Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-01-23 PZC MINUTES• • • CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Janu a ry 23 , 2008 I. CA LL TO ORDER The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:08 in the Community Development Conference Room of the Englewood Civic Center, Chair Roth presiding . Present: Absent: Staff Present: Guests: Roth, Brick, Fish, Knoth , Krieger, Diekmeier Myers (alt e rn a te) Welker (excused), Bleile (excused ), Calonder (excused) Tricia Langon, Senior Planner Steve King Kevin Dixon II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Minutes of January 8, 2008 Mr. Knoth moved: Mr. Brick seconded: TO APPROVE T HE JANUARY 8, 2008 MINUTES AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Brick, Roth, Knoth , Fish None Diekmeier, Krieger Welker, Bleile, Calonder Motion carried. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT Case #2007-12 Amendments to 1-1: Light Industrial Zone District by Defining Extended Stay Hotel and Add- ing Hotel and Hotel, Extended Stay as a Permitted use. Ms. Fish moved: Mr. Brick seconded: TO APPROVE THE FINDINGS OF FACT FOR CASE #200 7-12 AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Brick, Roth, Knoth, Fish None Diekmeier, Krieger Welker, Bleile, Calonder • • • Motion carried . 111. M I NIMUM FRONTAGE REQU I REMENTS IN MULTI-UNIT ZONE DISTRICTS Ms. Langon referenced the black line copy of the draft of proposed Unified Development Code Amendments that were included in the meeting packet. She noted that anything that is new is double underlined and anything that is going to be deleted is crossed out. Sec- tions that have been moved to another part of the Code are both crossed out and double underlined. On January 22 nd, City Council had a Study Session regarding this topic and had a lot of questions about the work the Commission has been doing. The general consensus at the end of the meeting was that Council approved the direction Commission is going differen- tiating between properties with and without alley access. Ms. Langon stated she would be going through the changes as the Commission will see them in the Ordinance and asked if the members see any corrections that need to be made to let her know. Ms. Krieger said she felt the changes were a great improvement. Ms. Langon thanked her and noted the Commission has done a great deal of work on the revised Amendments. Ms. Langon first reviewed the changes that are applicable to alley and no alley access and noted they do not apply to single-units in the R2-A, R2-B, MU-R-3-A and MU-R-3-B Districts. Under c. Property having rear alley access number (2 ) the current sentence would become A. and a new sentence B would be added: B. "Dwellings with more than four units may have one driveway accessing the street1'. The Commission agreed. Under d. Property without rear alley access number (4) the word and will be added after Maximum driveway. Ms. Langon asked if there were any further questions on that section of the Amendment. Mr. Knoth had a question as to the allowed maximum width of garages in back of units . Ms. Langon stated the Amendment does not govern size. Other parts of the Code govern ga - rages. Mr. Fish had a question regarding d. (7) of the Amendment which says An opaque fence or wall shall be provided between driveways or parking pads on adjacent properties. He asked if adjacent properties are not owned by the same person, are both parties re- quired to install a fence. Ms. Langon said only one fence is required. If there is already an opaque fence installed, nothing more need be done. If there is a chain link fence already on the adjacent property then the person installing the driveway or parking pad would be re- sponsible for installing the opaque fence. Mr. Diekmeier asked for an explanation for d. (2) which states Garages, carports and parking pads shall be off-set behind the front building line of each unit by a minimum of 5 feet. Ms. Langon noted the garage area must be set back behind the front building line of the unit so that the garage is not in line with the whole front fac;ade of the unit. The members questioned how that would work with a four-plex with front to back units. After discussion, Ms. Langon said a number (9) could be added to 2 • that section. She stated other areas of the Code include similar language that states the City recognizes the myr iad forms of development that can occur and at the discretion of the City Manager or designee the Code may be adjusted as need be . After discussion the Members determined a number (9) should be added to th at section. Tab le 16-5 -1.C Table of Allowed Uses and Table 16-6-1.1 Summary of Dimensional Re- quirements for Principal Structures were reviewed and discussed. Ms. Krieger asked if th e Minimum Floor Area category could be removed since they don 't exist any more and the column read Maximum Floor Area Ratio only. Ms. Lan