Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988 Ordinance No. 018' ,, j ORDINANCE NO. Jj SERIES OF 1988 BY AUl'I-IORI'rY AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 16, CHAPTER 4, SECTION 18: ENGLE.'\tilOOD MUNICIPAL CODE 19850 COUNCIL BILL NO. 11.1 INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER BILO/CLAYTON LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE, WHEREAS, the City Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council realize that landscaping is necessary to create an attractive visual and environmental atmosphere for persons living, working, and doing business in the City; and WHERFAS, City Council desires to amend the Landscape Ordinance to reflect the suggestions submitted by the business conmunity through the Governmental Affairs Committee of the Greater Englewood Charnbe..r of Conmerce, which amendments encourage property owners and business owners to design their landscaping, within reasonable guidelines, in a way that is compatible with adjacent properties; NOW', THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF' ENGLEt-\700D, COLORADO 1 'I'HAT: Section.l. Title 16, Chapter 4, Section 18, "Landscape Ordinance," Englewcicxf'Mumc'ipal Code 1985, is hereby arrended as follows: 16-4-18: LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE A. Statement of Intent. 2. To encourage a quality design -wil~ concept. and to require a ~tl SITE PLAN that contributes to -oont:W!.t THE QUALI'I'Y OF DEVELOPMEN'l', that enhances or corrplernents what exists , that recognizes the street or site as important and relates -structures DEVELOPMEN'l' to human scale. B. Applicability of Ordinance Standards. 1. These regulations shall apply in all zone districts IF ANY ONE OF 'l'HE FOLLOWING OCCUR: a'l-aftY ehi:mge i.ft-tisc eJ: aftY :aew ~or w ~~ea---t.he J:H!'iaeipal aoild.iBj is rcmotklea; wiel1 ~ c.."O:.Jt is eqmtl to or ~ fifty percent ( 50%) of the estimated value of the principal building as auilf:;t:ant-iat.-eEl ey--evidcnee sumtitted t!o the D.i:reei:M'-. For· ~~s--Beeeea,-~e~-ae~ ~l ~~ v.talRati~. a. Tf.lERE IS ANY CHANGE IN USE AS DEI'ERMINED UNDER THE PRINCIPAL PERMITrED USES LIS'l'ED IN THE INDIVIDUAL ZONE DISTRIC'I'S. b. THERE IS ANY NEW DEVELOPMEN'l'. -1 -- c. THERE IS ANY REMODELING OF EXISTING BUILDINGS WHICH WILL INCREASE THE FLOOR AREA BY FORTY PERCENT (40%). 2. When, because of the characteristics of the land or the location of existing structures, it is not physically possible or feasible to provide for landscaping on the site, the property owner shall elect one of the following alternatives: a. DEPOSIT AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO $1 X 10% OF 'I'HE LOT AREA AS MEASURED IN SQUARE FEET IN THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT FUND. 1 1 THIS FUND SHALL BE USED FOR BEAUTIFICATION OF PUBLIC AREAS AS DETERMINED BY 'I'HE CITY COUNCIL. b. IMPROVE THE APPEARANCE OF THE ST.REm SIDE EX'rERIOR OF THE BUILDING LOCATF..D ON" THE LAND IN AN AMOUNT NOT LESS THAN THE SUM EQUAL TO $1 X 10% OF THE rorAL AREA. AS MEASURED IN SQUARE FEET. THE DIRECTOR MAY REQUIRE DOCUMENTS 'I'O SUBSTAN'l'IATE 'fHE SUM PAID FOR IMPROVEMENT. 3. THESE REGULATIONS SHAIJ., NO!' APPLY IN ALL ZONE DISTRICTS IF ANY ONE OF THE FOLLOWING OCCURS: a. THE PROPER'lY OR BUSINESS CCMPLIED WITH THE LANDSCAPING PROVISIONS IN EE'l?E'.CT AT THE BF.GINNING OF THE OCCUPANCY. b. IF THE PROPERTY IS IN COMPLIANCE WI'l'H 'l'FUS ORDINANCE AND THERE IS A CHANGE IN 'I'HE TENAN'I' OR LESSEE I THE LANDSCAPING REQUIRE1'1ENTS DO NOT APPLY. 4. THE PROPER'l'Y OWNER IS UL'I'IMATF.LY RESPONSIBLE J.i'OR LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS. C. Minimum Landscaping Requirements: l. All Districts. a. At th<:? time of application for a building permit, "there <ffl'ffl:1:l--Iae .ine.lu.ded a landscape plan in sufficient detail to determine compliance with the Landscape Ordinance SHALL BE SUBMITI'ED a b. The Landscaping Plan shall be reviewed by the Planning Di vision and if the proposed landscaping complies with the requirements of this Ordinance, it shall be approved. All landscape improveinents indicated on or contained in an approved site plan shall be canpleted prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. (1.) If all conditions necessary for issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy are met except landscape improvements, and the reason for not finishing the landscape improvements is because cornpletion of construction occurred outside a planting season, a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy will be issued as provided for herein. In this situation, all landscape .improvements must :be completed by the next planting season within a time frame -2 - established by the Director. Before the Temporary Certificate of Occupancy shall be