HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015 Ordinance No. 003•
•
BY AUTHORITY
ORDINANCE NO. 3
SERIES OF 2014/2015
COUNCIL BILL NO. 71
INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL
MEMBER JEFFERSON
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 16, CHAPTER 6, SECTIONS 1 AND 3, OF THE
ENGLEWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE 2000 PERTAINJNG TO MINIMUM LOT WIDTHS FOR
MULTI-UNIT DWELLINGS IN THE MU-R-3-B AND MU-R-3-C ZONE DISTRICTS.
WHEREAS, errors were made related to the minimum lot widths for multi-unit dwellings
when Section 16-6-l(C)(l), was added as part of a UDC amendment in Ordinance No. 37, Series
of2008; and
WHEREAS, the errors are discrepancies between UDC Table 16-6-1.1: Summary of
Dimensional Requirements, and UDC Section 16-6-l(C)(l) Multi-Unit Development Standards
for the MU-R-3-B and MU-R-3-C zone districts; and
WHEREAS, there was no minimum lot width required for a multi-unit dwelling in Table 16-
6-1.1; and
WHEREAS, Section 16-6-l(C)(l) requires a minimum lot width of"twenty-five feet (25') per
unit for properties with alley access", and "thirty feet (30') per unit" for properties with out alley
access which is a direct conflict with Table 16-6-1.1 EMC; and
WHEREAS, the intent of the 2008 Ordinance related to impacts of front loaded garages
makes it clear that the intent of the Ordinance was to not require a minimum lot width for multi-
unit dwellings in the MU-R-3-B and MU-R-3-C zone districts; and
WHEREAS, this proposed ordinance will amend the UDC and correct the discrepancy
between these two sections of the Zoning Code.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO, THAT:
Section 1. The City Council of the City of Englewood, Colorado hereby authorizes amending
Title 16, Chapter 6, Section 1 entitled Dimensional Requirements of the Englewood Municipal Code
2000, to read as follows:
16-6: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.
16-6-1: Dimensional Requirements
EDITORS NOTE: Title 16-6-1 (A) and (B) , contain no changes and are therefore not
included here.
1
T 1 b fi
C. Additional Dimensional and Development Standards.
1. Multi-Unit Development Standards in R-2-A, R-2-B, MU-R-3-A {JM/. MU-R-3-B eHd
Mil R J C Districts.
a. Applicability. The following standards apply to all multi-unit dwellings
constructed or converted after the effective date of this Section.
b. Multi-unit dwellings existing on the effective Date of this Section and which
as of that date are not in compliance with standards established by this Section,
shall not be considered nonconforming due solely to the dwelling1s
noncompliance with the standards of this Section. Such dwellings are
"grandfathered,1' and shall be considered legal, conforming structures for the
purposes of sale and development under this Title.
c. Property having rear alley access.
(1) Minimum lot width shall be twenty-five feet (25') feet per unit except in
the MU-R-3-B District the minimum lot width shall be per Table t 6-6-
1.1 EMC.
(2) Driveway access from the public street shall be prohibited, except for:
(a) Corner lots where garage, carport or parking pad may be accessed
from the side street.
(b) Dwellings with four (4) or more units may have one driveway
accessing the street.
(3) Parking pads within the front yard or front setback shall be prohibited.
d. Property without rear alley access.
(1) Minimum lot width shall be thirty feet (30') per unit.,.; except in the MU-
R-3-B District the minimum lot width shall be per Table 16-6-1. t EMC.
(2) Garages, carports and parking pads shall be off-set behind the front
building line of each unit by a minimum of five feet (5').
(3) Minimum separation between driveways or parking pads of attached
units shall be twenty feet (20').
(4) Maximum driveway and/or parking pad width within front yard or front
setback shall be ten feet ( 10') per unit.
(5) The maximum garage door width on the front facade of the structure
shall be 9 feet per unit.
(6) A parking pad may be located in the front yard or front setback only
when a garage or carport is not provided.
2
•
•
(7) An opaque fence or wall shall be provided between driveways or parking
pads on adjacent properties.
(8) Units that provide attached garages behind the rear building line of the
principal structure may reduce the principal structure's rear setback to
ten feet (10').
(9) It is recognized that because of the wide variety of multi-unit
development options, the City Manager or designee may on a case-by-
case basis consider minor deviations to d (2) through (7) above,
whenever such deviations are more likely to satisfy the intent of this
subsection.
Section 2. The City Council of the City of Englewood, Colorado hereby authorizes amending
Title 2, Chapter 16, Section 3, Subsection F, entitled Streets and Vehicle Access and Circulation
of the Englewood Municipal Code 2000, to read as follows:
16-6-3: Streets and Vehicle Access and Circulation.
EDITORS NOTE: Title 16-6-3 (A) through (E), contain no changes and are therefore not
included here.