go n stated she will consider that change. Mr. Brick stated he is uncomfortable with removing the Minimum Floor Areas from the residential districts . Mr. Fish asked Ms . Langon to explain how the percentages for Maximum Lot Coverage are determined. She stated it was determined by using a typical lot size and a standard footprint and then shrinking the lot down and adjustin g the percentage . Mr. Fish had corrections on pages 5 and 6 of the chart. Ms. Langon noted at the end of the chart, note (5) clarifies what th e definition of a "small lot" is. The next section to be reviewed was C. Additional Dimensional and Developm ent Stan- dards. Mr. Fish noted several typos in paragraph 1.b. The fin al sections to be revie wed were 16-11 -1: Use Classifications and 16-11-2 : Definition of Words, Terms , and Phrases. Ms. Lan go n noted Staff added visitor accommodations in the definition of dwelling as not being included. • Ms. Lan go n said she will go through the document one last time to check all references and definitions . She asked if there were any further questions. Mr. Fish asked when the Amend- ments will be taken to a public hearing . Ms. Langon stated it would be March 18th. • IV. PUBLIC FORUM Mr. Steve King stated he is a builder in Englewood. He said he builds single-family spec houses north of Dartmouth, east of Broadway and west of Downing. He said he feels the development from Denver is headin g in that direction. There are a number of duplex units being built in that part of town. H e said he is happy to see the Commission considering the change, but there is not a lot of R-2 zonin g in that particular quadrant. In order for the change to become effecti ve as far as the redevelopment end goes, if a developer has to pay $180,000 for the old house and lot, he has to get four times the lot cost in order to at- tempt to work out a bud ge t. In order to justify the $600,000 and up price the developer also has to include more upgrades in the home. The price continues to go up. Regardin g duplexes, he said it is still the same formula, which ends up at $350,000 to $400,000 a unit. Units ne ed to be in the area of a 1, 900 to 2,000 square foot ranch. Right now with the bulk plane and setbacks to get to 1,900 square feet you're going to end up with a 10 or 15 foot back yard ... the garage will probably be 22 feet deep, 5 foot setback off the alley and a 25 foot front setback . Because of the bulk plane restrictions the widest a developer can do is 16 feet per unit. A single-family house can go to 33 feet, two stories high with 9 foot ceil- ings on the first floor with 8 foot ceilings on the second floor. The duplexes end up being very narrow. He noted that Den ve r has changed their bulk plan e in order to accommodate the duplexes. In Englewood th e vertical line is 12 feet; Denver has gone up to 14 feet. 3 • • When you are at 16 feet wide, an extra foot or two makes a lot of difference. He said in order to command the kind of price that you are going to need, in R-2 especially, we need bulk plane changes to increase the square footage of the unit. He asked the City to con- sider the front setback be decreased to 20 feet and up the bulk plane in order to better compete with Denver. Mr. Kevin Dixon stated he is an investor in Englewood. He said he appreciates the Com- mission looking at this problem. He said when the 60 foot frontage was approved the rede- velopment that was happening ceased. The majority of the lots for redevelopment are 50 feet or less. The change stopped redevelopment on the west side of Broadway. He said al- though the market is down now the investors and builders expect it to rebound in a few years and they appreciate all the hard work the Commission has done regarding this issue. He also stated he would like to see the alle ys paved. V. DIRECTOR'S AND STAFF'S CHOICE Ms. Langon said election of officers would be held at the next meeting of the Commission. The process was reviewed . Senior Planner Langon provided an update on upcoming meetings: • February 5th -Tentatively the UDC Housekeeping Amendments discussion • February 20t 11 , Wednesday -Meeting tentatively cancelled. • March 4t h -Public Hearing, Kent Place Amendment • March l 81h -Public Hearing, UDC Amendments related to Minimum Front- age Requirements VI. ATIORNEY'S CHOICE Ms. Reid was not present. VII. COMMISSIONERS CHOICE Mr. Diekmeier stated he has had an enjoyable five years but would be leaving the Commis- sion at the end of his term. He said it has been a pleasure serving. Chair Roth and the members said it has been a pleasure having him on the Commission. Mr. Fish thanked Mr. King and Mr. Dixon for attending and for their comments. Mr. Fish informed the Commission he has conflicts on the second and fourth Tuesdays of the month and will not be able to attend meetings on those days. The meeting adjourned at 8:30. • Barbara Krecklow, R cording Secretary 4