Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-04-08 PZC MINUTES• • • • Planning and Zoning April 8, 2008 Page 1 of 10 CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION April 8, 2 008 I. CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:03 p.m . in the City Council Chambers of the Englewood Civic Center, Vice Chair Knoth presiding. Present: Absent: Staff: Brick, Knoth, Roth, Calonder, King, Fish, Welker Myers (alternate) Bleile (Excused), Krieger (Unexcused) Alan White, Director, Community Development Tricia Langon , Senior Planner Nancy Reid , Assistant City Attorney 11 . APPROVAL OF MINUTES March 18, 2008 Mr. Brick moved: Mr. Fish seconded: TO APPROVE THE MARCH 18, 2008 MINUTES Vice Chair Knoth asked if there were any modifications or corrections. Mr. Fish noted on page 6 he voted yes on Condition 4. Mr. Brick moved: Mr. Fish seconded: TO AMEND THE MARCH 18, 2008 MINUTES AS FOLLOWS: 1. Change Mr. Fish 's vote to yes on Condition 4 on page 6. AYES: NAYS: Brick, Knoth, Roth , Fish , Calonder, King None ABSTAIN: Welker ABSENT: Bleile , Krieger Motion carried. Ill. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT Case #ZON2008-01, Denver Seminary PUD Amendment 2 ' Planning and Zoning April 8, 2008 Page 2 of 10 • Mr. Fish moved: • • Mr. Calonder seconded: THE FINDINGS OF FACT FOR CASE #ZON2008-01 BE APPROVED AS WRITIEN AYES: NAYS : Brick, Knoth, Roth , King, Fish , Calonder None ABSTAIN : Welker ABSENT : Bleile, Krie ge r Motion carried . IV. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT Case #2008-02, Public Notice Amendments to Title 16 Mr. Roth moved: Mr. Fish seconded: THE FINDINGS OF FACT FOR CASE #2008-02 BE APPROVED AS WRITIEN AYES: NAYS : Brick, Knoth, Roth , King, Fish , Calonder None ABSTAIN: Welker ABSENT: Bleile, Krieger Motion carried. V. PUBLIC HEARING Case #2007-05 Amendments to Title 16 : Unified Development Code, Minimum Lot Width Vice Chair Knoth stated the issue before the Commission is Case #2007-05 , proposed amendments to Title 16: Unified D evelopment Code of the Englewood Municipal Code pertaining to minimum lot width requirements and development standards for multi-unit dwellings and amendments to simplify associated definitions and table 16-6-1.1 , Summary of Dimensional Requirements for Principal Structures . Mr. Fish moved : Mr. Calonder seconded: TO RECALL CASE #2007-05, PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 16: UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE OF THE ENGLEWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO MINIMUM LOT WIDTH REQUIREMENTS AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR MULTI-UNIT DWELLINGS AND AMENDMENTS TO SIMPLIFY ASSOCIATED DEFINITIONS AND TABLE 16-6-1.1 , SUMMARY OF DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR PRINCIPAL STRUCTURES • • • Planning and Zonin g April 8, 200 8 Page 3 o f 10 AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Brick, Knoth, Roth, King, Fish, Calonder, Welker None None Bleile, Krieger Motion carried. Ms. Langon , Senior Planner, was sworn in. She stated the case before the Commission is Case #2007-05 , Amendments to the Unified Development Code of the Englewood Municipal Code pertaining to minimum lot width requirements for multi-unit dwellings in multi-unit zone districts. The amendments also establish development standards for said units and provide updates to definitions related to multi-unit dwellings. There are also amendments to Table 16-5-1.1 Table of Allowed Uses related to multi-unit dwellings and also in Table 16-6-1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements for Principal Uses and Structures. These various other amendments are for clarity and consistency within the Unified Development Code. She stated she has already submitted for record proof of publication of the Public hearing, which was published in the Englewood Herald on February 29, 2008 and the Staff Report. Community Development requests that the Commission re v iew, take public testimony and forward to City Council recommendations for approval of the proposed amendments . Ms. Langon provided some background on the City's zoning codes. The first zoning code in the City was in 1940. Within that code there was a minimum lot area requirement. In the 1955 Code there was a minimum lot width requirement that was added to the minimum area requirement. Properties in the City are historically platted on 25 foot wide "lots ". Any combination of generally two or three "lots" make up about 93 % of the residential properties within the City. Minimum lot widths in all zone districts except in R-1-B follow this historic pattern. In R-1-B the minimum lot width is 60 feet, but is a single-unit district which is not covered in these proposed amendments. Prior to the Unified Development Code (UDC) in 2004, the multi-unit districts required a minimum lot width of 25 feet per unit for two or more units on one property. That has been in effect from 1955 till 2004 when the UDC went into effect. In 2002 a citizen was concerned about multi-unit dwellings in the R-2-A zone district, which is one of the zone districts in the northwest residential portion of Englewood. His concern was that units were being built with garages or parking pads that essentially covered the front of the structure or the entire