F. Vehicle Access and Circulation .
1. Access to Public Roads. All new lots shall have direct or indirect access to a
dedicated public street, through one (1) or more access points approved by the City.
In addition to direct access to a dedicated public street, access may be provided
through private streets or through alleys.
a. No back-out driveways from any type of use shall be pennitted onto an arterial
street.
b . No back-out driveways or back-out parking spaces from multi-unit residential
on sites with alley access, commercial, or industrial uses shall be pennitted
onto a public street. This requirement shall not prohibit back-out driveways or
parking spaces onto an alley.
2. Traffic Impact Analysis. A traffic impact analysis (TIA) shall be required with
applications for development review and approval when trip generation during any
peak hour is expected to exceed one hundred (100) vehicles, based on traffic
generation estimates when trip generation during any peak hour is expected to
exceed one hundred (100) vehicles, based on traffic generation estimates of the
Institute of Transportation Engineers' Generation Manual ( or any successor
publication). The City may also require a TIA for:
a. Any project that proposes access to a street with level of service (LOS) "D11 or
below;
b. Any application for a rezoning;
3
c. Any case where the previous TIA for the property is more than two (2) years
old;
d. Any case where increased land use intensity will result in a fifteen percent
(15%) or greater increase in traffic generation; and
e. Any case in which the traffic engineer determines that a TIA should be
required because of other traffic concerns that may be affected by the proposed
development.
f. When access points are not defined or a Zoning Site Plan is not available at the
time the TIA is prepared, additional studies may be required when a Zoning
Site Plan becomes available or the access points are defined.
3. New Intersections and Curb-Cuts.
a. General Rules. The number of intersections and curb-cuts on streets and
highways shall be minimized consistent with the basic needs of ingress and
egress. Intersections and curb-cuts shall be designed to provide the greatest
safety for both pedestrians and motorists.
b. Driveways, Residential.
(1) One-Unit and Multi-Unit Dwellings Containing Up to Three (3) Units.
(a) The width of any driveway leading from the public street to a one-
unit dwelling, or multi-unit dwelling containing up to three (3)
units shall not exceed twenty feet (20') at its intersection with the
street.
(b) See also Section Hi a 1C.4 Hi-6-J(C)(l) RMC. "Multi-Unit
Development Standards in R-2-A, R-2-B, MU-R-3-A, Drui
MU-R-3-B, aaa MU R 3 C Districts," for additional driveway
standards that apply to multi-unit dwellings on properties with or
without alley access.
(c) See also Section 16-6-10.B. EMC, "Residential Design Standards
and Guidelines," for additional driveway standards that apply to
new residential development, including substantial expansions or
alterations of existing dwellings, in the R-1, R-2, and R-3 zone
districts.
(2) Multi-Unit Dwellings Containing Four (4) or More Units.
(a) The width of any entrance driveway to a multi-unit dwelling
containing four ( 4) or more units shall not exceed twenty-five
feet (25') at its intersection with the street, unless the applicant
can demonstrate that additional width is required to adequately
accommodate anticipated driveway volumes.
4
•
•
•
(b) In new multi-unit developments not located within MU-R-3-C,
M-1, M-2 and M-0-2 districts containing ten (10) or more units,
vehicular access shall be spaced no closer than twenty-five feet
(25') to any adjacent property line. However, the City may
reduce this setback requirement to permit a single vehicular
access point that can serve two (2) adjacent properties or where
compliance with these requirements would deny vehicular
access to a property.
c. Driveways, Nonresidential. The location and size of driveways leading from
the public street to a nonresidential or mixed-use building is subject to the
following conditions:
(1) No portion of any driveway shall be closer than forty feet ( 40') to the
curb line of an intersecting street, or closer than ten feet (1 O') from a fire
hydrant, catch basin, or end of curb radius at comers.
(2) In new non-residential developments not located within MU-R-3-C, M-
l, M-2, and M-0-2 districts, vehicular access shall be spaced no closer
than twenty-five feet (25') to any adjacent property line. However, the
City may reduce this setback requirement to permit a single vehicular
access point that can serve two (2) adjacent properties or where
compliance with these requirements would deny vehicular access to a
property .
(3) Only one {l) access per street frontage shall be permitted, unless a
Zoning Site Plan or traffic impact analysis shows, and the City agrees,
that additional access points are required to adequately accommodate
driveway volumes and that additional access will not be detrimental to
traffic flow.
( 4) The width of any entrance driveway shall not exceed thirty feet (30')
measured along its intersection with the property line.
Section 3. Safety Clauses. The City Council hereby finds, determines, and declares that this
Ordinance is promulgated under the general police power of the City of Englewood, that it is
promulgated for the health, safety, and welfare of the public, and that this Ordinance is necessary
for the preservation of health and safety and for the protection of public convenience and
welfare. The City Council further determines that the Ordinance bears a rational relation to the
proper legislative object sought to be obtained.
