HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-03-22 (Special) Meeting Agenda Packet
Please note: If you have a disability and need auxiliary aids or services, please notify the City of Englewood
(303-762-2405) at least 48 hours in advance of when services are needed.
Teleconference
Englewood, CO 80110
AGENDA
City Council Special
Monday, March 22, 2021 ♦ 5:30 PM
This meeting is scheduled to start at 5:30 p.m.
This City Council Special Meeting will be held by teleconference.
To watch the upcoming City Council Special Meeting, please visit:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Trxz3jScGOY
I. Call to Order
II. Pledge of Allegiance
III. Roll Call
IV. Monthly Financial Update - Information - 5:30 to 5:40 p.m.
Presentation: 5 minutes
Discussion: 5 minutes
a. Director of Finance Jackie Loh will present and discuss the monthly financial update.
Financial - Pdf
V. 2021 Fourth of July Celebration - Information/Direction - 5:40 to 6:10 p.m.
a. Director of Parks, Recreation, Library, and Golf Christina Underhill and Events
Supervisor Toni Arnoldy will be present with a representative from Tri-County Health
Department to provide information and seek direction for the upcoming 4th of July event.
Presentation: 10 minutes
Discussion: 20 minutes
Celebration - Pdf
VI. Customer Assistance Program (CAP) Discussion Update #2 - Information/Direction - 6:10 to
6:35 p.m.
a. Director of Utilities and South Platte Renew Pieter Van Ry and Stantec Consultant Carol
Malesky will be present to discuss with City Council the near-term and long-term Utility
Customer Assistance Program (CAP) options.
Presentation: 5 min
Discussion: 20 min
CAP - Pdf
VII. Utility Monthly Billing Update - Information - 6:35 to 6:50 p.m.
a. Director of Utilities and South Platte Renew Pieter Van Ry and Utilities Manager of
Administration Jennifer Walker will be present to discuss with City Council the
conversion from quarterly to monthly utility billing.
Page 1 of 367
Englewood City Council Special Agenda
March 22, 2021
Please note: If you have a disability and need auxiliary aids or services, please notify the City of Englewood
(303-762-2405) at least 48 hours in advance of when services are needed.
Presentation: 5 min
Discussion: 10 min
Billing - Pdf
VIII. Sewer Connector Districts Rate Analysis - Information/Direction - 6:50 to 7:35 p.m.
a. Director of Utilities and South Platte Renew Pieter Van Ry and Stantec Consultant Carol
Malesky will be present to discuss with City Council and seek feedback regarding
adjustments to the rate structure for Connector Districts outside of City limits.
Presentation: 15 min
Discussion: 30 min
Rate Analysis - Pdf
IX. Break - 7:35 to 7:45
X. Unified Development Code (UDC) Assessment Report - Information/Direction - 7:45 to 8:45
p.m.
a. Planning Manager Wade Burkholder and Logan Simpson representative Jennifer
Gardner will be present to discuss with City Council the UDC Assessment Report.
Presentations: 30 minutes
Discussion: 30 minutes
UDC - Pdf
XI. Discussion regarding the Potential Sale of Two City Properties - Information/Direction - 8:45 to
9:30 p.m.
a. Interim City Attorney Alex Dorotik and Director of Public Works Maria D'Andrea will be
present to discuss with City Council whether or not they wish to pursue the potential sale
of two city properties and steps in the process.
Presentation: 15 minutes
Discussion: 30 minutes
Potential Sale - Pdf
XII. Covid-19 Update
XIII. Reports from Board and Commission Council Liaisons
XIV. Council Member’s Choice
a. Staff recommends City Council approve, by Motion, the selection of a legal firm to
provide legal services to the City of Englewood for the next 3 to 5 months.
Legal - Pdf
XV. City Manager’s Choice
Page 2 of 367
Englewood City Council Special Agenda
March 22, 2021
Please note: If you have a disability and need auxiliary aids or services, please notify the City of Englewood
(303-762-2405) at least 48 hours in advance of when services are needed.
XVI. City Attorney’s Choice
XVII. Adjournment
Page 3 of 367
STUDY SESSION
TO: Mayor and Council
FROM: Jackie Loh
DEPARTMENT: Finance
DATE: March 22, 2021
SUBJECT: 2021 January Financial Update
DESCRIPTION:
Monthly Financial Update
RECOMMENDATION:
Director of Finance Jackie Loh will present and discuss the monthly financial update.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION:
Staff provides financial updates to City Council each month. During the Study Session
discussion, the Director of Finance will review the 2021 January financials by revenues and
expenditures. Sales & Use Tax by areas are also included in the Appendix of the attached
presentation.
SUMMARY:
Through January 2021, the City of Englewood's General Fund receipts total $5,188,030 and are
9.9% of budgeted revenue. Total revenue YTD is tracking 0.4% higher than the same period in
2019.
Revenue highlights are below:
• Sales & Use Tax remittances total $4,015,000 and are 12.3% of fiscal budgeted
revenue; Sales & Use Tax is tracking $74,000 higher than the prior year, mainly due to
the taxes received from the marketplace facilitators.
• Marijuana Sales Tax accounts for $180,000 of the total Sales & Use Tax revenue YTD
and is tracking $55,000 above the prior year, which has been a multiple-year trend.
• Franchise Fees received are $271,000, $136,000 higher than the same time last year,
which is largely due to timing.
• Licenses & Permits Revenue totals $203,000, and is 17% of budgeted revenue.
Compared to last year, this positive variance is mainly due to one large development
plan review fee of $70,000.
• Investment Earnings are $79,000, 96.3%, less than the same time last year, due to
interest rates rise. The portfolio, predominantly in bonds, is valued at market value each
month, so earnings can fluctuate when interest rates move in either direction.
• Parks, Recreation, Library & Golf (PRLG) YTD revenue of $33,000 is $91,000 below last
year due to reduced capacity during COVID-19.
• Englewood McLellan Reservoir Foundation (EMRF) leases contain periodic rate
increase terms. Rates have increased on several of the leases since January 2021.
Page 4 of 367
Expenditures YTD are $4,197,000 or 7.7% of the fiscal year budget. The total expenditures
YTD are tracking 1.0% higher than 2019. This is due primarily to timing issues in IT, Public
Works, Police, and PRLG. There tend to be timing issues during the first few months of the
year as departments are paying one-time items like renewals and other fees.
The Deficit (Excess Expenditures over Revenues) are $1,878,000, including a $131,000 transfer
from the Public Improvement Fund for Debt Services and $3,000,000 transfer out for capital
projects.
ANALYSIS:
Information included above.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
Information included above.
ALTERNATIVES:
N/A
CONCLUSION:
Staff will review the current financial report with Council monthly and welcomes questions and
discussion.
Page 5 of 367
January 2021Monthly Financial Report
by Jackie Loh
Page 6 of 367
•8.3% of fiscal year complete; $5,188,030 in revenue received YTD –9.9% of budgeted revenue
•2021 YTD revenues are 3.2% above the 5 year YTD average
General Fund Revenues
2021 2020
Budget Jan-21 % Budget Dec-20 Jan-20 % YTD $ Diff % Diff
Revenues
Property Tax 4,624,000 - 0.0%4,606,000 - 0.0%- 0.0%
Specific Ownership Tax 450,000 - 0.0%528,000 - 0.0%- 0.0%
Sales & Use Taxes 32,528,000 4,015,000 12.3%29,627,000 3,941,000 13.3%74,000 1.9%
Sales Tax - Marijuana - 180,000 1,928,000 125,000 0.0%55,000 44.0%
Cigarette Tax 170,000 18,000 10.6%169,000 15,000 8.9%3,000 20.0%
Franchise Fees 3,594,000 271,000 7.5%3,673,000 135,000 3.7%136,000 100.7%
Hotel/Motel Tax 25,000 2,000 8.0%20,000 2,000 10.0%- 0.0%
Licenses & Permits 1,197,000 203,000 17.0%1,649,000 153,000 9.3%50,000 32.7%
Intergovernmental Revenue 1,144,000 5,030 0.4%4,022,000 1,000 0.0%4,030 403.0%
Charges for Services 2,963,000 177,000 6.0%2,789,000 181,000 6.5%(4,000) -2.2%
Parks and Recreation 2,336,000 33,000 1.4%998,000 124,000 12.4%(91,000) -73.4%
Fines & Forfeitures 659,000 40,000 6.1%883,000 66,000 7.5%(26,000) -39.4%
Investment Earnings 455,000 3,000 0.7%453,000 82,000 18.1%(79,000) -96.3%
EMRF Rents 1,700,000 148,000 8.7%1,699,000 136,000 8.0%12,000 8.8%
Miscellaneous 691,000 93,000 13.5%497,000 103,000 20.7%(10,000) -9.7%
Total Revenues 52,536,000 5,188,030 9.9%53,541,000 5,064,000 9.5%124,030 2.4%
2021 vs 2020
Page 7 of 367
Sales and Use Tax Revenues
0
500000
1000000
1500000
2000000
2500000
3000000
3500000
Communications Electric & Gas Health Care
Services
Lumber & Other
Building
Materials
Marketplace
Faciliators
Manufacturing Medical Supplies Misc. Gen
Merchandise
Store
Misc. Specialty
Retail Store
Non Classifiable Restaurant
YTD: 2019 vs 2020 Revenue Sources
2019 2020
Footnote: The information about the Marketplace Facilitators includes the sales and use taxes occurred in December 2020. Page 8 of 367
Sales and Use Tax RevenuesMonthly Comparison 2021 versus 2020
0
500000
1000000
1500000
2000000
2500000
3000000
3500000
4000000
4500000
January February March April May June July August September October November December
2019 2020 2021
Page 9 of 367
2017-2021 Cumulative Change in Sales and Use Tax Collected
$6.2 million increase
since January 2017
Page 10 of 367
General Fund Expenditures
•8.3% of the fiscal year is complete; YTD Expenditures of $4,197,000 –7.7% of budgeted expenditures
2021 General Fund Transfers
•In: From Public Improvement Fund for Debt Service: $131,000•Out: To Capital Projects Fund for projects: $3,000,000
2021 2020
Budget Jan-21 % Budget Dec-20 Jan-20 % YTD $ Diff % Diff
Expenditures
Legislation 432,000 8,000 1.9%298,000 40,000 13.4%32,000 80.0%
Administration 1,024,000 46,000 4.5%1,111,000 53,000 4.8%7,000 13.2%
City Attorney 974,000 63,000 6.5%833,000 46,000 5.5%(17,000) -37.0%
Court 1,215,000 47,000 3.9%1,048,000 56,000 5.3%9,000 16.1%
Human Resources 1,160,000 34,000 2.9%948,000 45,000 4.7%11,000 24.4%
Finance 1,772,000 78,000 4.4%1,551,000 82,000 5.3%4,000 4.9%
Information Technology 3,959,000 161,000 4.1%3,524,000 389,000 11.0%228,000 58.6%
Community Development 2,978,000 150,000 5.0%3,620,000 149,000 4.1%(1,000) -0.7%
Public Works 7,574,000 845,000 11.2%7,479,000 309,000 4.1%(536,000) -173.5%
Police 15,051,000 1,052,000 7.0%14,453,000 831,000 5.7%(221,000) -26.6%
Fire and Emergency Management 7,360,000 1,100,000 14.9%6,851,000 1,056,000 15.4%(44,000) -4.2%
Parks, Recreation and Library 8,457,000 543,000 6.4%6,777,000 315,000 4.6%(228,000) -72.4%
Communications 656,000 25,000 3.8%862,000 37,000 4.3%12,000 32.4%
Debt Service 1,575,000 37,000 2.3%1,566,000 37,000 2.4%- 0.0%
Contingency 335,000 8,000 2.4%335,000 - 0.0%(8,000) 0.0%
Total Expenditures 54,522,000 4,197,000 7.7%51,256,000 3,445,000 6.7%(752,000) -21.8%
2021 vs 2020
Page 11 of 367
General Fund-Fund Balance Composition(in millions)
2017 2018 2019 2020
2021 YTD
Surplus/
(Deficit)
2021 YTD
Balance
TABOR - Restricted 1,580,000 1,740,000 1,730,000 1,800,000 - 1,800,000
LTAR - Committed 3,385,000 4,995,000 4,995,000 4,995,000 - 4,995,000
Unassigned Fund Balance 9,166,000 13,683,000 15,406,000 17,748,000 (1,878,000) 15,870,000
Total Fund Balance 14,131,000$ 20,418,000$ 22,131,000$ 24,543,000$ (1,878,000)$ 22,665,000$
Reserve = Unassigned + LTAR +12,551,000$ 18,678,000$ 20,401,000$ 22,743,000$ 20,865,000$
Loan to the Storm Water Fund -$ -$ 3,000,000$ 3,000,000$ 3,000,000$
Reserve Policy = 16.7% of total revenues ---7,806,000$ 8,422,000$ 8,599,000$ 8,925,000$ 8,758,000$
Reserve available above Policy 4,745,000$ 10,256,000$ 8,802,000$ 10,818,000$ 9,107,000$
% of Total Revenues 10.1%20.3%17.1%20.2%17.3%
$0.0
$2.5
$5.0
$7.5
$10.0
$12.5
$15.0
$17.5
$20.0
$22.5
$25.0
$27.5
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 YTD Balance
TABOR - Restricted LTAR - Committed Unassigned Fund Balance Reserve Policy = 16.7% of total revenues
Page 12 of 367
YTD Sales & Use Collections by Area
2020 2021 % Change $ Change
Total Sales & Use Tax Collecte 4,079,014$ 4,232,181$ -6.6%153,166$
Refunds 280$ -$ -83.0%(1,366)$
Unearned Sales Tax 2,000,000$ 2,000,000$ 0.0%-$
$0$100,000$200,000$300,000$400,000$500,000$600,000$700,000$800,000$900,000$1,000,000$1,100,000$1,200,000$1,300,000$1,400,000$1,500,000$1,600,000$1,700,000$1,800,000$1,900,000$2,000,000$2,100,000$2,200,000$2,300,000
Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5 Area 6 Area 7 Area 8 Area 13 Area 14 Regular Use
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
Page 13 of 367
3 Year Avg YTD Sales Tax Collected by Area
Area 13 $50,624
Area 14 $28,975Page 14 of 367
Area Sales Tax Slides
Appendix
Page 15 of 367
City of Englewood Sales Tax Area Map
Page 16 of 367
YTD Sales & Use Tax Collections by Area
Busines
s Area
$ YTD
Variance
CY vs PY
% YTD
Variance
CY vs PY
YTD New
Businesses
YTD Closed
Businesses
YTD Net
New
(Closed)
Businesses Comments
Area 1 (29,736) 1.11%2 (4) (2)
Area 2 16,059 4.67%3 (2) 1
Area 3 56,015 7.91%- (3) (3)
Area 4 (55,413) 13.94%- (1) (1)
Area 5 9,163 19.40%- - -
Area 6 (3,061) -9.34%17 (11) 6
Area 7 28,086 -8.71%77 (59) 18 Online sales-Area 14 were previously reported as part of Area 7.
Area 8 12,010 -5.53%- - -
Area 13 (910) -1.12%- (1) (1)
Area 14 6,385 100.00%- (1) (1) Online sales tax collections were previously reported as part of Area 7.
Regular
Use 114,567 -31.96%N/A N/A N/A
Use tax revenue fluctuates depending on the timing of when businesses
replace large ticket items such as operating machinery and equipment. If
items purchased outside of Englewood at a local tax rate less than 3.5%,
then the tax payer is liable for the difference between the local tax paid and
3.5% tax due.
Totals 153,166 -6.61%99 (82) 17 Page 17 of 367
Area 1 Sales Tax
CityCenter (Formerly Cinderella City)
390,168 391,121
373,776 377,908
348,173
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
400,000
450,000
500,000
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021Page 18 of 367
Area 2 Sales Tax
South of Yale, north & south side of Jefferson Ave/US 285 between Bannock and Sherman
210,227
242,606 231,752 242,586
258,645
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Page 19 of 367
Area 3 Sales Tax
S of Jefferson Ave/US 285 between Bannock & Sherman and north side of Belleview between Logan & Delaware
178,273
246,535 252,194
272,146
328,161
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Page 20 of 367
Area 4 Sales Tax
Broadway and Belleview (Between Fox and Sherman and south of Belleview and to the southern City Limits)
178,499
115,715 115,272
131,342
75,929
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Page 21 of 367
Area 5 Sales Tax
Area 5 -Federal and Belleview W of Santa Fe Drive
115,122
160,388
182,461
217,864
227,027
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Page 22 of 367
Area 6 Sales Tax
Area 6 -All other City locations
412,500
395,994
443,027
401,658 398,597
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
400,000
450,000
500,000
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021Page 23 of 367
Area 7 Sales Tax
Area 7 -Outside City limits
1,738,368
1,545,541
2,104,841
1,921,512 1,949,598
0
250,000
500,000
750,000
1,000,000
1,250,000
1,500,000
1,750,000
2,000,000
2,250,000
2,500,000
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Page 24 of 367
Area 8 Sales Tax
Public Utilities
146,255
126,898 133,356
125,979
137,989
0
25,000
50,000
75,000
100,000
125,000
150,000
175,000
200,000
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Page 25 of 367
Area 13 Sales Tax
Area 13 -Hampden Avenue (US 285) and University Boulevard
45,093
48,569
51,941 51,361 50,451
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Page 26 of 367
Area 14 Sales Tax
Online Sale
0
45,094
18,579
23,253
29,639
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Page 27 of 367
Regular Use Tax
513,860
602,674
460,650
313,403
427,971
0
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
700,000
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Page 28 of 367
STUDY SESSION
TO: Mayor and Council
FROM: Christina Underhill
DEPARTMENT: Parks, Recreation & Library
DATE: March 22, 2021
SUBJECT: 2021 Fourth of July Celebration
DESCRIPTION:
Staff will provide an update on the status of the traditional 4th of July event with the current
COVID restrictions and guidelines. Alternative option for the 2021 Independence Day
celebration will be provided. Staff from Tri-County Health will be present to provide the most
current recommendations from the Health Department. Staff is seeking council's direction on
how to proceed with the 4th of July event.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff and Tri-County will provide Council with information to assist in make a determination on if
the city should move forward with the traditional fireworks show or an alternative event.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION:
Council determined in 2020 that due to COVID the traditional fireworks event should not move
forward.
SUMMARY:
Staff would like to seek direction from Council on how to proceed with the 2021
multijurisdictional 4th of July Fireworks Event.
ANALYSIS:
Staff has been working closely with Tri-County Health Department in regards to the 2021 4th of
July Event. Currently, there are still COVID restrictions in place and it is estimate these
restrictions will remain into the summer months. The Fire Marshall is also predicting potential
fire bans this summer. If a fire ban is in place, fireworks would be banned. Currently, Tri-
County Health has concerns with large scale events which would draw thousands of
participants. In 2019 it was estimated over 20,000 people participated in the fireworks event.
Cornerstone park where the fireworks show is typically held does not have elements in place to
help with crowd control. Logistically, there are challenges with allowing 10,000+ people into an
area with COVID restrictions. Event staff have been working with the partnering agencies to
determine if it is safe to move forward with the fireworks show or not. Also, staff have been
developing an alternative event that would be offered to Englewood residents in place of the
fireworks show which would occur at Englewood.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
The complete cost of the event before outside contributions is $73,780.55. After the
contributions from Sheridan, Littleton, Arapahoe County and South Suburban Parks &
Page 29 of 367
Recreation, Englewood cost would be approximately $45,780.55. The cost of doing the smaller
alternative event would be approximately $15,000.
CONNECTION TO STRATEGIC PLAN:
Neighborhoods and Local Economy
ALTERNATIVES:
Option A. Move forward with the 4th of July event
Option B. Smaller Englewood event at the Civic Center circle drive
Option C. Do not host any Independence day celebrations
CONCLUSION:
Staff is here to present the information and would like Council to discuss and determine on how
to move forward.
ATTACHMENTS:
4th Of July Presentation
2021 Estimated 4th of July Expenses
Surrounding City Firework Plans
Capacity Restrictions Updated (3.12)
Guidance for outdoor events
Page 30 of 367
Englewood 2021 4th of July event
Christina Underhill, PRLG Director
Toni Arnoldy, Events Supervisor
Page 31 of 367
•Current status of event
•What other agencies are doing
•Options for Independence Day events
•Englewood Options
•Questions and Discussion
Agenda
Page 32 of 367
◦Current Englewood COVID-19 Restrictions are level Blue:
◦Level Blue -Caution:50% capacity up to 250 people per designated activity or area, for
both seated and unseated events.
◦Tri-County most current recommendation:
◦An event of 20,000 is not permitted under any Dial level.
◦COVID-19 Tri-County Recovery Team statement: If you were to hold an event, you would
need to operate within the Dial level. For example, if Arapahoe County is in Level Blue, for a
large outdoor event, you could host 250 people in one area (that allows for proper
distancing).
◦Other requirements are contact tracing and one way routes.
Current status
Page 33 of 367
Lakewood, Highlands Ranch
Fireworks only (no spectators)
No viewing area is available for gathering in their city.
Littleton, Foothills, Westminster, Fort Collins
not holding any type of event for the holiday.
Parker
Fireworks
Attendance can be limited and controlled.
Have the ability to close the park, there is only one entrance and exit.
Registration is required.
Contact Tracing can be accomplished.
Englewood Risk: Being the only Metro city hosting a live, “open to all” event.
What other cities are doing:Page 34 of 367
A: Move forward with traditional event
B: Move forward with alternative event(s)
C: Do not host any Independence day celebration
Options
Page 35 of 367
•Move forward with traditional event.
Location:Cornerstone Park
Partners: Littleton, South Suburban, Sheridan and Arapahoe County
Fireworks show
Challenges: COVID Restrictions, possible fire ban.
Option A:Page 36 of 367
◦SMALLER Independence Day CELEBRATION IN THE CITY CENTER CIRCLE
AREA
◦4th of July Themed.
◦July 3, 2021 11am-4pm in City Center Circle by the fountain and into amphitheater area.
◦Music provided by a DJ and possibly a roaming band with no wind instruments or vocals.
◦Space to sit and enjoy on a reservation only basis for 90 minute time slots.
◦Food Trucks, Vendors and Sponsors.
◦Beer Garden.
◦Professional Sidewalk Chalk Art.
◦Games and Activities (following all guidelines).
◦Dunk Tank, kids/family sidewalk chalk, and more.
Option B:Page 37 of 367
▪Additional event possibilities through the summer
▪Food Truck Frenzy
▪Farmers’ Markets
▪Art Walk
▪Pub Crawl
▪Popup Concerts
▪Drive-In movies
▪Movies in the parks
Option B continued:Page 38 of 367
•Do not host any Independence day celebrations.
Option C:Page 39 of 367
Staff and Mellissa Sager from Tri-County Health Department are
available to answer any questions.
Thank you for your time.
Questions/discussion
Page 40 of 367
Contributions
Sheridan 2,000.00$ 2,000.00$
SSPR 5,000.00$ 5,000.00$
Littleton 16,000.00$ 16,000.00$
Arapahoe County 5,000.00$ 5,000.00$
Total Outside Contributions 28,000.00$
Englewood Cost 47,211.22$
Total Revenue 75,211.22$
Personnel Expenses-Employee Salaries (Including Overtime)
Department
Employees
Needed Hours TOTAL
GRAND
TOTAL
Police officers 25 10 250 15,762.50$
Code Enforcement 4 10 44 2,537.34$
Parks & Recreation 16 180 11,965.14$
Communications 2 10 20 880.00$
Fire Inspector 1 11 11 926.24$
Total Personnel Expense 32,071.22$
Purchased Materials/Services
Fireworks (Western Enterprises)22,500.00$
Lighting 3,000.00$
Restrooms/Port-a-Lets 7,200.00$
Traffic Barricades 7,500.00$
Tri-County License 160.00$
Parks Maintenance 540.00$
General Supplies 540.00$
Entertainment
Volunteer T-shirts 550.00$
Fuel 165.00$
Food for Volunteers & Staff 985.00$
Total Purchased Expenses 43,140.00$
TOTAL EVENT COSTS 75,211.22$
2021 FOURTH OF JULY EVENT COST ESTIMATE
Page 41 of 367
Surrounding City 4th of July Events
CITY/ORGANIZATION FIREWORKS SPECTATORS CONTROLLED ACCESS TO PARKS
FOOTHILLS NO NO NO
NORTHGLENN NO NO N/A
LONETREE UNDECIDED NO YES
FORT COLLINS NO NO N/A
LAKEWOOD YES NO N/A
HIGHLANDS RANCH YES NO YES
WESTMINSTER NO NO N/A
Parker SMALLER LIMITED YES
CASTLE ROCK NOT IN CITY NO NO
FRISCO NO NO NO
BRECKENRIDGE NO NO N/A
GLENWOOD NO NO
ASPEN NO
Page 42 of 367
LEVEL GREEN:
PROTECT OUR
NEIGHBORS
LEVEL BLUE:
CAUTION
LEVEL YELLOW:
CONCERN
LEVEL ORANGE:
HIGH RISK
LEVEL RED:
SEVERE RISK
LEVEL PURPLE:
EXTREME RISK
HIGH RISK
POPULATIONS
Use caution
Eligible for worker
benefits and mandatory
prioritization for remote
work
Use caution
Eligible for worker
benefits and mandatory
prioritization for remote
work
Advised to Stay at
Home
Eligible for worker
benefits and mandatory
prioritization for
remote work
Strongly advised to
Stay at Home
Eligible for
worker benefits
and mandatory
prioritization for
remote work
Stay at Home
Eligible for
worker benefits
and mandatory
prioritization for
remote work
Stay at Home Ordered
Eligible for
worker benefits
and mandatory
prioritization for
remote work
VARIANCES
Eligible for both outdoor
and indoor site-specific
variances if approved by
LPHA
Eligible for both outdoor
and indoor site-specific
variances if approved by
LPHA
Eligible for outdoor
site-specific variances
if approved by LPHA
Not eligible
Not eligible -
Current variances
reevaluted
Not eligible -
Current variances
revoked unless
specifically allowed
PERSONAL GATHERING
SIZE Per local guidance Up to 10 from no more
than 2 households
Up to 10 from no more
than 2 households
Up to 10 from
no more than 2
households
None None
CHILDCARE Open Open Open Open Open Open
P-12 SCHOOLS In-person In-person In-person suggested
In-person suggested
Counties are
encouraged to
prioritize in-
person learning by
suspending other
extracurricular
and recreational
activities in
order to preserve
effective cohorting
and minimize
disruptions to in
person learning
P-5: in person
suggested
Middle school: in-
person, hybrid, or
remote suggested
High school: hybrid or
remote suggested
In-person, hybrid, or
remote as appropriate
HIGHER EDUCATION In-person In-person In-person, hybrid, or
remote as appropriate
In-person, hybrid,
or remote as
appropriate
Remote suggested,
limited in-person
when necessary
Remote suggested,
very limited in-person
when necessary
RESTAURANTS -
INDOORS
50%* capacity or 500
people †
50% capacity or 225
people †
50% capacity or 150
people †
25% capacity or 50
people †
Indoor dining closed.
Take out, curbside,
delivery, or to go
Indoor dining closed.
Take out, delivery, or to
go is open
RESTAURANTS -
OUTDOORS
6ft between parties
outdoors, per local
zoning
6ft between parties
outdoors, per local
zoning
6ft between parties
outdoors, per local
zoning
6ft between parties
outdoors, per local
zoning
Open air with only
groups of own
household is open
Outdoor dining closed.
Take out, delivery, or to
go is open
LAST CALL Per local restrictions 2 a.m. (on premise)1 a.m. (on premise)12 a.m. (on premise)10 p.m. (on premise)No on premise service
NON-CRITICAL
MANUFACTURING
50%* capacity or 500
people †
50% capacity or 175
people †
50% capacity or 50
people (or up to 100
with calculator) †
25% capacity or 50
people †
25% capacity or 50
people †
10% capacity or 25
people †
OFFICES 50%* capacity 50% capacity
50% capacity, remote
work is strongly
encouraged
25% capacity, remote
work is strongly
encouraged
10% capacity, remote
work is strongly
encouraged
Remote work or Closed
BARS 50%* capacity or 500
people †Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed
GYMS/FITNESS 50%* capacity or 500
people †
50% capacity or 175
people †
50% capacity or 50
people †
25% capacity or 50
people indoors †, or
outdoors in groups
less than 10
10% capacity or 10
people indoors per
room †, or outdoors in
groups less than 10.
Reservations required
Virtual, or outdoors in
groups less than 10
GROUP SPORTS AND
CAMPS
50%* capacity or 500
people †
50 person capacity per
activity
25 person capacity per
activity
Virtual, or outdoors
in groups less than
10
Virtual, or outdoors in
groups less than 10
Virtual, or outdoors in
groups less than 10
CRITICAL AND NON
CRITICAL RETAIL 50%* capacity 50% capacity 50% capacity
50% capacity with
increased curbside
pick up, and
delivery. Dedicated
senior and at-risk
hours encouraged
50% capacity with
increased curbside
pick up, and delivery.
Dedicated senior
and at-risk hours
encouraged
Non-critical retail
closed. Curbside
pick-up and delivery
OK. Critical may
operate at 50% capacity
but should make
significant efforts to
reduce the number
of people in-store as
much as possible
PERSONAL SERVICES 50%* capacity or 500
people †
50% capacity or 50
people †
50% capacity or 50
people †
25% capacity or 25
people †
25% capacity or 25
people †Closed
LIMITED HEALTH CARE
SETTINGS
50%* capacity or 500
people †
50% capacity or 50
people †
50% capacity or 50
people †
25% capacity or 25
people †
25% capacity or 25
people †
10% capacity or 25
people †
INDOOR UNSEATED
EVENTS AND
ENTERTAINMENT
50%* capacity or 500
people †
50% capacity or 175
people †
50% capacity or 50
people no calculator,
(or up to 100 with
calculator) †
25% capacity or 50
person capacity
(with calculator) †
Closed, excluding
museums, aquariums,
and zoos**
Closed
INDOOR SEATED
EVENTS AND
ENTERTAINMENT
50%* capacity or 500
people †
50% capacity or 225
people with 6ft spacing
between groups †
50% capacity or 50
people (or 150 people
with 6ft spacing
between groups) †
25% capacity or 50
people †
Closed, excluding
museums, aquariums,
and zoos**
Closed
OUTDOOR UNSEATED
EVENTS AND
ENTERTAINMENT
50%* capacity or 500
people †
50% capacity or 250
people †
50% capacity or 175
people †
25% capacity or 75
people
25% capacity or
75 people (with
calculator) †, attended
only with members of
your own household
and 6ft spacing
between groups
Closed
OUTDOOR SEATED
EVENTS AND
ENTERTAINMENT
50%* capacity or 500
people †
50% capacity or 250
people †
50% capacity or 175
people †
25% capacity or 75
people †
25% capacity or
75 people (with
calculator) †, attended
only with members of
your own household
and 6ft spacing
between groups
Closed
OUTDOOR GUIDED
SERVICES
50%* capacity or 500
people †
50% capacity or 25
people †
50% capacity or 10
people †
25% capacity or 10
people †
25% capacity or 10
people †
25% capacity or up to
10 only in your own
household †
*Counties that enter Protect Our Neighbors are eligible to increase the percentage caps by 5% every month they continually sustain those metrics.
† When capacity limits are expressed as both a percentage of posted capacity and a total number of people, use whichever number is fewer.
**Educational institutions including museums, aquariums and zoos may operate indoors at 25% of the posted occupancy limit not to exceed 25 people using the Distancing Space Calculator per room.
What are the capacity restrictions at each level?Effective date: 03/07/2021
Page 43 of 367
Guidance for outdoor events
Venue
• Limit capacity depending on venue size accounting for usable square footage*
and appropriate limits in the current county dial level.
o Level Green - Protect Our Neighbors: outdoor events, both seated and
unseated, may be conducted at 50% capacity not to exceed 500 people
per designated activity or area.
o Level Blue - Caution: 50% capacity up to 250 people per designated
activity or area, for both seated and unseated events.
o Level Yellow - Concern: for unseated events, 50% capacity or up to 175
people within the usable space calculated using the Distancing Space
Calculator, excluding staff, per designated activity or area. For seated
events, 50% capacity or up to 175 people with 6 feet distancing between
non-household contacts.
o Level Orange: High Risk: for unseated events, 25% capacity or up to 75
people within the usable space calculated using the Distancing Space
Calculator, excluding staff, per designated activity or area. For seated
events, 25% capacity or up to 75 people with 6 feet distancing between
non-household contacts.
o Level Red - Severe Risk: attend only with members of your own
household. For unseated events, 25% capacity or up to 75 people within
their usable space calculated using the Distancing Space Calculat or,
excluding staff, per designated activity or area. For seated events, 25%
capacity or up to 75 people with 6 feet distancing between parties.
o Level Purple - Extreme Risk: closed.
• Calculate capacity for square footage of usable space using the Social
Distancing Space Calculator.
• An event is considered “seated” if the attendees have minimal movement, such
as purchasing concessions or using the restroom facilities.
o If an event involves both a seated and unseated portion, it must
calculate capacity for the unseated portion using the Social Distancing
Space Calculator.
• Collect contact information for guests or attendees through ticket sales,
reservations, RSVPs, or having sign-in sheets. Include times of arrival and
departure, to help with potential exposure notification.
Page 44 of 367
• Provide generous and flexible cancellation policies so that if guests start
experiencing symptoms, they can cancel.
• Ensure 6 feet or more distance between all employees, customers, contractors
and visitors.
• Create a queue at entrances and exits that ensures a minimum of 6 feet of
physical distance between individuals and pace entry and exit to prevent
congestion.
• Establish single-direction traffic flow in and out of venue and seating areas.
Consider separate entrances and exits.
• Consider staggered guest arrival and departure times to avoid congregating at
entrances and exits.
• Give reminders to observe at least 6 feet social distance before, during, and
after events.
• Provide signage, announcements, and other reminders that face coverings are
highly recommended to reduce COVID transmission.
• Seating at events must be appropriately spaced, to reduce mingling and
reinforce the necessary distance between individuals in different households.
• Enhance cleaning and sanitization of common touch points (doors, stairwell
handles, light switches, elevator switches, etc.).
• Catering services or food services should be seated-only. Food and drink
services must follow the same guidelines as restaurants and bars.
• Install hand sanitizing stations at entrances and in high -traffic areas.
• Consider shorter event duration times or limited admission windows to reduce
the need for patrons to use restroom facilities, which can be a source of
transmission.
• Install plexiglass barriers where appropriate.
• Dancing is strictly limited at all events to no more than six persons dancing
together from the same party. Dancing parties must remain six feet from other
persons and all must follow current mask mandates. For wedding services, the
following dances are expressly allowed: the couple’s first dance and the parent
dances.
• Booths or vendors at events must:
o Allow spacing for vendor load-in and loadout such that vendors and staff
can maintain a distance of at least 6 feet from each other as much as
possible.
o Add a minimum of 6 feet in between booths.
o Create a single line of booths instead of double rows. If this is not
possible, create at least a 16 feet thoroughfare between the two sides
allowing for a single file, one-way path down the middle.
o Require vendors to have market booth layouts that promote social
distancing. Provide them with the space to do this.
o Create one-way traffic flow through the booths to prevent crowding or
mingling.
o Use ropes, cones or tap
Page 45 of 367
STUDY SESSION
TO: Mayor and Council
FROM: Pieter Van Ry
DEPARTMENT: Utilities
DATE: March 22, 2021
SUBJECT:
City of Englewood’s Customer Assistance Program (CAP)
Discussion
DESCRIPTION:
Director of Utilities, Pieter Van Ry, and Stantec Consultant, Carol Malesky, will be present to
discuss the near-term and long-term Utility Customer Assistance Program (CAP) options for
Council consideration.
RECOMMENDATION:
Provide a recommendation to Council for consideration on a near-term and long-term Utility
Customer Assistance Program (CAP) for the City of Englewood.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION:
• January 4, 2021, Study Session: Provided data to Council for their consideration, to give
staff direction on how to proceed with a Customer Assistance Program (CAP).
• November 16, 2020, Council approval of 2021 Rate and Fee Schedule and 2021 sewer
rate increase ordinance.
• November 2, 2020, Council approval of 2021 stormwater rate increase ordinance.
• August 24, 2020, Study Session: Water and Sewer Utilities Rate and Fee Study
Progress Update #3. Final recommendations for sewer rates and fees were presented.
• July 27, 2020, Study Session: Water and Sewer Utilities Rate and Fee Study Progress
Update #2, focused upon connection fees, CIP Funding scenarios, and a proposed
customer assistance program. On July 27, new financial scenarios incorporating
feedback from the June 22 study session were presented to Council. Revised 10-year
financial model results were presented. Additionally, initial findings for connection fees
were reviewed as well as the proposal of a customer assistance program to assist
customers experiencing financial hardship with their utility bill.
• June 22, 2020, Study Session: Water and Sewer Utilities Rate and Fee Study Progress
Update #1, focused upon preliminary results of the Rate and Fee Study related to rates.
SUMMARY:
Throughout 2020 Council considered many options to address the Utilities Department financial
needs to fund the significant capital investment requirements to address aging infrastructure.
Through extensive financial analysis and multiple discussions with Council, in October 2020, the
City approved rate increases for the water, sanitary sewer, and stormwater utilities to address
these needs.
As part of that discussion and subsequent budget approval, Council directed staff to investigate
options for a Utility Customer Assistance Program (CAP) to help address affordability issues for
Page 46 of 367
Englewood residents. This update incorporates Council feedback provided during the January
4, 2021 study session as well as the results of discussions with Arapahoe County regarding
implementation of a new plan.
ANALYSIS:
Customer Assistance Programs are widely used across the country by water utilities to address
affordability issues for their customers. As part of the utility rate and fee analysis and
subsequent 10-year utility finance plan, staff worked with Stantec to evaluate options for the
creation of a CAP for the City. Stantec conducted research both locally and nationally to provide
data for consideration by staff and Council to support decision-making on how to proceed with
this type of program. Rate increases for the water and sanitary sewer utilities are scheduled to
take effect on April 1, 2021.
The initial proposed CAP structure in the near-term will rely primarily on programs currently in
place through Arapahoe County, that provide utility assistance to citizens of the County
including those living in Englewood. These programs currently set eligibility requirements
generally at 80% of the area’s median income, which is higher than the 250% federal poverty
level (FPL) threshold proposed for Englewood’s CAP. These current programs can both support
home-owners and renters in the Englewood area. Data from how our citizens are using the
programs is available through Arapahoe County.
The programs currently available to Englewood citizens on the Arapahoe County’s website that
provide for utility bill assistance are:
• ERA (Emergency Rent Assistance)
• CDBG (Community Development Block Grant)
• CSBG (Community Services Block Grant)
• LEAP (Low-Income Energy Assistance Program)
Over the long-term, staff recommends the formalization of an in-house CAP program
administered by City staff. This recommendation came as a result of discussions with Arapahoe
County and would allow for more effective CAP management by providing a more personalized
approach to tracking how Englewood citizens are using the program. This future CAP program
can mirror Arapahoe County’s application process to improve consistency for users accessing
multiple programs.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
N/A
CONNECTION TO STRATEGIC PLAN:
Infrastructure – A city that proactively and in a cost-effective manner invests in, maintains, and
plans to protect its infrastructure.
ALTERNATIVES:
If a CAP is not implemented Utilities billing will continue to function without financial assistance
and qualified residents would have limited options for utility bill relief.
Page 47 of 367
CONCLUSION:
Staff is seeking Council feedback on the recommended approach to providing utility billing relief
in the near-term through Arapahoe County, and the development of a long-term program within
the City.