yard. Properties in that section of Englewood do not have alley access . In 2003 under a joint U DC Study Session there was a proposal to change that lot width requirement for multi-unit properties to 30 feet per unit in the hopes that it would improve neighborhood aesthetics and with 30 feet the lot would be wide enough to allow driveway access to the rear of the property. The 30 foot per unit requirement was adopted under the UDC and applied to all zone districts that allowed multi-unit dwellings. The 30 feet per unit requirement was adopted in 2004 in the R-2-A, R-2-B, MU-R-3-A and MU-R-3-B zone districts . Approximately 30 % of residential properties are zoned for multi-unit use. • • • Plannin g and Zonin g April 8, 2008 Page 4of10 The Community Development Department rather quickly started to see a number of disadvantages to the 30 feet per unit code change . • First, in the northwest R-2-A distr ict, those properties were generally already platted at 60 feet, thus the new requirement had no real effect on them. • With the change to the 30 foot requirement there were no accompan y in g regulations that were adopted that required parking be to the rear, thus wider units were built on the wider properties in the northwest section of the City . • The rest of the City however, was still affected on properties that were platted on the 25, 50 or 75 feet basis . Because of that, development in multi-unit districts was limited on the typical 50 foot lot to just a single unit structure. • Because of the 25 foot wide platting pattern and the already built up nature of the City few opportunities exist to acquire additional land to obtain the additional 10 feet needed to create a 60 foot wide lot to build a two-unit structure. • Because of this lack of additional available land and the need to meet the 30 foot requirement most properties in the multi-unit districts for intents and purposes have been "down-zoned" to single use only. • Existing attached two units (duplex ) on a 50 foot wide property did not comply with the code and was hampering the owner's ability to either obtain insurance or to refinance. • The potential for new housing in the City was being reduced because land costs discouraged one-unit development in a multi-unit district. As a result, the older deteriorating housing stock was being retained and residential revitalization efforts were hampered. In 2006 Council, at a Study Session , directed the Planning and Zoning Commission to study the subject and to propose amendments that could address the affects of the 30 foot wide per unit requirement and also at the same time create opportunities for housing that could develop in the community. During 2007 the Commission studied the issue at a number of study sessions and the central issue raised by the citizen in northwest Englewood in 2002 actually focused on property condition rather than the width of a lot. The residential focus was that homes with open front yards and landscaping were being replaced by garages and parking pads. As a result, the focus of the Commission 's work was on objective outcomes of encouraging development and housing upgrades without stifling creativity and the housing market. What seemed to be key was access to an alley . That seemed to be the critical issues as to where vehicles park, the amount of paved area in the front yard , and garage door location . As a result, the proposed amendments to the Code create development standards for multi-unit residential dwellings ... not design standards. Development standards are how something is situated and used on the land where design standards are how it looks . The two sections being added to the Code are one with properties with alley access and one with properties without alley access . Ms. Langon noted there are many pages of the actual amendments in the Staff Report. She briefly reviewed all and offered to answer specific questions the Commission might have. The definition of multi-unit is proposed to be changed from what is currently 4 or more • Pla nn ing and Zonin g A pril 8, 2008 Page 5of1 0 units to 2 or more units. There will be either a single unit or a multi-unit structure . The number of units would be based on the allowed lot area for the various districts. Table 16-5 - 1.1, Table of Allowed Us es, is being amended deleting rows for one unit attached and two unit dwellings. The one unit attached has always been a rather confusing item not only to the public but also to the planners. The difference between a one unit attached and a two unit, even though from the street they look exactly alike, two units would be two units on one property and a one unit attached is one unit on one property and another unit on anothe r property but with a common wall and lot line between them . It is an issue of ownership or tenancy, not an issue of the lot width. In Table 16-6-1.1, Summary of Dim ensional Requirements for Principal Structures, in the mixed use districts (R-2-A, R-2-B , MU-R-3A and MU-R-3 B) lot width is proposed to be changed from 30 feet down to 25 feet per unit. Also, the Minimum Floor Area is being eliminated and standards for the live/work areas that previously have not been included in the table will be added. Other changes include those regarding consistency, simplicity, clarification , redundancies, some