Section 3. Severability. If any clause, sentence, paragraph, or part of this Ordinance or the
application thereof to any person or circumstances shall for any reason be adjudged by a court of
competent jurisdiction invalid, such judgment shall not affect, impair or invalidate the remainder
of this Ordinance or it application to other persons or circumstances.
Section 4. Inconsistent Ordinances. All other Ordinances or portions thereof inconsistent or
conflicting with this Ordinance or any portion hereof are hereby repealed to the extent of such
inconsistency or conflict.
5
Section 5. Effect of repeal or modification. The repeal or modification of any provision of
the Code of the City of Englewood by this Ordinance shall not release, extinguish, alter, modify,
or change in whole or in part any penalty, forfeiture, or liability, either civil or criminal, which
shall have been incurred under such provision, and each provision shall be treated and held as
still remaining in force for the purposes of sustaining any and all proper actions, suits,
proceedings, and prosecutions for the enforcement of the penalty, forfeiture, or liability, as well
as for the purpose of sustaining any judgment, decree, or order which can or may be rendered,
entered, or made in such actions, suits, proceedings, or prosecutions.
Section 6. Penalty. The Penalty Provision of Section 1-4-1 EMC shall apply to each and
every violation of this Ordinance.
Introduced, read in full, and passed on first reading on the 15 th day of December, 2014.
Published by Title as a Bill for an Ordinance in the City's official newspaper on the 19th day of
December, 2014.
Published as a Bill for an Ordinance on the City's official website beginning on the 17th day of
December, 2014 for thirty (30) days.
A Public Hearing was held on January 5, 2015.
Read by title and passed on final reading on the 20th day of January, 2015.
Published by title in the City's official newspaper as Ordinance No . .3_, Series of 2015, on
the 23rd day of January, 2015.
Published by title on the City's official website beginning on the 21st day of
January, 2015 for thirty (30) days.
This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after publication following final passage.
~-1:,>~ __ ~ _;,
~ P. Penn, Mayor
I, Loucrishia A. Ellis, City Clerk of the City of Englewood, Colorado, hereby certify that the
above and foregoing is ; true copy of the Ordinance passed on al r · g and published by
title as Ordinance No.-2_, Series of 2015. --~--:;;.. h!f 0
6
•
I
COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
Date: Agenda Item: Subject:
December 15, 2014 11 a iii Amendments to Title 16: Minimum Lot Width for Multi-
Unit Dwellings in the MU-R-3-B and MU-R-3-C Zone
Districts
Initiated By: Staff Source:
Community Development Department Brook Bell, Planner II
COUNCIL GOAL ANO PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION
There has been no previous Council action concerning this matter.
PREVIOUS PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
The Planning and Zoning Commission conducted a public hearing on November 18, 2014, to consider the
proposed amendments to Title 16: Unified Development Code. Following discussion, the Commission
voted 8 to O to forward a favorable recommendation to City Council to approve proposed amendments to
Title 16: Minimum Lot Width for Multi-Unit Dwellings in the MU-R-3-B and MU-R-3-C Zone Districts.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Recommendation from the Community Development Department to adopt a Bill for an Ordinance
authorizing amendments to Title 16: Unified Development Code regarding Minimum Lot Width for Multi-
Unit Dwellings in the MU-R-3-B and MU-R-3-C Zone Districts on First Reading and to set January 5, 2015 as
the date for Public Hearing to consider testimony on the proposed amendments.
BACKGROUND
It has come to the City's attention that an error was made related to the minimum lot widths for the MU-R-
3-B zone district when Section 16-6-1.C.1 was added as part of a UDC amendment in Ordinance #37 of
2008; and subsequently, when the MU-R-3-C zone district was created by Ordinance #23 of 2012. The
errors are discrepancies between UDC Table 16-6-1.1: Summary of Dimensional Requirements, and U DC
Section 16-6-1.C.1 Multi-Unit Development Standards in R-2-A, R-2-8, R-3-A, MU-R-3-A, MU-R-3-8, and MU-R-
3-C. For the MU-R-3-8 and MU-R-3-C zone districts, the minimum lot width required for a multi-unit dwelling
in Table 16-6-1.1 is "None"; whereas, Section 16-6-1.C.1 requ ires a minimum lot width of "twenty-five feet
(25') per unit for properties with alley access" and "thirty feet (30') per unit" for properties without alley
access. These portions of the UDC are highlighted and attached as Exhibit A in the attached Planning and
Zoning Commission staff report.
SUMMARY
UDC section 16-6-1.C.1 was added as part of a UDC amendment in Ordinance #37 of 2008; and
subsequently, the MU-R-3-C zone district was created by Ordinance #23 of 2012. Since then, it has come
to the City's attention that errors were made that created discrepancies in the minimum lot widths required
for the MU-R-3-B and MU-R-3-C zone districts between UDC Table 16-6-1 .1 and UDC Section 16-6-1.C.1.