ATTACHMENTS:
PowerPoint Presentation
Page 48 of 367
City of Englewood 2020
Water & Sewer Rate Study
City Council Study
Session
March 22, 2021Page 49 of 367
Agenda
1.CAP Implementation
2.Monthly Utility Billing
3.Sewer Outside City Multiplier
Page 50 of 367
Customer Assistance Program (CAP)Page 51 of 367
CAP ElementsCAP
•Eligibility Requirements
•Discount/ Assistance Level
•Funding Source
•Administration
•Application
4Page 52 of 367
CAP Elements DecisionsCAP
•Eligibility Requirements –250% Federal Poverty Level (FPL)
•Discount/ Assistance Level –$180/ year Water CIF
•Funding Source –General Fund/ Donation
•Administration –Partnership with Arapahoe County
•Application –Mirror Arapahoe County Application
5Page 53 of 367
CAP RoadmapCAP
6
CAP
Short-term CAP (2021)Long-term CAP (past 2021)
Use Current Federal
Funds Available Formalize COE CAPPage 54 of 367
Short-term CAP
Federal Funds Distributed by Arapahoe CountyCAP
•Arapahoe County’s rent/ utility assistance
◦ERA (Emergency Rent Assistance)
◦CDBG (Community Development Block Grant)
◦CSBG (Community Services Block Grant)
◦LEAP (Low-Income Energy Assistance Program)
7Page 55 of 367
Summary of Short-term CAPCAP
8
Criteria ERA CDBG & CSBG
Basis COVID Impacted COVID & Non-COVID Impacted
Eligible Group Renter; Non-Aurora citizens Homeowner; Non-Aurora citizens
Funding Sufficient Funding ($9.8M)Limited Funding
Income 80% Area Median Income 80% AMI/ 200% FPL1
Note:
1. CSBG is currently offering 200% FPL due to COVID; Normally at 125% of FPL.Page 56 of 367
FPL HH1 HH2 HH3 HH4 HH5
100%12,760 17,240 21,720 26,200 30,680
150%19,140 25,860 32,580 39,300 46,020
200%25,520 34,480 43,440 52,400 61,360
250%31,900 43,100 54,300 65,500 76,700
300%38,280 51,720 65,160 78,600 92,040
Income Eligibility
9
2020 Income Limit
@ 80% AMI HH1 HH2 HH3 HH4 HH5
Arapahoe County 56,000 64,000 72,000 80,000 86,400
Area Median Income
Federal Poverty Level
CAP
Page 57 of 367
Long-term CAP
In-house AdministrationCAP
•Understand potential participation levels and costs
•Develop in-house formal program
•Base eligibility on 250% Federal Poverty Level
•Mirror County’s application process
10Page 58 of 367
Arapahoe County Application FormCAP
11Page 59 of 367
Questions/ Discussion
Page 60 of 367
STUDY SESSION
TO: Mayor and Council
FROM: Jennifer Walker, Pieter Van Ry
DEPARTMENT: Utilities
DATE: March 22, 2021
SUBJECT: Utility Monthly Billing Update
DESCRIPTION:
Director of Utilities, Pieter Van Ry, and Utilities Manager of Administration, Jennifer Walker, will
discuss the conversion from quarterly to monthly utility billing.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff will be present to discuss the City's communications and implementation plan to rollout the
City’s transition to monthly utility billing.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION:
None.
SUMMARY:
The City of Englewood is switching from quarterly to monthly utility billing to assist residents with
budgeting for utility costs on a monthly basis, enhance conservation efforts and detect leaks
through more frequent usage data, and align the City’s utility billing practices with the industry
standard. Over the next few months, citizens will receive multiple notifications regarding the
transition, including information on what to expect as their bill transitions from quarterly to
monthly.
At the March 9, 2021, Water and Sewer Board meeting, Director Van Ry provided an outline of
the transition and a draft of a citizen mailer to be sent out in March. The Board provided
feedback at the meeting which was subsequently incorporated. The mailer is scheduled to be
delivered to citizens the week of March 22, 2021. Additional outreach materials are in
development for inclusion with the monthly bills.
ANALYSIS:
The City of Englewood Utilities department is switching from quarterly to monthly utility billing to
address several issues that arose from the less frequent quarterly bills, including customer
budgeting for utilities conservation, and revenue stability. The transition will occur over a 3-
month timeframe, from April to June 2021. In March, Englewood water customers will receive an
informational mailer that provides important information regarding the City’s transition to monthly
utility billing. This mailer will also include a sample bill comparison and links to the City’s website
that will help residents understand the monthly billing transition. Residents will start to see
monthly bills beginning in April, which may reflect a combination of monthly and quarterly rates,
depending on where a customer resides within the City.
Page 61 of 367
Staff is currently developing additional communication materials that will be included with the
April utility bills, to further communicate the specific transitions each customer will experience in
relation to their location within the City.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
Monthly billing provides a more consistent revenue stream for the City by billing twelve times
per year instead of four times per year. This more frequent billing provides the ability for City
customers to more effectively budget for utility costs and should reduce the potential for large
past due balances.
CONNECTION TO STRATEGIC PLAN:
Infrastructure – A city that proactively and in a cost-effective manner invests in, maintains, and
plans to protect its infrastructure.
ALTERNATIVES:
This is an information item only.
CONCLUSION:
Monthly billing is the most common billing practice along the Front Range and through this
change Englewood will align with this approach to help City customers more effectively budget
for utility costs. Utilities staff is seeking Council input on the transition process and
communication strategy as the transition from quarterly to monthly billing occurs.
ATTACHMENTS:
Power Point Presentation
Page 62 of 367
City of Englewood 2020
Water & Sewer Rate Study
City Council Study
Session
March 22, 2021Page 63 of 367
Monthly Billing and Meter Transition
Page 64 of 367
Transition UpdateTransition
Update
•Customers will receive a mailer for transitioning to monthly billing
−Transition Period
−Bill Comparison
−New water CIF
−CAP link
•Quarterly meter reading monthly meter reading
−Monthly meter reading by quadrant
−Additional staffing needs
14Page 65 of 367
Customer Sample Mailer
Transition
Update
15Page 66 of 367
Customer Mailer –cont’dTransition
Update
16Page 67 of 367
Customer Mailer –cont’dTransition
Update
17Page 68 of 367
Questions/ Discussion
Page 69 of 367
STUDY SESSION
TO: Mayor and Council
FROM: Pieter Van Ry
DEPARTMENT: Utilities
DATE: March 22, 2021
SUBJECT: City of Englewood’s Sewer Connector Districts Rate Analysis
DESCRIPTION:
The City of Englewood's sewer rates vary for customers based on location inside or outside the
City of Englewood, and based on the type of sewer service received, treatment only or
treatment and collection. City staff is seeking Council feedback regarding adjustments to the
rate structure for Connector Districts outside of City limits that equitably and accurately recovers
the City’s costs of service to these customers. These Connector Districts rely on City
infrastructure for treatment through South Platte Renew.
RECOMMENDATION:
Discuss analysis findings and seek Council feedback on staff proposal to increase the outside-
City Connector District multiplier from 1.05 to 1.2.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION:
None.
SUMMARY:
It is common within utility rate setting practices to recognize the differences between owners
(City residents) and non-owners (Connector Districts) of the utility system. City customers,
through rates and fees, bear the financial responsibility for funding capital improvement,
operations, and maintenance of the City’s sewer system. Connector Districts, or non-owners, do
not bear that same risk and responsibility, as they have the discretion to disconnect from the
system if necessary. To account for City’s acceptance of this risk, a multiplier is charged to
non-owners. This multiplier, which is common practice among sewer service providers,
compensates the owners based on:
• Value of the assets that are used in providing sewer treatment service
• Financial risk inherent as the owners of the system
• Administrative costs of managing non-owner customers
• Higher share of treatment costs due to non-owner infiltration and inflow (I&I)
Industry standard practice for developing the revenue requirements follows one of two
approaches: the utility basis approach, or rate multiplier approach. These approaches, outlined
by the American Water Works Association Manual M1, provide the basis to determine an
appropriate rate structure for non-owners.
Page 70 of 367
ANALYSIS:
To calculate the outside City multiplier, a rate of return was applied to wastewater treatment
system assets. The system assets represent the original cost less depreciation (book value) of
the City’s 50% share of the sewer treatment system. The rate of return was calculated using a
weighted average cost of capital (WACC), which is the City’s weighted average cost of debt
(borrowing) and equity (investing). It estimates the return on assets the City would earn if it had
not invested in treatment capacity in South Platte Renew. As a result of this analysis, the
outside City multiplier was calculated at 1.2. This multiplier provides the basis for the outside
City service rate recognizing the risks the City has undertaken in the investments that have
been made in the sewer treatment system.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
Additional annual revenue of $2.2M is estimated from the Connector Districts with the proposed
1.2 multiplier. This additional revenue would allow the City to cash-fund more sewer capital
needs and reduce debt obligations as the capital program is implemented.
CONNECTION TO STRATEGIC PLAN:
Infrastructure – A city that proactively and in a cost-effective manner invests in, maintains, and
plans to protect its infrastructure.
ALTERNATIVES:
If the revised outside City multiplier is not implemented, then the City will continue to serve
outside City customers at its current 1.05 multiplier.
CONCLUSION:
Rate multipliers are commonly used approach by utilities across the country to recover costs of
ownership of system assets from customers outside corporate limits. Englewood City Council
will be provided background, the calculation, and implications of an outside-City multiplier to
consider for Connector District treatment rates. Staff will seek feedback and direction from
Council on the calculated multiplier, and based on this feedback staff will meet with the
Connector Districts to review the results of the study and proposed implementation plan.
ATTACHMENTS:
PowerPoint Presentation
Page 71 of 367
City of Englewood 2020
Water & Sewer Rate Study
City Council Study
Session
March 22, 2021Page 72 of 367
Sewer Outside City Multiplier
Page 73 of 367
Background
Outside-City Customers Multiplier
Sewer Outside
City Multiplier
•City of Englewood bills 50,000 outside-City customers (Connector
Districts) for treatment only
•5% treatment surcharge is added to treatment rate for inflow and
infiltration (I&I)
•Update outside-City multiplier to recover
◦Additional costs incurred by the City to bill Connector Districts
◦Investment risks in SPR
◦I&I
20Page 74 of 367
Industry-Accepted ApproachSewer Outside
City Multiplier
•Common to have rate differential between owners and non-owners
•Owners
–Within City’s corporate limit
–Made initial investment of SPR assets (wastewater treatment facility)
•Non-owners
–Outside of City’s corporate limit
–Rate differential recognizes risks and investments inherent by owners
•Rate differential options following AWWA Manual M1
–Utility Basis for Revenue Requirements
–Rate Multiplier 21Page 75 of 367
Outside-City Multiplier EvaluationSewer Outside
City Multiplier
DRAFT –FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSESTotal Revenue Requirement 2021
Inside-City Customers(Owners)
Assume Risk of Investments
Outside-City Customers(Non-Owners)
Pay Surcharge to Compensate Owners
Calculated Multiplier
1.20x
Preliminary Finding: 1.20x multiplier on the Inside-City Treatment Rate
Estimated to collect additional $2.2M revenue annuallyPage 76 of 367
Sewer Financial Outlook
Current Sewer Outside-City MultiplierSewer Outside
City Multiplier
23
$0.0M
$5.0M
$10.0M
$15.0M
$20.0M
20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Debt Operating/Cash
$0.0M
$10.0M
$20.0M
$30.0M
$40.0M
$50.0M
20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
O&M CIP DEBT
CIP Funding FY 2020 -2030
-Mix of Cash and Debt
-74% Debt-funded
-Estimated to borrow $82M
Expenditures by Type Outlook
-Annual O&M
-Cash-funded CIP
-Debt Service Payment
DRAFT –FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSESPage 77 of 367
Sewer Financial Outlook
With Sewer Outside-City MultiplierSewer Outside
City Multiplier
24
CIP Funding FY 2020 -2030
-Mix of Cash and Debt
-38% Debt-funded
-Estimated to borrow $42M
Expenditures by Type Outlook
-Annual O&M
-Cash-funded CIP
-Debt Service Payment
DRAFT –FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSESAdditional revenues from sewer multiplier allow more projects to be cash-funded
Page 78 of 367
Next StepsNext Steps
•Meeting with Connector Districts
•Update municipal code
25Page 79 of 367
Questions/ Discussion
Page 80 of 367
STUDY SESSION
TO: Mayor and Council
FROM: Wade Burkholder
DEPARTMENT: Community Development
DATE: March 22, 2021
SUBJECT:
Unified Development Code (UDC) Assessment Report
Presentation
DESCRIPTION:
Presentation of UDC Assessment Report
RECOMMENDATION:
Informational - Unified Development Code (UDC) Assessment Report Presentation
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION:
September 23, 2019: Study Session for direction related to bulk plane and other residential
development requirements. City Council asked for the Planning and Zoning Commission to
discuss this in a study session.
October 28, 2019: City Council Study Session. Additional discussion and clarification on how
to proceed with revising development regulations.
November 5, 2019: Planning and Zoning Commission Study Session. Recommended to City
Council that concerns with development regulations be comprehensively reviewed as part of a
Unified Development Code (UDC) update process and after a robust process of community
engagement and input.
March 30, 2020: City Council Study Session. Staff discussed the overall comprehensive
assessment of the UDC, public outreach efforts, and the redrafting of Title 16. City Council
provided consensus to proceed with the Request for Proposal process and the comprehensive
update of the UDC.
June 10, 2020: Staff provided City Council with an update on the Request for Proposal process
and recommended proceeding with a Professional Services Agreement with Logan Simpson
LLC to initiate the first phase of the overall process to update the UDC.
July 27, 2020: A joint study session was held with the Planning and Zoning Commission and
Logan Simpson LLC to review expectations of the process and to discuss which areas of the
UDC that are problematic, which new concepts could be included, and the portions of the Code
that are outdated and no longer serve a beneficial purpose.
Page 81 of 367
SUMMARY:
The City of Englewood Unified Development Code (UDC) establishes the parameters for all new
development and infill/redevelopment in the community and it is one of the primary tools used to
support the implementation of the city's comprehensive plan, Englewood Forward. While
Englewood has periodically updated the UDC standards, most of the changes have been minor
and they related to process and procedural considerations. Most recently, the UDC was
amended to include provisions for Accessory Dwelling Units and Short Term Rental regulations.
A thorough assessment of standards to ensure that the local development standards are
advancing the community's goals and adequately responding to shifting priorities and changes
in social and market conditions has not been completed since the Unified Development Code
was first adopted in 2004.
Englewood Forward was adopted by City Council in February 2017 and the Plan places
renewed emphasis on community priorities and emerging issues to support Englewood's
existing residential neighborhoods, incentivizing and maintaining more affordable and
attainable housing, diversifying the types of housing available, promoting mixed-use and transit-
supportive development along key corridors, and addressing the changing dynamics of
employment and industrial lands within the city. Englewood Forward identifies implementation
strategies to help achieve these goals and priorities, many of which may result in changes to the
city's development standards and processes. The Unified Development Code Assessment
project was not an effort to re-write Englewood Forward. It was intended to facilitate the
implementation of the Plan and to address the Plan's goals. The Unified Development Code is
the primary policy and regulatory document that can implement Englewood Forward and other
land use policy documents to guide development over the next decade.
In summer 2020, the City initiated the UDC Assessment process to engage stakeholders to
identify the strengths, weaknesses, and opportunities in the UDC as they relate to Englewood
Forward and other city land use policy documents. Specific objectives of the process were to:
• Ensure that Englewood's core policy documents and land use regulations compliment
the community goals and values for a sustainable Englewood;
• Listen to all community stakeholders' goals and values;
• Analyze the current UDC critically against the goals and values within established land
use policy documents and the views of community stakeholders;
• Identify targeted updates to the Unified Development Code that would support the
implementation of the city's land use policy documents;
• Explore and document how peer communities address key topics within their
development codes; and
• Identify characteristics of contemporary development codes that could be applied to
improve the usability and functionality of the Unified Development Code.
The results of the Assessment may now serve as the major source of information that will guide
the redrafting of the UDC.
ANALYSIS:
The assessment document summarizes the findings of a five-month outreach and code
assessment study conducted by the project team which was comprised of a consultant team,
Page 82 of 367
city staff, and a project steering committee of Englewood stakeholders. The project consisted of
three (3) phases.
• Phase 1 - Listening to stakeholders and issue identification: The primary purpose of this
task was to hear from the Englewood community to learn what works well, does not work
well, and what may be missing from the current UDC. The project team sought to hear
from the community as a whole, including those who use the code frequently or have
participated in a project submission and review process. A summary of outreach efforts
may be found in Appendix B.
• Phase 2 - Listening to stakeholders and additional focus on key topics: Five topics or
themes rose to the top throughout the initial listening sessions. Phase 2 focused on
asking the community more specifically about these main topics through continued
listening sessions and input opportunities.
• Phase 3 - Listening to stakeholders and focus on the Assessment Report: The
consultant team compiled all of the comments from the community and assembled the
report for presentation. City staff also met with the project team to discuss ideas,
comments and opportunities to ensure that the UDC provides effective land use policies
and regulations. Each mailing address within the city was sent a postcard in an attempt
to reach as many members of the community that were available and willing to provide
comments.
Throughout the assessment, the project team concentrated on what the community had to say
and focused efforts on asking questions to better understand the issues in greater detail. Due
to the fact that the pandemic conditions limited in-person gatherings, this effort was
accomplished through the conducting of community-wide online polls and other opportunities for
community members to provide comments and suggested code revisions. Appendices B and C
of the Assessment Report include the comments provided to the project team throughout the
assessment process.
The five primary topics or themes that emerged during the community assessment were:
• Residential Neighborhood Dimensional and Design Standards;
• Neighborhood Character and Preservation;
• Housing Attainability;
• Parking Standards vs. Walkability; and
• Sustainability/Green Infrastructure.
Each of the themes is addressed in the attached Final Assessment Report and suggestions or
options for consideration are provided for each topic for exploration as the second phase of the
project is initiated, the redrafting of the UDC.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
City Council included $50,000 in the 2020 Community Development Department professional
services budget for completion of the UDC community assessment. The redrafting of the Code
will require consulting and legal expertise and the 2021 Community Development professional
services budget includes $200,000 for this portion of the project.
Page 83 of 367
CONNECTION TO STRATEGIC PLAN:
The UDC community assessment process and report address the following Strategic Plan
Goals:
Neighborhoods
• Ensure affordability;
• Ensure walkability; and
• Encourage diversity of people and architecture.
Transportation
• Develop integrated mobility systems such as bike and pedestrian routes and trails
through partnerships with surrounding communities.
Sustainability
• Move toward a green energy grid with steps toward energy independence.
Local Economy
• Redevelop and densify CityCenter;
• Ensure Englewood's development process is equivalent to or better than neighboring
communities;
• Ensure commercial areas, like neighborhoods, have unique character and pedestrian
amenities for employees and visitors; and
• Assess development codes bi-annually and modify as needed.
CONCLUSION:
The 2017 Englewood Forward comprehensive plan establishes the vision for the city's land use
pattern and long term development. The first sentence of the Comprehensive Plan states;
"Englewood Forward is a comprehensive land use plan that represents the city's values,
organized into unique character oriented neighborhood areas, the Plan envisions the future of
Englewood by identifying locations of stability, transition, and change." The UDC Assessment
project was not an effort to redraft Englewood Forward. It was a process intended to engage
the community to receive ideas and suggestions for how the UDC could best be amended to
provide the land use regulations that will achieve the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. The
options and suggestions that are included in the Assessment Report may serve as the basis to
initiate the complete redrafting of the UDC, which has not been comprehensively amended
since 2004.
Redrafting local land use codes typically consumes a year or more of effort. The UDC
Assessment Report does not recommend specific elemental changes to the UDC. It is also not
intended to end the community's participation in the development of a revised UDC. The
assessment will shape the scope and extent of the provisions that could be incorporated in a
new Code. Community participation will continue as the specific components of the new Code
are drafted and presented for review and consideration by the Planning and Zoning Commission
and the City Council.
Page 84 of 367
Next Steps:
Upon authorization from City Council at the study session on March 22, the UDC update staff
team will use the information gathered from the UDC assessment process to issue a Request
for Proposal (RFP) and interview qualified consulting firms to complete the redrafting of the
UDC. Additional community participation will be a fundamental portion of this phase of the
project. Staff is ready to proceed with posting the RFP on Tuesday March 23, which could
place the date for the selection of a consultant and approval of a contract by City Council in
June.
The UDC redrafting process will be technical in nature and, as consistent with the City Charter,
one duty of the Planning and Zoning Commission "shall be to prepare and recommend to the
City Council a comprehensive zoning ordinance or propose amendments or revisions thereto."
The Planning and Zoning Commission will be members of an envisioned steering committee,
which staff also recommends including community members recruited and appointed by the City
Council. Staff recommends that the steering committee be established prior to interviewing
responding consulting firms in order to enable the committee's input to be incorporated into the
final consultant selection by the City Council.
ATTACHMENTS:
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report
Appendix A: Community Outreach Efforts Detailed
Appendix B: Phase 1 Public Outreach Results
Appendix C: Phase 2 Public Outreach Results
Appendix D: Steering Committee Meeting Summaries
Appendix E: Proposed Outline
Supplemental Best Practices and Case Studies Report
PowerPoint Presentation
Page 85 of 367
2020 UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE ASSESSMENT
ASSESSMENT REPORT | MARCH 11, 2021
Page 86 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report Page 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 4
Project Overview and Purpose ....................................................................................................................................... 4
Overall Process ................................................................................................................................................................. 4
Guiding Principles ............................................................................................................................................................. 5
II. Code Structures overview .......................................................................................................... 7
Existing Code Structure ................................................................................................................................................... 7
Alternative Code Structures ............................................................................................................................................ 7
III. Public Engagement Overview ............................................................................................... 13
Phase One Outreach Overview .................................................................................................................................... 13
Phase Two Outreach Overview .................................................................................................................................... 14
Advertising for All Outreach Opportunities ................................................................................................................ 14
IV. Discussion of the five high priority topics ........................................................................... 16
Residential Dimensional & Design Standards ............................................................................................................ 16
Neighborhood Character .............................................................................................................................................. 17
Housing Attainability. ..................................................................................................................................................... 18
Parking & Walkability ..................................................................................................................................................... 20
Sustainability & Green Infrastructure ......................................................................................................................... 22
V. General UDC Overview ............................................................................................................. 23
Organization and General Updates ............................................................................................................................. 23
VI. UDC Update Suggestions by Chapter ................................................................................... 26
Chapter 1: General Provisions ...................................................................................................................................... 26
Chapter 2: Development Review and Approval Procedures ................................................................................... 26
Chapter 3: Zone Districts ............................................................................................................................................... 28
Zoning Analysis ............................................................................................................................................................ 31
Chapter 4: Floodplain Regulations ............................................................................................................................... 35
Chapter 5: Use Regulations ........................................................................................................................................... 35
Specific Uses: Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) ......................................................................................................... 36
Chapter 6: Development Standards ............................................................................................................................ 39
Dimensional Requirements......................................................................................................................................... 39
Streets and Vehicle Access and Circulation ............................................................................................................... 41
Off-Street Parking Requirements ................................................................................................................................ 41
Pedestrian and Bicycle Access and Connectivity ....................................................................................................... 44
Fences and Retaining Walls ........................................................................................................................................ 45
Landscaping, Screening, and Green Infrastructure .................................................................................................. 46
Design Standards and Guidelines .............................................................................................................................. 47
Historic Preservation ................................................................................................................................................... 53
Signs ............................................................................................................................................................................. 53
Page 87 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report Page 3
Development Standards for the TSA District ............................................................................................................. 55
Chapter 7: Telecommunications .................................................................................................................................. 56
Chapter 8: Subdivision Design, Improvements, and Dedication Standards ......................................................... 56
Chapter 9: Nonconformities ......................................................................................................................................... 57
Chapter 10: Enforcement and Penalties ..................................................................................................................... 58
Chapter 11: Use Classifications and Definition of Terms ......................................................................................... 58
VII. Conclusion .............................................................................................................................. 59
Appendix A: Community Outreach Efforts Detailed ..................................................................... 60
Appendix B: Phase 1 Public Outreach Results ............................................................................... 69
Questionnaire #1 ............................................................................................................................................................ 69
Focus Group Meetings ................................................................................................................................................... 82
Open House Park Event Boards ................................................................................................................................... 92
Open House Park Event Comments ............................................................................................................................ 99
Telephone Town Hall .................................................................................................................................................. 102
Appendix C: Phase 2 Public Outreach Results ............................................................................. 107
ADU Quick Poll ............................................................................................................................................................. 107
Green Infrastructure Quick Poll ................................................................................................................................ 108
Housing Quick Poll ...................................................................................................................................................... 113
Neighborhoods Quick poll (Arcgis story map) ........................................................................................................ 117
Parking Quick Poll ........................................................................................................................................................ 123
Phase 2 Virtual Open House ...................................................................................................................................... 130
Appendix D: Steering Committee Meeting Summaries .............................................................. 134
Steering Committee Meeting #1 ............................................................................................................................... 134
Steering Committee Meeting #2 ............................................................................................................................... 139
Steering Committee Meeting #3 ............................................................................................................................... 143
Steering Committee Meeting #4 ............................................................................................................................... 145
Steering Committee Meeting #5 ............................................................................................................................... 148
Appendix E: Proposed Outline ...................................................................................................... 149
Page 88 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report Page 4
I. INTRODUCTION
Project Overview and Purpose
The City of Englewood (the City) Unified Development Code (UDC), currently housed in Title 16 of the
city's Municipal Code, is the primary regulatory document used to ensure quality development. The
UDC includes regulations and design standards that address zoning, land uses, building setbacks,
building height, parking, landscaping, neighborhood character, application procedures, and various
other regulations related to development in Englewood. The current UDC was primarily developed in
2004 and although numerous amendments have been made since its inception, it has not seen a
comprehensive update since 2004.
In 2017, the city adopted a new Comprehensive Plan (Englewood Forward), which identifies and
articulates the community’s vision and objectives to set up Englewood’s preferred development
patterns. A key priority of the assessment process was to review the UDC with regards to
implementation of the long-range planning policies detailed within Englewood Forward. Other
priorities included modernization of zoning regulations and improving usability for the general public,
applicants, and decision-makers.
This report focuses on the initial phase of the UDC update process—the 2020 Unified Development
Code Assessment, and summarizes feedback from City Council, Planning and Zoning Commission ,
city staff, several city boards and commissions, the Englewood Chamber of Commerce , and the
public; provides an analysis of Englewood’s current UDC; and puts forth suggested options to
consider for phase two – the UDC update. Additionally, there is an appendix section, which provides
an annotated outline, detailed public outreach results , and best practice resources.
Overall Process
The assessment of the UDC took place in three steps:
Review of the UDC and core policy documents
Listening to the community’s goals and values
Provide suggestions for the update that ensure the
UDC reflects Englewood’s vision for the future
Listening to the community was the most important step in the process as it gave the review team
the opportunity to hear from the community what was working and what was not with regards to
development patterns. Comments from the public were tracked and compared throughout the
process to help narrow down specific topics for detailed review within the existing UDC. The full UDC
was reviewed with staff in sequence and the comments heard from the community were discussed
in more detail as they related to specific Chapters of the UDC. Optional approaches to each of the key
topics, based on peer community case studies, were presented to and discussed with the Steering
Page 89 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report Page 5
Committee, staff, and the public to gauge the right direction for the suggestions enclosed within this
report.
Guiding Principles
In addition to the project goal of ensuring that Englewood’s core policy documents and land use
regulations are congruent with the community goals and values for a sustainable city, the following
principles should guide the UDC update process:
1. Provide a Comprehensive Framework for Development. Englewood is a diverse
community with development ranging from the transit-oriented CityCenter and historic
Downtown to a strategically planned network of early-mid 20th Century bungalow-style
neighborhoods. The UDC must cover all development contexts in a way that is appropriate to
different neighborhood, market, and environmental settings.
2. Ensure That the UDC is User-Friendly. The UDC should be easy to use for the general public,
applicants, and administrators. Information should be logically arranged, easy to find, and
include language and graphics that are attractive and clear.
3. The UDC Should Have Community Support. A code is not just a document—it is a process.
It should reflect the input of a broad range of stakeholders —from neighborhoods to the
development and business community. This will ensure that the processes and metrics are
understood and provide sustainable, long-term support.
4. The UDC Should Make the Right Things Easy. Development that reflects the long-term
planning policies of Englewood Forward should have a streamlined approval process with
standards that align with the desired development patterns.
5. The UDC Should Reflect Best Practices. The current zoning regulations blend conventional
zoning districts with mixed-use development principles. There are elements of conventional
zoning that remain viable—such as sensible use regulations that protect neighborhoods and
landscaping depending on development intensity. The UDC should reflect best practices but
avoid making unnecessary changes simply to be trendy.
6. Right-Size the Standards and Procedures. The UDC should not over- or under-deliver.
Englewood expects a given level of design, and the zoning standards should ensure that
development reflects those expectations. The standards should reflect the needs and market
conditions of Englewood rather than national trends.
7. The UDC Should Balance Flexibility and Certainty. While options such as form-based codes
tie design to precise standards, excessively tight standards can discourage design creativity
and preferred development patterns. The updated UDC should balance the benefits of clear,
objective standards with common sense flexibility that preserves consistency with Englewood
Forward.
Page 90 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report Page 6
8. Provide a Clear, Fluid Administrative Process. The updated UDC should provide
entitlement processes that are efficient and expand opportunities for administrative review.
9. Avoid Nonconformities. Any substantive change to the zoning district or development
standards will likely create nonconformities. This approach should explore regulations that
minimize nonconformities by exploring standards that reflect the best aspects of current
development patterns and eliminating unnecessary and outdated standards.
10. Provide Enforcement Tools. At its core, the UDC is a legal document. It provides Englewood
the authority to regulate and condition development. However, it must be enforceable to
serve its intended purpose. The approach should explore tools to improve enforceability such
as reporting requirements, compliance plans, and improved notification pro cedures. These
processes will align with Colorado land use law.
Page 91 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report Page 7
II. CODE STRUCTURES OVERVIEW
Existing Code Structure
The “Code Structure” refers to Englewood’s approach to regulating development. Englewood’s
current UDC uses components from different zoning approaches to provide development outcomes.
There are several different approaches to zoning commonly used by communities throughout the
United States.
The oldest and most basic approach is conventional, use -based (also known as “Euclidean”) zoning.
This divides the community into districts where different uses are allowed, and different setbacks,
building height, lot coverage, and other metrics apply. Although some of Englewood’s commercial
zoning districts allow for mixed-use development, 15 of the 16 zone districts are classified by a
conventional zoning structure.
The remaining zone district is a “special purpose” district called “planned unit development” or PUD.
This special purpose district uses the PUD concept to allow design flexibility in exchange for applied
conditions as part of the rezoning process. This allows an applicant to negotiate a master planned
development and gives Englewood case-by-case review. However, approaches that codify the
conditions that are typically negotiated through PUD approval, coupled with administrative approval,
could streamline the process and allow developers to devote more of their budge t to improving
design rather than permitting costs.
Alternative Code Structures
Communities that deviate from conventional zoning often refer to zoning regulations that blend
conventional and form-based or design-based code as “hybrid” codes. While there are a few Colorado
communities (such as Denver, Buckley AFB, Dillon, and Cripple Creek) that have adopted form-based
codes, most communities update their codes with a hybrid approach that incorporates elements
from all code types.
The variety of code structures available are summarized in Table 1. One approach to note is
composite zoning which establishes classes of building types based on design standards and site
design types to structure zoning districts. For example, regulations could identify a building type “C”
for urban type buildings and type “D” for suburban type buildings, along with site design standards
such as “3” for urban sites and “4” for suburban sites. Some parts of the community could be
designated for urban buildings and sites, while others could blend an ur ban building type with a
suburban site layout. This is an alternative to imposing design standards either through separate
guidelines, form-based codes, or overlay zones. It also allows the community to customize the
districts to site context without having to impose site-specific conditions (as with planned zoning) or
through very lengthy and detailed design regulations (as with form -based codes).
Page 92 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report Page 8
Table 1: Alternate Code Structures Summary
Approach What is it? Advantages Limitations
How does this
apply to
Englewood?
Conventional
Zoning
This divides the city
into districts that
establish uniform
use and dimensional
standards, such as
setbacks, height, and
density.
Familiar to zoning
administrators and
applicants.
Controls scale.
Reducing setbacks
can accommodate
development that is
compliant with
Englewood Forward.
Does not
comprehensively
regulate design.
Segregating uses
and excessive
building setback or
height regulations
can pose barriers to
the development
preferences
described in
Englewood
Forward.
Some conventional
zoning techniques
will probably
continue to form the
cornerstone of the
zoning regulations.
Overlay
Zoning
These are zoning
districts that overlap
the base residential,
commercial, and
industrial districts to
establish additional
standards or
incentives.
Allows the city to
supplement existing
districts with
additional design
standards.
Familiar to code
users.
Complicated
because it involves
several layers of
regulations.
The city has 2
overlay districts. The
Medical Overlay (M-
O-2) addresses land
use impacts covering
parts of R-2-B zoned
properties. The
Neighborhood
Preservation Overlay
(NPO) overlay is
intended to protect
the existing
character and land
use balance within a
small area of the
MU-R-3-B district.
Page 93 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report Page 9
Approach What is it? Advantages Limitations
How does this
apply to
Englewood?
Planned Unit
Development
(PUD)
This allows the
modification of
development
standards for master
planned
developments to
provide more
creative approaches
to development.
Familiar to code
users.
It is flexible and
allows standards to
be negotiated on a
case-by-case basis.
The lack of
standards can
produce
unpredictable and
undesirable
development
outcomes.
Requires an
unpredictable and
potentially lengthy
approval process.
The city uses this
approach for more
than 10 planned unit
development (PUD)
districts.
More than 130 acres
is PUD zoned
property.
Composite
Zoning
Rather than having
zoning districts of
just one component
(a list of use
districts), composite
districts provide
separate and
independent zoning
components such as
use, site, and
architectural
characteristics. One
of each of these
components then
can be combined to
create a "composite"
zoning district.
This provides a very
flexible approach to
zoning, while
preserving the basic
standards that code
users are familiar
with.
This has the effect
of a series of
overlay districts, so
it is more
complicated than
conventional
districts.
This approach could
apply well to districts
that accommodate
higher density
housing and mixed-
use development.
The revised zoning
map would
designate areas for
use, building and
site design
classifications.
Page 94 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report Page 10
Approach What is it? Advantages Limitations
How does this
apply to
Englewood?
Use Patterns This establishes a
series of design
templates that can
be permitted either
by right or through
discretionary
procedures. For
example, a master
planned
development that
would normally
require PUD
approval could be
listed as a permitted
use in the district,
along with the
building, site design
and street standards
that apply to it.
Streamlines the
approval of
development
patterns that the
community wants to
encourage.
Provides
predicatable design
standards.
The concept is
effective in
communities with
large tracts of land
suitable for master
planned
development.
This could work for
conservation
subdivisions and
small, mixed-use
neighborhood
designations.
Design-Based
Zoning
(Form-Based
or Transect-
Based)
Divides the city into
zones where the
regulations vary by
physical design
characteristics,
rather than by use.
Directly addresses
design and gives
landowners flexibility
as to permitted uses.
Applies well to urban
situations, such as
Downtown, urban
districts and
corridors.
Tends to be
complex and
unfamiliar to
existing code users
Limited in scope -
they do not
generally address
issues like
congestion,
suburban corridors,
stream corridors,
and related issues.
Englewood Forward
provides policy
support for design
regulations, and the
city has tested this
concept to a certain
extent in several
PUD approvals and
the overlays.
Page 95 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report Page 11
Approach What is it? Advantages Limitations
How does this
apply to
Englewood?
Design
guidelines
Separate documents
that contain flexibly
written, and typically
nonbinding,
considerations for
design. The
guidelines are
usually administered
by a board, such as
the planning
commission or a
separately created
design review board.
Flexible - the city and
applicants retain
more discretion in
negotiating design
solutions and can
better customize
design objectives to
specific projects than
through specific
standards.
Can be amended
more readily than
the zoning
regulations.
Scatters design
considerations
among separate
documents, which
can lead to
confusion and
complexity.
Sometimes unclear
to applicants and
administrators
whether a guideline
is binding.
Compliance
negotiation can lead
to delays in
development
approval or
unpredictable
results.
Design guidelines
are applied on a
case-by-case basis.
For example, design
guidelines could
apply as part of a
neighborhood
preservation district
that follows an area
plan.
Page 96 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report Page 12
Approach What is it? Advantages Limitations
How does this
apply to
Englewood?
Performance-
Based Zoning
Like form-based
zoning,
performance-based
zoning divides
districts by
prescriptive ratio-
based metrics to
control development
impacts.
For example, the
regulations could
prescribe minimum
ratios for
landscaping and
open space, along
with maximum
impervious surface,
building coverage, or
floor area metrics by
district.
More flexible than
conventional, one-
dimensional zoning.
Standards, such as
impervious surface,
limits effectiveness in
controlling
development within
natural features.
Can be complicated
with the various
metrics and
calculations.
Development ratios
tend to have a very
weak relationship to
design and are
largely limited to
restricting the scale
and footprint of
development.
Effective where
there are persistent
environmental or
topographical issues,
such as floodplains,
riparian corridors, or
steep slopes.
However,
performance zoning
is not limited to
these issues, but
also include
character-based
regulations that
blend building and
site design with
performance
metrics.
Page 97 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report Page 13
III. PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT OVERVIEW
Phase One Outreach Overview
The 2020 Unified Development Code Assessment kicked off with a virtual joint study session meeting
between City Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission. Council Members and
Commissioners weighed in on the following series of questions:
What is your overall goal for this project?
What is working well with the existing code?
What is not working well with the existing code?
Are the application processes meeting the needs of staff and the development community?
Are there any specific design standards that need to be tuned up?
Are there any standards, topics, or innovations missing from the current code?
Following the joint work session, a Steering Committee was created with City Council input to serve
as a sounding board for discussions during the six-month assessment process. A series of meetings
were held through the months of August and September 2020 which focused on the same questions
asked of City Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission. Those meetings included the
following:
Two (2) meetings with the Steering Committee;
One (1) Telephone Townhall;
Five (5) in-person open house events at Duncan Park, Jason Park, Bates-Logan Park, Baker Park
and Centennial Park;
Ten (10) virtual focus group meetings; and
One (1) meeting with each of the Historic Preservation Commission, Transportation Advisory
Committee, Alliance for Commerce, and Board of Adjustment.
On September 1, 2020 a project webpage was launched on the City of Englewood website designed
to house links to questionnaires, relevant documents and upcoming events. A series of videos were
prepared featuring the Mayor and City Staff to highlight relevant topics for informational purposes.
The first online questionnaire was live through the month of S eptember and focused on the same
general questions as above regarding what’s working and what needs improvement with the current
UDC.
Page 98 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report Page 14
As a result of the questionnaire and meetings outlined above, the following five topics emerged:
1. Residential Dimensional & Design Standards;
2. Neighborhood Character;
3. Housing Affordability;
4. Parking & Walkability; and
5. Sustainability & Green Infrastructure.
Phase Two Outreach Overview
Through the months of October and November 2020, a series of five quick poll questionnaires were
available on Englewood’s webpage to further explore each of the five topics listed above. Additionally
a series of meetings were held to present information regarding the importance of each topic, how
each tied to Englewood Forward, best practices from other communities, an d potential options for
how Englewood could address each topic within the UDC update. The following meetings were held
during this stage of the process:
One Planning Commission check-in meeting in early October to present what was heard
during initial engagement in September;
Three (3) meetings with the Steering Committee;
One (1) virtual public open house; and
The offer of drop-in public comment sessions hosted by City Staff.