footnotes and references added for simplicity sake, and a general reordering of the rows so that now the uses follow in sequence. Most changes occur in the new section, 16-6-1.C, Additional Dimensional and Development Standards, where the changes for properties having rear access and no alley access are delineated. There are also minor changes to the development standards for residential use in the business district and in the use classes and definition changes associated with the changes to the use table and the dimensional table. Ms. Langon offer to go over the differences in properties with rear and without rear alley • access . The Commission agreed it would be appropriate for the audience. • For properties with rear alley access: • The minimal lot width would go to 25 feet per unit. • All driveway access from the public street would be prohibited, thereby you would have to have rear access from the alley. The only exception to this would be for corner lots where a garage could have access from the side street or dwellings with four or more units may have more than one driveway access from the street. • No parking pads would be allowed in the front yard or front setback. For properties without alley access: • The minimum lot width would remain at 30 feet per unit. • Garages, carports and parking pads must be offset behind the front building line of each unit by five feet. This creates stepping of the fac;ade. • There must be a minimum separation of at least 20 feet between driveways or parking pads of attached units . • The maximum driveway or parking pad width in the front yard would be 10 feet. • The maximum garage door width on the front fac;ade of the structure would be nine feet per unit. • Parking pads could be located in the front or setback only if a garage or carport is not provided. • When a multi-unit structure is built an opaque fence or wall must be provided between driveways on that property and adjacent properties. • • • Planni~g and Zoning April 8, 2008 Page 6of10 • On units that provide attached garages behind the rear building line of the principal structure the rear set-back may be reduced to allow a larger house and create a bonus effect for using the side setback area and additional property for a driveway to access the rear of the property. • The above eight points cannot possibly cover all development so a clause will be added that says the City Manager or designee on a case by case basis may consider minor deviations to the above eight points for units without alley access provided they meet the intent of the section. Ms. Langon asked if there were any further questions. Mr. Brick said Staff did a great job putting together the Staff Report. He said he did not see any specific statements in reference to the Englewood Comprehensive Plan 2003 , Roadmap Englewood in the Staff Report. Ms. Langon stated that was an oversight on her part since the Commission has talked at great length about it at the various study sessions. Vice Chair Knoth asked if there were any more questions. Mr. Fish stated on page 10 of Table 16-6-1 the column Minimum Lot Area Square Footage, there is a change going from 1 -4 down to 2 units. Ms. Langon said it is 2 -4 units. On page 12 of the same table he asked if the Floor Area Ratios will stay. Ms. Langon said they would. Also on page 12, in the first note one unit attached is crossed out. He asked if that was correct. Ms. Langon said she felt it was understood if you had just one unit the setbacks do apply. What this is saying is if you have two units that are attached and have a common property line you treat it as one building so there would be no interior setbacks. It is a clarification for how you determine multi -units. Mr. Welker said since it is understood that multi-unit dwellings are all in one building, we are talking about setbacks for the building and not for the units. Ms. Langon stated that was correct. Mr. Fish said on page 19 on Table 16-6-4 he asked why Staff removed "residential complex" from the table. Ms. Langon said those are types of group living and we do not have a definition for residential complex. Staff felt it was a confusing term and felt it was clearer without the term. Mr. Fish said when he sees the word "Senior Citizen " he doesn't know what that means. Ms. Langon said it would be a group living facility for senior citizens since it is already under the Group Living category. Mr. Fish said o.k . Mr. Fish had one more question. On page 24 under 16-11-2 , Definition of Words, Terms, and Phrases, he asked if the word single-family was a standard term. Ms. Langon said no, it is a term that with the adoption of the UDC went to single unit. Rather than change it in this set of amendments, it will be included in the housekeeping amendments later this year. He thanked Ms. Langon for her clarification . Mr. Welker asked why the word "permitted" was changed to "allowed " on page 4 of 16-2- 1 7.0. Permitted Adjustments. He said as Staff goes through and makes a final version you might want to look for those types of words and see if they are completely interchangeable • • • Planning and Zoning April 8, 200 8 Page 7 of 10 or not. Ms. Langon said the reason it was changed in the Table was 1) the table is the Table of Allowed Uses and 2) allowed uses include