issued, a security instrument naming the City as beneficiary shall be filed with the City, which security instrument shall require the installation of all landscape improvements within the time frame established by the Director. The security instrument shall further provide that it shall be in full force and effect for one year after the time frame established by the Director or until the landscaping has been completed. Should action be corrmenced to enforce the landscaping requirements, the security instrument shall continue to be in full force and effect until the improvements are completed. Further, the security instrument shall provide for the payment of all attorneys fees , collection fees and expenses of the City in enforcing the landscaping requirements. The amount of the security instrument shall not be less than twice the valu@ of the landscaping improvements. ~'he form of the security instrument and its terms shall be approved by the Director before acceptance,~ON BEHALF OF the City. (2) •ro overide the security instrument, the property owner may deposit with the City cash in escrow, certified funds, or an irrevocable letter of credit, in a form acceptable to the Director. The payee of said funds shall be the City, and the funds shall be collectible by the City -by UPON the City I s giving ten (10) days' written notice to the party giving the instrument and thereafter executing on the instrument. re;-MINIMJM SrS:m ~ FOR ~-ANB-6HRBBS ARBt- C. MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS: (1) ROCK AND STONE: 3/4" DIAMETER MINIMUM SIZE 2 11 MINI.MUM DEP'rH FOR ROCK BEDS 411 MINIMUM DEPTH FOR DECORATIVE BARK OR WOOD--CHIP BEDS ( 2 ) A POUROUS MATERIAL INTENDED AND DESIGNI!TI '110 STOP WEED GROWI'H I SHAIJJ BE USED AS AN UNDERLAY FOR ROCK, BARK OR WOOD CHIPS • ..e-. d. No attificial trees, shrubs, turf or plants or other nonliving plant materials shall be used to fulfill the minimum living plant material requirements as set forth in this Section. -d.. e. All landscaping contained within the public right-of-way shall conform to installation and maintenance standards of the City of Englewood 'l'ree and Shrub Ordinance. ~T4-tJ:e-l-.1-s~ Sfigl~ Muni~~ ...a. f. In all zone districts the street tree requirements are in addition to the requirements for minimum living plant material. S'I'RFEI' 'l'R!~ES SHALL BE LOCATED ADJACENT TO THE STREET. -£... g. The Department of Community Development shall provide a recommended planting guide with information on appropriate types of --3 - trees and plants for given areas along with instructions for proper installation and maintenance of landscaping • .q.. h. In areas critical to pedestrian and vehicular traffic, shrubs and other plants must be installed and maintained to provide clear visibility as determined by the Traffic Engineer. D. Parking Design Requirements; All Zone Districts. 1. If proposed construction of~ off-street parking areas contains fifty (50) or more stalls, ten percent (10%) of the total parking lot area shall be landscaped with twen:ty-fi~~ (351i ➔ FIFTY PERCENT ( 50%) of that area to include living plant material. 2 . 'lbe twerrey fiw pereen1: {25%)· -~Mt JM.teria}--shaH.-ineluds- THERE SHAI~J BE a minimum of one tree per fifty (50) square LINEAR feet OF PARKING AISLE LENGTH. 3 • In addition to the iten pe:toent ( 10;,)-requireirentS in subsections D .1. AND D. 2. above, parking areas that are adjacent to streets shall meet these requirements: b. Street trees shall be planted in the buffer zone at the rate of one per forty ( 4 0) linear feet. Street-trees plmtbed in tae- BU:ffer BORe HlaY ee eredired toward the eee ~ in ~ioo. D2 aticnre. E. Maintenance. 3. Failure to provide adequate maintenance resulting in the deteriora- tion of trees I shrubs or other living plant material violates the objectives of this Ordinance, and the City Manager or his designee shall have the property posted giving appropriate notice of the violation of this Ordinance and setting forth that the violation must be corrected within five (5) days of the posting of the notice. If the nature of the violation makes it impractical to correct within five (5) days, the owners shall submit a letter of intent to correct to the City Manager and shall correct the violation in the next planting season. Failure to reasonbly comply with this Ordinance, either after filing a letter of intent or without such a letter, can lead to action being taken in accordance with the Englewood Municipal Code, ~, as at'IK:!nded. IF THE REPLACEMENT DO:f<~S Nor OCCUR, 'I'HE PROPERTY ONNER MAY BE BILLED FOR THE AMOUNT NECESSA,..