Advertising for All Outreach Opportunities
All events were advertised on the 2020 Unified Development Code webpage. Additionally, all Board
and Commission meeting agendas were posted on iCompass and emailed to subscribers and the
meetings themselves were livestreamed and recorded. Individuals who p articipated in the focus
groups were notified by email through Chamber of Commerce Membership and an interested citizen
list.
The in-person park open house events and Questionnaire #1 were advertised a number of ways—
from posting in the News on the City of Englewood’s homepage, to direct emails to city News
subscribers and via MyEmma, and posting on Facebook, Twitter, and Next Door. The events were
promoted at a city movie night and during the Telephone Townhall.
Page 99 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report Page 15
Additionally, yard signs and posters were placed at the following locations around town:
Nixons
Liquor Barn
Brewability
Frame de Art
King Soopers at Trolley Square
King Soopers at Kent Place, Safeway
Barnhouse Tap
Duncan Park
Jason Park
Bates-Logan Park
Baker Park, Romans Park
Cushing Park
Centennial Park
Cornerstone Park
CityCenter
Little Dry Creek Open Space
On November 30, a mass mailing of postcards went all Englewood addresses directing community
members and business owners to various methods of contact to enable them to provide feedback,
contact staff with questions, or request a zoom meeting on specific t opics.
Appendices B-E include detailed accounts of all advertising, questionnaire results, and meeting
summaries as well as the number of participants at each event.
Page 100 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report Page 16
IV. DISCUSSION OF THE FIVE HIGH PRIORITY TOPICS
As stated previously, five main topics surfaced through the public outreach process. Following phase
one outreach, all of the comments that were heard were organized and categorized into the five
topics discussed below. Each of these topics was further explored with the public through quick poll
questionnaires and the December virtual open house. Additionally, detailed discussions were held
with the Steering Committee to present the results of public input on each topic as well as relevant
best practices and suggested options to address each topic. The Steering Committee served as a
sounding board to narrow down the potential approaches to each topic. Included below are
discussions on each topic which summarize all comments heard as well as Steering Commi ttee and
Planning Commission feedback.
Residential Dimensional & Design Standards
Topic Overview. Residential dimensional standards refer to the standards in the UDC which dictate
the buildable area on a lot including the bulk plane, building setbacks, building height, and maximum
lot coverage allowances. Residential design standards refer to the architectural design requirements
and allowances for residential buildings such as building materials, building orientation, and building
façade.
What We Heard. Through the community engagement process, the review team heard concerns
over the dimensional standards, especially in the R-2-B zone district that is seeing considerable infill
development. Issues or questions were expressed regarding bulk plane, building setbacks and lot
coverage maximums. A number of community members were very concerned about the overall mass
of infill development in relation to the existing, single story, residential building types. Other
community members liked the variety provided by the new building types. There was some
discussion on building height in relation to three-story buildings next to single -story buildings with
regards to solar access.
Figure 1: Residential Dimensional Illustration
Page 101 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report Page 17
The phase one questionnaire asked the community to provide feedback on their height preference
for residential buildings in the context of existing neighborhood character. Of the 391 respondents,
47% preferred one-story, 39% felt the two-story height was acceptable, and 14% felt the three -story
height was acceptable.
Neighborhood Character
Topic Overview. Neighborhood character can be described as the
look and feel of individual areas. Neighborhood character is primarily
comprised of the design and dimensions of existing arc hitecture,
streetscape treatments, and overall aesthetic of an area block by
block.
What We Heard. The review team heard that neighborhood
character is particularly important to many community members.
Many commented that they wanted to see increased efforts to
preserve existing neighborhoods, including revitalizing, and repairing
older homes rather than demolition and scraping lots. According to
the community, the biggest factor in determining neighborhood
character is height—most community members feel that
neighborhoods with predominately one-story homes should remain
as one-story neighborhoods. It does not appear that building
materials are a deciding factor in neighborhood character.
The neighborhood quick poll distributed during phase two of public
engagement asked the community to identify which neighborhoods,
per Englewood Forward, should be considered for possible
neighborhood preservation overlays or specific design guidelines. We
heard that the Downtown, Bates-Logan Park, and Cushing Park
neighborhoods should be considered for neighborhood preservation
overlays with regulations for architectural style and form.
Options to Consider for Code Update:
1. Adjust bulk plane requirements and tailor them to specific neighborhoods identified in
Englewood Forward and/or zoning districts to encourage building separation, foster better
lighting, and protect privacy.
Englewood Forward
Comprehensive Plan
Selected Goals &
Objectives
Goal Live-4: Improve
community quality of life
through enhanced
neighborhood design and
neighborhood identity.
Objective Live-4.4.
Encourage development
that is compatible with
existing neighborhood
character in established
residential areas in order
to foster neighborhood
identity.
Objective Live-4.5. Ensure a
range of desirable
amenities, such as
recreation, retail, and
quality housing, in all
neighborhoods, through
zoning reforms, if and
when appropriate.
Page 102 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report Page 18
Housing Attainability.
Topic Overview. The ability of Englewood community members to
purchase homes in Englewood was also a major topic of concern
during this first outreach phase. As a first-ring suburb of Denver,
Englewood is continually experiencing growth pressure and the
region on the whole is dealing with inflated home prices. The Live
section of Englewood Forward states: “current and future Englewood
residents will have opportunities to choose from a variety of high
quality housing stock that incorporates a range of housing types and
densities that appeal to the needs and desires of families, singles, and
seniors, within desirable neighborhoods.” Providing attainable
housing options to the community of Englewood is a tenet of the
Englewood Forward Comprehensive Plan and is crucial to the success
of the community.
What We Heard. In both the online questionnaires and the in-person
meetings the review team heard concerns about housing being too
expensive for Englewood community members to afford, especially
new residential construction. We also heard concerns that the new
attached housing units being developed are not fitting the attainable
price point that was expected by the product.
During the second phase of engagement, the review team heard that
community members want the updated UDC to provide incentives for
preserving existing single-family homes and allowing additions,
including development of accessory dwelling units (ADUs). A
subsequent quick poll asked the community what they would change
about ADU regulations and the top two choices included allowing
them in a broader range of zone districts and adjusting the maximum
size to be proportionate to the lot and principal residence.
Englewood Forward
Comprehensive Plan
Selected Goals &
Objectives
Goal Live 1.1 Promote a
balanced mix of housing
opportunities serving the
needs of current and
future Englewood citizens.
Objective Live-1.1. Allow for
housing that meets the
needs of all income
groups, including
appropriate type and
location of housing.
Objective Live-1.2. Allow for
housing investments that
improve the housing mix
and serve different
lifecycle stages and
groups with special needs
in appropriate locations,
including both smaller
and larger unit sizes and a
wider range of housing
types, including single-
family, duplex, townhome,
condominium, multi-
family, and accessory
dwelling units.
Options to Consider for Code Update:
1. Apply and expand Neighborhood Preservation standards to other neighborhoods and
zoning districts outside of the MU-R-3-B. This could include neighborhood conservation
districts and regulations that are tailored to specific residential areas.
Page 103 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report Page 19
In addition, community members would like the definition of “household” to be revised to clarify
multi-generational living situations (i.e. parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, etc.) and to
allow more than two unrelated individuals to live together. In addition, community members
expressed a desire to increase the allowed size of accessory dwelling units and allow them in
additional zoning districts.
Figure 2: Expression of Potential Missing Middle Housing Options
Options to Consider for Code Update:
1. Simplify the ADU Dimensional table while also including new ADU types and appropriate
regulations.
2. Consider expanding zoning districts allowed for ADUs to include zones R-1-A and R-1-B.
3. Update “household” definition to be more inclusive.
Page 104 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report Page 20
Parking & Walkability
Topic Overview. Englewood community members are passionate
about ensuring adequate and safe parking in neighborhoods and
Downtown. The most recent research shows that conventional one -
size-fits-all parking approach promotes over-parking and automobile
reliance, which is counter to what the community of Englewood wants
and what the Englewood Forward Comprehensive Plan prioritizes. As
the city continues to grow and more transit options become available,
the city should seek appropriate parking solutions for new
development.
Tied to parking concerns is walkability. Walkability is generally defined
as the ability for community members to navigate their community
without using automobiles. Walkability also requires provisions for
quality pedestrian amenities—such as sidewalks and bike paths,
shade trees, and safe crossings—and access to public transportation.
When considering updates to the Englewood parking regulations, it is
important to keep neighborhood walkability and public transit in
mind.
What We Heard. Reponses from the phase one questionnaire
illustrate a 45-55% split between the current UDC favoring too much
parking and favoring too little parking. In both the online
questionnaire and the in-person meetings, the community noted a
lack of parking on residential streets in Downtown, but an
overabundance of parking in other areas of town. During Steering
Committee discussions it became apparent that parking might be
more of a perceived issue since the majority of existing parking lots
were installed per previous code regulations and are not an accurate
reflection of the existing UDC requirements.
During the second phase of engagement, community members were
asked if the UDC should include a minimum required number of
parking spaces for a non-residential property development as well as
a maximum required number of parking spaces. Response were split
45-55% in favor of adding parking maximums to the UDC. Parking
requirements were compared to adjacent and peer communities to
further assess the issue and provide guidance on possible solutions.
Most of the concerns the review team heard regarding walkability
were about existing sidewalks. According to community members,
many areas of the city suffer from both disconnected and incomplete
Englewood Forward
Comprehensive Plan
Selected Goals &
Objectives
Goal Move-1: Enhance
multi-modal mobility and
accessibility for all
residents through
maintenance and
improvement of all
transportation corridors.
Englewood Forward
Comprehensive Plan
Selected Goals &
Objectives
Goal Move-4: Develop
shared transportation
options.
Objective Move-1.2.
Develop a timeline and
seek funding for
implementing Complete
Streets on identified
corridors to ensure
vehicular, transit, bicycle,
and pedestrian mobility.
Objective Move-1.4.
Increase bicycle and
pedestrian access
between neighborhoods
and activity centers.
Objective Move-3.1. Provide
safe and comfortable
pedestrian facilities that
are ADA compliant to
connect public places and
encourage pedestrian
activity & active daily
living.
Objective Move-4.2.
Examine the feasibility of
shared automobile
programs and related
parking regulations.
Page 105 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report Page 21
sidewalks as well as sidewalks that are cracked and broken. In
addition, community members brought up concerns of sidewalks not
being ADA compliant and generally dangerous due to street parking.
The common tie between parking and walkability surfaced in the
phase one questionnaire where the community members indicated
that they would favor less parking for a more walkable community.
Our review team also heard that Downtown is generally walkable, but
people feel there is a lack of connections from Downtown to
neighborhoods and a lack of bike lanes and non-automobile options.
In Englewood Forward’s desired future character charts for each
neighborhood, bike lanes and bike facilities were indicated as
currently only partially present. The desired future character for each
neighborhood is to enhance residential connections to Downtown.
Englewood Forward
Comprehensive Plan
Selected Goals &
Objectives
Goal Live-3: Recognize
and enhance the
relationships between
land use and the
transportation system.
Objective Live-3.3.
Encourage land use
patterns and urban
designs that reduce
dependency on
automobiles.
Objective Live-4.3.
Strengthen pedestrian
and bicycle access and
connectivity in urban
designs for new
developments and in
neighborhood
revitalization plans.
Options to Consider for Code Update:
1. Revise current parking standards as parking maximums with the addition of parking
minimums.
2. Establish a “soft” parking maximum that triggers additional requirements when spaces
increase.
3. Right-size parking regulations by identifying different parking areas and matching them
within certain development contexts.
4. Reduce over parking by using site-specific parking demand analysis.
5. Tie the location and size of parking areas to landscaping or shading requirements.
6. Update sidewalk terminology and provide right-sized sidewalk standards that fit different
zone districts and development contexts. This may include cross-referencing, revising, and
aligning requirements expressed in (§16-8-7 Streets).
7. Up planting strip requirements from 6’ to 10’ to encourage more greenery in planting
spaces.
8. Page 106 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report Page 22
Sustainability & Green Infrastructure
Topic Overview. Sustainability is intertwined with multiple goals of
the Englewood Forward Comprehensive Plan. Sustainability is multi -
faceted and includes everything from walkability and open space to
green infrastructure and energy efficient buildings. Green
infrastructure and energy efficiency can be either incentivi zed or
required in a variety of ways, depending on the goals and desires of
the community.
What We Heard. Steering Committee members and many members
of the public expressed a desire for the UDC to reflect the
sustainability initiatives that Englewood Forward posits. Community
members also expressed a desire for new development to include
sustainability and green infrastructure. We also heard concerns
about solar access due to new development and protecting
neighbor’s ability to utilize solar panels on the ir homes for electricity
generation.
In the second phase of engagement, Englewood community
members expressed a desire for the UDC to include low impact
design (LID) standards and incentives, tree replacement standards,
shade requirements for parking lots, and requirements for new
development to be zero-energy or solar ready. In addition,
respondents indicated an interest in developing a sustainability
menu for new development to incentivize sustainability initiatives .
Englewood Forward
Comprehensive Plan
Selected Goals &
Objectives
Goal Learn-4: Promote
recycling and adaptive
reuse of waste materials
and structures.
Goal Learn-5: Promote
conservation of energy
and improve air quality
for city operations and
residences and business
in Englewood.
Goal Play-3: Provide an
accessible and connected
system of open space,
natural areas, parks,
recreation facilities, trails,
and greenbelts.
Options to Consider for Code Update:
1. Promote green infrastructure by defining and creating standards for each green
infrastructure item as it relates to landscaping. (i.e . size, design, and locational
requirements for planters, bioswales, rain gardens, etc.)
2. Expand the existing Water Conservation (Xeriscape) Principles and create standards where
xeriscaping is practical and preferable.
3. Provide additional pervious area standards for specific development types within certain
zoning districts.
4. Develop sustainability menu approach similar to the Golden, CO example to support
residential and nonresidential design standards.
Page 107 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report Page 23
V. GENERAL UDC OVERVIEW
Organization and General Updates
The Unified Development Code is codified within the city’s Municipal Code (Title 16) housed on the
Municode website and is organized into eleven (11) chapters.
Chapter 1: General Provisions
o Describes the purpose and applicability of the UDC
o Addresses the city’s zoning map, and
o Discloses the UDC’s relationship to other regulations
Chapter 2: Development Review and Approval Procedures
o Summarizes administrative responsibilities for different zoning applications
o States the zoning application types
o Details application procedures
Chapter 3: Zone Districts
o Establishes different zoning districts
o Summarizes each district’s development characteristics
Chapter 4: Floodplain Regulations
o Establishes standards that meet FEMA requirements for development in flood prone
areas
Chapter 5: Use Regulations
o Indicates allowed uses in relation to zoning districts (establishes the Use Matrix)
o Provides specific use standards, often referred to as supplemental use regulations
o Details requirements for accessory and temporary uses
Chapter 6: Development Standards
o Establishes and provides dimensional, parking, landscaping, screening, drainage, and
access regulations
o Also holds regulations for signs, utilities, performance standards, design guidelines,
and historic preservation
Chapter 7: Telecommunications
o Addresses special requirements for telecommunications including: use, location,
design, and permitting
o Provides compliance to federal telecommunications regulations
Chapter 8: Subdivision Design, Improvements, and Dedication Standards
o Establishes subdivision review procedures
o Describes dedication requirements for new development
o Houses open space regulations
o Provides the city’s street classification system
Chapter 9: Nonconformities
o Encompasses general provisions that apply to nonconformities
Page 108 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report Page 24
o Classifies the different nonconformity type s
Chapter 10: Enforcement and Penalties
o Establishes the city’s ability to enforce the UDC
o Allows the city to penalize those who violate the UDC
Chapter 11: Use Classifications and Definitions of Terms
o Describes the UDC’s land uses
o Defines all the pertinent terms used in the UDC
The UDC is a legal document that implements various city master plan policies. While it should be
legally enforceable, it should also communicate effectively to a variety of audiences including citizens,
applicants, business owners, elected officials, and professional staff. Therefore, improving readability
and ease of use will serve to:
Improve administration by making information easier to find and understand ;
Enhance public input by making complex, technical information accessibl e to casual users; and
Encourage economic development by making development standards and procedures clearer
to applicants.
Rewriting the UDC is not a simple matter of convenience. Well-written regulations can save time and
money for both public and private investments and potentially create new opportunities for
economic development and community design. The following general updates can improve the UDC’s
readability and provide readers an easier way to find information.
Graphic Enhancements
Modern development codes typically include graphics that are integrated with related code
provisions. Graphics should illustrate dimensional relationships and building and site planning
concepts and can help to explain or amplify material that is sometimes difficult for casual or non -
technical users to understand.
Assessment:
Other than the Chapter 6: Development Regulations, the current regulations are largely devoid of
graphics.
Page 109 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report Page 25
Better Sequence
Development codes should create a flow that puts technical provisions to the back of the document,
and more substantive provisions to the front. While development codes are not intended to be read
from beginning to end, placing the more commonly used material near the front makes those
provisions more accessible for a wider audience.
Integration of Terms
The UDC is not always integrated with related provisions of the Municipal Code, Colorado State Law,
or the Englewood Forward Comprehensive Plan. This is often due to changes to the city’s Municipal
Code, state statutes, or related items that occurred since the Unified Development Code was
adopted. Cross-references and the integration of terms assists both applicants and administrators
with the entire development process and minimizes confusion that results when provisions are
inconsistent.
Assessment:
The current UDC generally does a good job of placing the commonly used material (i.e., the zoning
districts) to the front of the document, with technical material (such as definitions) to the back.
However, Chapter 2: Development Review and Approval Procedures is long and filled with
technical material that could be moved to the rear of the UDC. Language speaking to how the UDC
is interpreted (§ 16-1-9) and the technicalities of the zoning map (§ 16-1-8) could move towards
the back of the UDC. The first chapter should provide an executive summary tha t tells the reader
why the UDC exists and how to find the information they need.
Assessment:
A useful technique to incorporate the Englewood Forward Comprehensive Plan is to add italicized
purpose statement at the beginning of each section. The purpose statement would explain how the
provisions tie to Englewood Forward or related plans or studies. This highlights those provisions,
allows for useful cross-references, and offsets them from the substantive standards and
requirements.
Page 110 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report Page 26
VI. UDC UPDATE SUGGESTIONS BY CHAPTER
Chapter 1: General Provisions
Modern zoning regulations have an introductory chapter which typically describe zoning and how the
UDC works. The city’s current introductory chapter does that but also discusses interpretation, the
zoning map, and its relationship to the city’s Code of Ordinances. This chapter should retain its
current information but remove the zoning map (Section 16-1-8) and rules of construction and
interpretation (Section 16-1-9) sections. These sections will fit better in the rear of the UDC or in an
appendix. The revised chapter should also reference the city’s comprehensive plan, Englewood
Forward, and exhibit relevance to the UDC regulations. This minor addition will ensure users that the
UDC maintains consistency with the city’s long-term planning policies.
Chapter 2: Development Review and Approval Procedures
This chapter details the city’s development review procedures, application
types, and approval authorities. The chapter provides tables to summarize
dense material which help users focus on the critical information on hand.
For instance, the UDC provides Table 16-2-2.1: Summary of Development
Review and Decision-Making Procedures to condense pertinent
information into one simple figure. Figures like these increase the UDC’s
readability and usability.
Additionally, the UDC relays application processes through text and
flowcharts. These flowcharts divert the user’s attention from the text and
helps capture the focal points of the different application processes. While
organized well, this chapter could be relocated to a later chapter to allow
for the more critical provisions such as zoning districts and development
standards to be highlighted at the beginning of the document.
Chapter 2 could be further improve d by shortening and simplifying
language that describes certain development processes and applications. It
is equally important to revise and clarify broad, and underutilized parts of
Figure 3: Sample flowchart
from current UDC
Options to Consider for Code Update:
1. Retain the chapter’s current information but remove the zoning map and rules of
construction and interpretation to a later chapter of the UDC.
2. Add content to chapter and section headers that aligns the UDC to Englewood Forward.
3. Remove “and/or” conjunctions from the UDC to reduce interpretation conflicts.
Page 111 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report Page 27
the chapter to ensure UDC users clearly understand the chapter’s intent to reduce questions from
the public, the development community, and city staff.
For instance, the chapter’s PUD standards could benefit from revised, specific, and clear language as
it pertains to the Englewood Forward. Currently, the PUD process is lacking in standards and does
not incentivize applicants to exceed base zoning requirements. The city could prescribe PUD
standards and criteria that exceed base zoning requirements. This could inclu de language that
requires PUD proposals to benefit the public’s interests.
Options to Consider for Code Update:
1. Relocate this chapter towards the rear of the UDC so critical components like zoning
districts and development standards are user’s main focus.
2. Create a process and standards for interpretations.
3. Revise hyper-technical information with simpler language or through communicative
graphics.
4. Rename Administrative Land Review Permit to Administrative Subdivision.
5. Update platting terminology and create processes that mirror the requirements of state
law (i.e. right-of-way vacation, major subdivision plat, etc.).
6. Reduce the “Render Decision Within 35 Days” to 30 days so that it is consistent with the
appeal period.
7. Add interpretations to the “Summary Table of Administrative Review and Decision -Making
Procedures” table.
8. Add a two to three year lapsing period for PUD and TSA rezonings.
9. Revise PUD language to include stringent standards that exceed development from ba se
zoning districts (this could include density bonuses, flexibility incentives, and affordable
housing).
10. Consider simplifying public hearing components to provide opportunities for applicants to
respond to public comments.
11. Remove limited use permit section as land uses are updated and redefined.
12. Clarify DRT responsibilities regarding application referrals.
13. Update Site Improvement Plan review.
Page 112 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report Page 28
Chapter 3: Zone Districts
The chapter establishes sixteen (16) zone districts. Additionally, there are two (2) overlay districts. The
current zone district regulations work well and have fostered generally favorable d evelopment
outcomes. Therefore, large-scale changes to the zone districts are not recommended. Instead, minor
revisions to the zone district regulations are suggested.
Table 2: Zoning District Summaries
Zoning Category Zone
District
Description Summary
Residential One
Dwelling Unit
R-1-A A large lot size, one
dwelling unit residential
district
Primarily consist of one dwelling unit
residential neighborhoods. Multi-unit
dwellings are not allowed in these
districts. R-1-B A medium lot size, one
dwelling unit residential
district
R-1-C A small lot size, one
dwelling unit residential
district
Residential One and
Multi-Dwelling Unit
R-2-A A low-density one and
multi-dwelling unit
residential zone district
Provides a range of housing types
between the low-density one-unit areas
and the high-density multi-unit areas. The
two zone districts allow for a mixture of
one-unit development with low and
medium density multi-unit housing
developments.
R-2-B A medium-density one
and multi-dwelling unit
residential zone district
Mixed-Use
Residential/Limited
Office-Retail
MU-R-3-
A
A low-density residential
and limited office zone
district
The MU-R-3 districts are composed of
those areas that are conducive to low,
medium, and high-density residential and
limited office development of a character
unlikely to develop a concentration of
traffic and people. These districts are
protected against the encroachment of
industrial uses and certain commercial
uses.
MU-R-3-
B
A medium to high density
residential and limited
office zone district
MU-R-3-
C
A high density residential
and limited office zone
district
Mixed-Use Medical M-1 A mixed-use medical,
office, and high-density
residential zone district
This district allows hospitals and medical
uses, as well as general office, high
density residential, and hotels as primary
land uses.
Page 113 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report Page 29
Zoning Category Zone
District
Description Summary
M-2 A mixed-use medical,
office, high density
residential and limited
retail zone district
This district allows hospitals and medical
uses as well as general office, high
density residential, hotels, and limited
retail as primary land uses.
Mixed-Use
Commercial
MU-B-1 A mixed-use central
business zone district
This district is a mixed-use district that is
applied to the central business section of
Englewood. The district is designed to
create an environment having urban
characteristics within a relatively small
area of land through the close proximity
of activities and increased social and
cultural opportunities. The uses within
this district are those that provide
retailing and personal services to
residents of the city and the surrounding
area and are compatible with adjacent
development. In order to make the
central business district viable twenty-
four (24) hours a day, and not just during
the traditional business hours, medium
and high-density residential units are
permitted.
MU-B-2 A general arterial
business zone district
This district is composed of certa in land
and structures used primarily to provide
retailing and personal services to the
residents of the city and surrounding
area and urban residential uses. The MU-
B-2 district is usually located on major
access routes and is easily accessible
from the surrounding residential area
which it serves.
TSA A mixed-use district
intended for land uses
adjacent to light rail
transit stations
This district is a mixed-use district
intended to ensure a diverse mix of uses
within convenient walking distance to
Regional Transportation District (RTD)
light rail stations in the City of Englewood.
The district encourages appropriate
residential development patterns with
sufficient density to support transit use
and neighborhoods for residents, as well
Page 114 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report Page 30
Zoning Category Zone
District
Description Summary
as commercial retail uses to serve the
shopping and service needs of district
residents, employees, and commuters.
Industrial I-1 A light industrial zone
district
This district is intended to provide for
light manufacturing and industrial uses,
and for warehousing and wholesaling
uses of a limited nature and size that do
not create appreciable nuisances or
hazards.
I-2 A general industrial zone
district
This district is intended to provide for
industrial and manufacturing uses that
are more intense in nature than those in
the light industrial district.
Special Purpose PUD Planned Unit
Development
The PUD district is intended as an
alternative to conventional land use
regulations. The PUD district combines
use, density, design, and Site
Improvement Plan considerations into a
single process, and substitutes
procedural protections for many of the
substantive requirements of this Title.
Page 115 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report Page 31
Zoning Analysis
Englewood is a built-out, geographically small city that covers nearly 6.65 square miles (4,256 acres)
of land. This component of the Assessment Report reviews the city’s zone districts by identifying
zoning district acreage from the city’s online mapping tool in Table 3. The table shows the general
zoning category (zone), the specific zone district (district), the total district acreage (district total), and
the total zone acreage (zone total).
Table 3: Zone District Analysis
Zone District District Total (Acre) Zone Total (Acre)
Industrial
I-1 735.03
1013.76
I-2 278.73
Commercial
M-1 59.37
500.19
M-2 46.36
MU-B-1 113.85
MU-B-2 280.61
Residential
MU-R-3-A 32
2598.35
MU-R-3-B 216.26
MU-R-3-C 9.99
R-1-A 673.1
R-1-B 142.9
R-1-C 1079.06
R-2-A 142.46
R-2-B 302.58
PUD PUD 135.61 135.61
Page 116 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report Page 32
Figure 4: Zoning Analysis Pie Chart
Residential Zone Districts
Residential zone districts make up 61% of zoned acres in the city. The residential district with the most
acreage is the R-1-C district at 1,079.06 acres, comprising 42% of the total residentially zoned land .
The second and third residential districts with the most acreage are the R-1-A and R-2-B districts with
637.1 acres and 302.58 acres, respectively. R-1-A zoning amounts to nearly 25% of residentially zoned
acreage while R-2-B zoning represents about 12% of residentially zoned acreage. R-1-C and R-1-A
districts amount to 67% of the total residential acreage. These two districts are low density, one -unit
dwelling districts showing that the city’s residential zoning is dominated by single family homes.
Figure 5: Residential Zoning Pie Chart
Page 117 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report Page 33
Industrial Zoning Districts
Industrial zoning districts make up approximately 24% of zoned acres in Englewood. Most of the city’s
industrial land is zoned for I-1, light industrial uses, which amounts to nearly 73% of the city’s total
industrial zoned land.
Figure 6: Industrial Zoning Pie Chart
Commercial Zoning Districts
Commercial zoning districts make up nearly 12% of the city’s zoned acres. Most commercial uses
occur in the MU-B-2 district totaling 280.61 acres or 56% of commercially zoned land. The MU-B-1
district totals 113.85 acres or approximately 23% of commercially zoned land. Combined, MU-B-1 and
MU-B-2 districts total to 79% ofthe commercially zoned land in the city.
Figure 7: Commercial Zoning Pie Chart
Page 118 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report Page 34
In summary, this zoning analysis shows the city’s zoning breakdown by the numbers. Residential
zoning, primarily one-unit dwelling single family zoning, dominates the city’s zoning uses. Commercial
zoning favors MU-B-1 and MU-B-2 districts while light industrial zoning is significantly more favorable
than more intensive, general industrial activity.
Options to Consider for Code Update:
1. Retain zone district structure while adding and omitting land uses that area consistent with
the city’s vision and goals within each zone district.
2. Provide revised zone district introductory statements/summaries that corresponds with
the goals identified in Englewood Forward.
3. Cross-reference the TSA zoning district with CityCenter updates. The city is currently
working on a separate update to the CityCenter area and looking at the TSA standards.
Page 119 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report Page 35
Chapter 4: Floodplain Regulations
This chapter houses the city’s regulations to meet FEMA requirements for development in flood prone
areas. This chapter is well-organized and follows a typical structure when compared to other
jurisdictions. The city will need to update the section, Floodplain Regulations (Section 16-4-8-H) to
reflect revised land uses from Chapter 5: Use Regulations. Aside from aligning uses, there are no
pressing issues with the city’s existing floodplain regulations.
Chapter 5: Use Regulations
Chapter 5 maintains land uses that correspond to the UDC’s zone districts. This chapter also provides
specific use regulations called use-specific standards, and regulations for adaptive reuse, accessory,
and temporary uses. This chapter is important as it implements a zone district’s intent and establishes
permitted uses.
Chapter 5 includes a use table (Table 16-5-1.1: Table of Allowed Uses) that identifies land uses and
prescribes them to different zone districts. This table lists zoning districts across the top and land
uses along the side. Land uses are grouped by a use category which complies with most modern
codes. Additionally, there is a key at the top of the table that assigns the type of use allowance by
letters. For instance, a “permitted use” is marked as a “P”. Each zoning district indicates whether a use
is permitted by-right, conditional, accessory, temporary, limited, or prohibited. Also, the table shows
accessory uses approved conditionally and accessory uses app roved with limited use procedures for
each zoning districts. The table’s current format is easy to follow but the contents within the table
could benefit from revision.
A clean, clear, and concise use table is important for everyone involved in the develo pment process.
Readers can quickly scan categories of uses to determine where a particular use is allowed. The use
table facilitates the process of maintaining and updating the list of uses. Visual aids can also facilitate
reading and understanding the use table. For example, a color-coded use table that aligns with the
zoning map, like Sparks (NV) in Table 4, could further increase readability and understanding among
staff and code users.
Options to Consider for Code Update:
1. Retain the chapter’s content but simplify the language. Also, relocate the chapter to the
rear of the UDC.
2. Revise the uses identified in Floodplain Regulations (Section 16-4-8-H) to match with the
revised land uses from Chapter 5: Use Regulations.
3. Consider removing the definitions section from the chapter and adding to Chapter 11.
4. Ensure this chapter is flexible and easy to amend as FEMA regulations change over time.
Page 120 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report Page 36
Table 4: Sparks (NV) Use Matrix
The current use table lists more than 150 uses. Repealing, revising, and adding uses that are specific
to development in Englewood should increase readability and ensure interpretation consistency.
Additionally, clear use-specific standards will minimize the need for use interpretations and
misunderstandings with applicants, staff, and the public. These standards could include
manufactured homes, automotive service and repair, breweries, ADUs, solar panels, and home
occupations.
Specific Uses: Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)
Englewood’s current UDC provides regulations for ADUs but very few applications have been
processed since the inception of the provisions. The city defines ADUs as a smaller, secondary
residential dwelling unit on the same lot as a principal one-unit dwelling. These structures are
independently habitable and provide the basic requirements of living, sleeping, cooking, and
sanitation. There are two ADU types: (1) garden cottages, which are detached residential structures
on the same lot as the principal detached one -unit dwelling; and (2) carriage houses, which are
dwelling units above or attached to a detached garage or other permitted detached accessory
structure on the same lot as the principal detached one -unit dwelling. ADUs must resemble the
architectural style of the principal dwelling and cannot exceed 650 square feet. Englewood restricts
ADUs to the rear part of a residential lot. For instance, ADU placement is limited to the rear thirty-five
percent (35%) of the lot.
ADUs come in all shapes, sizes, and contexts. It is important that Englewood find the appropriate ADU
standards that fit specific neighborhood contexts. Cities like Durango, CO provide numerous ADU
development opportunities by allowing multiple attached and detached ADU types. Englewood could
take a similar approach and identify a variety of ADU types that are specific to different
Page 121 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report Page 37
neighborhoods within a certain zoning district. For instance, the city could expand their current ADU
types to allow them to be attached to the primary residence.
Figure 8: Durango, CO Integrated ADU Graphic
In addition to ADU variety, the city should determine what dimensional and design standards are
most suitable for different neighborhoods and zoning districts in the city. If the city opts for varying
lot size requirements, then ADU type and size could vary depending on prospective l ot size. One
example would be to allow larger ADU sizes on larger lots. Englewood could use a similar approach
for neighborhoods with certain dimensional or aesthetic characteristics.
Although ADU regulations vary across the nation, some are more flexible and practical than others.
Englewood should consider the best regulations that provide housing variety, reduce high housing
costs, and protect each neighborhood’s context.
Page 122 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report Page 38
Options to Consider for Code Update:
1. Revise archaic uses by incorporating them into modern use definitions. All uses need to be
defined, and those that are not explicitly defined should be bracketed into a gen eral use
definition.
2. Update and reorganize the use chart to comply with revised uses.
3. Modernize the specific use standards for manufactured home parks so there’s better ability
to upgrade antiquated homes and attract newer products.
4. Remove limited uses and accessory uses approved with limited use procedure from the
UDC, but find ways to incorporate those uses as permitted, conditional, accessory, or
temporary.
5. Revise and clarify automotive uses (like sales, repair, rental, etc.). After clarifying these use s,
then align specific use standards with zoning district regulations.
6. Add specific use standards for recreational marijuana uses.
7. Consider creating a “micro” category for breweries, wineries, and distilleries to encourage
smaller scale brewing activity while discouraging large manufacturing operations.
8. Revise ADU definitions and provide standards that are tailored to specific neighborhoods
identified by the Englewood Forward Comprehensive Plan or zone districts.
9. Provide graphics for specific use standards (i.e. ADUs).
10. Relocate “Adaptive Reuse of Designated Historical Buildings” to the Historic Preservation
chapter.
11. Incorporate more flexibility within the home occupation use to address various types of at -
home work situations.
12. Revise language and stipulations for food vending trucks within the Temporary Use section.
Page 123 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report Page 39
Chapter 6: Development Standards
Development regulations can apply design standards to any kind of development, including single -
family, multi-family, commercial, or industrial uses. These standards are critical for effective
placemaking. While building heights, setbacks, coverage, and related zonin g metrics control the scale
and intensity of development, related standards shape development outcomes as well. Development
standards directly affect the cost of development and can occupy significant land area on a site.
Therefore, it is important that the standards are carefully calibrated to each zoning district so that
they accomplish their intended purpose without creating regulatory barriers to the design objectives
in those areas.
Dimensional Requirements
Dimensional requirements are items that control lot size, setbacks, height, floor area, and lot
coverage. The city provides dimensional requirements in Table 16-6-1.1 by assigning lot area, floor
area ratio, setbacks, lot coverage, width, and height metrics to zoning districts and land uses. The
table is easy to read and directs the reader to pertinent information that pertains to a certain district
or use. While the dimensional standards are straightforward, there was public concern about setback
effectiveness, particularly those in residential areas. These dimensional requirements tend to
promote reasonably sized residences in the residential zoning districts but can generate separation
and privacy issues because of small side yard setbacks.
While larger lot one-unit dwellings apply 7-ft side setbacks, one-unit dwellings on smaller and urban
lots apply 5-ft and 3-ft side setbacks, respectively. The 7-ft and 5-ft side setbacks are practical and
ensure that a minimum 10-ft space exists between residences (building separation), while the 3 -ft
side setbacks allow for 6-ft of building separation. Not only is the 3-ft side setbacks problematic for
homeowners due to privacy issues, but it can also hinder effective fire and life safety response. It is
understood that few of these urban lots are adjacent to on e another thus the building separation
may not be an issue. However, to ensure safety, the city could add a footnote to table 16-6-1.1 to
state that urban lots may maintain a 3-ft setback so long as they also maintain a minimum 10-ft
separation between adjacent buildings.
Additionally, the city should consider revisiting front setbacks for one-unit dwellings on small and
urban lots. All one-unit dwelling front setbacks are 25-ft which can constrain development on smaller
lots. This one-size-fits-all approach to front setbacks should change to a right -sized approach where
setbacks are determined by a formula accounting for lot size, coverage requirements, zoning districts,
and neighborhood character. For instance, in districts such as MU-R-3-B, MU-R-3-C, R-2-B, and R-1-C
districts, 25-ft front setbacks for small and urban lots could be reduced to 15-ft or 20-ft setbacks. This
adjustment would bring residences closer to the street, generate bigger backyards, and allow for
more usable lot area. A front setback reduction would promote an urban residential development
style that is conducive to the characteristics of higher density zoning districts.
Other dimensional requirements such as residential bulk plane regulations are equally important in
Englewood. Community members and developers voiced concern over bulk plane regulations to
Page 124 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report Page 40
address structure and floor heights, maintain privacy, and preserve light space on neighboring
properties.
The review team illustrated how the existing bulk plane standards work to better understand the
existing regulations and determined that the bulk plane alone was not the issue but rather the
combination of dimensional requirements which could use minor adjustments to achieve the desired
character.
Figure 9: Bulk plane and dimensional requirements in R-2-B
Options to Consider for Code Update:
1. Simplify the ADU Dimensional table while also including new ADU types and appropriate
regulations.
2. Consider expanding zoning districts allowed for ADUs to include zones R-1-A and R-1-B.
3. Adjust bulk plane, setback, and lot coverage requirements and tailor them to specific
neighborhoods identified in Englewood Forward and/or zoning districts to encourage
building separation, foster better lighting, and protect privacy.
Page 125 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report Page 41
Streets and Vehicle Access and Circulation
This section provides regulations that accommodate efficient movement of vehicles, bicycl es, transit,
and pedestrians to, from, and within developments. This section is important because s treets, access,
and circulation components can bolster community appearance, reduce traffic congestion, and
promote walkable, pedestrian-friendly development. While the current UDC does not have much
substantive material for Streets, Vehicle Access, and Circulation, it does refer to requirements
provided in the City Engineering Standards and Specifications manual. The revised UDC should
encourage better designed streets, access, and circulation by: 1) ensuring that the UDC cross-
references the City Engineering Standards and Specifications manual , and 2) adding standards to this
section of the UDC to join different street types with revised zoning districts and neighborhoods.
Off-Street Parking Requirements
Minimum parking requirements were historically designed to reduce street congestion and to avoid
spillover parking in residential neighborhoods. These regulations establish a minimum number of
parking spaces for new development, typically tied to use. They usually spell out the geometric design
of parking spaces and bays, along with required surfacing. The UDC currently provides these features
and requires a minimum number of parking spaces for listed uses identified in Table 16-6-4.1
Minimum Off-Street Vehicle Parking Ratios. The required spaces are tied to dwelling units, gross
square footage, employees, or other variables.
The city’s current parking requirements yield high parking ratios for uses when compared to other
jurisdictions. For this example, we compared a few uses from Englewood to Fort Collins, CO and
Lakewood, CO to see how parking regulations vary per Table 6. Three general commercial uses—
office, retail, and restaurants—were compared. Although Englewood’s parking ratios are higher than
Fort Collins and Lakewood, it is important to note the differences between the metrics. First, Fort
Collins and Lakewood use a modern metric approach where parking is calculated per 1,000 square
feet. This provides the UDC user with a common baseline metric for all uses within the parking table,
instead of looking at various baseline metrics like in Englewood’s UDC. Also, Englewood uses multiple
metrics (i.e. 1 per X amount of square feet, an area to ½ of the gross floor area, etc.) to determine
parking regulations whereas Fort Collins and Lakewood use one.