After researching the intent of the 2008 Ordinance related to impacts of front loaded garages and the 2012
Ordinance that created the MU-R-3-C zone district, it is clear in both cases that the intent of the Ordinances
was not to require a minimum lot width for multi-unit dwellings in the MU-R-3-B and MU-R-3-C zone
districts. The proposed amendments to the UDC will correct the discrepancy between the two sections of
the zoning code.
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
In order to correct the discrepancies between the minimum lot widths required for the MU-R-3-8 and MU-
R-3-C zone districts between UDC Table 16-6-1.1 and UDC Section 16-6-1.C.1, staff recommends the
proposed UDC amendments that are attached as the Bill for an Ordinance.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
No financial impacts are anticipated from the adoption of the proposed amendments.
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS
Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report -November 18, 2014
Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes -November 18, 2014
Planning and Zoning Commission Findings of Fact -November 18, 2014
Bill for an Ordinance
{'
C T y 0 F ENGLEWOOD
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
TO:
THRU:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Planning and Zoning Commission
Alan White, Community Development Director ✓
Chris Neubecker, Senior Planner
Brook Bell, Planner ll /
November 18, 2014
Case # 2014-06: Amendments to Minimum Lot Width for Multi-Unit
Dwellings in the MU-R-3-8 and MU-R-3-C Zone Districts
RECOMMENDATION:
Community Development Department requests that the Planning and Zoning Commission
review, take public testimony, and forward to City Council a recommendation for adoption
of Unified Development Code (UDC) amendments regarding the minimum lot width for
multi-unit dwellings in the MU-R-3 -B and MU-R-3-C zone districts.
BACKGROUND:
It has come to the City's attention that an error was made related to the minimum lot
widths for the MU-R-3-B zone district when Section 16·6-1.C. l was added as part of a UDC
amendment in Ordinance #3 7 of 2008; and subsequently, when the MU-R-3 -C zone district
was created by Ordinance #23 of 2012. The errors are discrepancies between UDC Table
16-6-1.1: Summary of Dimensional Requirements, and UDC Section 16-6-1.C.1 Multi-Unit
Development Standards in R-2-A, R-2-8, R-3 -A, MU-R-3 -A, MU-R-3-8, and MU-R-3 -C. For the
MU-R-3-B and MU-R-3-C zone districts, the minimum lot width required for a multi -unit
dwelling in Table 16-6-1.1 is "None"; whereas, Section 16-6-1.C.1 requires a minimum lot
width of "twenty-five feet {25') per unit for properties with alley access" and "thirty feet
(30') per unit" for properties without alley access. These portions of the UDC are
highlighted and attached as Exhibit A.
ANALYSIS:
Discrepancy Related to the MU-R-3-B Zone District
UDC Table 16-6-1 .1 was created with the adoption of the UDC in 2004. Subsequently,
section 16-6-1.C.1 was added as part of a UDC amendment in 2008. One focus of the
2008 UDC amendment was to mitigate negative impacts associated with front loaded
garages and driveways for multi-unit dwellings in the following two areas of the City.
• The first area is the R·2-A, R-2-8, R-3-A, MU-R-3-A, and MU-R-3-B zone districts that are
mostly east of South Santa Fe Drive. These areas are typically platted with lots in
increments of 25', and most have alley ac cess.
1000 Englewood Parkway Englewood, Colorado 80110 PHONE 303-762-2342 FAX 303-783-6895
www.englewoodgov org
• The second area is the R-2-A zone district in northwest Englewood. This area is typically
platted with lots in increments of 30', and most do not have alley access. There are no
MU-R-3-B zone districts in northwest Englewood with 30' lots, and most MU-R-3-8
zones east of South Santa Fe Drive without alleys are existing multi-unit condo or
apartment complexes.
The concerns in 2008 over negative impacts associated with front loaded garages and
driveways were valid. However, it was an oversight to include the MU-R-3-B zone district in
the 2008 UDC amendment that required a minimum lot width of 25' per unit for properties
with alley access, and 30' per unit for properties without alley access. In order to correct
the discrepancy between the MU-R-3-B minimum lot width required in UDC Table 16-6-1.1
and UDC Section 16-6-1.C.1 staff recommends the following amendments to the UDC.
• Add an exception in UDC Section 16-6-1.C.1.c.(1) and UDC Section 16-6-1.C.1.d.(1) for
the MU-R-3-B zone district such that the minimum lot width requirements of 25' per unit
for properties with alley access, and 30' per unit for properties without alley access do
not apply. The minimum required lot widths for the MU-R-3-B zone district would
default to "None" per UDC Table 16-6-1.1.
Discrepancv Related to the MU-R-3-C Zone District
In order to correct the discrepancy in the MU-R-3-C zone district between the minimum lot
width required in UDC Table 16-6-1.1 and UDC Section 16-6-1.C.1, staff researched
previous Commission and City Council meeting minutes and communications from 2012
when the Ordinance creating the MU-R-3-C zone district was originally passed. In
researching the intended minimum lot width for multi-unit dwellings in the MU-R-3-C zone
district when the Ordinance was originally adopted, the following was considered.