permitted uses, conditional uses , limited uses , etc. In many cases where the word "permitted" is used it should have been "allowed ". Mr. Welker stated the Commission has discussed the terms platted lot and zone lot previously. Part of what we are talking about here is that very thing. Ms. Langon stated Staff discussed that issue and determined at this time it will be left as is. Mr. Welker said he is not objecting to the term as long as everyone is clear the Commission is talking about somethin g different. Zone lots are the grouping of platted lots that make up the whole property. Vice Chair Knoth asked if there were any further questions. There were none. He thanked Ms. Langon for her testimony. Public testimony was heard from: Kevin Dickson was sworn in. Mr. Dickson stated he lives in Denver, but is an investor in old north Englewood west of Broadway. He read a paragraph from the 2003 Englewood Comprehensive Plan. He stated he regrets the 60 foot rule came into existence in 2004. Going forward he hopes Englewood government goes back and reads plans they have written and then tries to understand the laws they are passing so that we never have any more of these unintended consequences. He said he really appreciates the work Staff and the Commission has done to correct the mistake that was made. New building on 50 foot lots completely stopped in 2004 when this happened. We lost four years of city redevelopment. It is a serious issue . He stated Nathan Elinoff, owner of Funtastic Fun , had to leave and asked me to read his notes. Nathan thanked the City for working so hard on the 50 foot rule and hopes the Commission votes in favor of going back to 50 feet. Mr. Elinoff owns two rental properties on Acoma that are in poor condition and he would like to scrape and redevelop . Mr. J.D. Finley was sworn in . Mr. Finley lives in Cherry Hills Village but owns property in En glewood. Mr. Finley purchased his investment property on a 50 foot lot two years ago . The home was built in 1943, was 512 square feet and in horrible disrepair . He scraped the home and is now stuck with an economic situation where he is unable to build something economically on the lot. The proper type of building for that lot would be a two-unit with upgrades and more square footage. He would encourage the Planning and Zoning Commission to endorse this change for the reasons that have already been stated . Mr. Brick asked him what the zoning is on that lot. He stated he was not sure, but thought it is R-2-A. Mark and Leslie Wood were sworn in. Mr. Wood stated they own investment property in the City of Englewood, but li v e in Centennial. He said he appreciates all the time and effort the Commission and Staff has put into this issue. He said their lot is 55 feet wide in an R-2 area however; it is surrounded by multi-units with much smaller lots. This rule prevents us from building anything different than a single family home. He said he would appreciate the Commission voting in favor of changing the minimum lot width. • • -Planning and Zoning Apr il 8, 2008 Page 8 of IO Matthew Crabtree was sworn in . Mr. Crabtree stated he has been a resident of Englewood for about four years and is a homeowner. He said he has heard a lot about the current requirements. There are several things that concern him. He said it has negatively affected property values in the City, which directly affects me since my property is in this zone district. Even if my property was not this decision would still affect the value of the property. This has negatively affected development in the City. There are a lot of investors, as represented here tonight, that are willing to come in and improve the aging housing stock of the City, but an Ordinance passed somewhat blindly several years ago has prevented these people from coming in and making the City more attractive . Property rights are affected also . My property is R-2 and I should be able to put two units on this property. Technically even though it is zoned R-2 I can't because I have 50 foot frontage. With this Ordinance in place forever my property will only be able to have one residence on it. He said he appreciate the City 's consideration and reviewing this again. Mr. Tim Stephens was sworn in. Mr. Stephens said he owns several properties in the City of Englewood and has lived in the City since 1990. He bought property as an investment only to see property values go way down in 2004. He said he hopes the proposal goes through and appreciates all the Commission 's hard work. Vice Chair Knoth asked if there was anyone else who wished to speak . There was no one . Mr. Brick moved: Mr. Fish seconded: THE PUBLIC HEARING ON CASE #2007-05 BE CLOSED AYES : NAYS: Brick, Knoth, Roth, King , Fish , Calonder, Welker None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Bleile, Krieger Motion carried. Mr. Welker moved: Mr. Calonder seconded: CASE #2007-05, AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 16 : UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE, MINIMUM LOT WIDTH AS PROPOSED, BE RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL TO CITY COUNCIL WITH A FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION FOR ADOPTION AS WRITIEN Mr. Brick said by way of discussion this proposal meets the criteria outlined in Roadmap