Options to Consider for Code Update:
1. Revise any standards from this section that do not coordinate with Public Works
Department standards (recently updated design manual).
2. Encourage shared drive access for adjacent non -residential development to discourage
unnecessary drive cuts and reduce congestion.
Page 126 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report Page 42
Additionally, both Fort Collins and Lakewood provide a sliding scale for parking requirements with a
minimum and a maximum. This concept common in many other communities and is intended to
provide a baseline minimum parking requirement that must be met to accommodate parking but
also provides a cap to ensure properties are not providing an unnecessarily large amount of parking.
This approach caters to both the small local business that wants to encourage other modes of
transport and larger retailers who prefer a larger parking ratio.
Table 5: Englewood - Fort Collins Parking Ratio Comparison
It is important for Englewood to reassess the parking ratios to preserve development space and
promote walkability. Englewood’s current ratios are automobile-oriented rather than pedestrian-
focused. The city should reduce parking in higher density areas for certain uses to achieve a more
pedestrian-friendly environment. Fort Collins and Lakewood promote this type of environment
because parking ratios are less automobile focused. Furthermore, Fort Collins and Lakewood build
on walkability and prevent overparking through parking maximums for all uses. This means that a
development cannot provide excessive parking. This is an effective way to promote wal kability and
reduce overparking for non-residential development.
Parking and walkability will always coincide with each other during the UDC updating process. While
developments need parking to accommodate customers and community members, overparking
should be avoided. Overparking can disrupt land use patterns, increase the urban heat island effect,
add extra costs to development, and promote greater reliance on the automobile by preventing
compact, walkable development. In modern zoning regulations, c onventional parking metrics like
parking minimums are replaced with parking maximums. Additionally, shared parking arrangements,
parking reductions, car sharing regulations, transportation demand management (TDM) plans,
Use Englewood Fort Collins Lakewood
Minimum Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum
General Office 1 space / 300 sq. ft. 1 space /
1000 sq. ft.
3 spaces /
1000 sq. ft.
1.5 spaces /
1000 sq. ft.
5 spaces /
1000 sq. ft.
General Retail
Under 7,500 sq. ft.: an
area equal to 1/2 of the
gross floor area; Over
7,500 sq. ft.: an area
equal to the gross floor
area
2 spaces /
1000 sq. ft.
4 spaces /
1000 sq. ft.
1 space /
1000 sq. ft.
5 spaces /
1000 sq. ft.
Restaurants,
Bars, Taverns,
and Nightclubs
1 space / 100 sq. ft. 5 spaces /
1000 sq. ft.
10 spaces /
1000 sq. ft.
2 spaces /
1000 sq. ft.
12 spaces /
1000 sq. ft.
Page 127 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report Page 43
bicycle facility requirements, and context-sensitive parking standards responsive to different
development patterns can reduce unnecessary parking, maximize the development footprint, and
incentivize walkability.
Englewood should consider modern parking regulations to minimize excessive parking standards.
The city should avoid a conventional one-size-fits-all parking approach because it promotes
overparking and automobile reliance. Instead, the city should examine a right-sized parking approach
that ties together development context, neighborhood character, and the goals of Englewood
Forward. Conventional parking regulations should not be completely abandoned because there is
utility for standards in specific areas where the automobile is the primary mode of transportation.
Also, conventional standards are reasonable for greenfield development opportunities. However,
modern parking regulations based on different development and neighborhood contexts may be
more reasonable in Englewood. As the city continues to grow and more transit options become
available, it is critical for the city to find appropriate parking solutions for new development. In these
areas, Englewood could incorporate progressive parking standards and practices referenced in the
case studies to reduce overparking and promote walkability.
Options to Consider for Code Update:
1. Revise current parking standards as parking maximums with the addition of parking
minimums.
2. Establish a “soft” parking maximum that triggers additional requirements when spaces
increase.
3. Right-size parking regulations by identifying different parking are as and matching them
within certain development contexts.
4. Incentivize shared parking for mixed-use development through a tradeoff system that
allows for development flexibility.
5. Address parking spillover issues in residential areas with an expanded resid ential parking
permit system. This could include revising the city’s Special Parking Permit Map to restrict
unauthorized parking in residential areas.
6. Reduce overparking by using site-specific parking demand analysis.
7. Tie the location and size of parking areas to landscaping or shading requirements.
8. Create a matrix that visualizes bicycle standards.
9. Provide graphics that illustrates various parking metrics to improve code readability.
10. Address alternative parking regulations.
Page 128 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report Page 44
Pedestrian and Bicycle Access and Connectivity
This section provides for a system of well -connected pedestrian ways and bikeways that link
developments with retail activities, employment centers, recreational facilities, parks, transit, and
schools. These regulations encourage convenient access to transit services, including linking transit
access to on-site pedestrian and bicycle systems. Pedestrian and bicycle access regulations mostly
apply to new non-residential development. These standards include features like pedestrian and
bicycle connections, sidewalks, street crossings, and lighting to encourage connectivity.
While these are important features, the regulatory nature of this section is limited. Language within
this section is too open-ended and allows for a range of design variability. For instance, in Section16-
6-5-F Pedestrian Street Crossings, there is language that states “pedestrian crossings shall be well
marked using pavement treatments, signs, striping, signals, lighting, traffic calming techniques,
median refuge areas, and/or landscaping.” Design standards should apply to pedestrian crossings so
there is design consistency throughout Englewood. These standards c ould include materials, height,
location, number, and types of traffic calming techniques, acceptable landscaping elements, and light
emittance. However, if the city elects to retain the section’s current regulations, then there should be
cross-references to other city documents like design manuals to ensure there are adequate
standards for pedestrian and bicycle access and connectivity.
Also, within this section there are opportunities to better implement Englewood Forward’s goals of
walkability and reducing automobile dependency. The city could utilize Englewood Forward’s
identifiable neighborhoods/areas with zoning districts to right-size pedestrian and bicycle access and
connectivity. This would create a scenario where each zoning district or neighborho od/area within a
certain zoning district has customized access and connectivity requirements tha t fit the character of
that area to promote development compatibility. The city currently uses a one-size-fits-all access and
connectivity approach for all non-residential development. For example, detached sidewalks must
have at least 6-ft of planting space between the curb and sidewalk. The right -sized approach could
reduce or increase the 6-ft planting space requirement on an adjustable scale conducive to diff erent
development contexts within an area or zoning district. This requirement could be reduced in
commercial zones near Downtown where there is limited space, less greenery, and more attention
on pedestrian activity. Conversely, the planting space requirement could be increased for non-
residential development outside of the Downtown area where there is more usable land and
development is more automobile dependent.
Page 129 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report Page 45
Fences and Retaining Walls
Fences and retaining walls are important components of development standards that are sometimes
overlooked in code updates. Inadequate fence and wall regulations can create issues with privacy,
pedestrian and vehicular line of sight, maintenance, drainage, and aesthetic quality. The city’s current
regulations are well-organized, thorough, and perform well, therefore major changes are not
Options to Consider for Code Update:
1. Revise non-mandatory language, like “should provide” to mandatory language like “shall,
will, etc.” to ensure standards are required.
2. Update sidewalk terminology and provide right-sized sidewalk standards that fit different
zone districts and development contexts. This may include cross-referencing, revising, and
aligning requirements expressed in (Section 16-8-7 Streets).
3. Increase planting strip requirements from 6-ft to 10-ft and define a metric for required soil
volume of trees in areas where planting strips aren’t feasible, to encourage more greenery
in planting spaces.
4. Create design standards for walkways, bus stops, transit locations (materials, amount,
location, types, etc.) that fit a particular development context or zoning district.
5. Provide flexibility incentives depending on less parking.
6. Provide lighting requirements for connectivity purposes. This includes a light fixture list
that provides maximum light for pedestrian activity while minimizing excessive light
pollution.
Options to Consider for Code Update:
1. Adjust fence regulations, particularly heights, by not only zone district but by use within a
zone district or defined neighborhood per Englewood Forward (i.e. allowing an 8 -ft fence
in R-1-A districts but a 6-ft fence in MU-R-3-B districts).
2. Include provisions to allow for the taller fence height where a less intense use/zone district
abuts a more intensive use/zone district.
3. Relocate sight triangles to the beginning of Chapter 6 with Rules of Measurement.
4. Update sight triangle illustrations with improved 2D graphics or new 3D graphics and verify
conformance with current Public Works standards.
5. Supplement Table 16-6-6.1 Fence Classifications and Table 16-6-6.5 Retaining Wall
Classifications with colored images or graphics depicting the different fence and wall types .
Page 130 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report Page 46
recommended for this section. Most of the suggested options to consider for this section involve
improving graphics to bolster code usability.
Landscaping, Screening, and Green Infrastructure
Most modern zoning or development ordinances have landscaping standards. Buffer and
landscaping requirements mitigate environmental site conditions, minimize conflicts between
incompatible uses, and soften the visual impacts of parking areas and intensive uses.
The current landscaping requirements do not require much in the way of updating in general.
However, the city seeks to encourage more compact, walkable development throughout the city. In
dense contexts, landscaping consumes land area and can create physical barriers between uses that
would otherwise be accessible by foot. In addition, landscaping adds to both upfront development
costs and over time through maintenance and irri gation, although long-term savings from
stormwater management and energy savings through shading of building and parking areas can
offset some of these costs.
Englewood’s landscaping requirements include two components: required landscape area and
required materials. Required landscape areas are site percentage measurements, regulated by
zoning district. Required materials are living plant materials like trees, shrubs, perennials, turfs, and
groundcovers. Landscape areas may include a combination of living and non-living materials. Each
zoning district has its own minimum landscape requirements allocated in a table format. For
example, Tables 16-6-7.3 – 7.5 prescribe the residential, commercial, and industrial landscaping
standards, respectively. The landscaping standards are not in poor shape but could consider further
expansion to provide more greenery and reduce development impact.
Additionally, Englewood community members commented about adding more trees along street
frontages. The city could explore an additional requirement that dictates the number of trees along
street frontages within a site’s required landscape area. This requirement entails planting a tree for
every certain amount of linear feet. For example, one tree for every thirty linear feet of street frontage
within a required landscape area in a MU-B-2 district could produce more trees for new development.
The city already has a requirement for corner lots of one tree per seventy -five linear feet. However, it
is important that this type of requirement is not applied to all zoning districts.
The city could explore a plethora of landscaping-related elements to provide development greenery
and promote improved sustainability practices. For instance, Englewood could consider green
infrastructure items like planters, bioswales, rain gardens, and xeriscaping requirements to alleviate
harsh development impacts. Green infrastructure refers to practices that mitigate the impacts
urbanization has on the water cycle. These systems mimic larger natural systems and use vegetation,
soils, and roots to slow and filter stormwater runoff. Benefits of green infrastructure include
improved air and water quality, reduced flooding risks, urban heat island effect mitigation, reduced
energy demands, climate change resiliency, and enhanced community livability.
Page 131 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report Page 47
Englewood could implement standards for six green infrastructure elements: vegetated roofs,
permeable pavement, bioswales, planter boxes, rain gardens, and rainwater harvesting. These
elements can provide enhanced greenery while reducing negative development impacts. An
assortment of these elements should apply to different development patterns with context-sensitivity
in mind. For instance, vegetated roofs (roofs with plant material that store stormwater and reduce
runoff) may not be as practical in residential zoning districts, but may be more feasible in commercial
zoning districts because flat roofs are more prevalent in commercial development. Pitched residential
roofs struggle to effectively support the demands of vegetated roofs because the weight of soils and
vegetation are unbalanced. Overall, there are a variety of methods the city can use to enhance
greenery, reduce development impacts, and improve visual appeal.
Design Standards and Guidelines
Options to Consider for Code Update:
1. Implement an approved and prohibited plant, grass, mulch list and require the planting of
approved plants to ensure plants are conducive to the native environment.
2. Promote green infrastructure by defining and creating standards for each green
infrastructure item as it relates to landscaping. (i.e . size, design, and locational
requirements for planters, bioswales, rain gardens, etc.)
3. Expand the existing Water Conservation (Xeriscape) Principles and create standards where
xeriscaping is practical and preferable.
4. Expand specific buffer types and sta ndards that can be applied as needed throughout the
zoning districts. For example, this could allow for wider buffers with lower planting density
for intensive commercial uses, and narrower buffers with fencing in urban contexts.
5. Develop more uniform and specific site landscaping standards and requirements and
consider adding a minimum open space requirement for most zoning districts. Consider
allowing applicants to substitute usable open space for required landscaping.
6. Develop pedestrian-oriented streetscape standards for the Mixed-Use Commercial areas
and TSA district.
7. Consider building foundation planting requirements for non -residential developments
outside of the city’s traditional Downtown.
8. Retain the existing Required Landscape Areas threshold at 40% but increase the unit count
from 4 to 5.
9. Simplify the 16-6-7.8 Table by reducing long text sequences to improve readability.
Page 132 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report Page 48
This section's regulations are intended to ensure quality development in the city that provides variety
and visual interest in building design, compatibility with existing and preferred built patterns and
materials, establishes scale, and contributes to pedestrian-oriented streetscapes. This part of the
UDC is important because it directly affects development appearance. Items related to aesthetics like
building materials, roof types, architectural articulation, and scale are considered in this section.
These regulations should be carefully revised to ensure the city retains its unique residential areas,
promotes sustainable development, and incentivizes aesthetically appealing development.
Residential Design Standards
The design standards are applied to two ge neral categories: residential and non-residential
development. The residential design standards apply to proposals in R-1-A, R-1-B, R-1-C, R-2-A, R-2-B,
MU-R-3-A, and MU-R-3-B zones. These standards mostly regulate lot coverage requirements (not
overall lot coverage but the specific amount of paving vs. front yard landscaping) and garage
placement, with a small component directed to building design (Section16-6-10-B-7). For instance,
there are wall surface articulation requirements that apply to street-facing building facades if wall
exceeds 25 linear feet. This clause requires every 25 linear feet to use three techniques that create
varied wall surface articulation. There are seven applicable techniques like the use of balconies,
offsets, and exterior trim, but the language is vague and creates a lack of standardization. While these
standards are beneficial for developing compatible residences in specific neighborhoods and zoning
districts, the city should consider expanding these regulations with specific metrics and requirements
to provide more uniformity for residential development. For example, the “incorporation of stoops
or front porches” could require a simple square foot minimum or provide different stoop/porch sizes
dependent on front façade length. Added specificity to design features could increase district or
neighborhood visual cohesion, and deter misplaced architectural styles in established
neighborhoods.
Additionally, expanded residential design standards should promo te ways to protect the
environment. Englewood Forward emphasizes sustainability methods to lessen development impact
on the built environment. Expanded residential design standards could include the use of solar and
wind energy, sustainable building materials, and energy efficient practices to meet Englewood
Forward’s sustainability goals. While Englewood lacks residential sustainability standards,
neighboring jurisdictions do not. For example, Golden, CO applies sustainability standards to new
and redeveloping residential development through a point-based, menu system to ensure
development complies with the goals of their comprehensive plan. Golden requires 15 and 25 points
for residential additions and new construction, respectively. These points are awarded to different
sustainability techniques.
Page 133 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report Page 49
Table 6: Golden Residential Sustainability Menu
Menu Item Points Documentation Required
Water - Indoor and Outdoor
Plant xeric landscaping. One point per 20 percent
of lot area, exclusive of paving or built areas, shall
be landscaped with xeric materials.
1—5
Show landscape areas and materials list on
site plan.
A high-efficiency irrigation system - Drip or sub-
surface system 3 Show irrigation system details on site plan.
A high-efficiency irrigation system - Rain sensor
system 1 Show irrigation system details on site plan.
Porous surfaces: For driveway, sidewalk, or patio
areas. Porous asphalt or cement, grass pavers.
Three points per category, maximum ten.
3—10
Show material type on site plan.
Reduce heat islands: Locate trees to provide shade
for paved areas. One point per minimum 2½-inch
caliper tree listed on Golden Recommended Tree
List.
1—5
Show tree count and location on site plan.
Reduce heat islands: Install heat reflective roof
materials. Metal, high albedo (light colored) or
minimum 29 SRI (Solar Reflective Index) roofing
materials qualify.
4
List roofing materials and SRI rating on site
plan.
Energy Conservation
Achieve energy star certification for new homes
15
Submit qualifying HERS rating with building
permit application. Submit Energy Star
certificate prior to issuance of certificate of
Occupancy.
Credit for existing home energy efficiency
performance. Five points to achieve minimum 85
HERS rating for existing structure. For every ten -
point reduction thereafter, one point each.
5—10
Submit qualifying HERS report with building
permit application.
Install efficient hot water system (e.g. tankless) or
recirculating line. One point per
system/household unit.
1—2
Provide product brochure and show on site
plan drawings.
Page 134 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report Page 50
Englewood could use an approach like Golden’s for residential development to assure the community
there is sustainable development. The city could expand on this approach to calibrate different
techniques and requirements for specific residential dwelling types (including ADUs), neighborhoods,
or zoning districts. For instance, larger lot one -unit dwelling areas could require 30 points instead of
25 points because larger building footprints can affect the area’s drainage system. A carefully
calibrated points-based sustainability menu approach could fare well in Englewood given the city’s
unique residential communities. These design requirements are important and should fit each district
or neighborhood’s context given the overwhelming public support to retain and promote the city’s
robust and unique neighborhoods.
Non-residential Design Standards
Non-residential design standards are the second general design standards category. The city notes
adequate non-residential development outcomes but would like to continue and expand these
outcomes through strengthened design standards.
The UDC currently provides sufficient design standards for retail buildings that regulate aesthetic
character like roofs, entrances, and building materials. Although this section houses design standards
for retail buildings, it does not prescribe standards for other non-residential building types. For
instance, industrial and office buildings do not have their own standards. Similar standards like
façade requirements, roof features, and building materials applied to retail buildings should also
apply to industrial and office buildings. These regulations could be more or less stringent than the
retail requirements but should be calibrated to match development contexts within specific zoning
districts. This could include identifying and assigning specific building materials (masonry, stucco,
concrete, metal, wood, etc.) and percentage requirements to office buildings in commercial zoning
districts. A specific example could require at least 50% masonry on all building facades for all office
buildings in MU-B-2 districts to encourage development cohesion.
Also, the city should revise the non-residential design standards for sustainability purposes. Like the
residential design standards, non-residential design standards should follow a similar sustainability
model. The City of Golden accounts for sustainable non-residential development by requiring
developers to install an on-site photovoltaic energy generation system that offsets 10% of the
structure's modeled electrical annual consumption. If there are site-specific conditions with the
developer’s property, like orientation, building site location, shading resulting from topography, or
other unavoidable site-specific constraints that make it impractical for an applicant to meet these
requirements then other options apply. If this occurs, then the developer pays the city cash-in-lieu of
the solar requirement. Additionally, there are other requirements the developer must provide to
ensure sustainable development. This works in concert with Golden’s non-residential sustainability
menu that identifies standards and prescribes point values. This should not be a one-size-fits-all
approach, but a right-sized approach that links different non-residential uses to certain zoning
districts. For instance, a sustainability point scale that requires more points for higher intensity uses
and lower intensity uses could work better in Englewood.
Page 135 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report Page 51
Table 7: Golden Non-residential Sustainability Menu
Menu Item Points Documentation Required
Water Conservation Stormwater and Water Quality
1
Employ stormwater runoff reduction
strategies to slow runoff and promote
infiltration. One point is awarded for every
20 percent of impervious area routed
through bioswales, biobuffers, rain
gardens and/or permeable pavement
designed in accordance with the City of
Golden Stormwater Standards Manual.
1—5
Applicant shall show both impervious areas and
porous infiltration areas on the site plan, as well
as calculation of percent of impervious routed
through porous areas. Product specification
sheet and/or maintenance plan must also be
submitted with building plans.
2
Plant a vegetated roof for a portion of the
roof area. Points awarded on a sliding
scale, with one point for every ten percent
of vegetated roof area.
1—10
A vegetated roof plan shall be submitted with
landscape plan that shows what will be planted,
how it will be irrigated and a roof area
calculation.
3
Exceed open space requirement by 25
percent or more. Includes both landscaped
and xeriscaped areas, but excludes ground
mounted solar array areas.
2
Site plan shall show area of open space as well
as calculation to demonstrate how it exceeds
requirement by 25 percent.
Transportation
1
Provide double the minimum of the required
amount of bicycle parking on site for one point.
One additional point available for providing a
bike repair station, and one additional point for
providing secure and enclosed parking (e.g.
lockers, storage room) for at least 50 percent of
the bike parking needed for double the
minimum amount.
1—3
Site plan must demonstrate locations and amount of
bicycle parking.
2
Provide number of shower units for a minimum
of 2 percent of all full time equivalent
employees.
2
Building plans shall show location of shower facility,
number of showers and calculation of showers to
projected number of full time equivalent employees.
3
Build development within ¼ mile of public bus
stop or ½ mile of light rail stop, as measured
using a pedestrian's walking distance. Applicant
shall also demonstrate enhanced walkability by
establishing connections to transit and
surrounding areas.
2
Applicant must provide map to scale that
demonstrates site boundaries, identifies location of
transit stop, and shows walking path and distance
between them. Map shall also identify potential
barriers for pedestrians.
4
Provide, maintain and install a bus shelter if a
stop is in or adjacent to the right-of-way. 2
Site plan shall demonstrate location and type of
pedestrian amenities, as well as location of bus stop
if applicable. Product specification sheets are also
required.
Page 136 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report Page 52
Consider for Code Update:
Options to Consider for Code Update:
1. Strengthen residential design standards to ensure quality and aesthetically appealing
homes are provided throughout the city. This could include different architectural styles
(i.e. mid-century modern, colonial, craftsman, classical, renaissance, gothic, contemporary,
etc.), building materials (i.e. wood, stucco, mas onry, cementitious siding, etc.), and
materials percentages (i.e. the street facing façade must contain at least 85% masonry).
2. Strengthen residential design standards by assigning tailored standards to specific zoning
districts or neighborhoods identified in Englewood Forward.
3. Retain Articulation of Wall Surface Required, but reduce the length requirement from 25 to
20 feet, and add stipulations to the techniques prescribed to encourage better residential
architectural styles. For example, instead of “incorporation of stoops and front porches”,
add a square footage requirement for these features.
4. Provide additional pervious area standards for specific development types within certain
zoning districts.
5. Expand the nonresidential design standards to inclu de other building types besides retail
buildings.
6. Apply and expand neighborhood preservation standards to other neighborhoods and
zoning districts outside of the MU-R-3-B. This could include neighborhood conservation
districts and regulations that are tailored to specific residential areas.
7. Add residential sustainability standards that link Englewood Forward’s goals to new
residential development.
8. Remove guidelines from this section and only prescribe standards to improve readability
and reduce confusion between standards and guidelines.
9. Add context-sensitive sustainability standards for nonresidential development through a
point allocated, menu-base system.
10. Provide graphics that show the applicability of the different design standards .
Page 137 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report Page 53
Historic Preservation
Historic preservation is critical in a city near build out such as Englewood. Historic community features
provide cultural significance to an area which can increase community pride by protecting its most
cherished parts of the community’s existing fabric. Many jurisdictions around the nation have historic
preservation requirements to retain these significant community features.
Englewood has a range of eclectic and historic architecture, particularly in residential area s, that the
community would like to preserve. Although the city has a historic preservation section in the UDC,
the section is brief with limited standards. Standards should be clear and effectively protect historic
properties through a certificate of appropriateness process instead of vague, discretionary
regulations. These standards should also include demolition requirements if someone wants to
remove or repair a historic structure. The City of Golden, CO ensures historic properties are
rehabilitated correctly and not irresponsibly destroyed by providing criteria for certificates of
appropriateness and establishing strict demolition requirements. Englewood should build on their
current historic preservation regulations by implementing stricter standards that adequately protect
existing and future historic properties.
Signs
Signs are a pervasive element of the built environment. Signs serve important purposes, such as
identifying places of business or institutions, directing traffic, and expressing opinions. Businesses
rely on signs to create a street presence and to generate sales from motorists or pedestrians who
might not otherwise become aware of their presence. Politicians and activists rely on signs to get the
word out about their campaigns or matters of public interest. Institutions (such as churches and
schools) use signs to announce events, speakers, and inspirational messages. Some signs can also
have a negative impact on the public. Signs are often identified with clutter along roadway corridors,
driver distraction, and—when not properly maintained—blighting influences. Excessively bright signs
can disrupt the quiet enjoyment of residential neighborhoods or distract drivers (while, at the same
time, making those signs more visible to motorists). The city should effectively regulate signs in a way
that avoids potential negative impacts, while enabling freedom of expression and commerce .
Options to Consider for Code Update:
11. Establish a certificate of appropriateness review component for historic properties. This
would include criteria for the certificate of appropriateness as well as the process to receive
a certificate of appropriateness.
12. Provide regulations for the demolition of historic properties.
13. Incorporate adaptive reuse language from Section 16-5-3 into this section.
Page 138 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report Page 54
Among other things, the city’s sign regulations establish:
sign categories such as building and ground signs,
the districts where the sign types are permitted,
dimensional standards (i.e., maximum size and height, minimum setbacks),
maximum number of signs per development,
design features such as illumination, materials, and use of LE D technology, and
whether sign permits are required.
Englewood identifies signs in multiple ways. The city recognizes on-premises signs as principal signs.
This classification consists of two major sign categories: building signs and ground signs. Principal
signs are defined as those that are “attached to a building, structure, or the ground in some manner
that requires a Sign Permit from the city and is made of durable materials approved by the city."
Within each principal sign category, are numerous sign types per Table 9. Although dimensional
standards are assigned to each sign type, they are not allocated in a sign matrix .
The city’s principal sign types are in good shape, but definitions should continue focusing on physical
characteristics. Also, the city should incorporate sign matrixes to house all dimensional requirements
in one location. The matrix will reduce heavy text sections that describe the various standards into a
brief, readable graphic. Modern codes, like Westminster, CO, use sign matrixes to reduce reader
distraction and to communicate the pertinent regulations.
Table 8: Westminster, CO Projecting Sign Matrix
Page 139 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report Page 55
Englewood’s other sign categories like incidental signs, temporary signs, and miscellaneous signs
need careful auditing to ensure signs are defined by physical elements . These signs should avoid
regulating content to prevent Federal Law noncompliance.
Development Standards for the TSA District
This section prescribes regulations for newly developing properties in the TSA district. These
regulations establish a mixed-use district that provides a diverse mix of uses within walking distance
to the city’s Regional Transportation District (RTD) light rail stations. Build-to-line regulations, street
frontage requirements, and density standards, encourage appropriate residential development
patterns with adequate density to support transit use and neighborhoods for the community. These
regulations allow retail uses to serve the shopping and service needs of district residents, employees,
and commuters.
This section needs careful consideration during the UDC writing process because of the city’s goals
to become a more walkable, transit-opportune, and sustainable community. There are opportunities
to strengthen standards that can promote the city’s goals within the TSA district. A specific way
Englewood could improve standards within the TSA district is to adopt a form -based approach
outside of the conventional zoning district regulations. The current regulations touch on form-based
principles but could do more to tailor development in TSA districts.
Options to Consider for Code Update:
1. Modernize sign typologies and regulations to comply with current best practices. This
includes realigning sign types to zoning districts or street classification and not by land use,
as well as defining signs by their physical characteristics.
2. Provide clear and effective graphics, matrixes, and tables to illustrate sign types and their
associated dimensions.
3. Incorporate sign definitions into the definitions chapter of the UDC
Options to Consider for Code Update:
1. Create a separate form-based ordinance for TSA districts at RTD light rail stations.
2. Omit this section of the UDC but incorporate into an Overlays section or place the
regulations into their respective sections in the UDC (i.e. building setbacks and build -to-
lines could be housed in the Dimensional Requirements section).
3. Continue to implement compact, walkable and/or transit-oriented development standards
while considering a trade-off system that allows for parking reductions, design flexibility,
green infrastructure, and landscaping.
Page 140 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report Page 56
Chapter 7: Telecommunications
This chapter houses the city’s specific regulations for telecommunications. Chapter 7 addresses
telecommunication uses, design guidelines, and removal. Although this chapter includes important
regulations and requirements for telecommunications, it is unnecessary for this chapter to be its own
within the UDC. Telecommunications are specific uses which has its own chapter, Use Regulations
(Chapter 5). The city could remove the telecommunication chapter and incorporate it into the new
Use Regulations chapter. This will help usability and readability by placing all uses into one part of the
UDC instead of having use regulations in multiple locations.
Chapter 8: Subdivision Design, Improvements, and Dedication Standards
This chapter focuses on components within the land subdivision process. For instance, this chapter
houses open space, streets, easements, utilities, and lot design requirements. Although these are
critical components of the UDC, this section is sparse on regulations. This section should add
standards to ensure new subdivisions align with zone districts, neighborhood character, and
Englewood Forward.
Options to Consider for Code Update:
1. Revise the chapter’s content to reflect current telecommunication standards, including
small cell facilities.
2. Omit this section but incorporate the content into Chapter 5: Use Regulations or a separate
appendix in the back of the UDC.
Options to Consider for Code Update:
1. Revise Land Dedication Amount Required subsection to reflect the type of improvement
through a menu of park/open space options.
2. Align the street classification system with Englewood Forward by reducing stree t lengths,
adding traffic calming devices, expanding sidewalk widths, and requiring enhanced
streetscaping standards.
Page 141 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report Page 57
Chapter 9: Nonconformities
When the UDC is revised, there will be instances where existing development does not conform to
the new standards. These “nonconformities” can arise with permitted uses, lot dimensions, building
design, and development standards such as parking, screening, and landscaping. In addition,
applications that are currently proceeding through the process may or may not have achieved “vested
rights” status that precludes the imposition of subsequent regulat ions. Resolving these issues in a
way that protects the integrity of the new regulations, prevents barriers to redevelopment, and
respects property rights is a delicate balance that needs careful attention.
The city’s nonconformity regulations address land uses, lots, signs, and structures that do not comply
with current setback, height, bulk plane, parking, and other site improvement requirements. While
most outdated codes lack various nonconforming situations like signs and lots, the city’s current
regulations does not.
Generally, nonconformities can continue operating but cannot become more nonconforming. The
existing regulations accommodates nonconformity operation, but regulations are vague and at the
bequest of the city. For instance, redeveloping nonconforming buildings “shall be brought into
compliance as much as practicable with existing zoning standards of this Code,” while the
“practicable” threshold is determined by the City Manager. The city’s nonconformity regulations
should omit discretionary terms and areas by incorporating specific standards for each
nonconformity situation. This will provide applicants with more certainty on how to move through
the process and what to expect, while reducing development delays. In certain nonconformity
redevelopment situations, infill standards may alleviate these problems. Infill standards that account
for lot size, setbacks, parking, and landscaping can resolve compatibility issues associated with
existing developments seeking redevelopment.
Options to Consider for Code Update:
1. Retain existing nonconformities regulations.
2. Consider clarifying C Redevelopment of Nonconforming Buildings or Structures with infill
standards to reduce newly rehabilitated nonconformities.
3. Revise discontinuance time periods to reduce nonconformity burdens on property owners
(i.e. change from 180 days to one calendar year).
Page 142 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report Page 58
Chapter 10: Enforcement and Penalties
When the UDC is finalized, enforcement and penalties must be included to apply the UDC. Without
enforcement and penalty regulations, the UDC is useless. The city’s existing regulations establish
enforcement measures and penalties for UDC violators. This section of the UDC performs well and
warrants only minor revisions. The revised UDC should make sure new standards are protected by
clear enforcement and penalty regulations.
Chapter 11: Use Classifications and Definition of Terms
The definitions chapter of the UDC is critical because it gives meaning to terms of art and legal
provisions in the UDC. Definitions should never include standards, because readers will normally
search the body of the UDC for substantive requirements. Definitions should only explain
terminology that lacks a generally understood meaning. In addition, the definitions chapter should
include all rules of interpretation. This includes the methodology for zoning district boundary
determinations.
The UDC should also define every listed land use and provide cites to state l aw if applicable. The
definitions chapter can break into separate chapters for general definitions, and definitions specific
to uses. The UDC currently uses this format to tame the length of the definitions section, which
creates a handy companion document for the use table of permitted uses. Antiquated uses that are
not frequently used can be bracketed into general use classifications to ease usability and reduce
staff interpretations.
Options to Consider for Code Update:
1. Retain the chapter’s structure but include new and revised definitions as needed.
2. Modernize antiquated use classifications and definitions
3. Verify revised definitions comply with state law and are sufficiently cross-referenced.
4. Match new uses with new definitions to provide consistency and prevent interpretation
queries.
Options to Consider for Code Update:
1. Retain existing enforcement and penalties regulations but simplify the language and verify
cross-references to the city’s Municipal Code and Colorado State Statutes.
Page 143 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report Page 59
VII. CONCLUSION
In summary, the current Englewood UDC has some excellent and effective provisions and is generally
organized well. Some sections will require significant updates or additions to realize the city’s
planning goals and objectives thoroughly and other sections will remain largely untouch ed. Further
reorganizing, rewriting, and illustrating existing and revised zoning requirements will make the
document easier to read, and potentially create a higher quality of public discourse and design
quality.
Throughout the process, five major themes emerged as needing deeper review, discussion and
analysis as per the section IV. Discussion on the Five Topics. The community was engaged throughout
the process by way of in-person and digital outreach methods and described in section III. Public
Engagement Overview and the appendices. In light of a global pandemic, much of the outreach was
required to be virtual, and all in-person events were held outdoors following CDC safety protocols of
requiring social distancing and the wearing of facial coverings.
This report is the first, and very important step in a lengthy process as it sets the road map for the
full UDC update. The next step in the process includes the release of a request for proposal (RFP) to
begin the process of selecting a consultant to update the UDC per the direction provided herein. The
UDC update process is likely to take once year from contracting of the consultant. The process will
include additional public workshops and input sessions to further refine the UDC language and
ensure the new regulations are in alignment with the community values. The update process will
build on the work completed through this first phase of the process and many of the suggestions
within this report will be further discussed to determine the best approach to each of the issues
presented.
The UDC update will likely be drafted in phases or modules to include reorganization and technical
edits; updating existing language; and development of new language or chapters. The final document
will go through the standard adoption process which includes public h earings.
Following are appendices including details of community engagement. A separate document is
available on the City of Englewood’s website which includes additional best practice and case study
information for reference.
Page 144 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report Page 60
APPENDIX A: COMMUNITY OUTREACH EFFORTS DETAILED
Outreach Efforts: Unified Development Code Assessment Focus Groups / Park Events / City Council
/ Board and Commission Meetings Views, Responses, Engagements, and Impressions are as of
December 4, 2020
July 27 City Council and Planning & Zoning Commission Joint Study Session Project Kick -off
Meeting agenda posted on iCompass; emailed to 93 subscribers via iCompass
Meeting was livestreamed; meeting video was live on the July 27 City Council
meeting page within 24 hours.
84 views
August 10 Steering Committee formed with City Council input
Andy Schecher, resident and Citizen Planning School graduate
Jonathan Klinshaw, resident and Citizen Planning School graduate
Chad Knoth, resident
Colin Wattleworth, developer with Metropolitan Homes
Diane Poplovski, resident and Planning and Zoning Commission member
Kate Fuller Fischer, resident and Planning and Zoning Commission member
Colessia Porter, resident and Citizen Planning School graduate
Dagan Thomas/Jason Sakry, Englewood business owners of Barnhouse Tap
Pamela Beets, resident
Wed Medford, resident
Stephanie Gillman, resident
Keir Mathur, resident
Fall 2020 Englewood Citizen: ½ Page Article on Project Overview
Mailed to all Englewood addresses
Posted in Spotlight on city website home page
August 20 Steering Committee Meeting
Meeting notes posted on project web page
September 1 Launched project webpage
1,183 views
Page 145 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report Page 61
September 2 Telephone Town Hall (424 attendees)
Automated telephone calls and texts went to 9,630 Englewood households. Call list
was based on voter registration records.
Meeting notification sent to 9,863 emails via MyEmma (an email marketing
software)
Registration emailed to all city boards/commissions and trash/recycling committee
Registration emailed to City Council
Posted in Spotlight on city’s home page and project webpage
Posted on Facebook on August 18, August 25, and September 1; reached 2,172
people
Posted on Twitter; 253 impressions
Posted on NextDoor; 1,913 impressions
Post Townhall Follow-up
17 voicemails received
10 emails received
Meeting audio posted to project web page
Meeting overview posted to project web page
September 3 Introductory Questionnaire #1 Launched: Sept 2 – Oct 1 (697 responses)
Posters placed at Nixon’s, Liquor Barn, Brewability, Frame de Art, King Soopers at
Trolley Square, King Soopers at Kent Place, King Soopers (Belleview) Safeway and
Barnhouse Tap, CityCenter
Yard signs placed in Duncan Park, Jason Park, Bates-Logan Park, Baker Park, Romans
Park, Cushing Park, Centennial Park, Cornerstone Park, City Center, and Little Dry Creek
Open Space
Promoted at September 17 city’s movie night (Footloose); approximately 70 cars
Sent to 7,634 emails via MyEmma
Promoted during September 2 Telephone Townha ll
Posted on Facebook; reached 985 people, 1,222 impressions
Posted on Twitter; 243 engagements
Page 146 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report Page 62
September 3 Cont’d
Posted on NextDoor; 677 impressions
Posted on project website
Posted in News on city website home page
September 9 Mayor video on in-person park events goes live on YouTube and project webpage
35 views on YouTube
September 13 In-Person Event at Duncan Park / 1:00 pm
Posted on project web page
Posted in News on city’s homepage
Added to city calendar
Emailed to 469 city News subscribers
Posted on Facebook; reached 4,097 people; 5,063 impressions
Posted on Twitter; 255 impressions
Posted on Next Door; 1,228 impressions
September 15 Focus Groups(virtual) – Participants asked to participate via: Chamber of
Commerce Membership email, Marcy Brown was asked to provide a list of interested citizen names,
individual email lists were sent notification as to interest in participating.
Businesses / Noon – 1:15 pm
Grant Whiteside, Cobalt
Erin Plumlee, Elite Roofing
Eliza Pfeifer, Broad Street Realty (Englewood resident)
Cate Townley, CDPHD
Hugo Weinberger, The Situs Group
Tristan, The Situs Group
Angela Forster, Tiny Studio, LLC (Englewood home business and resident)
Development Review Team (DRT) / 1:30 – 2:30 pm
Internal City Staff
Residents / 3:30 – 4:45 pm
Claudine Burger
Page 147 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report Page 63
Mike Jones
Cynthia Searfoss
Tami Williamson
Andrea Manion
Coween Dickerson
Marcy Brown
Bobby Regan
Developers / 5:00 – 6:15 pm
Peter Kudla, Metropolitan Homes
Troy Gladwell, Medici Communities
Bernie Costello, BC-DC
September 16 Focus Groups
Businesses / 8:00 – 9:15 am
David Carroll, Chamber of Commerce (Englewood resident)
Thomas Stewart, Stewart Photography (Englewood home business and resident)
Heather Taylor, Impact Commercial
Debi Kelley, Premiere Travel
Lynette Nice, The Guild
Residents / 9:30 – 10:45 am
Doug Cohn
Pam Beets (also on steering committee)
Linda Irwin
Maureen White
Developers / 11:00 am – 12:15 pm
Dustin Jones, Ogilvie Properties
Aaron Foy, Blvdway Communities
Colin Wattleworth, Metropolitan Homes
Adam Berger
Mark Wendel, Kimco Realty
Page 148 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report Page 64
Jeff Wikstrom
Historic Preservation Commission / 6:30 pm
Meeting agenda posted on iCompass. Emailed to 29 subscribers.