· One of the objectives leading lo lhe crealion of the MU-R-3-C zone district in 2012 was to
establish more flexible dimensional standards for side setbacks, floor area ratio, lot width,
and lot area. In terms of lot width and lot area, the Planning and Zoning Commission
conducted a study session on February 23, 2011 on the Medical District Sub-area 3 which
eventually became the MU-R-3-C zone district. Minutes of the study session include a
statement that the Commission is "Not in favor of adopting a Minimum Lineal Street
Frontage; it is not appropriate for this sub-area." Subsequently, minutes of the March 6,
2012 Planning and Zoning Commission public hearing includes staff testimony that the
proposed MU-R-3-C zone district would, "Remove land area per residential unit
requirement in favor of regulating density through maximum height limit and minimum off-
street parking standards". Those portions of the Planning and Zoning Commission minutes
are highlighted and attached as Exhibit B.
Following the Planning and Zoning Commission public hearing, the proposed MU-R-3-C
zone district was forwarded to City Council with a favorable recommendation for adoption.
Subsequently, staff presented a Bill for an Ordinance to City Council to create the MU-R-3-
C zone district and a public hearing was held on April 16, 2012 . In the Council
Communication for the public hearing, staff summarized the details of the dimensional
standards for the proposed MU-R-3-C zone district which included, "Remove land area per
residential unit requirement in favor of regulating density through maximum height limit and
minimum off-street parking standards". That portion of the Council Communication is
highlighted and attached as Exhibit C. Following the City Council public hearing on April
16, 2012, Ordinance #23 of 2012 was approved on second reading, and the MU-R-3-C
zone district was created.
Based on the Planning and Zoning Commission minutes and the subsequent Council
Communication, it is clear that the intent of the MU-R-3-C Ordinance was to not have a
minimum lot width for multi-unit dwellings. In order to correct the discrepancy between the
minimum lot width required for the MU-R-3-C zone district in UDC Table 16-6-1.1 and
UDC Section 16-6-1.C.1, staff recommends the following amendments to the UDC.
• In UDC Section 16-6-1.C.1, remove MU-R-3-C from the heading. The minimum required
lot widths for the MU-R-3-C zone district would default to "Norn( per UDC Table 16-6-
l.1.
• In UDC Section 16-6-3:F.3.b.(1 )(b), correct the reference to Sectionl 6-6-1.C.4 and
replace it with a reference to Section 16-6-1.C.1. Remove MU-R-3-C from the sentence.
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS:
Jn order to correct the discrepancies between the minimum lot widths required for the MU-
R-3-B and MU-R-3-C zone districts between UDC Table 16-6-1.1 and UDC Section 16-6 -
1.C.1, staff recommends the proposed UDC amendments that are attached as Exhibit D.
SUMMARY:
UDC section 16-6-1.C.1 was added as part of a UDC amendment in Ordinance #37 of
2008; and subsequently, the MU-R-3-C zone district was created by Ordinance #23 of
2012. Since then, it has come to the City's attention that errors where made that created
discrepancies in the minimum lot widths required for the MU-R-3-B and MU-R-3-C zone
districts between UDC Table 16-6-1.1 and UDC Section 16-6-1.C.1. After researching the
intent of the 2008 Ordinance related to impacts of front loaded garages and the 2012
Ordinance that created the MU-R-3-C zone district, it is clear in both cases that the intent of
the Ordinances was not to require a minimum lot width for multi-unit dwellings in the MU-
R-3-B and MU-R-3-C zone districts. The proposed amendments to the UDC will correct the
discrepancy between the two sections of the zoning code.
ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A -D
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES -February 23, 2011
Ill. STUDY SESSION
MEDICAL DISTRICT PHASE II
EXHIBIT B
Mr. Voboril briefly recapped the February 8 1h meeting discussion. City Council asked that
parts of Sub-area 2 be down zoned to R-1 or R-2. A PowerPoint slideshow was discussed
showing Stakeholder comments and concerns regarding land use. Visual Preference Survey
display boards were reviewed.
Commission Discussion Points:
• Recommended Removing from Sub-area 3 land uses:
✓ Museum/Cultural as an allowed use
✓ Overnight, in-patient hospital facility as an allowed use
✓ Parking Structure and Surface Parking as allowed principal uses
• Recommended Retaining in Sub-area 3 land uses:
✓ Out-patient clinic and medical laboratory as an allowed use
• Recommended Adding to Sub-area 3 land uses:
✓ Massage Therapy as an allowed use
• In favor of lowering the height of buildings over limiting square footage. If square
footage restrictions were put in place recommend a 35,000 square foot maximum.
• Recommended Maximum height limit of 40 feet.