Englewood 2003 , Englewood Comprehensive Plan. Specifically he liked Section 5 on Housing, Objective 1-3 where is states : Encourage housing investments that improve the housing mix including both smaller and larger units and a wider range of housing types including single family, duplex, townhome and condominium units. • Mr. Welker said for those of you in the audience that came to offer your encouragement that the Commission approve this, I want to let you know that this has not been unknown to us or to the Staff. It has been worked on for a long time and a lot of time has been spent • • • ~ Plannin g and Zoning April 8, 2008 Page 9 of IO by Staff in the last year massaging the wording to make sure we get it right this time. He stated he is in favor of the change this is being proposed and recognizes the importance of the platting we have with 50 foot wide lots for most of the properties within the City. This acknowledges that and also prov ides other gu idelines on which we can develop and improve the appearance of the City. The development of duplexes that may go on these lots will be enhanced and better than just plain fronts and the driveways, parking pads and access from the rear or front has been a major discussion and been given a tremendous amount of thought. This is a major change; it reopens a door that was closed . He said he agrees with Mr. Brick in that we are taking a step much closer to what the Comprehensive Plan, the Planning Commission and Staff has intended all along that doesn't shut off development but we encourage it and try to make it an acceptable type of development for the City. In that sense we are definitely supporting the goals in our Roadmap, which is our Comprehensive Plan. He stated he is in favor of how it is written and supports it. AYES : NAYS : ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Knoth, Roth, King, Calonder, Welker. Brick, Fish None None Bleile, Krieger Motion carried . There was applause from the audience . V I. PUBLIC FOR UM There was no one present to address the Commission. V I I. DIR ECTOR 'S CHOIC E Director White did not have anything to bring before the Commission. VIII . STAFF'S CHOICE Ms. Langon stated the next meeting will be on April 22nd which will be a Study Session . Mr. Vorboril will be presenting material on the Medical Small Area Plan . The Commission was asked if they would like to receive half size sheets of plans rather than the larger size. After discussion it was decided to continue sending the larger format size in the meeting packet, but have several smaller ones for use at the meeting. Ms. Langon distributed a timeline chart regarding timing for a PUD amendment for the Commission 's review. She stated she put together the timeline because of comments at the PUD hearing for Kent Place asking how we can shorten the five plus months process . The Commission reviewed and discussed the timeline. Vice Chair Knoth asked if this was a best case scenario. Ms . Langon stated it was if everything hit exactly right and there were no problems. It comes out to 22 weeks, which is almost 5 1/2 months. There are very few places where we could shorten the time other than by shortening our reviews or having the • • • Planning and Zoning April 8, 2008 Page 10of10 applicant turn something around more quickly. Publication requirements, posting notices, etc. are not things that can be shortened. Those days alone are approximately 83 of the 140 days. Vice Chair Knoth asked how Englewood 's time frame compares to other cities. He feels the current timeline is short in his opinion. Ms. Lan gon asked Director White to answer that question. He said most places are probably looking at six months to a year to go through the process . He said in his experience where the time is extended is due to the applicant being responsive to Staff or the Commission. Mr. Brick thanked Ms . Lan gon for the information. IX. A ITORNEY'S CHOICE Ms . Reid said she was glad to see Mr. Welker back. She said she was impressed with the Commission 's work tonight. X. COMMISSIONER'S CHOICE Mr. Welker said he is very glad to be back. Mr. King said he is glad the 50 foot frontage is back on the books as it has been stifling redevelopment. He said he still believes the bulk plane needs to be revisited and would like that discussion in the future . Mr. Brick said he is really pleased with Staff's work today. The report was very easy to read on something that was very complicated. He said he also appreciated the time line for a PUO. It gave him a solid understandin g of the process. Mr. Roth also welcomed Mr. Welker back. He said we definitely missed you . Mr. Fish said maybe the Commission needs to do some brainstorming of how to not necessarily expedite the public process for a PUD, but oversight still needs to be there at some level. He said he does not have a solution , but it seems like for developers that if they are going to be able to develop effectively in a changing marketplace some new rules need to be put into place that allows for good development that is not quick and poorly put in place, but one that doesn 't take five to ten months to implement either. Mr. Welker said the advantage of having a PUO is that they can make changes to it. The meeting adjourned at 8:20 p.m . Barbara Krecklow, Reco ding Secretary