Video posted to iCompass meeting within 24 hours of meeting / 10 views
September 17 Focus Groups
Residents / 1:00 – 2:15 pm
Randal Friesen
Barbara Petersen
Ronnie Pickens
K Sue Anderson
Cnora Lesage
David Wrenson
Residents / 2:30 – 3:45 pm
Kat Skrien
Frank Forney
Colleen McGovern
Caley Dow
Residents / 4:00 – 5:15 pm
Kevin Fasing
Judy Dunlop
Sandra Kettelhut
In-Person Event at Jason Park / 4:00 – 6:00 pm
Posted on project web page
Posted in News on city’s homepage
Added to city calendar
Emailed to 469 city News subscribers
Posted on Facebook; reached 4,097 people; 5,063 impressions
Posted on Twitter; 255 impressions
Posted on Next Door; 1,228 impressions
Page 149 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report Page 65
Steering Committee Meeting / 6:00 pm
September 25 Quick Poll #1 on Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) (123 responses)
Posted on project web page
Posted in Spotlight on city’s home page
Posted on Facebook; reached 625 people; 787 impressions
Posted on Twitter; 298 engagements
September 26 In-Person Event at Logan Park / 10:00 am – Noon
Posted on project web page
Posted in News on city’s homepage
Added to city calendar
Emailed to 469 city News subscribers
Posted on Facebook; reached 4,097 people; 5,063 impressions
Posted on Twitter; 255 engagements
Posted on Next Door; 1,228 impressions
September 29 In-Person Event at Baker Park / 4:00 – 6:00 pm
Posted on project web page
Posted in News on city’s homepage
Added to city calendar
Emailed to 469 city News subscribers
Posted on Facebook; reached 4,097 people; 5,063 impressions
Posted on Twitter; 255 impressions
Posted on Next Door; 1,228 impressions
October 1 In-Person Event at Centennial Park / 5:00 – 7:00 pm
Posted on project web page
Posted in News on city’s homepage
Added to city calendar
Emailed to 469 city News subscribers
Page 150 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report Page 66
Posted on Facebook; reached 4,097 people, 5,063 impressions
Posted on Twitter; 255 impressions
Next Door; 1,228 impressions
October 6 Planning and Zoning Commission (PZ) / 7:00 pm
Meeting agenda posted on iCompass. Emailed to 57 subscribers
Video posted to iCompass meeting within 24 hours of meeting / 13 views
October 8 Transportation Committee (ETAC) / 6:30 pm
Meeting agenda posted on iCompass. Emailed to 117 subscribers
Video posted to iCompass meeting within 24 hours of meeting / 9 views
October 14 Alliance for Commerce in Englewood (ACE) / 3:30 pm
Meeting agenda posted on iCompass. Emailed to 23 subscribers.
Video posted to iCompass meeting within 24 hours of meeting / 9 views
Board of Adjustment and Appeals (BOA) / 7:00 pm
Meeting agenda posted on iCompass. Emailed to 27 subscribers.
Video posted to iCompass meeting within 24 hours of meeting / 4 views
October 23 Quick Poll # 2 on Attainable Housing (200 responses)
Posted on project web page
Posted in Spotlight on city’s home page
Posted on Facebook; reached 588 people, 730 impressions
Posted on NextDoor; 457 impressions
October 29 Steering Committee Meeting
Meeting notes posted to project web page
November 2 Quick Poll #3 on Parking (99 responses)
Posted on project web page
Posted in Spotlight on city’s home page
Posted on Facebook; reached 2,621 people, 3,299 impressions
Posted on Twitter; 303 impressions
Posted on NextDoor; 450 impressions
Page 151 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report Page 67
November 13 Quick Polls #1, #2 and # 3
Emailed to 1,255 people via MyEmma
Posted on Facebook; reached 668 people; 769 impressions
Posted on NextDoor; 461 impressions
Posted on Twitter; 311 impressions
November 19 Steering Committee Meeting
November 30 Mailing
Postcards mailed to all Englewood addresses directing residents and businesses
owners to various methods of contact to enable them to provide feedback, contact staff
with questions, or request a Zoom meeting on specific topics.
Quick Poll #4 – Green Infrastructure Launched (with City Council input) (126 responses)
Posted on project webpage
Posted on Facebook; reached 470 people; 567 impressions
Posted on NextDoor; 311 impressions
Emailed to 1,052 people via MyEmma
December 1 Videos
9 informational videos by planning staff uploaded to project website on following
topics:
Introduction; 17 views
Attainable Housing; 8 views
Neighborhood Character; 14 views
Page 152 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report Page 68
Fences; 16 views
Solar; 8 views
Parking; 15 views
Sustainability; 11 views
Zoning; 20 views
Walkability; 13 views
December 2 Virtual Open House (25 participants)
Emailed to 731 people via MyEmma
Posted on Facebook; reached 326 people, 365 impressions
Posted on Twitter; 311 impressions
Posted on NextDoor
Posted in Spotlight on city’s home web page
Page 153 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report Page 69
APPENDIX B: PHASE 1 PUBLIC OUTREACH RESULTS
Included below are the results of the phase 1 questionnaire, open house events at local parks and
telephone Town Hall.
Questionnaire #1
Responses: 697
Question 1: How familiar are you with the current UDC?
Page 154 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report Page 70
Question 2. What works best currently with the UDC? Select all that apply.
Question 3.What does not work well with the UDC? Select all that apply.
Page 155 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report Page 71
Question 4. What is the current Code missing? Select all that apply.
Question 5.If you have taken a building or development application through the city
process how was your experience?
Page 156 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report Page 72
Question 6.Do Englewood Parking requirements –
Question 7.Would you favor less parking for a more walkable friendly community?
Page 157 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report Page 73
Question 8.How do you typically get Downtown?
Page 158 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report Page 74
Question 9.What do you typically go Downtown for?
Question 10. What do you feel Downtown is currently missing?
Page 159 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report Page 75
Question 11. Do you feel the basic concepts illustrated in the image below depicting a
vibrant main street in the Medical District from the Downtown Plan are appropriate to al l of
Downtown? (widened sidewalk, new lighting, landscaping and seating)
Page 160 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report Page 76
Question 12. Which of the following options would you prefer with regards to residential building
height in the context of the existing residential neighborhood character? Select all that apply.
Question 13. Which of the following options would you prefer with regards to acceptable building
materials within the context of the existing residential neighborhood character? Select all that apply.
Page 161 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report Page 77
Question 14. Should there be specific design standards for develop ment in each different
neighborhood to represent its distinct character?
Question 15. Should there be specific historic preservation standards for registered historic
buildings or historic districts?
Page 162 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report Page 78
Question 17. What is your relationship with Englewood?
Page 163 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report Page 79
Question 18. Where is your primary residence?
Page 164 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report Page 80
Question 19. How long have you lived in Englewood?
Question 20. What is your age?
Page 165 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report Page 81
Question 21. What is the best way to reach the Englewood community during the planning process?
Page 166 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report Page 82
Focus Group Meetings
Over the course of three days, from September 15-17, eleven separate small group/focus group
meetings were held via MS Teams with a total of 55 community members. Several of the attendees
were also at the open house park events. Included on the following pages are the comments that
were heard:
Page 167 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report Page 83
Page 168 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report Page 84
Page 169 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report Page 85
Page 170 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report Page 86
Page 171 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report Page 87
Page 172 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report Page 88
Page 173 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report Page 89
Page 174 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report Page 90
Page 175 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report Page 91
Page 176 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report Page 92
Open House Park Event Boards
The following are the boards displayed during the five open house events at Duncan Park, Jason Park,
Logan Park, Baker Park, and Centennial Park which drew a total of 40 attendees. Stickers were
available to vote on some of the boards, as well as a QR code to answer the question digitally. Staff
and the consultant were present to answer questions regarding the UDC and the assessment
process.
Page 177 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report Page 93
Page 178 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report Page 94
Page 179 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report Page 95
Page 180 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report Page 96
Page 181 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report Page 97
Page 182 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report Page 98
Page 183 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report Page 99
Open House Park Event Comments
Included below are the comments gathered from community members during the park events. A
handful of community members attended four out of five of the events and discussed similar topics
to those represented at the first open house event at Duncan Park. O ne Planning Commission
representative was at all five events to observe the discussions and was the only attendee at the
Baker Park event, therefore there are no comments from that event.
Page 184 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report Page 100
Page 185 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report Page 101
Page 186 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report Page 102
Telephone Town Hall
Event was held on September 2, 2020 f rom 6-7:30 and drew 424 attendees. Below is a summary of
the comments heard at the meeting:
Poll results
1. How long have you lived in the City of Englewood
15+ year: 58%
10-15: 7%
7-10: 15%
3-5: 16%
0-2: 12%
2. How do you typically get to Downtown Englewood?
Car- 75%
Bike- 7%
Walk- 10%
Transit- 2%
Other- 5%
3. Are you familiar with the Unified Development Code?
Yes- 39%
No- 61%
4. What do you believe works best with the existing development code?
Fosters good development- 5%
Comprehensive & easy- 10%
Regs implement community goals– 17%
Flexible for many building types- 3%
Other -65%
5. What do you believe is the biggest disadvantage of the existing development code?
Page 187 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report Page 103
Confusing and outdated- 9%
Regulations don’t support community values- 39%
Not enforceable- 2%
Regs put Englewood at a disadvantage in the region- 11%
Need better design guidelines- 39%
Q&A Session
1. What is the mission or purpose for UDC and values for anchoring discussion (affordability,
equality, equal access, walkability)
Mission is to guide staff and elected officials to how the growth and development of
Englewood is proceeding. Focus on affordability and walkability which plays into
parking regulations. Walkability on paths and trails
What we are doing is evaluating core policy documents against publi c comment to
make sure they are congruent and reflect community’s current desire
2. Is the city going to allow 10ft high fence? Without permits?
Fence height is less than 10ft, we can look at this if it’s the appropriate height moving
through this process
3. Citizen lives in IR zone down the street from MF housing, could his property be rezoned?
Property can only be rezoned at request of prop owner and need minimum sf and
requesting adjacent zone district
4. What are we doing about homeless situation? What is old b uilding (sports Authority) doing?
Not a zoning question, we will follow up
5. Does code regulate parking?
Yes, but requirements for parking vary by use. Eg, Single family are different from
commercial or office use
6. What is the relationship between the Comp Plan and the UDC
Comp Plan, Englewood Forward, lays out vision for community, best uses
o Policies regarding livability, workplace and areas of town considered more
suitable for residential development
o Lays out vision for 20+ years
o Speaks to walkable streets, increased landscaping, etc.
o It is a guiding document for the city
o UDC implements comp plan
Page 188 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report Page 104
The UDC implements the Comp Plan
7. District 1 has experienced more construction than any other district (agree or no)? Is city
going to take into consideration what people who live next to big buildings are going
through (new code allows higher wider and longer buildings)?
Need to look at building permits. I know we’ve seen a lot of duplexes in the area but
can’t say for sure if they have experienced most but they have experienced lots of
growth
Yes this first phase is to listen to what the values and goals are of the community and
what regulations need to change to address certain problems
8. Live in R1A (larger lots), why is there a 6ft high fence ordinance, can we go to 7-8 ft for
privacy?
Yes this is something we will take note of and will assess ability to change
9. Missing middle housing, is Englewood considering modifying? It affects things between SF
and more expensive
Yes we are listening to what community thinks we are missing
10. What is the status of the potential project on Gallapego and Dartmouth? Heard of 250
apartment complex?
We’ll follow-up with you offline on community projects
11. Bulk Plane, with addition of ADU the restrictions for setback and bulk plane are more
restrictive than SF. Seem to be driving people to scrape existing homes and build max
extent. Can we adjust bulk planes to be more feasible?
Yes we will be looking at that
12. Height – where is building height measured from?
M=Measured from average on all 4 corners, maximum of <32’ typical.
Add on Q - So slope and elevation figures into average, but comparable to neighbor if
lot is lower or higher?
Could be higher or lower
13. Can you operate hair salon out of the home? If not could I change my zone to be allowed to
operate out of the home?
That type of home occupation is not permitted in any zone district in Englewood, but
we will note that and look into home occupations regulations
14. If a neighbor tries to re-zone and subdivide do their neighbors have any input on those
types of decisions?
Page 189 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report Page 105
Yes if a property is set for rezone there is a public hearing and everyone within 1000 ft
of property get notice of rezone and hearing date at P&Z and CC. Subdivisions are
administrative so don’t require public notice
15. To what extend does current code promote car ownership and how can new code reduce
automobile dependency
Interested in your thoughts to discourage car ownership
Current code has parking districts for permit parking only, certain # of off street parking
spots required
Reduce parking requirements, don’t widen roads
16. Property side setbacks (3’ and 5’ setbacks). Property owner can excavate to property line
and citizen’s fence is leaning. City should require builders to stabilize.
Would be covered in building procedures
Can look at different side setbacks for privacy
17. District 1 zoned R2B is being drastically developed. Would it be protected if it was zoned R1 .
Value judgement can’t answer right no
R1A is 9k sf but R1 is 6k
18. Regarding access to renewable energy, especially solar. What is the coding for solar in CO?
Bulk plane, pockets of energy ghettos throughout city, original home overshadowed by new
home, loses passive solar. Anything for renewable energy equity.
New UDC will be taking a hard look at incorporating those requirements.
Current code treats solar panels as accessory structures
19. Is there any way to add permit parking for residential? Citizen owns home between two
rentals and never has street parking.
Yes, please contact the city
20. In contrast to the comments regarding lowering car reliance, in situations where we
(citizens) are in direct opposition, how would issues like that be dealt with in regards to
changes to the UDC? Lowering parking requirements?
Trying to strike the right balance and meet demands we have currently
Don’t want to reduce parking to the extent it creates other problems
21. Affordable housing (3400 on S Grant with preservation overlay). Taking out small homes
and putting in big duplexes, how do we get more affordable housing when we put duplex
in?
Goal is to allow multiple types of residential development and balance types of uses
Page 190 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report Page 106
22. How can the city utilize, economic social science research to improve the UDC? Middle
housing, reason housing so expensive is the land use regulations. All the 25’ setback does
is take up land. Need people to make decisions based on info not complaints
We listen to community but we do a ton of best practices research and have attorney
on team
Main Concerns:
Fence heights
Parking
ADU regulations
Building height with regards to compatibility and solar access
Setbacks
Home affordability
Home occupation allowance
Page 191 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report Page 107
APPENDIX C: PHASE 2 PUBLIC OUTREACH RESULTS
ADU Quick Poll
Responses: 148
Question 1: Should there be any changes to the ADU regulations? If so, what?
Page 192 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report Page 108
Green Infrastructure Quick Poll
Responses: 198
Question 1: Should Englewood integrate Low Impact Development (LID) standards into the UDC
update?
Question 2: Should the tree preservation standards in the UDC be updated to a model similar to the
City of Fort Collins with replacement requirements for mature trees that are removed during
construction?
Page 193 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report Page 109
Question 3: Should parking lot standards be revised to require more shade trees throughout (i.e. 1
shade tree every 15 stalls for parking lots over 100 stalls?)
Page 194 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report Page 110
Question 4: Is this type of “sustainability menu” option appropriate for Englewood?
Page 195 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report Page 111
Question 5: Which initiatives should be included in the menu? Choose as many as applicable.
Page 196 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report Page 112
Question 7: Should new Englewood developments be required to be zero-energy or solar “ready”?
Page 197 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report Page 113
Housing Quick Poll
Responses: 231
Question 1: Small home communities – such as Cottages on Greene, East Greenwich, RI – are growing
in popularity nationwide as one solution to the lack of affordable housing. The pictures below show
one possible small home community of 15 1,000 square foot deed restricted and market rate units
on 0.85 acres which would complement the existing character of Englewood.
If a parcel of this size (~ 0.6 to 0.85 acres) were to become available in Englewood, would this type of
development be acceptable?
Page 198 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report Page 114
Question 3: The current minimum lot size in Englewood is 3,000 square feet (0.07 ac). Is it appropriate
to reduce the minimum lot size for small home development (homes 1,000 square feet and under)?
Question 5: Would you support incentives for preserving exi sting single family homes and converting
them into multi-unit or additions rather than redevelopment? (i.e. density bonuses, floor areas
bonuses)
Page 199 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report Page 115
Question 8: Along those lines, the existing code defines a household as: a household includes 1 or
more persons related by blood, marriage, adoption, or legal guardianship, including foster children,
together in a dwelling unit; or 2 unrelated persons and their children living together in a dwelling unit.
Should this definition be revised to include clarify multigenerational living situations (i.e. parents,
grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, etc.)?
Question 10: Should the household definition allow for more than 2 unrelated persons?
Page 200 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report Page 116
Question 11: What should the number be increased to?
Page 201 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report Page 117
Neighborhoods Quick poll (Arcgis story map)
Responses: 93
Question 1: Which neighborhood do you live in?
Page 202 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report Page 118
Question 2: Baker Park and South Platte – are there specific design and architectural elements which
should be preserved or encouraged in the Baker Park and/or South Platte neighborhoods (i.e.
architectural styles, streetscapes, tree protection, building materials, colors, and decorative details,
etc.)?
Question 4: Cushing Park, Bate-Logan Park, and Roman Park – are there specific design and
architectural elements which should be preserved or encouraged in the Cushing Park, Bate -Logan
Park, and/or Roman Park neighborhoods (i.e. architectural styles, streetscapes, tree protection,
building materials, colors, and decorative details, etc.)?
Page 203 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report Page 119
Question 6: Medical District, Downtown, and Oxford Station – are there specific design and
architectural elements which should be preserved or encouraged in the Medical D istrict, Downtown,
and/or Oxford Station neighborhoods (i.e. architectural styles, streetscapes, tree protection, building
materials, colors, and decorative details, etc.)?
Page 204 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report Page 120
Question 8: Maddox/Jason Park, Centennial Park, Belleview/Brookridge, Duncan Pa rk, and South
Broadway Heights – are there specific design and architectural elements which should be preserved
or encouraged in the Maddox/Jason Park, Centennial Park, Belleview/Brookridge, Duncan Park,
and/or South Broadway Heights neighborhoods (i.e. architectural styles, streetscapes, tree
protection, building materials, colors, and decorative details, etc.)?
Page 205 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report Page 121
Question 10: Are there specific neighborhoods which should be considered for an NPO?
Page 206 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report Page 122
Question 11: Should the City regulate the architectural style and architectural form/elements within
the NPOs?
Page 207 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report Page 123
Parking Quick Poll
Responses: 125
Question 1: Which of the following statements is most true about where you live/work in Englewood?
Question 2: Would your family/friends consider riding the Englewood Trolley if off street parking
regulations were eliminated in the Broadway/Hampden/Englewood Parkway corridors in Englewood?
Page 208 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report Page 124
Question 3: In the last year how often have you decided not t o go to a restaurant, shop or bar in
Englewood because you thought parking would be a problem?
Question 4: Is paid parking appropriate Downtown?
Page 209 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report Page 125
Question 5: Several neighborhoods in Englewood currently participate in a residential parking permit
program. Should this program be expanded in the city?
Page 210 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report Page 126
Question 6: Which neighborhoods would benefit from on street permit parking only?
Page 211 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report Page 127
Question 7: Fill in the blank: Should new construction projects require ______ parking.
Page 212 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report Page 128
Question 8: Which of the following scenarios could warrant a reductio in the required parking
minimum for new residential and commercial development?
Page 213 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report Page 129
Question 9: Englewood’s current parking regulations state minimum parking requirements for
development based upon use. Although parking minimums are an important component of parking
regulations, parking maximums are becoming increasingly effective in modern parking codes.
Parking maximums cap the amount of required parking spaces for a development. Instead of
requiring a baseline minimum for parking spaces, maximum curb developers from excessively
parking developments. Parking maximums are used in various places throughout the nation and
locally in Fort Collins and Lakewood (as shown in the table below) to prevent overparking a nd
promote use of alternative transportation and use-specific development.
Are parking maximums appropriate for Englewood?
Page 214 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report Page 130
Question 11: Should the City of Englewood focus on a policy requiring parking structures instead of
minimum/maximum parking space requirements?
Phase 2 Virtual Open House
Event was held on December 2, 2020 from 6-8:00 and drew 25 attendees. Staff and the Consultant
team gave a presentation to summarize potential options to issues raised during Phase 1 and 2
outreach, including regional and national best practices to support options. Below is a summary of
the comments heard at the meeting as well as Menti (text poll) results
General Discussion Comments
Many felt that the meeting was not advertised well enough and that outreach has been too
minimal, not transparent enough
o Neighborhood community letters would be a great way to advertise events in the
future
Parking - household allowance being raised helps housing but impacts parking, especially
where single family homes are transitioning to multi-plexes
Location relative to grocery stores is important. Food deserts lead to more vehicular travel and
reduced walkability
Already have enough permitted parking
Would like to see less regulation to ADUs (lot of great small/tiny home options but regulations
don’t allow)
Question about residency restrictions on ADUs - reduce restrictions on occupancy
Housing affordability is a big issue
Slot homes do not reflect neighborhood they are in (near hospital)
Page 215 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report Page 131
Would like to see more on neighborhood character. Neighborhood character doesn't always
take into account the historic character of the homes in the neighborhood. Historic character
is being destroyed by large box-type homes that don't fit in. Some amount of design standards
would prevent the further deterioration of "neighborhood character."
Menti Poll Results
On the following pages
Page 216 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report Page 132
Page 217 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report Page 133
Page 218 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report Page 134
APPENDIX D: STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING SUMMARIES
Steering Committee Meeting #1
20 August 2020, 6:00-7:30 PM
Agenda
I. Introductions
A. Logan Simpson Team Introductions
B. Steering Committee Introductions
1. How long have you lived/worked in Englewood?
2. What is your level of interaction/comfort with the Title 16-Unified Development
Code
II. Project Overview Presentation
C. Project goals
D. Process
E. Schedule
F. Steering Committee Expectations
III. Exercise
A. What is working well with the existing code?
B. What is not working well with the existing code?
C. Are the application processes meeting the needs of staff and the development
community?
D. Are there any specific design standards that need to be tuned up?
E. Are there any standards, topics or innovations missing from the current code?
F. What should be our primary outcome of the assessment?
G. What three questions would you ask the community to kick off the assessment and
outreach?
IV. Next Steps and Closing
Meeting Notes
I. INTRODUCTIONS
Page 219 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report Page 135
Wade welcomed everyone to the meeting and introduced the consultant team of Logan
Simpson and White & Smith.
Each committee member weighed in on how long they have lived in Englewood and
their current understanding of the UDC.
II. PROJECT OVERVIEW PRESENTATION
Logan Simpson presented an overview of the project purpose and process as well as
anticipated schedule and expectations/roles of the Steering Committee
III. EXERCISE
Each member weighed in on the questions listed in the agenda above. Those conversations
and general comments were captured as follows:
General Notes & Overall Comments
Lots of car accidents in neighborhoods, currently no curb markings to prohibit cars
from parking right up to the intersections
Gridded neighborhood structure, irrespective of building type, makes neighborhoods
feels good
Broadway: lots of car dealers, hoping that turnover will res ult in those businesses
moving out to promote local businesses
"Small town surrounded by the big city"
Preserve historic small town feel
City is "Generational" and we want to keep that
Code is suffering an identity crisis - developed during Cinderella C ity but now right up
against Denver and there is a high demand for higher density
Slow down traffic on Broadway to help it become a destination (ULI report)
Landscaping - how to make sure appearance of old are brought up to new
Main light rail station at Oxford - lot of vacancies, could have more places to gather
breweries also near miller field vacant offices
o Staff looking into ways of incorporating some more residential in industrial
areas
Englewood survives heavily on sales tax; 2/3 City revenue is from businesses
Would like to know: other than cars what type of transport do people use and want to
see
Broadway thoughts: what could be done to make it more inviting
Love idea of green space in four lane roads and getting to DTC from Englewood
Page 220 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report Page 136
Need to grow responsibly, address needs of lower income, and protect community
We have to decide how we want to change or let others decide for us
Primary outcomes of the Process:
Looking at the things that are holding Englewood back; house sizes; edging industrial in to
city
Is code helping or hurting?
Create a stronger community
What is Working:
Englewood has always done a good job of keeping on top of what other communities were
doing
Diversity in neighborhood, families and generations
Industrial vs residential, size of houses
People come from different backgrounds and Englewood is friendly
What is Not Working:
Need more incentives for small business
Application process: sports authority building application for apartments turned down and
then turned into RV lot, missed opportunity - housing could have provided more people to
walk to Broadway and Hampden businesses
Application process is EXPENSIVE and doesn’t get passed on (if market says we need to do
something we should be looking at it)
Design Standards:
Lot of design standards that need to be updated due to unique marketing opportunity with
historic homes
Design standards, hard with older cities - justify new standards against existing non-
conforming properties
Design standards should bring out the best in neighborhoods
How do we bring older developments up to the new standards?
Page 221 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report Page 137
Downtown:
Downtown historical feel (look at Downtown Littleton for walkability)
Need opportunities and restaurants D owntown (Barnhouse Tap was first)
Create small business and restaurant opportunities
Include landscaping in walkability for Downtown
Would like to know: How do you get Downtown?
Housing:
Like the idea of one or two buildings changing - need to find a good mix
Rather than restrict, preserve historic homes
Don’t regulate colors
Could have more modern aspects but keep the historic feel
Smaller duplexes and apartments are good and meet needs of diversity
Incentive to buy bungalows and redevelop as affordable
Tiny home villages - or good, affordable spaces for families to live in
Not a lot to offer for affordable housing
Need to cater more to moderate income homes
Balance of luxury homes and Section 8
o There should be a space for everyone
Need to be looking at affordable housing regs and having good and meaningful space s
o People need safe spaces to live and need to expand
Like idea of a couple houses changing and a mix of high density and old homes
There is value in promoting integrated housing and upward mobility for wealth and
equality
Need bigger homes for young families
Not in favor of three-story homes in primarily single story residential areas
o Logan westward: every block has 1-2 of those homes
o Don’t want views blocked
o Could add modern aspects but still keep historic architecture
o Owning a home is great financial security asset
Page 222 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report Page 138
o Need to be able to age in place
Pretty good mix of duplexes and little homes (bungalows)
o Look into Private/Public Partnership for city to buy rundown homes and fix up
instead of scraping all of them
Need more affordable housing options
Backyards are huge asset!
Neighborhood Character:
Love historic homes but love eclectic look of neighborhoods that look like they’re built
in different times
Uplift and connect neighborhoods
Rather than restricting future builds; protect existing homes
o Don’t want to restrict people’s home colors or rights
Walkability:
The city is walkable but there is no place to walk to
Connect Downtown neighborhoods
More bike lanes and non-auto options
Lots of inconsistency of whether sidewalks are available
Bike paths are hard to find
No good way to get to Medical Campus via public transit
Not great walkability Downtown (sidewalks and lighting don’t exist)
Connectivity to DTC should be improved
o Commute on Hampden is not great and disconnects from Denver
Parking:
Parking is one of the greatest concerns as well as opportunities to attract the right kind
of businesses - restaurants are lacking in the area, they are one of the things that bring
people together in the community
o Gallow has excellent parking and Zelmo (parking behind)
o RTD not very accommodating - some light rail stations not parked well
Page 223 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report Page 139
One-barrel has shared parking agreement with residential above
o Used to be public parking behind One Barrel but now it’s an apartment building
o People found parking very confusing and businesses left because the shared
parking system didn’t work for them
We still drive cars and Denver is car-oriented; parking is key
In the process of trying to fill spots on Broadway and parking is biggest concern
o Restaurants need parking
Broadway a scary place to park with kids so they tend to go to places where they can
park safely
Commercial Development:
Lots of businesses along S Broadway don’t exist anymore
Walmart was built against desire of community and promised lots of green space that
didn’t occur
Want and need more green space
Applications result in a lot of resident and homeowner input because it has been
lacking in previous zoning changes
Have code enforcement to address unsightly or dangerous problems
(South of Ithaca) Offices behind Millard field are also empty
(Harmonic Media) Oxford light rail has weird parking and area of town has lots of
potential but is sleepy
o Mini section of business district
Slow down traffic to make Englewood a destination
Steering Committee Meeting #2
17 September 2020, 6:00-7:30 PM
Agenda
I. Project Overview
A. Our Process
B. Steering Committee Expectations
C. Who we have Heard From
D. What We Have Heard So Far
Page 224 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report Page 140
II. Exercise
A. Bulk Plane and Existing Code Allowances
III. Next Steps
Meeting Notes
IV. PROJECT OVERVIEW
Logan Simpson presented an overview of the project purpose and process and
reviewed the expectations/roles of the Steering Committee.
Logan Simpson provided a brief summary of the comments received to date and the
number of responses to the online survey.
o Who we’ve heard from
Telephone town hall
Online questionnaire (618 responses)
9 focus groups/60 attendees
Open houses in park
Joint Planning Commission / CC work session
Historic Preservation Commission (last night)
Steering Committee
o What We’ve heard
50% familiar less parking
Less parking for walkability
45% prefer 1 story, 55% prefer 2 story
Specific design standards for different neighborhoods (53%)
HP standards favored (84%)
Not much on landscaping
ADUs
RV parking
District 1 duplexes
V. EXERCISE
Logan Simpson provided brief background on zone districts and the dimensional standards in
the current Code and each Steering Committee member weighed in on concerns and possible
solutions. Those conversations and general comments were captured as follows:
Page 225 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report Page 141
General Comments and Q & A
Fencing – city requires fence permits, 6’ maximum height. There has to be documented
hardship that requires a variance, which are usually not to heights.
BOA hears a lot of setback variances, not many fence.
More affordable to add square footage tha n to build new, but as general rule is it cheaper to
build out or pop the top?
Q: Solar access – was bulk plane to address that?
o A: Bulk plane addressed things like taller ceilings, etc to accommodate that construction
while keeping height not as an obstruction to neighboring property. Incorporated 2015.
Support for building more intensely to support population growth
Q: curious about best practices for walkability, green building, sustainability especially that
doesn’t preclude affordable housing. Measures and levers to promote that kind of building?
o A: Westminister example to elevate sustainability - require homes to be solar ready
through conduits to capture solar; EV ready charging stations in homes
Q: many things don’t seem meaningful for one house , but on cumulative basis it helps with
environmental efficiency, etc.
o No tree preservation standards, they do ask for replacement if remove if new build but
not expansion.
Q: a lot of cities have tons of requirements, eg in Aurora there are all kinds of requirements if
take down and rebuild home – eg garage width / %, materials, etc., fencing, commercial
developer on Broadway if had new rules on landscaping have extra treatment for exterior to
meet community standards.
Setbacks
How busy the road is should play into the setbacks
Reduce front yard setback
o Reduce front yard adds to backyard
o Drawback to reducing front yard setback is that it looks more urban
o Is there an ADA benefit to reducing front setback?
o Reducing front setback encourages a new build, you d on’t usually have addition to front
of house. If we accommodate additions to existing house it will be more affordable to
add sf than to sell and move.
Page 226 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report Page 142
Design Standards In General
Should not be dictating aesthetics such as pitches vs flat roof
Like stormwater mitigation
Logan Bates neighborhood - to preserve character, 40% lot coverage might be too limiting
Preserving existing trees should be a priority for shade
o Would like to see more trees (many more trees), narrow attached walks and not much
shade in existing condition
o Enhance pedestrian quality and reduce the urban heat island effect
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)
Think it is more affordable to add to house rather than move - is there a cost difference
between attached and detached?
Like the idea of ADUs
Other Comparable Communities
Really interested in walkability, sustainability in comp plan - how other communities might
handle that, that we can learn from
Would like information on things other communities are doing
Potential solutions for R-1-B scale
Design Standards
o Prefer a performance based requirement
o Address light and air with bulk plane.
o Don’t dictate aesthetics.
Stormwater mitigation if > 50-60% coverage.
o Determines soil moisture, city burden for treating. If reduce soil permeability,
from sustainability make sure rainwater infiltrates into ground.
o Important for lot coverage, moisture important. Curious on thinking on density
with open space, what mean when not as many options for parks.
Decrease height, bulk plane.
Reduce front setbacks
Page 227 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report Page 143
Steering Committee Meeting #3
29 October 2020, 6:00-7:30 PM
Agenda
IV. Attainable Housing
E. Why is Attainable Housing Important
F. Existing Housing Statistics
G. National Best Practices
H. Discussion on pros and cons of possible solutions
V. Neighborhood Preservation
A. What We’ve Been Hearing
B. Overview of Neighborhoods from Comp Plan
C. National Best Practices
D. Discussion on pros and cons of possible solutions
VI. Next Steps
Summary
Given that there is not a lot of housing stock that would fit the requirements for conversion,
that option was a lower priority
There was a lot of support for the cottage court concept
Household definition is outdated and needs to be updated
In favor of developing architectural design guidelines per neighborhood/character areas but
want to ensure that they are reasonable/tempered to avoid unintended consequences
Work with the Historic Preservation Commission to define areas and characteristics for
preservation
Meeting Notes
I. Attainable Housing
A. Solution #1- Incentivize Expansion/Conversion of Existing Homes
The applicability in Englewood may be limited because there aren’t many large homes
In favor of more types of housing if a feasible option
Interest in investment community opinion of this concept
Page 228 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report Page 144
People are generally worried about changing character of neighborhood
B. Solution #2 – Cottage Courts
Like aesthetic and character
Like the concept and it will serve the need but may receive pushback from public
o Had a few applications go through P & Z a while ago in area near industrial zone
o Quincy Place was PUD duplexes and fought by neighbors
o Currently would be a PUD application
Want to maintain single-family character
Prefer this idea over S #1
Example of development in Fort Collins (integrated, walkable, community gardens,
orchards, etc) would like to see something like this at Sports Authority redevelopment
site (Pam will get name of community to LS)
Broadway and industrial districts seem to be the most logical districts but would like
to see this option in other areas as well
o Higher density zones need more density to pencil
Might be more palatable if all SF instead of allowing attached
C. Solution #3 – Expand ADU Allowance
Not a solution for everything but take burden off market
ADUs work well for young adults in service sector
Need to allow in R-1A where there are large lots and excess parking
D. Solution #4 – Redefine Household
Look at comparable city’s - Denver just changed their numbers
Definitions outdated - need to look into constitutional
Would likely create more affordable rent, but would it increase home prices?
II. Neighborhood
A. Solution #1 – Architectural Design Standards
Used to have step backs that were removed - found it was too expensive
Lot of people like neighborhood cause they can do anything, but want to stay the same
Page 229 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report Page 145
Paved driveway requirements removed unanimously
Like the idea per neighborhood - more modern near Downtown, traditional elsewhere
Reasonable makes sense but the existing variety makes is hard to determine the
features to highlight
o Bates Logan - east side 1 acre lots, west side duplexes
o Neighborhoods closer to Broadway and Downtown more urban neighborhood
whereas centennial park is a little less urban
Really basic like no blob/box with no windows on the front
New home at Grant and Bates integrates perfectly
Like it per neighborhood rather than by zone
Allow more two story homes as those are what the market is driving
Average Denver house 2200-2400 SF whereas Englewood is smaller
Affordability plays in by allowing expansion to homes
Work with historic society to define areas for preservation
How do we encourage the type of growth we want
Worried about unintended consequences
B. Solution #2 – Neighborhood Conservation Districts
Maybe offering the vehicle to develop a NCO rather than defi ne them in the UDC
Steering Committee Meeting #4
19 November 2020, 6:00-7:30 PM
Agenda
I. Parking
I. Why are we discussing this topic
J. National best practices
K. Potential options
II. Green Infrastructure
A. Why are we discussing this topic
B. National best practices
C. Potential options
Page 230 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report Page 146
III. Next Steps
Summary
A closer look at more site specific issues will help guide the final recommendations on parking
ratios but it was generally agreed that providing a range of ratios (min/max)
Optional approaches tied to green infrastructure and walkability to allow for a reduction in
parking are favorable
All green infrastructure components were desired and it was suggested to incorporate them
into the menu approach.