• Recommended setbacks: 15 feet in the front, 20 feet in the back and 5 feet on both
sides.
• Not in favor of adopting a Minimum Lineal Street Frontage; it is not appropriate for
this sub-area.
• 37 ½ foot lot issue tabled for now; it will be looked at City wide.
• Minimum lot coverage to be researched. Scenarios to be brought to a future
meeting.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES -March 6, 2012
PUBLIC HEARING
CASE #2012-02, Amendment of UDC to Establish MU-R-3-C Zone District
Welker moved:
Fish seconded: TO OPEN CASE #2012-02
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Roth, Welker, Fish, King, Brick, Kinton
Bleile, Knoth
None
Harbaugh
Motion carried.
Mr. Voboril presented background information on the Englewood Downtown and Medical
District Small Area Planning process to date.
Summary of MU-R-3-C Zone District:
► Remove Museum/Cultural as an allowed land use.
► Remove Overnight, In-patient Hospital Facility as an allowed land use.
► Remove Parking Structure and Surface parking as allowed principal land
uses.
► Retain Out-patient Clinic as an allowed land use.
► Retain Medical Laboratory as an allowed land use.
► Add Massage Therapy as an allowed land use.
► Lower maximum height limit from 60 to 40 feet.
► Remove floor area ratio limitation.
► Institute a maximum office/medical facility building size of 30,000 SF, the
same size as existing apartment buildings in Sub-area 3.
► Reduce side setbacks for office/medical and multi-unit residential from 15 to
5 feet.
► Remove driveway location requirement for multi-unit residential
development.
, Re move land area per reside ntial unit re qu irement in fav o r o f regulating
densi ty throu gh maximum heigh t limit and minimum off-st reet parking
stan dards.
► Reduce minimum lot size for office/medical development from 24,000 to
6,000 SF.
Public Testimony
Testimony was taken from one citizen.
Welker moved :
Bleile seconded: TO CLOSE CASE #2012-02
AYES :
NAYS:
ABSTAIN :
ABSENT:
Bleile, Roth, Welker, Knoth, Fish, King, Brick, Kinton
None
None
Harbaugh
Motion carried.
A motion was made that failed for lack of a second.
King moved:
Welker Seconded: CASE #2012-02, AMENDMENTS TO THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP TO
REZONE AN AREA OF THE CITY MU-R-3-C BE RECOMMENDED FOR
APPROVAL TO CITY COUNCIL WITH A FAVORABLE
RECOMMENDATION FOR ADOPTION WITH THE FOLLOWING
CORRECTIONS TO THE STAFF REPORT:
1. Page 4, #5 should read MU-R-3-C, not MU-R-3-B.
2. Page 4, #6 should read Section 16-6-1(C)(1), not Section
16-6-1(E){7)
Mr. Fish said he has reviewed the materials provided by Staff. There has been minimal
public input other than to the process, but not to the substance of this motion. He stated he
has reviewed the tables and finds the idea of an MU-R-3-C zone district compelling, but
some of the proposed tables seem to be in conflict. The Commission did a lot of work to
put together the MO-1 overlay for good reason and considering the intent of the third case
tonight he is troubled by the removal of that.
Mr. Brick stated in Section 7 of Roadmap Englewood under Business Employment that in
Goal 1, Objective 1.2 it states "Actively engage in attracting new businesses to the City". In
Goal 5, Objective 5.1 it states "Encourage the development of mixed-use projects in order
to achieve a vibrant community". Objective 5.2 states "Increases the value and appeal of
Englewood's retail and industrial corridors in order to stimulate economic growth".
Mr. Welker stated even though the Planning and Zoning Commission did not specifically
discuss MU-R-3-C this is a fitting classification for the use of the area that it is proposed. He
stated he has no problem with changing the area zoned MO-1 to M-1 because of what M-1
allows.
Mr. Kinton finds that the designation of an MU-R-3-C zone district reasonable.
Mr. Roth stated he has concerns changing the MO-1 to M-1, however the area is small
enough he doesn't believe there would be room to build a 145 foot building on that
section of land.
Mr. King said this is another unique area but this area is also highly, densely populated with
units and other uses and is very concentrated. It definitely needs to be set aside from the
adjoining neighborhoods as the Commission has discussed many times in the past.
A YES: Bleile, Roth, Welker, Knoth, King, Brick, Kinton
NAYS: Fish
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Harbaugh
Motion carried.
CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
November 18, 2014
► I. CALL TO ORDER
The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to
order at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers of the Englewood Civic Center, Chair
Fish presiding.
Present:
Absent:
Staff:
►
Fish, Bleile, Brick, Freemire, King, Kinton, Knoth, Roth
Townley (Excused), Madrid (Excused)
Alan White, Director, Community Development
Chris Neubecker, Senior Planner
Brook Bell, Planner II
Nancy Reid, Assistant City Attorney
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
November 4, 2014
Bleile moved;
Knoth seconded: TO APPROVE THE NOVEMBER 4, 2014, MINUTES
Chair Fish asked if there were any modifications or corrections. There were none.