-qy FOR THE CI'l'Y TO CORRECT Tlill SIWATION. Introduced, read in full, and passed on first reading on the 5th day of April, 1988. Published as a Bill for an Ordinance on the 13th day of April, 1988. Public Hearing held on the 2nd day of May, 1988. Read by title and tabled on the 2nd day of May, 1988. -4 - Read, amended, and passed as arnended on the 6th day of June, 1988. Published in full as amended on the 8th day of June, 1988. Read by title and passed on final reading on the 20th day of June, 1988. Published by title as Ordinance No. 4, Series of 1988, on the 22nd day of June, 1.988. I, Patricia H. Crow, City Clerk for the City of Englewood, Colorado, hereby certify the above and foregoing is a true copy of the Ordinance passed on final reading and published by title as Ordinance No. "i.fo:' Series of 1988. (}~di~----Patricia H. Crow -5 - C O U N C I L DATE March 28, 1988 C O M M U N I C A T I O N AGENDA ITEM I IIL SUBJECT Amendments to the Landscape Ordinance, §16-4-18, Comprehensive Zoning Ord INITIATED BY The City Planning & Zoning Commission ACT I ON p RO PO SED ____ s_e_t_a_d_a_te_f_o_r_a_P_ub_l_i_c_H_e_a_r_i n_g_t_o _c_o_n_s _i d_e_r_t_h_e __ _ proposed amendments to the Landscape Ordinance, §16-4-18 of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. BACKGROUND The Landscape Ordinance was adopted by Ordinance No. 2, Series of 1984 and became effective in mid-February of that year. The concept of a landscape ordinance in Englewood was suggested during the consideration of the revisions to the Comprehensive Plan in 1978 and 1979, at which time, the improvement of the visual quality of the city was a primary focus. After having enforced the Landscape Ordinance for two or three years, it be- came apparent that certain sections of the Ordinance w~re not easily inter- preted and in some cases, the requirements were either too restrictive or not producing the desired visual effect. The staff and the Commission members worked together to try to clarify the provisions of the Ordinance and finally considered several amendments at a public hearing on April 21, 1987. Following the Public Hearing, the proposed amendments were referred to the City Council. Before the City Council could consider the proposed amendments to the Landscape Ordinance at Public Hearing, the Government Liaison Committee of the Greater Englewood Chamber of Commerce contacted the City Council and requested that the consideration of the amendments be delayed. In response to the Chamber Committee's request, the Council voted to refer the proposed amendments back to the Planning Commission at its meeting on June 29, 1987. The Commission members and staff did meet with the Chamber Committee to dis- cuss the proposed amendments. By letter dated August 13, 1987, the Governmen- tal Affairs Committee submitted suggested changes and comments to the Commission. The Chamber Committee's recommendations were considered by the Commission mem- bers and at the meeting on October 6, 19~7, they agreed on the revised amend- ments, incorporating most of the Chamber C0rnmittee's suggestions. L _______ ~ .. r-:--''-f:-~-------------------------------- ,1, The Planning Commission considered the revised amendments to the Landscape Ordinance at a Public Hearing on February 17, 1988. A letter from the City Liaison and Governmental Affairs Committee of the Greater Englewood Chamber of Commerce was entered into the record of the Hearing in support of the proposed amendments. Bob Marx, a member of the Committee, was present and spoke in favor of the proposed amendments. No one was present who wished to address the Commission in opposition to the proposed amendments. RECOMMENDATION The members of the City Planning and Zoning Commission have given considerable thought to the intent of the Landscape Ordinance and to the practicality of its requirements as applied to the properties in the City. The Commission members are of the opinion that the proposed amendments are necessary for the continued successful enforcement of the Ordinance. The members of the City Planning and Zontng Commission recommend that the City Council set a date for a Public Hearing to consider the proposed amendments to the Landscape Or- dinance, §16-4-18 of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, and that the proposed amendments then be adopted by Ordinance. gw / M E M O R A N D U M TO: FROM: The Members of the City Planning and Zoning Commission. dlf:1/ Dorothy Romans, Acting Director of Community Development. DATE: January 29, 1988. SUBJECT: Amendments to Section 16-4-18, Landscape Ordinance. Because it has been so long since the initial discussions about the proposed amendments to the Landscape Ordinance, and there are several different docu- ments to be considered, the staff has prepared the attached study document. You will see that it includes the following: 1. The present Ordinance in the 1985 Englewood Municipal Code. 2. Amendments considered at public hearing on April 21, 1987 and referred to the City Council. (The proposed amended Ordinance was sent back to the Commission on June 29, 1987.) 