Meeting Notes
I. Parking
E. General:
Intrigued by McKinney example of tailored parking requirements
Balance parking with walkable environment
Parking needs to integrate with landscape
Parking is demand driven at the end of the day, provide flexibility
F. Solution #1- Parking Minimums and Maximums
Agree that parking requirement in Englew ood is not consistent with peer communities
National guys have trouble with parking maximums
Light rail station areas under-parked and vacant
This solution provides flexibility for both the large -scale, national builders who want
more parking and the smaller-scale local businesses that feel encumbered by such a
high parking requirement
G. Solution #2 – Street Permit Parking
Good solution for streets adjacent to Broadway where residents back to businesses
H. Solution #3 – Parking Reduction Incentives
Structured/shared parking - incentivize structured parking and promote shared
PZ was amenable to Incentives in the past if showed how it worked
Incentives for bike/ped, compact cars, EV charging or shared parking to allow the
sustainable opportunities if that is priority of the business
II. Green Infrastructure
A. General:
Page 231 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report Page 147
Dark sky idea good
Englewood means "wooded nook"
How to address bldg height on solar panel
Cinderella City should incorporate a new park - link nature into the urban center
B. Solution #1 – Low Impact Development
LID wonderful idea to make things more enjoyable
C. Solution #2 – Urban Tree Canopy Protection
Tree preservation needs to be a priority
Urban tree canopy tough with urban environment but everyone likes the idea
D. Solution #3 – Sustainability Menus (top choice to incorporate all of this section)
All really like idea of menu idea due to the flexibility of options
Solar panel cover in parking lots could be added to menu
Incentives to create awesome greenspaces
Developers love incentives for value added elements***
Promote and celebrate businesses that are doing new innovative things
Incentivize land for shared park
E. Solution #4 – Renewable Energy Ready Infrastructure
Work into the menu approach
Page 232 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report Page 148
Steering Committee Meeting #5
6 January 2020, 6:00-7:30 PM
Agenda
IV. Outline of Assessment Report
V. General Suggestions
VI. Suggested Options by Chapter
VII. Next Steps
General Comments Heard
UDC is short term – Comp plan is long term
UDC needs to be modular and ever changing
Don’t let PUDs dominate poor planning
Changing intent of some of the zoning districts
CH 5 will need a lot of the initial updating
Want to see ADUs expanded to additional zoning districts
Bulk plane probably needs a really deep analysis to assess further
Permeable surfaces are desirable
Sidewalk maintenance seems to be more of an issue instead of the width and connectivity of
sidewalks
In thinking about park strip widths, might want to look more to soil volume metric for plants
Consider urban plant strips and tree requirements along urban streets
Establish a catch all provision for hybrid trees with regards to an approved plant list
Incentivize using low water plants
Less vague points -more specificity
Need to address new telecom tech advancements – might need a professional in the topic
Signs need to deal with physical structure
Check out Tarantula for 5G towers in Denver
Page 233 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report Page 149
APPENDIX E: PROPOSED OUTLINE
New Section Topic
Chapter 1 General Provisions
1.01 Purpose
1.02 Authority
1.03 Effective Date
1.04 Applicability
1.05 Relationship to Other Ordinances
1.06 Relationship to Comprehensive Plan
1.07 Interpretation and Conflicting Provisions
1.08 Transition from Prior Regulations
Chapter 2 Zone Districts
2.01 General Provisions
2.02 Residential Zone Districts
2.03 Commercial and Mixed-Use Zone Districts
2.04 Other Non-Residential Zone Districts
2.05 Planned Unit Developments
2.06 Summary of Dimensional Standards
2.07 Measurements and Exceptions
Chapter 3 Use Regulations
3.01 Purpose and Organization
3.02 Table of Allowable Uses
3.03 Use-Specific Standards (including Telecommunications, mobile home
parks, and RV parks)
3.04 Accessory Uses and Structures
3.05 Temporary Uses and Structures
Page 234 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report Page 150
Chapter 4 Development Standards
4.01 General Provisions
4.02 Parks & Open Space
4.03 Exactions
4.04 Landscaping, Screening, LID (green infrastructure)
4.05 Fences and Walls
4.06 Transportation, Vehicular Access, and Connectivity
4.07 Residential Site and Building Design (including residential
sustainability)
4.08 Commercial Site and Building Design (including non-residential
sustainability)
4.09 Off-Street Parking and Loading
4.10 Signs
4.11 Exterior Lighting
4.12 Refuse/trash disposal
4.13 Historic Preservation
Chapter 5 Subdivisions
5.01 General Provisions
5.02 Design and Improvement Standards
5.03 Stormwater and sewer
5.04 Roads, streets sections
5.05 Dedications
Chapter 6 Floodplain
6.01 General Provisions
6.01 Applicability
6.03 Design Standards
Chapter 7 Nonconformities
Page 235 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report Page 151
7.01 Nonconforming Uses, Lots, Signs, Buildings, and Structures
Chapter 8 Enforcement and Penalties
8.01 General Provisions
8.02 Enforcement
8.03 Penalties
Chapter 9 Administration
9.01 Purpose and Organization
9.02 Public Notice
9.03 Procedures Table
9.04 General Application Procedures: All Applications
9.05 General Application Procedures: Land Development Code Amendment
9.06 General Application Procedures: Lot Line Adjustment
9.07 General Application Procedures: Easement Adjustment
9.08 General Application Procedures: Rezone
9.09 General Application Procedures: Planned Unit Development
9.10 General Application Procedures: Site Plan
9.11 General Application Procedures: Major Subdivisions
9.12 General Application Procedures: Minor Subdivisions
9.13 General Application Procedures: Condominium/Townhouse Plat
9.14 General Application Procedures: Revised Final Plat
9.15 General Application Procedures: Annexation
9.16 General Application Procedures: Administrative Adjustment
9.17 General Application Procedures: Minor Deviation
9.18 General Application Procedures: Variance
9.19 Vested Property Rights
9.20 Application Fees
9.21 Review and Decision Making Bodies
Page 236 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report Page 152
Chapter 10 Definitions
10.01 Use Classifications
10.02 Definitions
Page 237 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report – Supplement Page 1
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment
Supplement to the Assessment Report
Best Practices and Case Studies | January 27, 2021
Page 238 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report – Supplement Page 2
............................................................................................................ 1
BEST PRACTICES & CASE STUDIES ..................................................... 4
Alternate Code Structures ............................................................................ 4
Colorado Form Based Codes ................................................................................................................4
Denver, CO .............................................................................................................................................4
Carrollton ...............................................................................................................................................7
Mckinney ................................................................................................................................................8
Aurora .....................................................................................................................................................8
Loveland .................................................................................................................................................9
Parking and Walkability ................................................................................ 9
San Antonio ............................................................................................................................................9
San Diego ............................................................................................................................................ 10
San Francisco ...................................................................................................................................... 10
Portland ............................................................................................................................................... 11
Seattle .................................................................................................................................................. 12
McKinney ............................................................................................................................................. 12
Montgomery County .......................................................................................................................... 15
St. Petersburg ..................................................................................................................................... 16
Somerville ............................................................................................................................................ 16
Minimum Parking ............................................................................................................................... 16
Site-Specific Parking Demand Analysis ............................................................................................. 18
Shared Parking and Mixed-Use Development ................................................................................. 18
Shared Mobility Services .................................................................................................................... 18
Sustainability and Green Infrastructure ................................................... 19
Vegetated Roof ................................................................................................................................... 19
Rain Garden ........................................................................................................................................ 20
Planters ............................................................................................................................................... 20
Rain Harvesting ................................................................................................................................... 21
Permeable Paving ............................................................................................................................... 22
Residential: Neighborhood Character, Dimensional and Design
Standards ...................................................................................................... 23
Page 239 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report – Supplement Page 3
Fort Collins, CO ................................................................................................................................... 25
Annapolis, MD ..................................................................................................................................... 26
Chapel Hill, NC .................................................................................................................................... 26
San Antonio, TX ................................................................................................................................... 27
Raleigh, NC .......................................................................................................................................... 28
Greenville, TX ...................................................................................................................................... 29
New Castle County, DE ....................................................................................................................... 30
Plano, TX .............................................................................................................................................. 30
Housing Affordability (ADU) ........................................................................ 30
Durango, CO........................................................................................................................................ 34
Lakewood, CO ..................................................................................................................................... 35
Castle Rock, CO ................................................................................................................................... 36
Golden, CO .......................................................................................................................................... 36
Plano, TX .............................................................................................................................................. 36
Mukilteo, WA ....................................................................................................................................... 36
West Jordan, UT .................................................................................................................................. 38
Tempe, AZ ........................................................................................................................................... 39
Eugene, OR .......................................................................................................................................... 39
Planned Unit Developments (PUDs)........................................................... 41
Intent ................................................................................................................................................... 41
Austin (TX) ........................................................................................................................................... 42
Portland (OR)....................................................................................................................................... 43
Regulatory Incentives .................................................................................. 43
Intensity Bonus ................................................................................................................................... 43
Density Bonus ..................................................................................................................................... 45
Design Standard Alternatives: Dimensional Requirements ............................................................ 46
Selectively Eliminate Density Restrictions ........................................................................................ 50
Page 240 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report – Supplement Page 4
BEST PRACTICES & CASE STUDIES
Although some of the case studies represented herein highlight cities larger or more urbanized than
Englewood, the principles, ideas, and techniques can be applied to the Englewood UDC. Some of the
studies may not be applicable on a macro-scale, but could be applicable on a micro-scale. For
instance, San Francisco transit development parking regulations could be applied to light rail transit
locations in Englewood.
Alternate Code Structures
Colorado Form Based Codes
Title State Largest Scale Implementation Strategy Adoption Date
Berthoud CO Neighborhood
Boulder CO Neighborhood Boulder Junction
Buckley AFB CO City
Castle Rock:
Southwest
Quadrant;
Interchange
District
CO Neighborhood Implements the Southwest
Quadrant and the
Interchange District plans
Colorado
Springs: The
Imagine
Downtown
Plan
CO Neighborhood FBC in final stages of
adoption to implement The
Imagine Downtown Plan
2009
Criple Creek
FBC
CO City Covers the whole city, and a
sizeable portion is a National
Historic Landmark District
Denver CO City New zoning code based on a
series of contexts. Form-based
elements regulate all building
types.
2010
Dillon CO City
Durango:
Three Springs
CO Neighborhood FBC for Three Springs
Development 2003
South Fork CO Neighborhood Mandatory for Town Center 2009
Steamboat 700 CO City Steamboat 700
Denver, CO
The City of Denver adopted a form-based code in 2010. Denver abandoned their conventional, land
use-based zoning model for a zoning approach with emphasis on context and form. With an approach
Page 241 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report – Supplement Page 5
like this, Denver has been able to preserve community character consistently while encouraging
form-based development.
In the Denver model, traditional zoning classifications are encompassed into neighborhood context
classifications. There are only 6 neighborhood context classifications with additional context for
special districts. The 6 contexts are Suburban, Urban Edge, Urban, General Urban, Urban Center, and
Downtown. Each classification is explicit to development based on the community’s context (uses,
features, streets, etc.) and its development form (site standards). An example of neighborhood
context is seen below.
Urban Edge neighborhood context
o Defined as small-scale multi-unit residential uses and commercial areas that are typically
embedded in residential areas. Single-unit residential structures are typically the Urban House and
Suburban House building forms. Multi-unit building forms are typically the Row House, Garden
Court, Town House or Apartment building forms embedded with other residential uses.
Commercial buildings are typically the Shopfront and General building forms that typically contain
a single type of use. Single and two-unit residential uses are primarily located along local and
residential arterial streets. Multi-unit residential and commercial uses are located along local
streets, arterials, and main streets.
Although there are only 6 neighborhood contexts, each context has underlying districts. For instance,
in the Urban Edge neighborhood context there are 25 districts. Each district is de fined and indicates
its relationship with the Urban Edge neighborhood context. Development associated with the 25
districts are permitted within the Urban Edge neighborhood context. Below is a use matrix for Urban
Edge neighborhood context.
Permitted districts within
neighborhood contexts must meet
design specific requirements to
ensure neighborhood form is
maintained. Below is a graphic from
the Denver Ordinance that shows
design requirements for a drive thru
services building in the Urban Edge
neighborhood context.
Page 242 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report – Supplement Page 6
The main issues with Denver’s zoning
code are that it is highly involved, lengthy,
and constantly being amended. Since the
ordinance’s adoption in 2010, hundreds
of pages and numerous amendments
have been added. In addition to these
changes, the number of regulations can
be burdensome and cause friction with
staff and the development community.
Page 243 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report – Supplement Page 7
Carrollton
Carrollton’s use of form-based principles for transit locations yield positive development outcomes.
These regulations generated more pedestrian paths, high-density housing, and supportive retail uses
within close walking proximity to Carrollton’s main transit station.
Page 244 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report – Supplement Page 8
Mckinney
McKinney (TX) uses a similar form-based approach to transit-oriented development by identifying two
different transit zones (Transit Village Core and Transit Village Edge). Within these two transit zones
are different design and development standards that align with preferred development patterns in
transit locations. Although McKinney does not currently have transit locations, they do anticipate
transit locations within the decade. Because McKinney is aware of uncertain transit locations, there
are flexibility measures called minor modifications to ensure new development meets the area’s
intent. Minor modifications provide developers with additional flexibility by allowing deviations from
the transit area’s standards. These modifications are listed and have criteria to ensure developers do
not abuse the clause to circumvent the transit area’s standards. This f lexibility measure is an
important feature that works for McKinney when standards do not work for an innovative
development proposal.
Aurora
Aurora uses a hybrid zoning approach with conventional zoning techniques and context -sensitive
regulations. The City prescribes different dimensional and development standards for each zoning
district. This includes streetscape, outdoor space, landscape, and building design standards for
different development types in each zoning district. The Code uses 3 -dimensional graphics to
communicate the differences between each zoning district’s development standards.
Page 245 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report – Supplement Page 9
Loveland
Like Aurora, Loveland uses a combination zoning approach derived from conventional zoning
practices and development-sensitive standards. Loveland prescribes different dimensional and
development standards for each zoning district. This includes landscape and building design
standards for different development types in each zoning district. The Code uses 3 -dimensional
graphics to communicate the differences between each zoning district’s development standards. The
City also uses zoning district summary sheets to show the reader the highlights of each zoning district.
Parking and Walkability
This section expands on parking and walkability by analyzing case studies and parking regulations.
Although some of the case studies are larger, more urbanized cities, principles and techniques can
be applied to Englewood’s revised parking regulations.
San Antonio
San Antonio utilizes a traditional parking appro ach throughout the city except for in select
urbanized areas.
There are no minimum parking requirements in Downtown to encourage walkability, transit
use, and pedestrian-oriented development.
Page 246 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report – Supplement Page 10
Although there are no parking minimums in Downtown San Antonio, developments are
required to provide bicycle spaces to promote alternative modes of transportation.
Additionally, the San Antonio Downtown Design Guide supplements the parking regulations
expressed in the Zoning Ordinance.
This guide primarily aims to minimize off-street parking visibility by:
o Locating off-street parking behind or below buildings;
o Hiding ground floor parking by building façades; and
o Providing on-street parking for visitors and customers.
Most of the parking regulations follow an appro ach where parking ratios are allocated by land
use.
These ratios tend to favor automobile-oriented development patterns seen in suburban areas
instead of vibrant, walkable patterns noticed in the city’s core areas.
San Diego
Right-sized parking requirements for developments within the core of the city.
Commercial parking requirements are determined by the level of commercial use and
proximity to transit.
The amount of spaces required varies between 4 different districts: basic, low -income, transit
area, and parking impact areas.
Fewer parking spaces are required in transit area overlay zones, where there is a reduced
demand for parking.
A commercial use outside a transit area is required to provide a minimum of 2.5 spaces for
every 1,000 square feet and a maximum of 6.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet.
A commercial use in a transit area is required to provide a minimum of 2.1 spaces per 1,000
square feet and a maximum of 6.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet.
The city defines a parking impact area as a zone with high parking demand (i.e. colleges).
Parking requirements are higher in these areas.
San Francisco
Uses parking maximums in the Central Business District and Downtown areas.
Moved towards eliminating parking minimums throughout the city.
Most of the districts are well-served by mass transit.
Minimum parking requirements for all uses outside the Central Business District.
Page 247 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report – Supplement Page 11
Parking requirements can vary in districts that are well -served by public transportation.
Mitigates for congestion in Downtown mixed-use districts through a transportation demand
management program.
These programs are submitted to the Planning Department and approved by the planning
director for all new buildings and conversions of existing buildings greater than 100,000
square feet of floor area.
Developers are required to provide a strategy for minimizing adverse transportation impacts
in the area.
Often accomplished by discouraging single -occupancy vehicle commuter trips and creating
incentives to encourage people to commute by public transportation, carpool, or bicycle.
Portland
Utilizes parking minimums, maximums, and reductions to effectively park different
development styles.
Incorporates standards in concert with zoning districts and uses.
Parking maximums are most noted for areas that are zoned for more intense development or
are easily reached by alternative modes of transportation.
These areas have lower maximums than areas where less intense development is anticipated
or where transit service is less frequent.
Higher maximums are appropriate in areas that are more than a 1/4 mile walk from a
frequently served bus stop or more than a 1/2 mile walk from a frequently served Transit
Station.
There is no minimum parking requirement for sites located within 500 feet of a tra nsit street
with frequent service.
Developers may also reduce parking requirements by providing a transit plaza if the site is
located on a transit street.
The city further classifies parking in particular situations, which are subject to a certain revie w
process.
The city identifies growth and preservation parking to help account for parking conflicts.
Growth parking is associated with all new development that is not residential or for hotel
development.
Developers may build parking as -of-right up to the set parking maximums.
Most parking demands are met through growth parking.
Page 248 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report – Supplement Page 12
Preservation parking is associated with existing non-residential development.
This category is intended to augment parking needs for uses which did not provide enough
parking at the time the structure was built.
Historic buildings must follow growth parking ratios and non -historic buildings are limited to
0.7 spaces per 1,000 square feet.
Seattle
Utilizes a hybrid parking approach.
Requires parking minimums according to use in most parts of the city except for select zoning
districts.
In highly urbanized zoning districts, no minimum parking for non -residential uses.
Developments outside of these select zones have required parking minimums that align with
traditional parking practices
No more than 145 spaces are permitted in all commercial zones.
To increase the city’s goal to provide pedestrian-friendly development patterns, the city
applies parking waivers that reduce required parking.
Parking reductions apply to all non -residential uses except for drive-thru restaurants, theaters,
offices, and institutions (see table below).
Zone Type Reduction for Non-Residential Use
Commercial No parking required for the first 1,500 sf
Pedestrian-Designated Areas No parking required for the first 1,500 sf
Other Zones No parking required for the first 2,500 sf
McKinney
A traditional parking code in most parts of the city , except for the Downtown area.
The Downtown area – the McKinney Town Center District (MTC) – does not calculate parking
ratios dependent on certain uses but determines parking ratios based on specific character
districts within the MTC.
7-character districts in the MTC, which all have different tailored parking requirements.
The districts are identified on a map of the MTC to show where certain development
regulations, including parking, apply.
Page 249 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report – Supplement Page 13
Character District Existing Buildings New Construction
Historic Core Non-residential Uses: No off-
street parking required
Non-residential Uses: No off-
street parking required
Residential Uses: No off-street
parking required
Residential Uses: 1 off-street
space per DU
Downtown Core Non-residential Uses: No off-
street parking required
Non-residential Uses: No off-
street parking required
Residential Uses: No off-street
parking required
Residential Uses: 1 off-street
space per DU
Downtown Edge Non-residential Uses: 1 off-street
space per 500 gross sf – the first
2,000 gross sf of every non-
residential building is exempt
Non-residential Uses: 1 off-
street space per 500 gross sf –
the first 2,000 gross sf of every
non-residential building is
exempt
Page 250 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report – Supplement Page 14
Residential Uses: 1 off-street
space per DU
Residential Uses: 1 off-street
space per DU
Transit Village
Core
Non-residential Uses: No off-
street parking required
Non-residential Uses: 1 off-
street space per 500 gross sf
Light Industrial Uses: 1 off-street
space per 1,000 sf
Residential Uses: No off-street
parking required
Residential Uses: 1 off-street
space per DU
Transit Village
Edge
Non-residential Uses: 1 off-street
space per 500 gross sf – the first
2,000 gross sf of every non-
residential building is exempt
Light Industrial Uses: 1 off-street
space per 1,000 sf – the first 2,000
gross sf of every non-residential
building is exempt
Non-residential Uses: 1 off-
street space per 500 gross sf –
the first 2,000 gross sf of every
non-residential building is
exempt
Light Industrial Uses: 1 off-street
space per 1,000 sf – the first
2,000 gross sf of every non-
residential building is exempt
Residential Uses: 1 off-street
space per DU
Residential Uses: 1 off-street
space per DU
Cotton Mill Core traditional parking ratios applied
by use
traditional parking ratios
applied by use
Cotton Mill Edge traditional parking ratios applied
by use
traditional parking ratios
applied by use
Parking requirements in the MTC are right-sized to the character districts to improve
walkability and pedestrian-oriented development.
Outside of the MTC, the city promotes a traditional, automobile -oriented development pattern
by requiring set parking minimums for all new development.
Page 251 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report – Supplement Page 15
Montgomery County
A progressive parking approach that determines parking ratios by use, intensity, and zoning
district.
The number of required spaces is based on a metric specific to each use.
If the proposed intensity of the use is less than the metric, then the baseline minimum is
calculated using a fraction of that metric.
The required number of parking spaces depend if a development is located within a Parking
Lot District or Reduced Parking Area.
Parking Lot Districts are designated areas that do not require parking minimums and limits
maximum parking.
Reduced Parking Areas are designated areas defined by a property’s location within commercial
and employment zones.
Adjustments to parking regulations mostly occur in Parking Lot Districts and Reduced Parking
Areas.
Page 252 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report – Supplement Page 16
St. Petersburg
Reduces parking minimums if a project is near high-frequency transit routes.
A 10% parking reduction is permitted if the development is within 1/8 mile of a high -frequency
transit route.
Off-street parking reductions for tree preservation, drainage and surface water management,
bicycle parking, and workforce/affordable housing.
Off-site parking is allowed within 1,000 feet in downtown center zoning districts and 300 fe et
in other zoning districts.
Somerville
Conventional parking regulations are traditional with the caveat of development near transit
or public parking.
Developments within 650 feet of municipal parking garages/lots are permitted a 10%
reduction in parking.
Developments within 1000 feet of rapid transit stations are permitted a 20% reduction in
parking.
Minimum Parking
Parking standards that apply minimums may create more parking than is needed, creating additional
impervious surfaces and negatively affecting local water quality. Minimum parking requirements can
result in sprawling parking lots with perpetually vacant spots.
An unintended side effect of minimum requirements is excessively sized surface parking areas. For
example, a 50,000 square-foot retail business would require a minimum of 50,000 square feet of
paved parking surfaces, with additional areas required for landscaping for which the property owner
charges rent. This creates economic waste because the property owner cannot charge rent for the
spaces, although a certain number of spaces is certainly needed to provide access to the site. In fact,
commercial properties often include more parking than the zoning code requires. Regardless of why
it is provided, parking is a development cost that is ultimately capitalized into the cost of housing and
consumer goods.
These large surface parking areas inhibit walkability by spreading uses apart, forcing pedestrians to
compete with cars to reach retail and employment destinations, and making vehicula r travel
convenient relative to foot travel. They also create “urban heat islands” as the summer sun hits the
pavement and creates the need for stormwater drainage systems. The stormwater management
systems needed to capture runoff from parking areas consum es even more land, spreading uses
farther apart and creating barriers to pedestrian access. This, in turn, encourages business es to
provide larger signs to identify the buildings that are set back behind the parking.
Page 253 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report – Supplement Page 17
This is not a new idea and many localities across the country have moved away from minimum
parking requirements. Another option to remove minimum parking requirements is to identify cases
where for a certain size of development, for example anything under 5,000 sq. ft., no parking is
required.
Parking minimums are useful but are becoming antiquated with modern zoning ordinances. Although
parking minimums can increase the need for parking, they can also be used effectively to minimize
excessive parking. The research shows which jurisdictions place more emphasis on car-oriented and
pedestrian-oriented development styles. For instance, jurisdictions like Portland, San Francisco,
Seattle, Philadelphia, and Montgomery County have similar parking minimums that require less
parking (i.e. 1 space for 1,000 square feet of retail space), while places like San Antonio and McKinney
have parking minimums that require substantial parking (i.e. 1 space for 250 square feet of retail
space). When comparing these two models for a 4,000 square foot retail building there is a difference
of 4 and 16 required spaces. The latter jurisdictions essentially require 4 times as much parking than
the former jurisdictions.
Although parking minimums are an important component of parking regulations, parking maximums
play an increasing role in effective, modern parking codes. Parking maximums cap the amount of
required parking spaces for a development. Instead of requiring a baseline minimum for parking
spaces, maximums curb developers from excessively parking developments. Plac es such as Portland,
San Francisco, Montgomery County, and San Diego use parking maximums to prevent overparking
and promote context-sensitive development. For instance, in San Diego, the city classifies parking
regulations into 3 metrics – minimum parking required outside of transit areas, minimum parking
required within Transit
Areas, and maximum
parking permitted – to
deliver on these goals. The
example below shows San
Francisco’s approach to
parking minimums and
maximums. Parking
maximums are a critical
and effective tool
Englewood can consider to
right-size parking within
different contexts of the
city.
Page 254 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report – Supplement Page 18
Site-Specific Parking Demand Analysis
Site-specific parking demand is becoming a popular practice in modern zoning codes. Developers are
required to provide a study that determines adequate on -site parking. These studies typically include
traffic counts, anticipated site capacity, peak capacity hours, land uses, and site location. Site -specific
parking demand analysis provides a development’s true parkin g needs.
A site-specific parking demand analysis requirement for large developments could benefit the city by
saving land area and preventing overparking. This requirement could include data to support
anticipated parking demand for the project, number of on-street and off-street parking spaces,
shared vehicle parking arrangements, and the number of bicycle parking spaces. A site -specific
parking demand analysis requirement should also include possible strategies that could limit single -
occupancy vehicle trips, reduce vehicle miles travelled by site users, and promote transportation
alternatives such as walking, cycling, ridesharing, and transit.
Most jurisdictions use parking studies and Traffic Demand Model (TDM) plans to weigh the
advantages and disadvantages of a new development regarding its impacts on the existing and
surrounding areas. Aside from Portland, Seattle, San Francisco, and other jurisdictions use TDM to
promote land use efficiency, achieve comprehensive plan goals, and reduce unnecessary parking for
new, large developments near existing or potential high transit areas. In San Francisco, TDM is
mandatory for all developments greater than 100,000 square feet in downtown mixed -use districts
to mitigate automobile congestion. TDM programs are submitted to the Planning Department and
approved by the planning director. Developers are required to come up with a strategy for minimizing
adverse transportation impacts in the area, and often accomplish this by discouraging car commuter
trips and creating incentives to encourage people to commute by public transportation. Parking
studies and TDM programs could be a worthwhile tool for Englewood to investigate, especially for
existing and future transit areas.
Shared Parking and Mixed-Use Development
Shared parking is the use of parking spaces generated by two or more individual land uses without
conflict or encroachment. Mixed-use development parking regulations can calculate required parking
for more than one land use in the same development. Most conventional zoning ordinance s use a
cumulative parking requirement for both shared parking and mixed -use parking. This practice can
result in more parking than is needed and fails to take advantage of efficient sharing of parking
among different land uses. Shared-use parking standards should be based upon a site-specific
demand analysis for all land uses combined.
Shared Mobility Services
Technology has significantly changed travel means and will continue to do so. Companies like Uber
and Lyft, bikeshare programs, carsharing and micr o transit will have a significant impact on parking
Page 255 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report – Supplement Page 19
demands with the possibility of fewer required parking spaces. High -capacity transit lines continue to
develop while younger people are not driving as much as older people, thus affecting parking ratios.
While these trends affect required parking, they also create spatial needs for sufficient on -site drop-
off areas.
Sustainability and Green Infrastructure
This section expands on sustainability and green infrastructure techniques. This section credits
spur.org’s (SPUR is a nonprofit public policy organization in San Francisco, CA specializing in planning
and infrastructure issues within u rban contexts) 2013 article “8 Shades of Green Infrastructure” by
Kurt Pelzer and Laura Tam.
Vegetated Roof
A vegetated roof is composed of multiple layers including a waterproof membrane, sub -surface
drainage pipes, engineered planting soils and specially selected plants. Green roofs can be installed
on many types of roofs, from small slanting roofs to large, flat commercia l roofs. There are two basic
types of green roofs: extensive and intensive. An extensive green roof system is a thin, lighter -weight
system (usually less than 6 inches deep) planted predominantly with drought -tolerant succulent
plants and grasses. An intensive green roof is deeper, often 18 inches, and can support plants that
require great root depth.
Where to apply
o Commercial, multi-family, and industrial structures, as well as single-family homes,
garages and sheds; can be used for new construction or to r e-roof an existing building
if there is sufficient structural support; roof slopes less than 5 degrees or greater than
20 degrees are not suitable
Advantages
o Reduces the volume and velocity of stormwater runoff from roofs by temporarily
storing stormwater
o Provides added insulation and noise reduction
o Reduces urban heat island effect and lowers temperature of stormwater runoff
o Increases biodiversity and habitat
o Provides aesthetic amenities
Disadvantages
o Limited to roof slopes less than 20 degrees
o Additional structural or seismic support may be needed to bear added weight
Page 256 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report – Supplement Page 20
o Irrigation required to establish plants and maintain them during dry periods
o High upfront cost compared to other green infrastructure
Rain Garden
Rain gardens are designed to collect stor mwater from impervious surfaces such as roofs, walkways
and parking lots, then hold it in a planted, depressed area where it may be absorbed into the ground.
Rain gardens can be connected to sewer systems through an overflow structure, but usually they are
sized to infiltrate the collected stormwater runoff into the ground. Rain gardens contain soils high in
organic matter and plants that tolerate wet conditions. Rain gardens are effective at removing
pollutants from stormwater, improving stormwater quality and reducing stormwater runoff volume.
Where to apply:
o Residential yards
o Storefronts
o Parks
o Right-of-ways
o Parking lots
Advantages:
o Simple and inexpensive to install
o Wide range of scales and site applicability
o Improves water and air quality
o Aesthetically pleasing
o Reduces runoff volume
Disadvantages:
o Flat site needed
Planters
Planters allow stormwater to flow and filter through vegetation, growing medium and gravel. They
temporarily store stormwater runoff on top of the soil and filter sediment and pollutants as water
infiltrates down through the planter. Planters do not infiltrate runoff into the ground, rather they rely
on evapotranspiration (water uptake by plants) and short-term storage to manage stormwater.
Where to apply:
o Poorly drained sites
Page 257 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report – Supplement Page 21
o Sites with contaminated soils
o Drainage from rooftop gutters
o Adjacent to streets where runoff may be directed into them for treatment
Advantages:
o Planted vegetation helps lessen stormwater flows
o Traps sediments and reduces erosion
o Reduces stormwater volume and removes pollutants
o Provides water detention in significant rainfall events
Disadvantages:
o Irrigation may be needed to maintain plats in dry seasons/climates
Rain Harvesting
Rain harvesting is the collection and storage of stormwater runoff from impervious surfaces for later
use in irrigation, toilet flushing or other non -potable uses. By temporarily holding stormwater runoff
during a heavy rain, rain barrels and cisterns functionally add capacity to the city’s sewer system.
However, they only serve as an effective s tormwater control function if the stored water is used or
emptied between most storms so that there is free storage volume for the next storm. Rain barrels
are designed to overflow into the sewer system through the existing downspout connection in large
storm events.
Where to apply:
o Above-ground storage must be sited in a stable, flat area
o Rainwater storage cannot block path of travel for fire safety access
o Overflow locations must be designed to direct flows away from building foundations
and adjacent properties
Advantages:
o Reduces volume and peak flows of stormwater entering the sewer
o Reduces energy and chemicals needed to treat stormwater
o Low maintenance for above ground cisterns
o Good for sites where infiltration is not an option
o Recycles water for non-potable reuse
Disadvantages:
Page 258 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report – Supplement Page 22
o May require pumps or valves to use stored water
o Roof surfaces should not contain copper or materials treated with fungicides and
herbicides if storing and reusing water for irrigation
o Prone to algal growth if placed in warm and sunny location
o Does not remove pollutants
Permeable Paving
Permeable paving is designed to allow water to pass through it, preventing runoff associated with
conventional pavement. It provides the structural support of conventional pavement, but is made up
of a porous surface and an underlying aggregate layer. The aggregate layer provides temporary
storage before the water infiltrates into the soil. Another type of permeable paving contains an
aggregate layer and an underground pipe that routes stormwater to a collection system. The added
underdrain is a “slow it” technology. There are many different types of porous surfaces including
pervious asphalt, pervious concrete and interlocking pavers.
Where to apply:
o Parking lots
o Low-traffic streets
o Driveways
o Bike paths
o Patios
o Plaza
o Sidewalks
Advantages:
o Reduces runoff volume and attenuates peak flows
o Improves water quality by reducing fine-grained sediment, organic matter and trace
metals
o Reduces heat island effect
Disadvantages:
o Limited to paved areas with low traffic volumes and limited speeds
o Limited to slopes less than 5 percent
o Difficult in sites with compacted soils
Page 259 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report – Supplement Page 23
Residential: Neighborhood Character, Dimensional and Design Standards
The section assesses Neighborhood Conservation Districts (also known as Neighb orhood
Preservation Overlay/District, or NCD) and discusses its distinction from historic preservation. This
section also provides a summary of different neighborhood conservation case studies. Design
features, dimensional standards, and character requirements fro m the different case studies can be
applied to distinct neighborhoods in Englewood.
A Neighborhood Conservation District is a zoning tool used to help communities protect certain
characteristics in a specific neighborhood. They aim to preserve, revitalize , protect, and enhance
significant older areas within a community beyond what is specified in the standard code. NCD
regulations are supplemental to standard zoning regulations and usually take precedence. They
concentrate on protecting form and context.
These districts are similar to and often compared with historic districts. While they share similar
characteristics, the two are quite different. Historic districts look to preserve the original structure
exactly as when it was first built. They also attem pt to preserve original materials, colors, styles, and
other elements of the original structure. Conservation districts maintain certain standards of an area.
This means that conservation districts regulate fewer features than historic districts and focus more
on significant character defining features, like lot size, building height, architectural styles, setbacks,
streetscapes, and tree protection. NCDs seldomly consider specific elements, like windows, buildings
materials, colors, and decorative details, but they do on occasion. Also, most NCDs do not include
demolition standards, whereas historic districts frequently use them.
Conservation districts should identify goals that:
Maintain and reinforce neighborhood character
Manage development in neighborhoods with a distinctive character
Accommodate change in a manner that is compatible with the area
Conserve and enhance existing architectural and cultural identity
Provide tailored guidelines and regulations to respond to the unique development
conditions in each neighborhood district
Foster new construction in harmony with the scale and physical character of existing
buildings
Conservation districts are designated by a nomination process. This process includes neighborhood
property owners, city departments, and general members of the public. Nominations identify design
features significant to the district consistent with baseline development criteria such as:
Elements that contribute to the neighborhood’s character
District boundaries (refer to map)
Relationship to buildings and structures from an area survey
Page 260 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report – Supplement Page 24
Sample Conservation District eligibility criteria could consist of:
Identifying a set number of contiguous blocks
Inclusion of residential and non -residential buildings
Cohesive and distinct design standards (architectural style, era, construction style, etc.)
A majority of buildings and structures that contribute to an area
Conservation districts often establish review board or approval bodies to ensure development
complies with the district’s regulations. These bodies can examine new construction, demolition,
renovations, building height, building materials, and architectural features.
Page 261 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report – Supplement Page 25
Fort Collins, CO
Fort Collins uses 3 NCDs. These NCDs are applied to low and medium density residential zoning
districts. The city identifies goals for the NCDs and prescribes dimensional, development, and
architectural standards for new development in these areas. Standards are more restrictive in the
NCDs than the underlying zoning district regulations. The city uses illustrations to depict certain
standards like front façade design options (below).
Page 262 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report – Supplement Page 26
Annapolis, MD
Annapolis uses NCDs to control development within certain residential districts. The city regulates
architectural style, scale, and setbacks to protect neighborhood character (snapshot of regulations
below). Their regulations are detailed and specific to ensure the existing neighborhood fabric is not
disturbed.
Chapel Hill, NC
Chapel Hill has a robust set of Neighborhood Conservation districts. For conservati on districts, the
city requires that an:
Area must include one block face (all lots on one side of a block, at a minimum)
Area must have been developed at least 25 years before applying for an NC D
and 75% of the land in proposed area must be presently improved
Area must create a consistent setting, character, or association by possessing at least one of
the following:
o Scale, size, type of construction;
o Lot layouts, setbacks, street layouts, alleys or sidewalks;
Page 263 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report – Supplement Page 27
o Special natural or streetscape characteristics (i.e. creek beds, parks, gardens, street
landscaping);
o Land use patterns, including mixed or unique uses or activities; and
o Abuts or links designated historic landmarks and/or districts.
Area must be mostly residential in nature and character.
San Antonio, TX
San Antonio uses neighborhood conservation districts to promote a unified vision. This vision
protects high-character neighborhoods that are not designated historic. San Antonio designates
NCDs by:
1. Containing a minimum of one blockface (all the lots on one side of a block);
2. Requiring at least 75% of the land area in the proposed district was improved at least 25 years
ago, and is presently improved; and
3. Possessing one or more of the following distinctive features that create a cohesive identifiable
setting, character or association:
a. Scale, size, type of construction, or distinctive building materials;
b. Spatial relationships between buildings;
c. Lot layouts, setbacks, street layouts, alleys or sidewalks;
d. Special natural or streetscape characteristics, such as creek beds, parks, greenbelts,
gardens or street landscaping;
e. Land use patterns, including mixed or unique uses or activities; or
f. Abuts or links designated historic landmarks and/or districts.
Page 264 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report – Supplement Page 28
Raleigh, NC
Raleigh uses NCDs throughout the city. The city has more than 10 NCDs, each with their own
boundaries and standards. Raleigh’s NCD regulations mostly address lot size, building height, and
setbacks. The city does not regulate architectural styles or elements within their NCD regulations.
Below are specific NCD regulation examples from Raleigh’s zoning ordinance.
Page 265 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report – Supplement Page 29
Greenville, TX
Greenville uses NCD regulations to preserve established neighborhoods. Greenville provides
property owners in NCD areas with significant input on development. For instance, pr operty owners
determine the important features of their neighborhood and work with the city to set development
guidelines. To be considered for an NCD, the city requires an area to:
1. Contain a minimum of one block face, meaning all the lots on one side of a block;
2. Be platted or developed at least twenty-five (25) years ago; and
3. possess one or more of the following distinctive features that create a cohesive identifiable
setting, character, or association:
a. Scale, size, type of construction, or distinctive building materials;
b. Lot layouts, setbacks, street layouts, alleys or sidewalks;
c. Special natural or streetscape characteristics, such as creek beds, parks, gardens or
street landscaping;
d. Land use patterns, including mixed or unique uses or activities; or
e. Abuts or links designated historic landmarks or districts.
Page 266 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report – Supplement Page 30
New Castle County, DE
New Castle County uses neighborhood conservation districts to protect the residential character of
existing neighborhoods. These districts recognize the lot standards in effect when the community
was developed and avoid making older developments nonconforming as development standards
evolve. These districts permit infill consistent with the existing character but are not used for zoning.
There are 11 Neighborhood Conservation districts in the County, each with their own standards.
Plano, TX
Plano uses NCD regulations for specific established neighborhoods. The city protects established
neighborhoods that have a distinct scale, design, character, unique physical features, o r importance
to the community while preserving an area’s overall historic, architectural, or cultural identity from
incompatible development. Designation of these districts are driven by owners and residents to
protect the individual characteristics of the neighborhood that they value. NCD regulations provide
enhanced development standards and architectural requirements.
Housing Affordability (ADU)
The section addresses housing affordability through ADUs. This section summarizes multiple
jurisdictions’ ADU regulations.
Affordable housing is becoming a growing issue in the Denver metropolitan area, with the issue
becoming more pressing as cities like Englewood approach buildout. The revised Code will need to
accommodate a variety of housing types to meet future housing demands. With rapid regional
growth, high household incomes and a housing stock traditionally dominated by single -family
detached homes, affordable housing is an important issue in Englewood. While Millennials and Baby
Boomers receive attention nationally, families are the most influential demographic group in
Englewood when it comes to affecting household size and the city’s housing stock. Additionally, transit
expansion contributes to the area’s increasing demographic diversity that will dr ive the need for
housing options with easy access to services, entertainment, and transit.
The city can encourage housing affordability by increasing the range of residential uses and densities
selectively to augment the supply of housing permitted in the Code. Most of the city’s residential
districts allow for low density residential development, with all of the residential districts allowing
single-family detached dwellings. Two of the residential districts (R -2-A and R-2-B), excluding the
mixed-use residential districts, allow multi-unit dwellings.
Bldg. Height Bldg. Size Lot Size/Coverage Setbacks Bldg.
Orientation Density Façade
Features
Architectural
Style Roofline Bldg.
Materials Parking Landscaping
Fort Collins, CO Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Annapolis, MD Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No
Chapel Hill, NC Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes No No No No Yes Yes
San Antonio, TX Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No
Raleigh, NC No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No Yes No
Greenville, TX Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes
New Castle County, DE Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No No No No No
Plano, TX Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No
Jurisdiction Indentified Goals Designation Criteria
Architectural Standards Development StandardsDimensional Standards
Page 267 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report – Supplement Page 31
Englewood Forward includes several policies to encourage housing affordability, and to expand the
supply and range of housing in the city. Notably, the housing policies aim to preserve existing housing
options, while providing flexibility for density, building height, lot size, lot line, parking, setbacks, and
design standards. To achieve these goals, multi-family development can be regulated by floor area
ratio (FAR) instead of traditional density (dwelling units per acre). In addition, the city can consider
form-based approaches for infill and redevelopment areas that facilitate the development of “missing
middle” housing product types and affordable prices. This will require additional revisions to the u se
regulations (currently Chapter 5), establishing more flexible zoning metrics, and adding design
standards to ensure that the additional density fits a zoning district’s context.
The following approaches can encourage a broader portfolio of housing types that support
Englewood’s redevelopment, housing stock, and affordability preferences:
Some communities have created districts or development options that describe a variety of
housing types between single- and two-family dwellings such as apartment courts , apartment
houses, stacked flats, live-work units, townhouses, and cottage or common green (or
bungalow court) options. These provide a variety of “missing middle” housing options that can
accommodate needed housing types at a scale that is more appropria te to existing, single -
family neighborhoods.
However, the Code should update the list of housing types, expanding the range of uses in the
infill and redevelopment areas to include additional forms such as (see The Types Archives -
Missing Middle Housing, at http://missingmiddlehousing.com/category/the-types/; Lafayette
Consolidated Government, Unified Development Code (Section 89-84):
Apart
ment
House
(or
“Big
House
”)
A converted single-family
detached dwelling, or new
building with architectural
features and massing that
are compatible with single-
family dwellings, that
consists of at least 3
separate dwelling units.
This use type is different
from a boarding house in
that the units are intended
for occupancy as
permanent residences,
and each unit may have
Page 268 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report – Supplement Page 32
separate kitchens and
bathroom facilities.
Apart
ment
Hotel
A hotel in which at least 90
percent of the hotel
accommodations are
available for occupancy by
permanent guests.