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Fish, Bleile, Brick, Kinton, Knoth, Roth
None
Freemire, King
Townley
Motion carried.
►
Ill. PUBLIC HEARING CASE #2014-06 MINIMUM LOT WIDTHS IN MU-R-3-B AND
MU-R-3-C ZONE DISTRICTS
Bleile moved;
Freemire seconded: TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR CASE #2014-06 MINIMUM
LOT WIDTHS IN MU-R-3-B AND MU-R-3-C ZONE DISTRICTS
AYES:
NAYS:
Fish, Bleile, Brick, King, Kinton, Knoth, Roth
None
Page 1 of4
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
► Staff Report
Freemire
Townley
Brook Bell, Planner II, was sworn in. Mr. Bell reviewed the history of the case and the
discussion from the previous study session and public hearing. The proposed text
amendment will correct a discrepancy in the UDC (Unified Development Code} that
exists between table 16-6-1.1 and UDC Section 16-6-1-C. He presented Exhibit A
illustrating the discrepancy. Staff recommends adding an exception to Section 16-6-
1-C for the MU-R-3-8 zone district such that minimum lot width requirements do not
apply. The minimum lot width stated as "none" in the table will remain unchanged.
► The discrepancy related to MU-R-3-C is similar in that the table 16-6-1.1 and the text
in Section 16-6-1-C.1 are contradictory. In order to correct the text, Mr. Bell proposes
that the text be amended to reflect that there is no minimum lot width requirement
in MU-R-3-C.
• In UDC Section 16-6-1 C.1, remove MU-R-3-C from the heading. The minimum
required lot widths for the MU-R-3-C zone district would default to "None" per
UDC Table 16-6-1.1.
• In UDC Section 16-6-3:F.3.b.(1)(b), correct the reference to Section16-6-1.C.4 and
replace it with a reference to Section 16-6-1.C.1. Remove MU-R-3-C from the
sentence.
Public Testimony
► Jeremy Letkomiller, 2856 S. Lincoln Street, was sworn in. Mr. Letkomiller expressed
concern regarding the increase in redevelopment in the city, particularly the multi-
family units such as duplexes that are replacing single family homes. He feels that
the density is going to be too high to be sustainable.
►
Response
Mr. Bell explained that the amendment to the code will not affect residential
densities that were previously established in table 16-6-1.1 . He reviewed the
requirements for the various zone districts in the city and the purpose of the hearing
to correct the inconsistency between the table and the text in the UDC that resulted
from an administrative error.
► Bleile moved;
Knoth seconded: TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR CASE #2014-06 MINIMUM
LOT WIDTHS IN MU-R-3-B AND MU-R-3-C ZONE DISTRICTS
AYES:
NAYS:
Fish, Bleile, Brick, Freemire, King, Kinton, Knoth, Roth
None
Page 2of4
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
►
None
Townley
Commissioner's Comments
►
Brick -The integrity of the neighborhoods will remain intact and the Commission
has maintained the character of the neighborhoods that are affected by MU-R-3-B
and MU-R-3-C.
►
King -These zone districts are historically higher density neighborhoods and agrees
with Mr. Brick.
►
Knoth moved;
King seconded: TO APPROVE CASE #2014-06 MINIMUM LOT WIDTHS IN MU-R-3-B
AND MU-R-3-C ZONE DISTRICTS AND FORWARD TO CITY
COUNCIL WITH A FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Fish, Bleile, Brick, Freemire, King, Kinton, Knoth, Roth
None
None
Townley
Fish -Cleaning up the code is a good thing to do
Bleile -Agrees with Mr. Brick and is glad to receive public input. The
intention of the zoning initially was to create higher density areas and he is in favor
of the proposal as written.
Brick -Housekeeping issue that does not affect the zone area but will prevent
circumvention of the code in the future. The correction serves to maintain the
quality and character of the neighborhoods.
Motion passes.
H
IV. PUBLIC FORUM
e There were no members of the public present who wished to comment.
V. ATTORNEY'S CHOICE
e
VI.
e
VII.
Assistant City Attorney Reid did not have any comment.
STAFF'S CHOICE
Mr. Neubecker stated that the December 2nd meeting will be a holiday dinner
for the Commission and staff, beginning at 6:00 p.m. and the study session
topic will be work priorities for 2015.
COMMISSIONER'S CHOICE
Page 3 of4
Freemire -The December 2nd meeting could be beneficial; the Commission has the
opportunity to be visionary in shaping the future of the City. He encourages Staff to be
creative and bring ideas to the Commission to enable a prospective plan of action.
Fish -Agrees with Mr. Freemire, would like to discuss the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Neubecker responded that he will provide an update to the Commissioners on the
progress of the projects and the December meeting is an opportunity to talk about ideas
for the future.
