATTORNEY'S CHOICE Ms. Reid had nothing further to report to the Commission. • • • Planni ng and Zoning Commission Publi c Hearing Case #2008-08 August 19 , 2008 Page 8 of 8 VIII. COMMISSIONER'S CHOICE ~ Mr. Roth noted an article regarding third party signs in The Commissioner that h e said might be of interest to the Commissio n ers. Per the discussion tonight Chair Bleil e asked that a future Study Session be held on all ey access for new construction of single-famil y dwellings. Mr. Welker stated he would not be available to attend the September 3rd meeting. The meeting adjourned at 7:45 p.m .