Fourpl
exes
Apartments with 4
residential units – typically
2 on the ground floor and 2
above, with a shared entry.
Multip
lexes
Apartments with 5-10 side-
by-side or stacked units,
with either shared or
individual entries.
Court
yard
apart
ments
Side-by-side or stacked
apartments that open to a
shared courtyard.
Once the range of housing types is defined, the Code can define specific standards for them
such as building orientation, frontage buildout, entryway spacing, access, open space, building
materials, and the location and design of site improvements such as parking facilities.
Page 269 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report – Supplement Page 33
Another option is a small lot subdivision with zero -side setback. This creates a new hybrid
housing type that has the appearance and function of rowhouses, but where each unit sits o n
an individual lot with fee-simple ownership. An example is Los Angeles, which adopted a small
lot ordinance in 2005.
Figure XXX Small lot subdivision
Requirements for building materials can facilitate the siting of multi -unit homes in
neighborhoods that resist such building types on the grounds of quality and impact on
property values.
Page 270 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report – Supplement Page 34
Durango, CO
Durango is a small town in southwestern Colorado that addressed housing variety through ADU
regulations. Durango identifies multiple types of ADUs and prescribes different, specific standards
for each ADU type. There are 4 ADUs: basement, integrated, detached, and detached garage. Durango
provides illustrations to show what each ADU looks like.
Basement
Integrated
Page 271 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report – Supplement Page 35
Detached
Detached Garage
Lakewood, CO
Lakewood is a medium sized city within the Denver metropolitan area that provides ADU regulations.
Lakewood’s regulations are not as intensive as Durango’s, but they do have dimensional and
architectural standards for ADU developments. The Lakewood regulations addre ss maximum
building height, square footage, architectural relationship to the primary dwelling unit, and locational
requirements. There are no ADU classifications.
Page 272 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report – Supplement Page 36
Castle Rock, CO
Castle Rock is a medium sized city south of Denver that permits ADUs throu ghout the city. ADU
regulations are not as stringent as Durango’s but they do address design, occupancy, and
dimensional standards.
Golden, CO
Golden is a small city on the outskirts of Denver that relies on ADUs to alleviate the area’s housing
strain. Golden allows ADUs in most residentially zoned areas, but there are parking, dimensional,
occupancy, and ownership requirements. Golden does not specify different ADU types.
Plano, TX
Plano is a large suburb north of Dallas. This city is nearly built out to capacity and sees frequent infill
development. Because of these two factors, new housing is difficult to locate in Plano. To address
Plano’s housing stock, the city initiated a zoning amendment to permit ADUs. Plano calls ADUs
“backyard cottages“. These structures are small residential units located on residential lots with a
primary dwelling unit. The city’s standards are not as flexible as other ADU regulations because the
city does not want ADU oversaturation. Plano’s regulations address: lot layout, h eight, size,
construction quality, design consistency with the primary residence, owner occupancy and permitting
requirements, and parking standards.
Mukilteo, WA
Mukilteo is a small city north of Seattle. Mukilteo identifies 3 ADU types:
Interior – ADU is located entirely within the footprint of the principal dwelling unit.
Attached - ADU shares a common wall or roof line with the principal dwelling unit but some
or all of the accessory dwelling unit is outside the footprint of the principal dwelling uni t.
Detached – ADUs that are neither interior nor attached.
The city prescribes different standards depending on ADU type. For instance, interior and attached
ADUs are only allowed on lots more than 5,000 square feet.; whereas detached ADUs are permitted
on lots greater than 10,000 square feet. Also, Mukilteo’s ADU regulations are the most intensive next
to Durango. Their regulations address height, entrances, setbacks, design, floor area, parking,
screening, and addressing requirements. Mukilteo incorporate s illustrations (below) to demonstrate
ADU features and requirements. Mukilteo is one of the few cities that uses illustrations to
communicate ADU regulations.
Page 273 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report – Supplement Page 37
Page 274 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report – Supplement Page 38
West Jordan, UT
West Jordan is a fast-growing suburban city outside of Salt Lake City. Wes t Jordan regulates ADUs but
labels them as accessory living quarters. The city regulates floor area, lot size, parking, setbacks, and
ownership. Compared to other cities West Jordan ADUs are not as prevalent because they can only
be built on lots more than 40,000 square feet. This incentivizes large lot owners to build ADUs where
smaller lot owners are not offered that opportunity.
Page 275 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report – Supplement Page 39
Tempe, AZ
Tempe is a city within the Phoenix metropolitan area where ADUs are prevalent. Tempe is home to a
large university which impacts the city’s housing portfolio. ADUs are a big part of the city’s housing
stock and are permitted throughout residential districts. Tempe recognizes two ADU types – attached
and detached – and regulates them with dimensional, development, and infrastructure standards.
Eugene, OR
Eugene is medium sized city that is home to a large university. Like Tempe, housing variety is
paramount because of the city’s demographics. Eugene recognizes 3 ADU types (attached, detached,
and area-specific) and provides different standards for each type. Area -specific ADUs have completely
different standards from attached and detached ADUs because the city wants context -sensitive ADU
development. For instance, area-specific ADUs near the University of Oregon are permitted, but the
required lot areas differ. For lots 7,500 to 9,000 square feet, ADUs are limited to 600 square feet of
floor area and for lots greater than 9,000 square feet, ADUs are limited to 800 square feet.
Additionally, the city regulates maximum occu pancy and bedroom requirements for area-specific
ADUs.
Page 276 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report – Supplement Page 40
Lot Size (square feet)Building
Minimum Minimum Maximum Height (feet)
Colorado
Englewood Yes Residential zoning districts Must relate to the
primary dwelling unit N/A N/A
650 or the size of the
principal dwelling
(whichever is less)
26
Durango Yes
Established Neighborhood,
Multi-family, Rural-
Agricultural, Residential
Low, Residential Medium,
and mixed use
neighborhood
Must relate to the
primary dwelling unit
Depends on Zoning
District and parcel
location (ranges from
5,000 sf and above)
N/A 550 20
Lakewood
The owner of the property
on which an accessory
dwelling unit is located shall
occupy either the primary or
accessory dwelling unit.
Most residential zone
districts
Must relate to the
primary dwelling unit 9,000 N/A 700 30
Castle Rock
The property owner must
occupy either the Primary
Dwelling Unit or the
Accessory Dwelling Unit, or
both.
Most residential zone
districts
Must relate to the
primary dwelling unit N/A N/A
An ADU located interior
to the main residence
shall not exceed fifty
percent (50%) of it’s floor
area. The building
footprint of a detached
ADU shall not exceed
800 square feet.
Follows Zoning District
Regulations
Golden
The property owner must
occupy either the principal
dwelling unit or accessory
dwelling unit.
Single-family residential,
multi-family residential
and Planned Unit
Development (PUD)
Must relate to the
primary dwelling unit 7,000 N/A
For a principal dwelling
unit of 1,000 square feet
or more of living space,
the ADU shall be no
larger than 50% of the
living space, or 800
square feet, whichever is
smaller. For a principal
dwelling unit of less than
1,000 square feet of
living space, the ADU
shall be no larger than
500 square feet
Follows Zoning District
Regulations
Other States
Plano, TX
Property owner must occupy
either the main dwelling
unit or the backyard cottage
as a permanent residence,
and can't receive rent for
the owner-occupied unit.
Single family residential
districts
Must relate to the
primary dwelling unit 6,000 400
1,100 or 50% gross
habitable floor area of
the primary dwelling unit
(whichever is most
restrictive)
Can't exceed primary
dwelling unit height
Mukilteo, WA
The property owner must
occupy either the principal
dwelling unit or accessory
dwelling unit for at least 6
months of the calendar
year.
Single and Multi-family
residential districts
Must relate to the
primary dwelling unit
5,000 for interior and
attached ADUs or 10,000
for detached ADUs
N/A
gross floor area of no
more than 700 or 60% of
the floor area of the
principal dwelling unit
(whichever is less)
Follows Zoning District
Regulations; can’t exceed
primary dwelling unit height
if detached ADU
West Jordan, UT
The property owner must
occupy either the principal
dwelling unit or accessory
dwelling unit.
Most residential districts Must relate to the
primary dwelling unit 40,000 N/A
gross floor area less than
33% of the gross floor
area of the principal
dwelling unit
Follows Zoning District
Regulations
Tempe, AZ N/A
Multi-Family residential
Districts when a property
contains an existing single-
family dwelling
Must relate to the
primary dwelling unit N/A N/A 800 Follows Zoning District
Regulations
Eugene, OR
Depends on ADU type:
specific-area ADUs have
occupancy requirements
Residential zoning districts Must relate to the
primary dwelling unit
Attached & Detached
ADUs: 12,500 for flag lots
or 6,100 for all other lots;
Area-Specific ADUs: 7,500
N/A
Attached & Detached
ADUs: not exceed 10 %
of the total lot area or
800 (whichever is
smaller); Area-Specific
ADUs: 600 for lots
between 7,500 and 9,000
Follows Zoning District
Regulations
Floor Area (square feet)
Jurisdiction
Owner-Occupancy
Requirements Permitted Zoning Distrct(s)Architectural Design
Page 277 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report – Supplement Page 41
Planned Unit Developments (PUDs)
This section addresses PUDs and how they are applied in different jurisdictions across the nation.
Intent
A PUD is typically a development and a regulatory proc ess. Definitions vary, but the purpose of a PUD
is generally to allow greater development flexibility on a site than is allowed in the standard zoning
ordinance. PUDs is often used to encourage unified plans that provide a more holistic and innovative
package over conventional development. The traditional PUD would include a cluster of small lots in
conjunction with a common usable open space with some recreational amenities and a protected
natural area functioning as permanent open space. A developer receives extra flexibility in
configuring lots and buildings and perhaps incentives, while the jurisdiction recevies permanent open
space and other desired amenities.
Advantages:
o Creates a master planned vision for an area with customizable uses and design
guidelines
o Alternative to the ordinance by providing development flexibility
o Innovative projects
o Protects the overall development integrity
o Creates design uniformity for the individual project
o Customizes parking specifications
o Mitigates for undesirable uses
o Helps with branding and establishing new development energy
o Reinforces a centralized vision for a particular area for a sustained period of time
Disadvantages:
o Excessive regulations and requirements create a rigid development atmosphere
o Confuses all parties involved (staff, developers, and the public)
o Becomes an administrative nightmare
o Implementation can be controversial and time consuming which can deter developers
from investing
o Development community overuse and abuse
Page 278 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report – Supplement Page 42
Austin (TX)
Austin uses PUDs as a zoning tool to preserve the natural environment, encourage high quality
development and innovative design, and ensure adequate public facilities and services. PUDs are
used as a method to create unique developments that are not possible under conventional zoni ng
district regulations. Austin assesses PUD applications through a 2 -tier process. All PUD applications
must meet the requirements and criteria of the tier -system. Some of the Tier 1 requirements include:
The objectives of the City Code;
Providing a total amount of open space that equals or exceeds 10 percent of the residential
tracts, 15 percent of the industrial tracts, and 20 percent of the non-residential tracts;
Exceeding the minimum landscaping requirements
Providing appropriate transportation and mass transit connections to areas adjacent to the
PUD district;
Protecting, enhancing, and preserving preserve areas that include structures or sites that are
of architectural, historical, archaeological, or cultural significance; and
Providing a 2-star Austin Energy Green Building Rating.
If a PUD meets the requirements in Tier 1, then Tier 2 requirements are examined to assess the
proposal’s superior design. There are 12 distinct criteria categories that are reviewed for superior
design (the PUD does not need to meet all criteria):
Open Space;
Environment/Drainage;
Austin Energy Green Building;
Art;
Great Streets;
Community Amenities;
Transportation;
Building Design;
Parking Structure Frontage;
Affordable Housing;
Historic Preservation;
Accessibility; and
Page 279 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report – Supplement Page 43
Local Small Business.
Austin allows for significant development innovation and design creativity by giving developers
discretion to create their own regulations and requirements if they meet the conditions of the tier
system. The city also provides incentives to obtain a well-designed PUD. Bonuses are granted in
certain instances if the developer provides affordable housing and rental uni ts. Austin’s use of PUDs
– tier system, development flexibility, negotiability, and ability to achieve innovative developm ents –
is something Englewood could consider.
Portland (OR)
Portland uses Planned Developments (PDs – similar in concept to PUDs) as a master planning
mechanism to encourage innovative and creative developments. These developments allow for
additional housing types and uses, the transfer of density and flo or area to different portions of a
site, increased intensity, bonus floor area and increased height on large commercial/mixed use sites
if an applicant provides features that benefit the public. Well -designed PDs:
Integrate into the urban fabric and complements the existing community character;
Are pedestrian-oriented with emphasis on transit and multi-modal transportation;
Incorporate design standards that ensures light and air is accessible to the public;
Creates a safe and vibrant realm with gathering spaces and activities;
Promote open space areas for passive and active recreation;
Accommodates affordable housing; and
Are energy efficient.
An applicant must meet the intent of the PD regulations and can request additional flexibility to
certain provisions. Depending on public benefit potential, PDs can transfer development rights and
increase density and development intensity. Portland’s streamlined approach is something
Englewood could consider because regulations are not too restrictive or liberal. Reg ulations also
incentivize particular development patterns which could apply to different Englewood areas.
Regulatory Incentives
This section expands on development and regulatory incentives to foster higher intensity, mixed -use,
and walkable development. This section provides different methods and case studies that address
regulatory incentives.
Intensity Bonus
An intensity bonus is one incentive Englewood could use to create flexibility for context -sensitive,
compact development. Intensity bonuses are used to increase the regular maximum permitted
Page 280 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report – Supplement Page 44
intensity. This incentive is mostly utilized at locations where there is capacity for mixed -use
development near transit facilities. The City of Orlando, FL uses intensity bonuses to achieve superior
urban design, a greater mixture of land uses, and to encourage housing opportunities. Orlando also
utilizes intensity bonuses to incentivize compact urban form where travel distances and reliance on
the single-occupant vehicle is reduced, multi-modal convenience is promoted, and energy is
conserved. Orlando aligns intensity bonuses with “Future Land Use Designations” (see table below).
Future Land Use Designation
District From To
O-1 Office Low Intensity Office Medium Intensity
O-2 Office Medium Intensity Office High Intensity
O-3 Office High Intensity Metropolitan Activity Center
MU-1 Mixed Use Corridor Medium
Intensity Mixed Use Corridor High Intensity
MU-2 Mixed Use Corridor High
Intensity Metropolitan Activity Center
AC-N Neighborhood Activity Center Community Activity Center
AC-1 Community Activity Center Urban Activity Center
AC-2 Urban Activity Center Metropolitan Activity Center
AC-3 Metropolitan Activity Center Downtown Activity Center
AC-3A Downtown Activity Center Double the density and intensity of the future land use
map designation
Page 281 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report – Supplement Page 45
To use the intensity bonus provision, a development must provide design enhancements such as
improved streetscape treatment and landscaping, environmentally sustainable building m aterials,
and superior quality architectural features.
Advantages:
o Allows for more efficient use of land
o Encourages people to walk and/or use transit
o More aesthetically appealing developments
o New energy to areas that need development
o Carefully considered at public hearings
Disadvantages:
o Too much negotiation
o Increased administrative work
Density Bonus
Density bonuses are common tools used to encourage and incentivize certain development styles.
Density bonuses increase the maximum allowable development on a site in exchange for a particular
incentive offered by a city. Density bonuses can allow for increases in developed square footage
and/or increases in the number of developed units. This tool works well in areas where market
demand is strong and land availability is scarce. It is also effe ctive for projects that will provide an
exceptional quality and significant benefit to the city as opposed to a permitted, alternative
development pattern. Density bonuses regulations must have a distinct purpose, identify applicable
areas, and carefully tend to a specific policy objective.
In Caledonia (WI) density bonuses are used to protect and maintain quality open space through
conservation design. Caledonia offers developers up to an additional 20% density bonus to the
number of lots allowed if they provide additional standards (self -funding for open space
management, trails and open space connectivity design, primary or secondary environmental
corridor preservation, and designing 75% or more of all lots that abut open space).
Englewood could implement a similar approach to Caledonia’s that aligns with the neighborhoods
identified in Englewood Forward. Density bonus incentives can preserve the limited space the city has
by building denser developments in higher intensity areas.
Advantages:
o Stimulate construction of a public good without spending capital funds
o Predicable development scenarios
Page 282 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report – Supplement Page 46
o Preservation of natural resources
o Works best in areas where growth is needed, and land availability is limited
o Encourages a mixed-income community
Disadvantages:
o Consistent density bonuses can create monotonous land use patterns
o Administrative confusion can cause process complication
o Limited to robust market environments where developers can afford subsidized
housing costs
Design Standard Alternatives: Dimen sional Requirements
The Code should include built in design standard alternatives for certain places to help define the
public realm and enhance the visual quality of the built environment. Implementing a context -based
planning approach to focus on form within a specific community can incentivize development and
create flexibility. Design standard alternatives provide design flexibility and development patterns
where compliance with the baseline standards is challenging. Alternatives to build -to lines, setback
encroachments, transparency, height, and pedestrian access points aid development, avoid variance
requests, and reinforce the surrounding area’s character.
Flexible setbacks and floor area ratio requirements are often provided in areas where urban fo rm is
the focal point. Relaxed setbacks and floor area ratio regulations are reasonable incentives for
developers because it emphasizes site design, effective use of land, and development functionality
instead of traditio nal developments that meet the Code. Portland, OR uses setback and floor area
ratio to encourage certain development patterns. In commercial/mixed-use zones, developers can
receive floor area and height flexibility in exchange for affordable housing/commercial space.
Constructing these spaces create dense developments, generates land use efficiency, and
incentivizes unique site design. The city summarizes the floor area ratio and height bonuses in the
table below.
Additionally, Portland allows for
alternative building setbacks for
certain uses. The city specifically
adjusts its maximum setback
requirements for large retailers
if the site provides a pedestrian
and transit-friendly main street
type of development. The intent
is to encourage development
that will form a pedestrian-
Page 283 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report – Supplement Page 47
friendly main street along the perimeter of the parking blocks and provide connectivity within the site
and to adjacent streets and uses (see illustration below).
McKinney, TX also uses similar setback regulations to
promote dense development within the downtown area.
The area identifies multiple districts with specific
development regulations for each district. There are
setback ranges dependent on street classification. For
instance, new developments can develop within a 5 to 20
foot setback range in the Downtown Edge district instead
of using a traditional required setback line. This setback
range incentivizes developers to construct pedestrian -
oriented developments as opposed to conventional
developments. It also allows for developers to utilize more
of the lot, thus enhancing the development’s design.
To encourage innovative development options, Englewood
could consider offering developers multiple frontage
options. The City of San Marcos, TX implemented this
component in their recently updated zoning ordinan ce. The
multiple frontage approach is not applied throughout the
city, but along major transportation corridors. The city
offers 3 frontage types with various associated standards:
parkway, green, and multi-way (see illustrations below). San Marcos also us es conservation frontage
for projects within the Conservation Corridor Overlay District. The intent for this frontage type is to
preserve sensitive environmental regions and protect scenic beauty along conservation corridors.
Page 284 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report – Supplement Page 48
Page 285 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report – Supplement Page 49
Page 286 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report – Supplement Page 50
Although multiple frontages options are only applicable to certain areas, Englewood could apply a
similar approach oriented to certain areas and street typologies within the city. Providing additional
development options can increase site design, improve congestion, and genera te innovative
developments.
Advantages:
o Provides design flexibility
o Promotes place-specific developments
o Limits need for site variances
o Additional development options
Disadvantages:
o Added administrative confusion
o More potential red tape
Selectively Eliminate Density Restrictions
To attract placemaking, a simple ordinance change can establish a strong incentive for urbanism in
regional centers. Density restrictions are unnecessary in core districts where intensive activity and
vibrancy are goals. The City of Seattle uses a minimum density standard that has been successful to
combat traditional development patterns. Seattle accomplishes this by applying selective density
elimination standards to highly urbanized zoning districts in conjunction with street classification.
Since this ordinance’s enactment in 2014, developments that under develop sites, reduce activity
adjacent to sidewalks, encourage substantial parking, and limit development opportunities near
transit and services have been effectively discouraged. Setting minimum densities are feasible
alternatives to aid Englewood’s vision of compact, pedestrian -oriented development patterns.
In anticipation of new transit and to promote revitalization of underutilized l and, the City of San
Leandro, CA established land use designations for the parcels near existing and planned transit.
Page 287 of 367
2020 Unified Development Code Assessment Report – Supplement Page 51
These designations vary according to their distance from the station, existing land use adjacencies,
and current building types. To maximize transit potential, the city requires a minimum density for
new projects of 80 units per acre. This density requirement creates expectations for developers to
construct a quality product that provides benefit to the city. Additionally, the city permits various
residential density and heights (standards are below).
Land Use: Residential use required. Limited ground floor retail and office allowed in mixed -
use development (quantities to be determined during zoning review). Neighborhood - and
downtown-serving retail (e.g., grocery store) allowed subject to review.
Minimum residential density: 80 dwelling units/acre.
Maximum residential density: no limit, subject to review.
Maximum building height: no limit.
Special residential parking ratio: 1.0 space/dwelling unit (maximum).
Design standards for transitions, to minimize impact on neighboring parcels.
In addition to the zones, flexibility is allowed in “special policy areas”. This flexibility includes the
location of public plazas, setbacks for transit loading areas, street closures, minim um building
heights, and allowing office uses above ground floors.
Advantages:
o Avoids lot underutilization
o Increases lot yield
Disadvantages
o Increased infrastructure demand
o Neighborhood/property owner conflict
Page 288 of 367
CITY COUNCIL PRESENTATION22 March 2021, 6:00 PMUNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE ASSESSMENTPage 289 of 367
AGENDAIntroduction and Project OverviewOrganization, Alternate Code Structures, and Guiding PrinciplesGeneral UDC SuggestionsSuggestions by ChapterDiscussionNext StepsPage 290 of 367
ORGANIZATION, CODE STRUCTURES, & GUIDING PRINCIPLESPage 291 of 367
Assessment Report OrganizationIntroductionCode Structure OverviewPublic Engagement OverviewDiscussion of the Five Priority TopicsGeneral UDC Overview and SuggestionsUDC Update Suggestions by ChapterPage 292 of 367
Alternative Code StructuresConventional ZoningOverlay ZoningPlanned Unit Development (PUD)Use PatternsComposite ZoningDesign-Based Zoning (Form-Based or Transect-Based)Design GuidelinesPerformance-Based ZoningPage 293 of 367
Code Update Guiding PrinciplesProvide a Comprehensive Framework for Development Ensure that the Code is User-Friendly The UDC Should have Community Support Make the Right Things EasyThe UDC Should Reflect Best PracticesRight-Size the Standards & ProceduresThe UDC Should Balance Flexibility and CertaintyProvide a Clear, Fluid Administrative Process Avoid Nonconformities Provide Enforcement ToolsPage 294 of 367
GENERAL UDC SUGGESTIONSPage 295 of 367
GRAPHIC ENHANCEMENTSCurrent UDC has few graphicsSuggest integrating graphics throughout the UDC to: Illustrate dimensional relationships and building and site planning conceptsHelp to explain or amplify material that is sometimes difficult for casual or non-technical users to understandPage 296 of 367
BETTER SEQUENCEZoning regulations should put technical provisions in the back of the document and more substantive provisions to the front.Suggestions:Move portions of Chapter 1 and all of Chapter 2 to the end of the UDCAdd an executive summary to the first chapterMerge Chapter 7: Telecommunications into Chapter 5: Use RegulationsPage 297 of 367
INTEGRATION OF TERMSCross-references and integration of terms assist both applicants and administrators with the development process and minimizes confusion. Suggestions:Incorporate the Comprehensive Plan goals using italicized purpose statements at the beginning of each section.The purpose statement would explain why the provisions exist and tie to the Comprehensive Plan or related plans or studies. Page 298 of 367
SUGGESTIONS BY CHAPTERPage 299 of 367
CH. 1 GENERAL PROVISIONSMove the zoning map and rules of construction and interpretation to the end of the UDC.Add content to chapter and section headers that aligns the Code to Englewood Forward. Remove “and/or” conjunctions from the Code to reduce interpretation conflicts. Page 300 of 367
CH. 2 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW & APPROVAL PROCEDURES Move this chapter to the end of the UDC. Create a process and standards for interpretations.Revise PUD language to include stringent standards that exceed base zone district regulations.Revise public hearing process to allow applicants to respond to public comments. Provide a time limit for zoning variances so an applicant cannot reapply within a year. Page 301 of 367
CH. 3 ZONE DISTRICTSRetain structure and revise allowed uses. Provide revised district introductory statements that correspond with the goals identified in Englewood Forward. Current Zoning DistributionPage 302 of 367
CH. 4 FLOODPLAIN REGULATIONSRetain content and simplify language.Revise the uses to match with the revised land uses from Chapter 5: Use Regulations. Ensure this chapter is flexible and easy to amend as FEMA regulations change over time.Consider relocating definitions to Chapter 11.Page 303 of 367
CH. 5 USE REGULATIONSUpdate and reorganize the use chart.Modernize the specific use standards for manufactured home parks to enable upgrades to existing homes.Reclassify limited uses and accessory uses as permitted, conditional, accessory, or temporary uses.Revise and clarify automotive uses (i.e. sales, repair & rental). Page 304 of 367
CH. 5 USE REGULATIONS (cont.)Revise ADU definitions and provide standards tailored to specific neighborhoods or zoning districts. Relocate “Adaptive Reuse of Designated Historical Buildings” to the Historic Preservation chapter.Incorporate more flexibility within the home occupation use to address various types of at-home work situations. Revise language and stipulations for food vending trucks within the Temporary Use section.Page 305 of 367
CH. 6 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Dimensional Requirements Simplify the ADU Dimensional table and include new ADU types and appropriate regulations. Consider expanding zone districts allowed for ADUs.Adjust bulk plane, setback and lot coverage requirements and tailor them to specific neighborhoods and/or zoning districts to encourage building separation, foster better lighting, and protect privacy. Page 306 of 367
CH. 6 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS -Streets & Vehicle Access & Circulation Revise standards to reflect the current Public Works standards.Encourage shared drive access for adjacent non-residential development to discourage unnecessary drive cuts and reduce congestion. Page 307 of 367
CH. 6 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Off-Street Parking RequirementsRevise parking standards to include parking maximums and minimums. Identify different parking areas and match them with certain development contexts.Reduce over parking by using site-specific parking demand analysis. Tie the location and size of parking areas to landscaping/shading requirements.Provide a matrix that visualizes bicycle parking standards.Address alternative parking regulations.Page 308 of 367
CH. 6 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS –Pedestrian & Bicycle AccessRevise non-mandatory language such as should to mandatory language such as shall.Increase planting strip requirements from 6’ to 10’ and define a soil volume metric where planting strips aren’t feasible, to encourage more greenery in planting spaces.Create contextual design standards for walkways, bus stops, and transit locations. Provide incentives to promote less parking.Provide lighting requirements for connectivity purposes.Page 309 of 367
CH. 6 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS –Fences & Retaining WallsContextualize standards, particularly heights, by zoning district or defined neighborhood.Update sight triangle illustrations with improved 2D graphics or new 3D graphics.Supplement Table 16-6-6.1 Fence Classifications and Table 16-6-6.5 Retaining Wall Classifications with colored images or graphics depicting the different fence and wall types.Page 310 of 367
CH. 6 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS –Landscaping & ScreeningImplement an approved/prohibited plant list and require the planting of approved plants. Expand the existing Water Conservation Principles and create standards. Intensify landscaping requirements for non-residential zoning districts to provide more trees, shrubs, and grasses.Consider allowing applicants to substitute civic spaces and usable open space for required landscaping.Develop pedestrian-oriented streetscape standards for the Mixed-Use Commercial areas and TSA district. Page 311 of 367
CH. 6 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS –Design Standards & GuidelinesStrengthen residential design standards to ensure quality home development. Develop specific residential design standards for each zoning district or neighborhood. Provide additional pervious area standards.Remove guidelines and only prescribe standards.Add context sensitive sustainability standards for nonresidential development through a point system.Page 312 of 367
CH. 6 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS –Historic PreservationEstablish a certificate of appropriateness review process for historic properties.Provide regulations for the demolition of historic properties. Incorporate adaptive reuse language from Section 16-5-3.Page 313 of 367
CH. 6 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS –SignsRealign sign types to zoning districts or street classification rather than land use. Provide clear and effective graphics, matrixes, and tables to illustrate sign types and their associated dimensions.Incorporate sign definitions into the definitions chapter of the Code. Page 314 of 367
CH. 6 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS –TSA District Create a separate form-based ordinance for the TSA district at RTD light rail stations.Omit this section and incorporate content into an overlay section or in respective sections of the UDC.Implement compact, walkable and/or transit-oriented development standards with a trade-off system that allows for parking reductions, design flexibility, green infrastructure, and landscaping. Page 315 of 367
CH. 7 TelecommunicationsRevise the content to reflect current telecommunication standards, including small cell facilities. Incorporate the content into Chapter 5: Use Regulations or a separate appendix in the back of the Code.Page 316 of 367
CH. 8 Subdivision Design, Improvements, & Dedication Standards Revise Land Dedication Amount Required subsection to reflect the type of improvement through a menu of park/open space options. Align the street classification system with the Comprehensive Plan. Page 317 of 367
CH. 9 NonconformitiesRetain existing nonconformities regulationsClarify C. Redevelopment of Nonconforming Buildings or Structureswith infill standards to reduce newly rehabilitated nonconformities.Revise discontinuance time periods. Page 318 of 367
Ch. 10: Enforcement and PenaltiesRetain existing enforcement and penalties regulations but simplify the language and verify cross-references to the City’s Municipal Code.Page 319 of 367
CH. 11 Use Classifications & DefinitionsRetain chapter’s structure and include new and revised definitions as needed. Modernize use classifications and definitions. Verify revised definitions comply with state law and are sufficiently cross-referenced.Match new uses with new definitions.Page 320 of 367
NEXT STEPSPage 321 of 367
Next StepsMarch 23, 2021: Request for Proposals Posted for RewriteApril/May 2021: Steering Committee Recruitment/Council Appointment and FormulationJune 2021: Consulting Firm InterviewsJune 2021: Contract Recommendation to CouncilJuly 2021: Rewrite Process BeginsPage 322 of 367
DISCUSSIONPage 323 of 367
STUDY SESSION
TO: Mayor and Council
FROM: Alex Dorotik, Maria D'Andrea
DEPARTMENT: City Manager's Office, Public Works
DATE: March 22, 2021
SUBJECT: Discussion regarding the Potential Sale of Two City Properties
DESCRIPTION:
Staff will present information to Council to discuss whether or not they wish to pursue the
potential sale of two city properties and, if so, next steps in the process
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff will present information to the City Council to discuss whether or not they wish to pursue
the potential sale of two city properties and, if so, the next steps in the process.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION:
• The City Council approved entering into a lease of the Tejon Fire Station on June 20,
2016.
• The City Council discussed the potential sale of the Tejon Fire Station site on September
10, 2018. The direction from the Council at that time was to not sell the property.
SUMMARY:
The City Council will need to determine whether or not to continue to own these properties or
declare them surplus and dispose of them. Options for each property are described in the
memo.
ANALYSIS:
The city has received requests from two different sources to purchase the following properties:
• Tejon Fire Station, 3075 S. Tejon Street & 3060 S. Umatilla Street
• Metropolitan Fire Training Center, 2301 W. Chenango Avenue
Tejon Fire Station
The Tejon Fire Station was constructed in 1976. The building is approximately 4,625 square feet
in size and sits on two lots that are approximately 0.89 acres, combined. The property has a
current replacement value of $689,000, per CIRSA, the city's insurance provider. An appraisal
of the site was conducted in July 2015.
On June 20, 2016, the City Council approved a lease agreement with Harvey Construction, Inc.
dba American Striping Company for the Tejon Fire Station. This is a gross lease with the tenant
covering the cost of utilities and maintaining the interior & exterior of the building related to their
usage of the facility. The initial term is five years (July 2016 - July 2021), with three additional
five-year lease options that include an automatic 3% lease rate escalation, per year. At the time
of the lease, American Striping requested a first right of refusal to acquire the real estate should
Page 324 of 367
the city determine that it wished to sell the property. This right of refusal requires that they pay
the price directed by an MAI appraisal should the property no longer be needed for municipal
purposes.
On September 10, 2018, in response to a request from American Striping to purchase the
property for $512,000, the City Council determined that the property was still needed in the case
that fire services would be provided in some manner other than the current arrangement with
Denver Fire.
American Striping has recently reached out to the city again, in advance of the five-year lease
renewal provision, to determine if there is interest by the city in selling the property.
City of Englewood Options
The city has the following options in regard to the property:
1. Retain ownership of the property. Preventative maintenance costs would continue to be
incurred however, all other costs are borne by the tenant. If the tenant opted to end their
lease, the city would then be responsible for all maintenance and utility costs. The city
could then attempt to lease the property to another tenant or use it for a different
purpose such as storage, office space, etc.
2. The city could sell the property for the current appraised value, per the right of first
refusal, to the tenant. A current appraisal would need to be commissioned to determine
the fair market value of the property.
3. The city could sell the property on the open market, if the tenant chose to waive their
right of first refusal to the property.
Metropolitan Fire Training Center
The Metropolitan Fire Training Center (MFTC) is a 3.32 acre site devoted to fire training. It
contains a two-story office/classroom/garage building, training tower, and training structures.
The site is used for the burning of different types of materials for training purposes. An appraisal
of the site was conducted in April 2008.
In 1975 the City of Englewood, the City of Littleton and the Littleton Fire Protection District
entered into an agreement where they would establish and construct a joint fire training facility.
In 1979, the parties entered into a second agreement wherein Castlewood Fire Protection
District, (Castlewood) purchased a one-third interest in MFTC. The result was a one-third
interest in the property held by Littleton, Englewood and Castlewood. The agreement set forth
each parties' share of the costs of operations, maintenance, construction of facilities, and a
share in any rental fees paid to the parties from the use of the MFTC by other fire departments.
In 1981, the parties entered into a third agreement wherein the Bancroft Fire Protection District
(Bancroft) purchased a proportional share in the MFTC. The result was that each party to the
agreement would hold a one-quarter share (1/4) share of the MFTC, again sharing the cost of
operations, maintenance, construction of facilities and rental fees paid per their respective
shares. The ownership interest arising from the 1981 Agreement was as follows:
Page 325 of 367
Entity Ownership Percentage
City of Englewood 25%
City of Littleton 12.5%
Littleton Fire Protection District 12.5%
Castlewood 25%
Bancroft 25%
Sometime thereafter, Castlewood merged with the South Metro Fire Rescue (South Metro) and
Bancroft with the West Metro Fire Protection District (West Metro). These mergers transferred
their respective shares in the MFTC to the new fire protection districts, which resulted in South
Metro and West Metro having a one-quarter interest in the Center.
In 2015 the City of Englewood dissolved its fire department and contracted with the Denver Fire
Department. At the time of the Intergovernmental Agreement with Denver, Denver did not wish
to have an ownership interest in the MFTC, thereby leaving Englewood with its twenty-five
(25%) interest in the MFTC.
In 2018, the Littleton Fire Department and Littleton Fire Protection District merged with South
Metro, and as a part of the merger, Littleton transferred their ownership shares to South Metro.
Currently, South Metro in the process of purchasing West Metro's share of the MFTC. The
resulting ownership percentage would be South Metro having a seventy-five percent share
(75%) and Englewood a twenty-five percent (25%) share.
During the years, if not decades of training, firefighting foam has been used on the site. The
foam contains the synthetic chemicals PFOS/PFOA which over time has leached into the
ground contaminating the ground water under the MFTC.
In 2018, at the request of Littleton Fire Rescue, a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment was
conducted by Environmental Quality Management (EQM) on the property. In 2019, South Metro
engaged EQM to perform a Phase II Assessment and Materials Management Plan. The
Assessments found that the groundwater samples exceeded Colorado Department of Health
and Environment (CDPHE) site-specific groundwater quality standard of 70 parts per trillion.
Based upon the Phase II Assessment, CDPHE found that the MFTC was eligible for the
Voluntary Cleanup Program (VCUP) with a No Action Determination. This determination meant
that no cleanup of the groundwater would be required at this time, as long as a Use Restriction
was recorded against the property. The Use Restriction prohibits the owners of the property
from withdrawing groundwater from the site, and soil disturbing activities, such as excavation,
on the property without the permission of the CDPHE. It was also determined that there was no
evidence that the hazardous substances have left the property site or leached into the South
Platte River, which runs next to the MFTC.
South Metro has approached the city with interest in purchasing the city's share of the MFTC.
They have proposed the following terms for the purchase:
• A purchase price of $188,105.88, based upon a 2015 appraisal obtained by South
Metro;
Page 326 of 367
• Each party would remain liable for its share of future environmental liability associated
with the release of hazardous substances at the Center prior to the closing date. If fault
cannot be apportioned, then each party would bear a one-quarter (1/4) share of the
costs and damages associated with the release. This means that Littleton, Littleton Fire
Protection, West Metro, South Metro, and the City of Englewood would share in the
costs and damages. Conveyance of property does not relieve a party for past hazardous
substance releases per federal laws, such as the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, Liability Act, (CERCLA).
• No earnest money deposit would be required by the city;
• South Metro would purchase a title insurance policy at its expense; and
• Each party would pay its own closing costs or, South Metro would pay the closing costs
if a title company facilitates the closing.
City of Englewood Options
The city has the following options in regard to the property:
1. Retain its twenty-five percent (25%) ownership interest. This option would require the
city to contribute to the continued maintenance, operations, and any construction of new
facilities at the MFTC. The city's contribution would be set at its percentage ownership
interest. The City would also share in any rental revenue realized by the MFTC's use by
outside entities, and, again, this would be set at its percentage ownership share.
Continued ownership would require that the City and South Metro enter into an
amendment to the 1981 agreement setting forth the parties' responsibilities in regard to
the MFTC's operation, maintenance and use. The city would be required to be a
signatory to the Restricted Use agreement with CDPHE and South Metro.
2. The city could sell the property for the amount offered. This would release the city from
any future responsibilities for maintenance, operations and the possible construction of
new training facilities at the site. It would also release the city from the responsibility for
any future (after the sale) hazardous substance releases at the site, including clean-up
and damages. But as mentioned earlier, the city, along with the former owners would still
be responsible for any mitigation of hazardous substance releases that occurred during
the period that the city was an owner of the MFTC.
3. The city could obtain a current appraisal and submit a counter offer to South Metro
based upon the results of the appraisal. If accepted, the same conditions as described in
2. above, would be applicable.
South Metro has provided a proposed agreement with Denver Fire for the use of the Center
without charge to Denver, unless South Metro provides any equipment and/or supplies. If so,
then Denver Fire will reimburse South Metro for the costs related thereto.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
Tejon Fire Station
The payment terms from the American Striping lease are as follows:
Year Revenue
1 (7/2016-7/2017) $2,500 Per Month; $30,000 Annual
2 (8/2017-7/2018) $2,500 Per Month; $30,000 Annual
3 (8/2018-7/2019) $3,500 Per Month; $42,000 Annual
Page 327 of 367
4 (8/2019-7/2020) $3,500 Per Month; $42,000 Annual
5 (8/2020-7/2021) $4,000 Per Month; $48,000 Annual
Years 6-10 $49,440 Annual
Years 11-15 $50,293.20 Annual
Years 16-20 $52,450.00 Annual
Per the contract, the tenant is also responsible for any taxes, insurance, maintenance, and
utilities.
The 2020 Assessed Value of the property, per the Arapahoe County Assessor's website, is
$537,576.