Brick -Interested in having the Superintendent of Englewood Schools attend a
meeting; Director White stated that it will probably be January or February. Mr. Brick
feels that education is a key component of the Comprehensive Plan.
The meeting adjourned at 7:40 p.m.
/s/ !ulie Bailey • Recording Secretary
Page 4 of 4
CllY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF CASE #2014-06
AMENDMENTS TO THE MINI MUM
LOT WIDTH REGULATIONS IN MU-R-3-C
AND MU-R-3-B ZONE DISTRICTS )
Ff NDINGS OF FACT,
CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS RELATING
TO THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE
INITIATED BY:
Community Development Department
1000 Englewood Parkway )
Englewood, CO 80110
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
FINDINGS OF FACT AND
CONCLUSIONS OF THE
CllY PLANNING AND
ZONING COMMISSION
Commission Members Present: Fish, Bleile, Brick, Freemire, King, Kinton, Knoth, Roth
Commission Members Absent: Townley
This matter was heard before the City Planning and Zoning Commission on November 4,
2014, and on November 18, 2014, in the City Council Chambers of the Englewood Civic
Center.
Testimony was received from staff. The Commission received notice of Public Hearing, the
Staff Report, and a copy of the proposed amendments to Title 16 Unified Development
Code which were incorporated into and made a part of the record of the Public Hearing.
After considering the statements of the witness and reviewing the pertinent documents, the
members of the City Planning and Zoning Commission made the following Findings and
Conclusions.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THAT the Public Hearing on the Unified Development Code (UDC) Title 16 Chapter 6
Development Standards, was brought before the Planning and Zoning Commission by
the Department of Community Development, a department of the City of Englewood.
2. THAT notice of the Public Hearing was published in the Englewood Herald on October
24, 2014, and on November 7, 2014. Notice of the Public Hearing was on the City of
Englewood website from October 10, 2014 to October 21, 2014 and from November
6, 2014 to November 18, 2014.
3. THAT the Staff report was made part of the record.
4. THAT testimony was received from the public at the Public Hearing held on November
18, 2014.
5. THAT a discrepancy exists in the UDC between the code text 16-6-1-C.1 and 16-6-
3:F.3.b. (1 )(b) and table 16-6-1.1 Summary of Dimensional Requirements for Principal
Structures.
6. THAT it was an oversight to include the MU-R-3-8 zone district in the 2008 UDC
amendment that required a minimum lot width of 25 feet per unit for properties with
alley access, and 30 feet per unit for properties without alley access.
7. THAT adding an exception to the code text for zone district MU-R-3-B will clarify the
minimum lot width requirements and create consistency between the code text and
table 16-6-1.1 Summary of Dimensional Requirements for Principal Structures.
CONCLUSIONS
1. THAT the proposed corrections to the Unified Development Code will result in
consistency in the code text and the corresponding table 16-6-1.1 Summary of
Dimensional Requirements for Principal Structures.
2. THAT the zoning regulations for zone districts MU-R-3-B and MU-R-3-C is intended to
encourage higher density development.
3. THAT the original 2012 Ordinance creating the MU-R-3-C zone district was not
intended to impose a minimum lot width for multi-unit dwellings.
4. THAT removing MU-R-3-C from the heading of UDC Section 16-6-1.C.will clarify the
minimum lot width requirements and create consistency between the code text and
table 16-6-1.1 Summary of Dimensional Requirements for Principal Structures.
5. THAT the proposed amendment serves to maintain the quality and the character of the
neighborhoods in the City of Englewood.
6. THAT the proposed changes are in conformance with Roadmap Englewood: 2003
Englewood Comprehensive Plan by supporting Redevelopment, Revitalization and
Reinvention.
DECISION
THEREFORE, it is the decision of the City Planning and Zoning Commission that Case
#2014-06 Minimum Lot Width in the MU-R-3-B and MU-R-3-C Zone Districts text
amendments should be referred to the City Council with a favorable recommendation.
The decis ion was reached upon a vote on a motion made at the meeting of the City
Planning and Zoning Commission on November 18, 2014, by Knoth, seconded by King,
which motion states:
AYES:
NAYS: None
ABSTAIN :
ABSENT:
TO APPROVE CASE #2014-06 AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 16: UNIFIED
DEVELOPMENT CODE RELATED TO MINIMUM LOT WIDTHS IN MU-
R-3-8 AND MU-R-3-C ZONE DISTRICTS AS WRITTEN BE FORWARDED
FOR APPROVAL TO CITY COUNCIL WITH A FAVORABLE
RECOMMENDATION.
Bleile, Brick, Fish, Freemire, King, Kinton, Knoth, Roth
None
Townley
Motion carried.
These Findings and Conclusions are effective as of the meeting on November 18, 2014.
BY ORDER OF THE CITY PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
Ron Fish, Chair