Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-02-18 PZC MINUTES• • • ' Pl anning and Zoning Commission Study Se ss ion -Landscaping Amendments Case #2008-04 February 18 , 2009 Page I of6 CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING February 18, 2009 I. CALL TO ORDER ~ The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to ord e r at 7:04 p.m. in the Community Development Conference Room of the Englewood Civic Center, Chair Bleile presiding. Present: Absent: Staff: Bleile, Roth, King, We lker, Krieger, Knoth , Fish , Brick, Kinton Calonder Tricia Langon, Senior Planner Brook Bell, Planner Nancy Reid , Assistant City Attorney Chair Bleile welcomed Mr. Daryl Kinton to the Board. He wi ll be serving as Alternate . 11. APPROVAL OF MINUTES January 21, 2009 ~ Welker moved: Knoth seconded : TO APPROVE THE JANUARY 21, 2009 MINUTES Chair Bleile asked if there were any modifications or co rrections . There were none . AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN : ABSENT: Roth, Welker, Knoth, Fish , King, Brick None Krieger, Bleile Calonder Motion carried. 111. AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 16 RELATED TO LANDSCAPING f?] Ms. Langon stated this is a continuation of previous meetings. She introduced Mr. Brook Bell , Planner, who will also be presenting tonight. Mr. Bell 's background is landscape architecture . • • • ' Planning and Zoning Commission Study Session -Landscaping Amendments Case #2008-04 February 18 , 2009 Page 2 of 6 She and Mr. Bell have been working on some of the landscaping issues in broader discussion areas. They have had meetings with other planners in the Department and one of the first things that was discussed is the need to separate residential requirements from commercial requi rements . There is currently some separation, but it is not completely clear. The residential requirements will be discussed tonight. Ms. Langon referenced two drawings on the wall which showed a typical street in Englewood with various housing setbacks. She noted for discussion the area included will be from property line across the street to property line. The area between the curb and property line is the "parking strip." The drawing also showed a detached sidewalk and an attached sidewalk. Detached means it is detached from the curb or street. Attached sidewalks are physically attached to the street. From property line the first 25 feet in is the setback. From the property line beyond the setback to the house is the front yard. There is a difference between setback and yard. The second drawing showed what the current landscape ordinance for residential landscaping allows. Ms. Langon reviewed the percentages and how they would lay out on a typical 50 foot wide Englewood lot. Currently, the Required Landscape Area (RLA) is equal to 40% of the property. Of that, non-living can be up to a maximum of 35% of required RLA and 100% of the front setback must be landscaped, excluding driveway. Required plant material consists of four trees anywhere on the property and 1 7 shrubs anywhere on the property. Public right-of-way landscaping is in addition to required landscaping on the site . The only req u irement is one tree in the ROW per 30 feet of lot width. Up to one-half of the right-of-way landscaping can count toward the RLA. Staff talked about keeping the area from the 25 foot setback across the street to the 25 foot setback open. This includes the approximately 60 foot right-of-way and the 25 foot setback on each side of the street for a total of 110 feet. This area will be referred to tonight as the public realm (street, parking strip and front yard). The current Code has requirements for the private part and the public part. Staff is proposing requirements for both the private and public areas be combined. Tonight's discussion will center on what is visible from the street. Staff is proposing limiting non-living materials in the public realm, requiring that trees be planted within the front yard and possibly reducing the amount of non-living material in the front yard. Also encouraged would be the planting of new trees to follow established patterns (if any), keeping in mind the sight distance . Not on tonight's agenda is multi-unit housing or landscaping in the rear yard. Discussion ensued. Mr. Bell referenced four categories of pictures on display. The categories are Detached Sidewalks with Large Parking strip, Detached Sidewalks with Smaller Parking Strip, Attached Sidewalks with Large Parking Strip, and Attached Sidewalks with Small Parking Strip . He described the landscaping in each picture . • • • Plann ing an d Zoning Commissio n S tud y Sess ion -Landscaping Am e ndment s C ase #200 8-04 February 18, 2009 Page 3 of 6 Discussion ensued . Mr. Bell said the information was to provide a snapshot of what is out th e re in regards to landscaping and some of the issues Staff is dealing with . It also gives us a starting point to think of some principals and perhaps some changes to the Code on w hat direction we want to go. In a perfect world you'd sa y ever y one will do this in the public right-of-w ay, but that is very confining. Chair Bleile said maybe the Commission should go at it from th e standpoint of what d o we want out of the City. He said different parts of the City ma y want a different sidewalk or landscape design. He likes detached sidewalks as they are more inviting and kid friendl y . He doesn't like the attached that are 2 foot 8 inches because th e re are overgrown shrubs and you have to walk around the mirrors of parked cars. Ms . Langon noted that Mr. Bell provided 16 pictures tonight and ther e are probabl y 16 times the 16 versions of .... the hard part is going to be distilling all this dow n into somethin g that works globall y for every body. At some point the small 2 foot 8 inch sid ewalks may have to be required to be widened, so whatever Planning and Zoning comes up with they will have to consider that too. Discussion ensued regarding the value of trees in the City . Ms . Langon reviewed what was discussed tonight. 