Metropolitan Fire Training Center
The 2020 Assessed Value of the property, per the Arapahoe County Assessor's website, is
$1,017,198. 25% of this amount is $254,299.50.
CONNECTION TO STRATEGIC PLAN:
Governance - A city government that is accountable, effective and efficient
CONCLUSION:
Staff recommends that the City Council discuss the options available for each property and
provide direction to staff.
ATTACHMENTS:
Presentation
Tejon Fire Station Site Map
09/10/2018 Council Packet
Metropolitan Fire Training Center Site Map
Page 328 of 367
Property Sale –Tejon Fire Station & Metropolitan
Fire Training Center
March 22, 2021
Page 329 of 367
How we design roads, sidewalks and other amenities plays a key
role in determining safety for the end user
Tejon Fire Station -2019
Page 330 of 367
How we design roads, sidewalks and other amenities plays a key
role in determining safety for the end user
Tejon Fire Station -2015
Page 331 of 367
How we design roads, sidewalks and other amenities plays a key
role in determining safety for the end user
Tejon Fire Station -2018
Page 332 of 367
Tejon Fire Station -Options
1.Retain ownership of the property
2. The city could sell the property for the current appraised value, per the
right of first refusal, to the tenant
3. The city could sell the property on the open market, if the tenant chose
to waive their right of first refusal to the property.Page 333 of 367
How we design roads, sidewalks and other amenities plays a key
role in determining safety for the end user
Metropolitan Fire Training Center
Page 334 of 367
Metropolitan Fire Training Center –Current Ownership
Entity Ownership
Percentage
City of Englewood 25%
South Metro Fire Rescue 50%
West Metro Fire Protection District 25%Page 335 of 367
Metropolitan Fire Training Center -Options
1.Retain its twenty-five percent (25%) ownership interest.
•Continued ownership would require that the City and South Metro enter into an agreement
amendment setting forth the parties' responsibilities in regard to the MFTC's operation, maintenance
and use.
•The city would be required to be a signatory to the Restricted Use agreement with CDPHE and South
Metro.
2.The city could sell the property for the amount offered.
•The city, along with the former owners would still be responsible for any mitigation of hazardous
substance releases that occurred during the period that the city was an owner of the MFTC.
3. The city could obtain a current appraisal and submit a counter offer to South Metro.Page 336 of 367
Questions/Discussion
•Which option does the City Council wish to pursue regarding the
Tejon Fire Station property?
•Which option does the City Council wish to pursue regarding the
MFTC property?Page 337 of 367
Page 338 of 367
STUDY SESSION
TO: Mayor and Council
FROM: Eric Keck
DEPARTMENT: City Manager's Office
DATE: September 10, 2018
SUBJECT: 3075 S Tejon Street Property Discussion
DESCRIPTION:
3075 S Tejon Street Property Discussion
RECOMMENDATION:
Council shall determine whether or not to surplus and sell the former Tejon Fire Station located
at 3075 S. Tejon Street.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION:
20 June 2016 Lease Agreement Approval
SUMMARY:
The City Council had previously approved a lease agreement with American Striping in June of
2016 for the Tejon Fire Station. American Striping is now in the third year of the lease and has
asked if they could exercise the option within the lease agreement to purchase the property.
The lease agreement stipulates that American Striping has a right of first of refusal to purchase
the property should the council ever declare the property surplus. This right of refusal requires
that they pay the price directed by an MAI appraisal should the property be no longer needed for
municipal purposes.
American Striping has been an excellent tenant and has made significant improvements to both
the building and property. Their business has expanded and they are now in need of additional
space and desire to acquire the neighboring lot and want to control their destiny with the Tejon
Fire Station property as well.
The City Council will need to make the policy determination as to whether or not to continue to
hold the property or declare it surplus and allow American Striping to exercise their option.
ANALYSIS:
American Striping has proposed a purchase price of $512,000. This equates to essentially
$100 per square foot. The comparable data for similar properties indicates that this might be
low but without an appraisal of the property as required by the lease agreement, this amount is
not relevant anyway.
ATTACHMENTS:
Page 339 of 367
11cii Tejon Station Lease
Tejon Letter of Intent
Tejon Comparables
Page 340 of 367
COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
Meeting Date: Agenda Item: Subject: Lease of the
20 June 2016 Tejon Fire Station
11cii
Initiated By: City Manager's Office Staff Source: Eric A. Keck, City
Manager
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION
No previous City Council action has been taken on this item.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
The City Manager's Office recommends that the City Council enter into a lease
agreement with Harvey Construction, Inc. DBA American Striping Company.
BACKGROUND, ANALYSIS, AND ALTERNATIVES IDENTIFIED
With the Englewood Fire and Rescue Department no longer utilizing the Tejon Fire
Station located at 3075 South Tejon Street, the City desires to have a tenant utilizing
the building. Given the City Council's desire to hold onto assets rather than declare
them surplus and sell them, staff determined that a lease of the property made best
sense. Toward this effort of having a tenant in the facility, the Englewood Procurement
Division conducted an RFP for the lease of the Tejon Fire Station. RFP-16-07 for the
lease of the Tejon Fire Station was open from 12 April 2016 through 3 May 2016. The
RFP process yielded only one formal response from Harvey Construction Inc. doing
business as American Striping Company. During the RFP process, several brokers and
companies did call the City Manager's Office with the desire to purchase the real estate
but not lease the site.
The City had an appraisal of rental rates performed on comparable industrial buildings
through the use of Metropolitan Appraisers, Inc. which is an Englewood commercial real
estate appraisal firm. The resultant study indicated rents ranging from $7.25 to $10.00
per square foot. The proposal from American Striping Inc. suggested a base rental rate
of $6.48 per square foot for the first two years, $9.07 in years three and four and then it
climbs to $10.37 per square foot in year five. Please see attached Letter of Intent. The
reasoning for the lower lease rate up front relates to the capital cost of tenant
improvements that are proposed at the Tejon Station to make it work for their striping
business. These improvements are seen more specifically on the attached
improvement page but include buildout of new office space, new carpet and paint,
installation of a security fence, installation of vehicle lifts in bays, and other
miscellaneous improvements.
This is a gross lease with the tenant covering the cost of utilities and maintaining the
interior of the building related to their usage of the facility and American Striping will also
be responsible for the care and maintenance of the grounds. The initial term is five
years with three additional five year lease options that include an automatic 3% lease
rate escalation. American Striping has also requested a first right of refusal to acquire
Page 341 of 367
the real estate should the City Council determine that they would declare the facility
surplus.
Staff has reviewed the lease terms and spoken with commercial realtors who believe
that this lease rate is fair, equitable and close to market rates initially and then surpass
market over time. This particular company will be a great complimentary use of the
property and appears to be poised to grow and care for the site.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
The City will realize the following through the term of the lease:
Year 1: $30,000
Year 2: $30,000
Year 3: $42,000
Year 4: $42,000
Year 5: $48,000
Year6-10: $49,440
Year 11-15: $50,923.20
Year 16-20: $52,450.90
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS
Letter of Intent
Proposed Improvement List
Lease Agreement
Page 342 of 367
Page 343 of 367
Page 344 of 367
Page 345 of 367
Page 346 of 367
Year
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
Improvement
Demo out existing living area
Build out new small office space
Run additional electrical for office space
Repair carpet and paint
Run new networking cable to office space
Misc. repairs throughout property
Install safety fence around yard
Remove sod and install road base for yard
Build out addtional office space
Install lifts in bays
Run additional electrical and plumb air to bays
Additional office buildout
Run new Eletrical to office space
Additional improvements to yard space
TBD
Page 347 of 367
RESOLUTION NO.
SERJES OF 2016
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD TO ENTER INTO A
LEASE WITH HARVEY CONSTRUCTION INC. dba AMERICAN STRIPING COMP ANY
TO LEASE THE TEJON FIRE STATION LOCATED AT 3075 SOUTH TEJON STREET
ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO.
WHEREAS, the Englewood Fire and Rescue Department is no longer utilizing the Tejon Fire
Station; and
WHEREAS, Harvey Construction Inc dba American Striping Company submitted a Letter of
Intent to Lease the Tejon Fire Station located at 3075 South Tejon Street, dated May 27, 2016;
and
WHEREAS, the reasoning for the lower lease rate up front relates to the capital cost of tenant
improvements that are proposed at the Tejon Station to make it work for their striping business;
and
WHEREAS, American Striping Company will cover the cost of utilities and maintaining the
interior of the building related to their usage of the facility and American Striping will also be
responsible for the care and maintenance of the grounds; and
WHEREAS, American Striping has requested a first right ofrefusal to purchase the real estate
should the Englewood City Council determine that they would declare the facility surplus; and
WHEREAS, any sale of the property shall be by ordinance.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO, THAT:
Section 1. The Englewood City Council hereby authorizes entering into the Lease for the
Tejon Fire Station between the City of Englewood and Harvey Construction Inc. dba American
Striping Company, attached hereto as Exhibit A.
Section 2. The City Manager of the City of Englewood is hereby authorized to sign and attest
said Lease for and on behalf of the City of Englewood.
ADOPTED AND APPROVED this 20th day of June, 2016.
ATTEST:
Joe Jefferson, Mayor
Loucrishia A. Ellis, City Clerk
1
Page 348 of 367
I, Loucrishia A. Ellis, City Clerk for the City of Englewood, Colorado, hereby certify the
above is a true copy of Resolution No._, Series of 2016.
Loucrishia A. Ellis, City Clerk
2
Page 349 of 367
LEASE AND OPTION
THIS INDENTURE, dated , is between THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO
the Landlord and HARVEY CONSTRUCTION INC. dba AMERICAN STRIPING , the Tenant.
In consideration of the payment of the rent and the keeping and performance of the covenants and agreements by
the Tenant herein, the Landlord leases to the Tenant, the following described premises (the "Premises") located in the
County of Arapahoe, City of Englewood in the State of Colorado, to wit:
Lot 4 and Lot 7, Block 10, Vista Heights 2nd Filing, Except Streets.
Also known as: the City of Englewood Tejon Fire Station, 3075 South Tejon Street, Englewood, CO 80110.
The Premises described above, with all the appurtenances, are leased to the Tenant for the full term, from the date
of July, 2016 until the date of_.::J,:ul"-y-'3"-1'-', 2:::0:.:3:..:6'------------
for a rental of$ See Exhibit A , payable
SEE EXHIBIT A ATTACHED HERETO, FOR THE MONTHLY RENTAL AND ANNUAL PAYMENTS ..
THE TENANT, IN CONSIDERATION OF THE LEASING OF THE PREMISES, COVENANTS AND AGREES
AS FOLLOWS:
To pay the rent above;
To keep the Premises in good condition and repair and at the expiration of this lease to surrender and deliver up the
same in as good order and condition as when entered upon, loss by fire, inevitable accident, act of God or ordinary wear
excepted;
To not assign this lease or any interest therein without prior written consent of the Landlord;
To use the Premises for no unlawful or questionable purpose and to obey the laws, ordinances and police regula-
tions in relation to the use and condition thereof and of the roads and streets adjoining.
IT IS AGREED that all assessments for water that may be levied against the Premises during the continuance of this
lease will be paid by Tenant and that all charges for heating and lighting the
Premises shall be paid by Tenant as they become due. Also, if the Premises become
untenantable on account of damage by fire, flood or act of God, the term of this lease may be terminated by the Tenant.
IT IS FURTHER AGREED that if the Premises are left vacant, then the Landlord may, without being obliged to do
so and without terminating this lease, retake possession of the Premises. If any part of the rent herein reserved is unpaid,
the Landlord may rent the same for such rent and upon such conditions as the Landlord may think best, making such
changes and repairs as may be required, giving credit for the amount of rent received, less all expenses created thereby,
and the Tenant shall be liable for the balance of the rent herein reserved until the expiration of the term of this lease.
A security deposit in the amount of$ See below shall be returned to the Tenant, or a written accounting
listing the exact reasons for the retention of any portion of the security deposit, within sixty (60) days after termination
of the lease or surrender and acceptance of the premises. The Landlord will mail the written statement to the last known
address of the Tenant.
It is agreed that if the Tenant is in arrears in the payment of any installment of rent, or any portion thereof, or in
default of any of the covenants or agreements herein to be perfonned by the Tenant, and the default is uncorrected for a
period of three (3) days after Landlord has given written notice, Landlord may, at Landlord's option, without liability for
trespass or for damages; enter into and upon the Premises, or a portion thereof; declare the term of this lease ended;
repossess the Premises as the Landlord's fom1er estate; peacefully expel and remove the Tenant, those claiming under
him, or any person or persons occupying the same and their effects; all without prejudice to any other remedies avail-
able to the Landlord for arrears of rent or breach of covenant.
In the event any payment required hereunder is not made within ten ( 10) days after the payment is due, a late charge
in the amount of 5 % of the payment will be paid by the Tenant.
No. e902. Rev. 4-00. LEASEA.'ffi OPTION Cop)Tight 1987 (Page 1 of 3)
Bradford Publishing, 1743 Wazee St .. Denver. CO 80202 -303-292-2500 -www.brodfordpublishing.com -eFonn
' > • I
' I
1
/.
Page 350 of 367
IT IS FURTHER MUTUALLY AGREED that the Landlord, in consideration of the performance of all the covenants
and agreements herein to be performed by the Tenant. herebv ,ives to the Tenant a Right ofFirst.Refusal to purchase
· the premises in the future should the Landlord declare the premises as surplus. The sum of the purchase shall be determined by
an MAI Appraisal at the time the premises may be declared surplus.
The Landlord, upon payment of this purchase money, will convey the Premises by Warranty Deed to the Tenant free from
all encumbrances except
none
and will furnish title insurance, so showing. The rent, water, taxes and insurance are to be adjusted to the date of
transfer. If a security deposit has been made, upon completion of the lease and purchase of the Premises, it will be treated
as follows:
the security amount is credited as first and last months rent as desired by the City in the published offering.
Additional orovisions: '
Tenant accepts t~e tenns of.the lease as bei~g.gross. Water, sewer, electrical and gas shall be paid at tenant expense. Tenant
sha_ll be responsible for the .ms~rance ofbu1Idmg contents. Tenant shall be responsible for internal building and grounds
mamtenance. All tenant fimsh unprovernents shall be made at tenant expense. The existing air compressor shall be deemed a
fixtu~e wi~ the pro~erty and transferred a! ti~e ~f sale with no warranty. Tenant requests occupancy as soon as reasonably
practical :"1th the City of Englewood and 1s willmg to enter the premises with a prorated lease arrangement at a mutually agreed
upon earlier date.
Should any provision of this Lease • violate any federal, state or local law or ordinance, that provision
shall be deemed amended to so comply with such law or ordinance, and shall be construed in a manner so as to comply.
Where used herein, the singular shall include the plural and the use of any gender shall include both genders.
IT IS FURTHER UNDERSTOOD AND AGREED that all the covenants and agreements contained in this Lease shall
extend to and be binding upon the heirs, personal representatives, successors and assigns of their respective parties.
Landlord Tenant(s)
Name and Address of Person Creating Newly Created Legal Description (§38-35-106.5, C.R.S,)
ASSIGNMENT AND ACCEPTANCE
For value received , as assignor, assigns all right,
title and interest in and to the within Lease to , as
assignee, and assignee's heirs and assigns. And in consideration of this assignment, the assignee accepts this assignment
and agrees to make all the payments and perform all the covenants and agreements in this Lease that apply
to the leasee.
Executed on ____________ _
Page 2 of 3
Page 351 of 367
CONSENT TO ASSIGNMENT
Consent to the assignment of the within Lease to------------------------
is given, on the condition that the assignor will remain liable for the prompt payment of the rent and performance of the
covenants on the part of the lessee as therein mentioned, and that no further assignment of the Lease or subletting of the
Premises, or any part thereof, will be made without further prior written agreement.
Executed on ____________ _
Page 3 of 3
Page 352 of 367
EXHIBIT A
Payable monthly on the first of each month.
Year 1: $2,500 Per Month -$30,000 Annual plus taxes, insurance, maintenance, utilities.
Year 2: $2,500 Per Month -$30,000 Annual plus taxes, insurance, maintenance, utilities.
Year 3: $3,500 Per Month-$42,000 Annual plus taxes, insurance, maintenance, utilities.
Year 4: $3,500 Per Month -$42,000 Annual plus taxes, insurance, maintenance, utilities.
Year 5: $4,000 Per Month,-$48,000 Annual plus taxes, insurance, maintenance, utilities.
Years 6 -10: $49,440 Annual plus taxes, insurance, maintenance, utilities.
Years 11-15: $50,923.20 plus taxes, insurance, maintenance, utilities.
Years 16--20: $52,450.00 plus taxes, insurance, maintenance, utilities.
Page 353 of 367
Page 1 of 2
Date 8/8/18
RE: Property Address: 3075 S Tejon St. Englewood CO
Legal Description: Lot 4 & Lot 7 Blk 10 Vista Hts 2nd Flg)
Purchaser: Alejandra Harvey and or assigns (American Striping Company)
The following proposal presented Charlie Cummings hereby expresses their clients’ interest in
entering into a purchase agreement to purchase the subject real property under the terms and
conditions listed below.
This letter/proposal is intended solely as a preliminary expression of general intentions and is to be
used for discussion purposes only. The parties agree that this letter/proposal is not intended to
create any agreement or obligation by either party to negotiate a definitive purchase and sale
agreement and imposes no duty on either party to continue negotiations. The parties intend that
neither shall have any contractual obligations to the other with respect to the matters referred herein
unless and until a definitive agreement has been fully executed and delivered by the parties. Prior
to delivery of a definitive executed agreement, and without any liability to the other party, either
party may (1) propose different terms from those summarized herein, (2) enter into negotiations
with other parties, and/or (3) unilaterally terminate all negotiations with the other party hereto.
Purchase Price:$ 512,000
(based on approximate 5,120 SF x $100 SF measurement)
Down Payment:$ 51,200
Financing:SBA Loan (Wells Fargo)
Purchase Agreement:Seller to deliver to Buyer a definitive purchase agreement within
seven (7) days after Buyer’s acceptance herein. If the purchase
agreement is not accepted and signed by both parties within fifteen
(15) business days following its presentation to Seller, Buyer’s offer
shall expire and all deposits will be returned to Buyer.
Deposit:Buyer shall deposit 5,000 in escrow within two (3) days of the
execution of a formal purchase agreement acceptable to Buyer and
Seller. The deposit shall be credited toward the purchase price at
close of escrow.
Page 354 of 367
Page 2
Page 2 of 2
Title and Escrow:Fidelity National Title
Escrow Period:Escrow to close within 60 days from acceptance of offer.
Contingencies:Buyer’s purchase of the property shall be subject to verification to
condition of title, physical condition of the property, structural and
design, and the absence of hazardous or toxic materials. Buyer’s
contingency period will expire 45 days from acceptance of offer.
Other Terms: Upon purchase, lease between Alejandra Harvey and
City of Englewood would be terminated.
Closing Costs:Seller shall pay any documentary transfer tax due in connection with
the consummation of the transaction contemplated herein, the
premium for the Title Policy equal to the amount of a CLTA standard
coverage owner’s policy, and fifty percent (50%) of all other escrow
and closing costs. Buyer shall pay fifty percent (50%) of all other
escrow and closing costs.
Commission:Seller to pay buyer’s agent a 3% commission of gross sales price.
This letter shall be valid through August 24, 2018.
AGREED AND ACCEPTED:
BUYER: SELLER:
By: Alejandra Harvey By: City of Englewood
Its: Its:
Date: Date:
Buyer Agent: Seller Agent:
By: Charlie Cummings By:
Its: Its:
Date: Date:
Page 355 of 367
1 1830 S Bannock St SOLD
Denver, CO 80223 Denver County
1830 S Bannock LlcRecorded Buyer:Recorded Seller:Tlj Properties Llc
1345 S Broadway
Denver, CO 80210
True Buyer:VanWest Partners TLJ Properties LLCTrue Seller:
Sale Date:
– Research Status:
PrFrma Cap Rate:
Sale Price:
$95.18
$1,875,000 - Confirmed
06/25/2018 Bldg Type:
Zoning:
Year Built/Age:
RBA:
-
Parcel No:
Financing:
5226-16-029
$1,970,000 from Guaranty Bank And Trust Co
Confirmed
Class B IndustrialManufacturing
Built 1954 Renov 1975 Age: 64
19,700 SF
I-A
Land Area:0.56 AC (24,394 SF)
Price/SF:
4371206Comp ID:
2 1975 S Bannock St SOLD
Denver, CO 80223 Denver County
VR Real Estate, LLPRecorded Buyer:Recorded Seller:1975 S Bannock st LLC
357 S McCaslin Blvd
Louisville, CO 80027
True Buyer:Larry N. Reed
11961 Bradburn Blvd
Westminster, CO
(303) 427-9727
Income Property SpecialistsTrue Seller:
Sale Date:
– Research Status:
PrFrma Cap Rate:
Sale Price:
$136.54
$1,500,000 - Confirmed
04/20/2018 Bldg Type:
Zoning:
Year Built/Age:
RBA:
-
Parcel No:
Financing:
5272-03-012
$593,449 from Seller
Confirmed
Class C IndustrialManufacturing
Built 1975 Age: 43
10,986 SF
I-1
Land Area:0.29 AC (12,632 SF)
Price/SF:
4237676Comp ID:
3 2065 S Cherokee St SOLD
Denver, CO 80223 Denver County
LCP Cherokee, LLCRecorded Buyer:Recorded Seller:Uhrig Holdings, LLC
2150 W 29th Ave
Denver, CO 80211
True Buyer:Littleton Capital Partners LLC
1600 W Harvard Ave
Englewood, CO 80110
(303) 922-7722
Uhrig Holdings, LLCTrue Seller:
Sale Date:
– Research Status:
PrFrma Cap Rate:
Sale Price:
Actual Cap Rate:
$122.50
$2,600,000 - Confirmed
06/20/2018 (357 days on mkt)Bldg Type:
Zoning:
Sale Conditions:
Year Built/Age:
RBA:
-
-
Parcel No:
Financing:
-
-
Confirmed
Class C IndustrialManufacturing
Built 1965 Age: 53
21,224 SF
I-A
Redevelopment Project
Land Area:0.72 AC (31,363 SF)
Price/SF:
4306590Comp ID:
Copyrighted report licensed to Keller Williams Realty DTC - 854789.8/3/2018
Page 1Page 356 of 367
4 2065 S Cherokee St SOLD
Denver, CO 80223 Denver County
Lcp Cherokee LlcRecorded Buyer:Recorded Seller:Uhrig Holdings Llc
2150 W 29th Ave
Denver, CO 80211
True Buyer:Littleton Capital Partners LLC Uhrig Holdings, LLCTrue Seller:
Sale Date:
– Research Status:
PrFrma Cap Rate:
Sale Price:
$122.50
$2,600,000 - Confirmed
06/20/2018 Bldg Type:
Zoning:
Year Built/Age:
RBA:
-
Parcel No:
Financing:
5272-05-014
-
Confirmed
Class C IndustrialManufacturing
Built 1965 Age: 53
21,224 SF
I-A
Land Area:0.72 AC (31,363 SF)
Price/SF:
4348200Comp ID:
5 4051-4091 S Eliot St (Part of Multi-Property)SOLD
Englewood, CO 80110 Arapahoe County
Waterpark II & III LLCRecorded Buyer:Recorded Seller:BLT Legacy, Inc.
1805 S Bellaire St
Denver, CO 80222
True Buyer:Matrix Group, Inc.
2701 W Oxford Ave
Englewood, CO 80110
(303) 761-3540
BLT Legacy, Inc.True Seller:
Sale Date:
– Research Status:
PrFrma Cap Rate:
Sale Price:
Actual Cap Rate:
$71.93
$1,698,654 - Allocated
12/14/2017 Bldg Type:
Zoning:
Sale Conditions:
Year Built/Age:
RBA:
-
-
Parcel No:Financing:-
Allocated
Class B IndustrialWarehouse
Built 1980 Age: 37
23,616 SF
PUD
1031 Exchange
Land Area:1.77 AC (77,101 SF)
Price/SF:
4088797Comp ID:
6 1696 W Evans Ave SOLD
Denver, CO 80223 Denver County
1696 Evans - HT, LLCRecorded Buyer:Recorded Seller:Office Discount Center
400 S Broadway
Denver, CO 80209
True Buyer:Kevin P. Higgins
1696 W Evans
Englewood, CO 80210
(303) 934-5417
Office Discount Center IncTrue Seller:
Sale Date:
– Research Status:
PrFrma Cap Rate:
Sale Price:
Actual Cap Rate:
$106.67
$1,600,000 - Confirmed
12/28/2017 (113 days on mkt)Bldg Type:
Zoning:
Sale Conditions:
Year Built/Age:
RBA:
-
6.07%
Parcel No:
Financing:
5282-00-006
$1,211,941 from 5Star Bank
Confirmed
Class C IndustrialWarehouse
Built 1980 Age: 37
15,000 SF
I-A
1031 Exchange
Land Area:0.43 AC (18,731 SF)
Price/SF:
4097816Comp ID:
Copyrighted report licensed to Keller Williams Realty DTC - 854789.8/3/2018
Page 2Page 357 of 367
7 2160 S Lipan St SOLD
Denver, CO 80223 Denver County
Lipan Real Estate Group LlcRecorded Buyer:Recorded Seller:Battock Catherine A
117 W Patrick St
Frederick, MD 21701
Sale Date:
– Research Status:
PrFrma Cap Rate:
Sale Price:
$120.24
$600,000
01/19/2018 Bldg Type:
Zoning:
Year Built/Age:
RBA:
-
Parcel No:
Financing:
5281-15-020
-
Public Record
Class C IndustrialWarehouse
Built 1959 Age: 59
4,990 SF
I1
Land Area:0.43 AC (18,731 SF)
Price/SF:
4121111Comp ID:
Map Page: Pierson Graphics
Corp 314-N
8 2750 W Mansfield Ave SOLD
Sheridan, CO 80110 Arapahoe County
Colorado Premier Residential
LLC
Recorded Buyer:Recorded Seller:AK Property Management, LLC
4003 S Clay St
Sheridan, CO 80110
(303) 708-0536
Sale Date:
– Research Status:
PrFrma Cap Rate:
Sale Price:
$163.69
$1,650,000 - Confirmed
07/02/2018 (145 days on mkt)Bldg Type:
Zoning:
Year Built/Age:
RBA:
-
Parcel No:
Financing:
-
$825,000 from JP Morgan Chase Bank
Confirmed
Class B IndustrialWarehouse
Built 1996 Age: 22
10,080 SF
SPUD
Land Area:1.04 AC (45,302 SF)
Price/SF:
4351074Comp ID:
Map Page: Pierson Graphics
Corp 343-D
9 2735 S Raritan St - Englewood Industrial Park SOLD
Englewood, CO 80110 Arapahoe County
Fischer Van Lines LLCRecorded Buyer:Recorded Seller:Kloos Investments LLC
1301-1375 E 58th Ave
Denver, CO 80216
(720) 297-9904
PO Box 1283
CRAIG, CO 81626
Sale Date:
– Research Status:
PrFrma Cap Rate:
Sale Price:
$99.95
$1,000,000 - Full Value
01/31/2018 (422 days on mkt)Bldg Type:
Zoning:
Year Built/Age:
RBA:
-
Parcel No:
Financing:
-
$837,000 from Colorado Business Bank
Full Value
Class C IndustrialWarehouse
Built 1982 Age: 36
10,005 SF
I-1
Land Area:0.40 AC (17,424 SF)
Price/SF:
4123876Comp ID:
Copyrighted report licensed to Keller Williams Realty DTC - 854789.8/3/2018
Page 3Page 358 of 367
10 3061 S Tejon St SOLD
Englewood, CO 80110 Arapahoe County
Alan & Tyson KubeRecorded Buyer:Recorded Seller:Young Lewis P
2020 S Bannock St
Denver, CO 80223
Sale Date:
– Research Status:
Price/SF:
Sale Price:
$130.90
$238,500
04/04/2018 Bldg Type:
Year Built/Age:
RBA:
Parcel No:
Financing:
1971-33-2-11-010
-
Public Record
Class C IndustrialWarehouse
Built 1968 Age: 50
1,822 SF
Tyson KubeRecorded Buyer:Recorded Seller:-
Comp ID:4212873
11 3050-3070 S Vallejo St - 3050 S. Vallejo Street SOLD
Englewood, CO 80110 Arapahoe County
Arrowhead Capital LlcRecorded Buyer:Recorded Seller:South Arapahoe Investment Co.,
LLP1334 Silver Rock Ln
Evergreen, CO 80439
(303) 526-0026
4901 E Dry Creek Rd
Centennial, CO 80122
Sale Date:
– Research Status:
PrFrma Cap Rate:
Sale Price:
Actual Cap Rate:
$89.47
$1,521,000 - Confirmed
04/06/2018 (184 days on mkt)Bldg Type:
Zoning:
Sale Conditions:
Year Built/Age:
RBA:
-
5.00%
Parcel No:
Financing:
1971-33-2-10-009
-
Confirmed
Class C IndustrialWarehouse
Built 1974 Age: 44
17,000 SF
I-1
-
Land Area:0.78 AC (33,977 SF)
Price/SF:
4202562Comp ID:
Copyrighted report licensed to Keller Williams Realty DTC - 854789.8/3/2018
Page 4Page 359 of 367
11Sale Price
RBA
Price per SF
Actual Cap Rate
Days on Market
Sale Price to Asking Price Ratio 82.22%
$238,500
1,822 SF
$71.93
5.00%
113
$1,534,832
14,150 SF
$108.47
5.54%
244
94.22%
$1,600,000
15,000 SF
$120.24
5.54%
184
96.56%
$2,600,000
23,616 SF
$163.69
6.07%
422
103.13%
11
11
2
5
6
Totals
Sold Transactions $16,883,154 Total Sales Transactions:Total Sales Volume:11
Survey Criteria
basic criteria: Type of Property - Industrial; Sale Date - from 12/12/2017; Sale Status - Under
Contract/Pending, Sold; Return and Search on Portfolio Sales as Individual Properties - Yes
geography criteria: Radius - 2.75 mile(s) radius from Lat : -105.002838148926, Long : 39.6602391843979
additional criteria: - * This result set has been amended with criteria to add and/or remove records.
Comps Statistics
CountHighMedianAverageLow
Quick Stats Report
Copyrighted report licensed to Keller Williams Realty DTC - 854789.8/3/2018
Page 5Page 360 of 367
Page 361 of 367
STUDY SESSION
TO: Mayor and Council
FROM: Shawn Lewis
DEPARTMENT: City Manager's Office
DATE: March 22, 2021
SUBJECT: Legal Assistance Options
DESCRIPTION:
Staff will present options for Council to consider for legal help for the next 3 to 5 months.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends City Council approve, by Motion, the selection of a legal firm to provide legal
services to the City of Englewood for the next 3 to 5 months.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION:
City Council is in the process of selecting a new City Attorney with interviews scheduled for next
month.
SUMMARY:
With the departure of the City Attorney in January and the departure of one of the two Deputy
City Attorneys on March 26, the City Attorney's Office will be reduced to one deputy and the
prosecutor who works exclusively in Municipal Court. This leaves the City shorthanded to
perform the many legal tasks and services needed by the City each day (list of some current
projects attached). In coordination with the two remaining attorneys in the City Attorney's Office,
the City Manager's Office drafted a request for proposals that was sent to several firms in
Colorado that specialize in municipal law. Should Council see fit to select a firm, this will not
affect existing contracts the City has for outside legal services in areas such as redevelopment,
personnel matters and water rights.
At the recommendation of the City Attorney's Office, the proposal was altered to select a firm
that can identify an attorney to serve as Interim City Attorney while utilizing other attorneys in
the selected firm to perform additional duties as needed. Due to the very short timeframe firms
had to respond (RFP was sent 3/17 and due 3/22 at noon) company proposals are not able to
be included in this agenda packet. The following is staff's proposed timeline for this process:
March 17: Release RFP for legal services
March 22
12 Noon: Due date for RFP submissions
2:00 p.m.: Deadline to send Councilmembers a pdf containing all submissions
5:00 p.m.: Deadline for CAO and CMO review and develop recommendations
(A recommendation will only be given if requested by Council.)
8:00 p.m.: (Time dependent on meeting length) Staff will review all RFP responses with
Council
Page 362 of 367
Council will attempt to select a firm or schedule a special meeting later in the
week to make a selection
March 23-26: Staff negotiates terms of a draft contract with an outside counsel firm
March 26: Interim City Attorney's last day with City of Englewood
March 29: Contract with legal firm to serve as Interim City Attorney takes effect
(if under $100,000) and selected firm begins providing service to City
April 5: City Council approves legal services agreement (if over $100,000)
ANALYSIS:
City staff believes it is imperative to select an outside firm to assist remaining City Attorney's
Office staff with the workload during the period in which key attorney vacancies exist. Attached
is a document outlining nearly 70 current projects in the City Attorney's Office queue from City
departments. The attached list does not include projects underway in Police, Municipal Court,
Communications or Information Technology.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
Costs will be included in proposals received 3/22. The City will also save the money budgeted
for salaries of both the City Attorney and Deputy City Attorney during the time a contract with
outside legal is in effect.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. As no current members of the City Attorney's Office are willing to serve as Interim City
Attorney, making no selection of a firm appears untenable.
2. Select a firm on Monday or choose a special meeting date in the near future in order to
choose a firm.
3. Direct staff to select multiple outside counsel vendors for various project types rather
than one firm as Interim City Attorney.
ATTACHMENTS:
List of current projects in CAO queue from select departments
Page 363 of 367
Current Projects in City Attorney’s Office
Arranged by Department
Current as of March 18, 2021
City Clerk’s Office
• Charter amendment for direct elect of Mayor – ongoing until end of year
• FCPA new guidelines and processes – ASAP
o Currently working with CA to add code regarding Campaign Finance
specifically regarding the handling of FCPA complaints
• Board and Commission trainings – due by end of 2021
o The City Attorney will be an integral part of designing the B&C trainings for
staff liaisons, chairmen and board members
• CORA request legal reviews – ongoing as needed
• Records Management policies – ongoing as RIM system is implemented
o The Records Management Coordinator will be need to work with the CA's
office to ensure the RIM policy is updated and properly covering legal issues
surrounding RIM issues. This is more of an ongoing process that comes up
occasionally when changes are made to the policy and may need more
attention with the implementation of the new electronic records management
software.
• Liquor and MJ consults – ongoing as needed
o Consult with CA regarding questions on new/transfer licenses, review leases
pertaining to new licenses, new liquor and marijuana legislation, and contract
renewal for our liquor/marijuana licensing hearing officer
• Agenda item approvals/ workflows – ongoing daily/weekly
• Ordinance and Resolution creations – ongoing weekly
• Ongoing Code updates –as needed
Community Development
Current Contracts/Ordinances in CAO:
• Ordinance – 1375 East Hampden Avenue
o Status: Staff providing comments on draft (April 2021)
• IGA/Ordinance – RTD Funding of Englewood Trolley
o Status: IGA reviewed and approved by CAO
Ordinance: Draft prepared (Spring 2021)
• Development Agreement – Adriatic Apartments
o Status: Drafted (Spring 2021)
Upcoming Contracts/Ordinances:
• Portell Works
o Project: Downtown Development Authority Establishment and
Enabling (Initial: April / Following: Remainder of 2021)
• JRES (James Real Estate Services)
Page 364 of 367
o Project: PSA for CityCenter / RTD Shared Parking Strategy (Spring
2021)
• Title 16 MU-B-1 Text Amendments and District Overlay
o Project: CityCenter Redevelopment (Summer 2021)
• AEC West Contract Renewal (April)
• Fifield PUD (Summer/Fall 2021)
• Metropolitan Homes PUD’s South of Hampden (TBD)
Legal Advice:
• CityCenter Redevelopment (in Coordination with KKR, Outside Counsel)
(2021)
• Title 16 / UDC Redrafting
o Historic Preservation Text Changes
CAO currently working with Erik Sampson and HPC
o Title 16/UDC complete re-write (in Coordination with Consultant)
(Summer 2021 to Early 2022)
• Downtown Development Authority
o Coordination/Discussions Regarding Operations with DDA legal
counsel as needed (2021+)
Boards/Commissions – Attend Planning and Zoning Commission and Board of
Appeals Meetings
Finance
• Support for the sales & use tax issues
• Contract with Advanced Utility Systems for monthly billing.
Human Resources
• POLICY – Administrative Policy Review
o Reviews all updated policies and provides feedback
• LEGAL OPINION – Employee Relations Matters
o Provides legal advice on all discipline notices, warning letters, PIPs,
terminations, and complicated background check results
o Gives guidance on Retirement Plan protocols, i.e., filling Board
positions, beneficiary battles
o Provides legal direction on complex FMLA, workers comp and
unemployment cases
o Recurring weekly meeting
• EEOC CLAIMS – EEOC Claims
o Responds to all EEOC Claims
o As needed
• OUTSIDE COUNCIL – Partners with Range Law
o Provide legal opinion on how outside council should be involved, i.e.,
EEA, EPBA, internal investigations, EEOC cases
Page 365 of 367
Parks, Recreation, Library and Golf
Golf:
CONTRACT/ Agreement
• Finn Scooter agreement for the demo unit.
• Deadline: March 31, 2021
Aquatics:
LEGAL OPINION
• Reviewing the alcohol issues at Pirates Cove
• Would need by April 30, 2021 for planning efforts
Parks:
CONTRACT
• ITB – Park Renovations Contract with ECI for Park Renovations
• April 19 but flexible- sooner the better so we can start working on designs.
• Easement agreement for both temporary and permanent easements for
the new transmission lines going through Belleview park. Due in May.
Library
POLICY/LEGAL OPINION – Suspension of Library Privileges
• Library has requested guidance on how to appropriately suspend library
privileges for users who threaten the safety of other library users and staff.
• No fixed due date, but may become necessary at any time.
Recreation
CONTRACT
• Dewlaney Sports officials contract expires in a month and the new one will
be sent to review in CAO.
• Due Date- April 30th
CONTRACT
• review on the Silver and Fit Wellness Insurance program.
• Staff submitting by April 12. Current contract expires on April 30th.
Public Works
• Potential sale of property – Tejon Fire Station & Fire Training Facility
• Possible acquisition of property for stormwater
• Special Assessment District – for paving of alley in 4300 block between
Broadway & Acoma
• Assistance with subpoena in case between an individual and the City of Sheridan
• Recovery of CAM payments from a business within EEF
• Draft IGAs with IGA for review
Utilities
• ORDINANCE
o CAO review of ordinance for new sewer connector agreement multiplier
o CAO review of ordinance for removal of utility rates from Code
o City Ditch easement vacation/acquisition at I-470 expansion
o City Ditch temporary construction permit/easement at MCI communication
crossing of Mineral Ave.
Page 366 of 367
o Brown Ditch and Belleview Well easement vacations at 4900 S. Federal
• PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENTS
o CAO review of PSA with Stantec for sewer rehab design due 03/25/21
o CAO review of PSA with Alliance for arc flash hazard analysis due
03/25/21
• CONTRACT FOR SERVICES
o CAO review of CFS with Davey, Columbine, and Root for tree trimming
support, due 03/25/21
o CAO review of CFS with BT and Global Underground for urgent waterline
repair due 03/25/21
• INTERAGENCY AGREEMENTS
o CAO support to develop interagency agreement with City and County of
Denver for City Ditch due 07/01/21
• RESOLUTIONS
o CAO review and drafting of resolution for Bulk Chemical purchases with
DPC for Council meeting on 4/5/2021
o CAO review and drafting of resolution for Bulk Chemical purchases with
Chemtrade for Council meeting on 4/5/2021
• OTHER
o CAO submittal to IRS to resume McBroom Ditch tax exempt state
Due 06/01/21
Page 367 of 367