Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-05-20 PZC MINUTES• • ~ Pl anning and Zoning S tu dy S ess ion M ay 20 , 2008 Page I of 4 CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PL A NNING AND ZONING COMMISSION May 2 0, 2008 I. CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:0 1 p.m. in the Community Development Conference Room of the Englewood Civic Center, Chair Bleile presiding . Present: Absent: Staff: Brick, Roth, King, Welker, Bleile. Calonder, Krieger Myers (alternate) Knoth, (Excused ), Fish (Excused) John Voboril, Long Range Planner Nancy Reid, Assistant City Attorney 11. A PPROVAL OF MINUTES May 6, 2008 Mr. Brick moved: Mr. Roth seconded : TO APPROVE THE MAY 6, 2008 MINUTES Chair Bleile asked if there were any modifications or corrections . There were none. AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Brick, Roth, King, Welker, Krieger, Calonder, Bleile None None Fish, Knoth Motion carried. Ill. ENGLEWOOD MEDICAL DISTRICT SMALL AREA PLAN REZONING Mr. Voboril reviewed the information presented at the meeting a month ago and said tonight we will go into more detail. At this time he began the PowerPoint presentation . He said Staff has envisioned breaking • the Planning and Zoning presentations down i nto three parts: Part One: Land Uses, Se t backs, Minimum Linea l Street Frontage, Zone of Transparency, Density and Minimum Lot Size • • • • Plannin g and Zoning Study Session May 20, 2008 Page 2 of 4 Part Two: Building Height, Parking, Loading, Landscaping Part Three : Non-conforming Residential Structures, Transition Overlay Zones, Revisiting portion of Sub-areas 2 and 5, Exploring final adjustments t o new zoning boundaries . LAND USES Discussion centered on analyzing the proposed boundaries between the MU-M-1 and MU- M-2 Zoning Districts . Staff is proposing to expand retail to the south of the existing B-2 zone boundary but not to the north . Mr. Voboril referenced the proposed area on a large map. Mr. Welker asked if retail south of Highway 285 was planned. Mr. Voboril stated it was. He presented a slide showing where the front door is on all hospital property and mapped approximately 1,000 feet from those doorways . This would be the most likel y area for retailers. The Commission felt retail on the south side of Highway 285 was not a good idea, as the highway is too busy a street for pedestrians to cross. The southeast corner of Logan and Highway 285 and the southwest corner of Clarkson and Highway 285 may be appropriate for auto-oriented retail use. They wanted more office and high-rise residential in that area. The members approved the proposed retail area north of Highway 285. Allowed uses and not allowed uses in both zone districts were discussed . Lodgin g was added to the current allowed uses in the MU-M-1 zone district. The Commission agreed lodging should be added as an allowed use. Community Garden was added to the public- institutional uses. Emergency temporary shelters would not be allowed. The MU-M-2 district is different from the MU-M-1 district in that it would allow small scale retail uses under 10,000 square feet. The Commission felt the 10,000 square feet number was appropriate for the area. The Commission reviewed allowed retail uses in MU-M-2. Discussion ensued regarding allowing theatre and performance concert venues in this district. The Commission felt it might not be an appropriate use for this area . The studio category needs to be more clearl y defined. They reviewed the list of retail uses that would not be allowed in this district. The Commission discussed caterer and equipment rental being moved to an allowed use . SETBACKS The current setbacks in the MU-R-3-B zone are restrictive and effectively prevent development on smaller size lots . Current and proposed setbacks were reviewed and discussed . It was suggested adjustments be made for businesses that have a courtyard or patio in front. The five foot side and rear lot lines adjacent to a residential district were discussed. Mr. Welker said he did not want to see five foot side and rear lot lines along the greenbelt in the area south of Highway 285 . Ms. Reid suggested Staff look into how wide the right-of-wa y along Highway 285 is. The zero and no more than ten foot lot line might not work in this area. • • • Planning and Zoning Study Ses s ion May 20, 2008 Page 3 of 4 MINIMUM LINEAL STREET FRONTAGE The Minimum Lineal Street Frontage was taken from Denver's Main Street Zoning, which was instituted along East Colfax Avenue from Downtown east to the Denver city limit. This ensures that new development contributes to the creation of an urban streetscape. The minimum percentage of the front lot line that a building must cover is 75 % and the minimum percentage of the side lot line abutting a side street that a building must cover is 25 %. ZONE OF TRANSPARENCY This was also taken from Denver's Main Street Zoning. This concept ensures that building facades are properly broken up by windows, allowing interior commercial activity to be visible from. the street. The windows begin 3.5 feet above grade and end at 8 .5 feet above grade and the minimum percentage of the front side of a building that must be covered is 60%. The minimum percentage of the side portion of the building abutting a street that must be covered is 25% . DENSITY AND MINIMUM LOT SIZE Currently, the MU-R-3-B zoning district requires a minimum lot area of 3,000 square feet per multi-family residential unit for each of the first four units, then 1,000 square feet per each additional unit. This severely restricts development on smaller lots, effectively increasing land costs per unit, and makes it necessary to acquire multiple lots from multiple owners in order to develop. In order to encourage residential development in areas of change, the minimum land area per unit provision should be dropped in favor of controlling density through maximum height and parking. Various scenarios of density were presented . The Commission can adjust the height and parking to get to the target density that they feel is appropriate . Ms. Krieger stated she is in favor of controlling density through maximum height and parking rather than square footage. Mr. Bleile said he would be in favor of high density residential south of Jefferson. Mr. Welker and Mr. Brick agreed . The members liked the concept of using height and parking to determine density. The MU-R-3-B zoning district requires a minimum lot size of 24,000 square feet and a Floor Area Ratio of 1.5 for office use. This provision discriminates against small office buildings, effectively reduces the height of office buildings well below the 60 foot maximum, increases land costs , and makes it necessary to acquire multiple lots from multiple owners in order to develop. In order to encourage new office development in areas of change, both the minimum lot size and the Floor Area Ratio provisions should be dropped in favor of controlling density through maximum height and parking. The minimum lot size Staff is proposing for the entire district is based on what is there, which is typically a 50 foot lot (6,000 square feet). There are a few lots that are smaller than the 6,000 square feet and those lots would be grandfathered in. Scenarios regarding density were presented. • • • . Plannin g and Zonin g Study Sess ion May 20 , 2008 Page 4 o f 4 Mr. Voboril said the Commission will be looking at the parking requirements in D enve r's Main Street Zoning for discussion purposes only and Staff sees the need to do a more comprehensive parking study that actuall y looks at the entire City. That will be going out to bid within the next few weeks. He said parking w ill be discussed , but Staff probabl y w ill not have a comprehensive parking solution for Commission until the stud y is compl eted. Mr. Voboril thanked the Commission for being a great audience and for their constru cti v e comm ents . Chair Blei le thanked Mr. Voboril and said the maps were very helpful. Mr. Welker said he be li ev es Staff and the Commission is going in the ri ght direction . V. PUBLIC FORUM There was no one present to address the Commission. VI. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE Dire ctor White was not present. VII. ATTORNEY'S CHOICE Ms. Reid had nothing further for the Commission. VIII. STAFF'S CHOICE Staff had nothing further for the Commission . IX. COMMISSIONER'S CHOICE There were no further comments .