1. Combining what would be the private property requirement and the right-of-wa y or tre e lawn parking strip requirement. Currentl y there are two separate requirements. 2 . Sta y with the 40 % of the site landscape requirement for now. The adjustment would be what happens in the tree lawn parking strip . Is it combined or is it another requirement ? 3. The number of trees on the property right now is a function of the lot required landscaped area . They can be anywhere on the property . One option is to reduce th e required number of trees on a property. The City does offer a tree credit for existing trees . The fee in lieu funds could possibly be used for a program where the City would donate trees for the public right-of-way. 4 . The number of trees required to be planted in the front yard (from the residen c e out to the street) would be a function of the lot width, a wider lot w ould require more tr ee s out front. 5. Reduce the maximum amount of non-living material in the front. 6 . Develop right-of-way landscape palette based on whether it 1s a detached or attached sidewalk and also the width of the right-of-way area . Ms. Reid asked if there was a value in replacing the smaller sidewalks with the four foot AD A approved sidewalks as repairs are needed and changing detached to attached . • • • . Plannin g and Zoning Commis sion Study Sessio n -Landscaping Amendments Case #2008-04 February 18, 2009 P age 4 of 6 The members all agreed that would be hard to do . Ms. Langon said from a planning perspective we would like to see detached . Mr. King said they look a lot nicer. Ms. Langon said from a traffic and economic standpoint Public Works would probably like to see attached. Mr. Bell said he felt residents would rather see paved alleys before retrofitting the sidewalks . Chair Bleile asked what the next step in this process is. Ms. Langon said we will have another meeting on this subject. Staff will work on the palette idea and see what can be done and then bring it back to the Commission. Chair Bleile asked if the Commission could get an overlay that shows where the different subdivisions are in the City. Ms. Krieger said she doesn 't believe it matters where you live, the requirements should be the same for all . Mr. Welker said he likes the variety you see in Englewood and does not want to impose anything too rigid or strict. The landscaping discussion will continue at the next meeting. IV. ELECTION OF OFFICERS ~ Welker moved: Fish seconded: TO NOMINATE BRIAN BLEILE AS CHAIR AND CHAD KNOTH AS VICE CHAIR Mr. Fish offered a Friendly Amendment to hold separate elections for each office. Mr. Welker accepted the Friendl y Amendment. Chair Bleile asked if there were any other nominations. There were none. Welker moved: Fish seconded: TO NOMINATE BRIAN BLEILE AS CHAIR AYES: NAYS: Bleile, Roth, Welker, Krieger, Knoth, Fish, King, Brick None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Calonder Motion carried . Welker moved: Fish seconded: TO NOMINATE CHAD KNOTH AS VICE CHAIR AYES: NAYS: Bleile, Roth, Welker, Krieger, Knoth, Fish , King, Brick None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Calonder • • • Planning and Zon in g Commission Study Ses sion -Landscaping Amendments Case #2008-04 February 18 , 2009 Page 5of 6 Motion carried . V. PUBLIC FORUM ~ There was no public present. VI. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE ~ Director White was not present. VII. STAFF'S CHOICE ~ Ms. Langon stated per the Charter the Commission must designate the official place for posting of meeting notices. Ms. Reid said Council does that for the City, but Planning and Zoning also must designate a place . Fish moved: Krieger seconded : TO DESIGNATE THAT THE OFFICIAL POSTING PLACE FOR PLANNING AND ZONING BE THE SAME LOCATION AS THAT DESIGNATED BY CITY COUNCIL. AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Bleile, Roth, Welker, Krieger, Knoth, Fish, King, Brick None None Calonder Motion carried . The March meetings will be held on March 3'd and March 17th. VIII. ATTORNEY'S CHOICE ~ Ms. Reid had nothing further to report. • • • Planning and Zoning Commission Study Session -Landscaping Amendments Case #2008-04 February 18 , 2009 Page 6 of 6 IX. COMMISSIONER'S CHOICE ~ Mr. Welker and Chair Bleile welcomed Mr. Kinton to the Commission . Mr. Fish complimented the Commissioner's who spoke at the joint meeting with Council. They were very articulate and he appreciated all that they said. The meeting adjourned at 8:40 p.m. Barbara Krecklow