3. The amendments proposed by the Greater Englewood Chamber of Commerce by letter dated August 13, 1987. 4. The revised amendments approved by the Commission on October 6, 1987. The Planning Commission has set a ·public hearing on the proposed amendments to the Landscape Ordinance on February 17, at which t·ime the ptesent Ordinance, as amended on October 6, 1987, will be considered. I hope the study copy will provide the Commission with necessary background to prepare for the hearing on the 17th, and that it will also demonstrate to the Chamber Committee, the consideration given· to their recommendations. It should also provide background for those members of the Commission who were not present at the hearing on April 21, 1987. Should you have any questions, there should be time to discuss the matter at ~he meeting on February 2nd. DAR/sr 16-4-18: LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE: 16-4-18 (As Exists): A. Statement of Intent. The City Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council recognize that landscaping is a necessary means of gaining quality development, of creating visual and environmental public amenities, and for enhancing the single-family, multi-family, commercial and industrial areas of Englewood. It is to this end that the following goals are set forth and the regulations in this section are deemed necessary: 1. To create an attractive environment for living, doing business and working in the City of Englewood, and to provide relief from the high concentration of off-street paved parking areas along local, ar- terial, and collector streets. As Proposed to City Council in May, 1987: No change recommended by the Plan- ning Commission. Chamber of Commerce recommendation: To delete Paragraph A. 1 in its entirety. Commission Action as of October 6, 1987: To retain this statement of purpose. 16-4-18 (As Exists): A. 2. To encourage a quality design building concept and to require a design that contributes to context, that enhances or complements what exists, that recognizes the street or site as important, and relates structures to human scale. As proposed to City Council in May, 1987: 2. To encourage a quality design [~·] concept and to require a [clesigA~ SITE PLAN that contributes to THE QUALITY OF DEVELOPMENT [~-t-], that enhances or complements what exists, that recognizes the street or site as important, and relates [~] DEVELOPMENT to human scale. Chamber of Commerce Recommendation: None Commission Action as of O~tober 6, 1987: Leave as was proposed to City Coun- cil in May, 1987. 16-4-18 (As exists): A. 3. To promote a comp at i bi l ity betwe .. en i ndustri a 1 uses and adjacent residential districts. 4. To require any new development or any change in use in any residen- tial, commercial or industrial area to be landscaped and to require that the landscaping be maintained. -1 - 5. To promote the installation of drought-tolerant plants and low- maintenance landscaping wherever applicable. No changes proposed by the Commission in May, 1987. Chamber of Commerce Recommendation: No changes suggested. Commission Action as of October 6, 1987: No changes proposed. 16-4-18 (As Exists): B. Applicability of Ordinance Standards. 1. These regulations shall apply in all zone districts to any change in use or any new development to any change in use or any new develop- ment or to any property in which the principal building is remodeled, which remodeling cost is equal to or exceeds fifty percent (50%) of the estimated value of the principal building as substantiated by evidence submitted to the Director. For purposes of this Section, remodeling cost shall be equal to the sum of all permit valuations of work. As Proposed to City Council in May, 1987: B. Applicability of Ordinance Standards. 1. These regulations shall apply in all zone districts IF ANY ONE OF THE FOLLOW I NG OCCUR: [ t& a-F1Y eh ange 4ft-~ ff -a-A-Y Af!W-e-evel or,men-t -D-¥-t-e- ... ,_,-,., a.fi.Y-pro ~.f-t,i-4-R-wM-€-R tfi.e. pr inc~ 13 al ~Ht§-t-s-~, Wfl44 remodel i n g -~ 4-=s--~ -t-& -oti--e xee e El-fr W%--ef. tfH::.· e-st i m a-t-ee-v-a+t¾-e-* ·hl=re-~ ·b·ttH·cl+~ -a-s-~4:et!--by--e-v-4-e-etre-e -s~ bm i t-t€4 t-e-¼e -8.:i-l"eet-frl<'-: tt}l'l fHl+°fr&s-e-s--o-¥ -t-fl-'i-5. Seetfon; -r-emoElel ~ng--c-e-s4r &fl-a++* "e<:ftl--a-t t& ~ frltffl -e.:f. --a+-t-~m# ~ -ef-..we.l~-. ] a. THERE IS A CHANGE IN OWNERSHIP OF THE IMPROVED PROPERTY OR BUSINESS. Chamber of Commerce Recommendation: Delete B 1 a in its entirety. Commission Action on October 6, 1987: Concurred with Chamber recommendatiqn to delete Sub-section a. As proposed to City Council in May, 1987: B. 1. b. THERE IS ANY CHANGE IN USE AS DETERMINED UNDER THE PRINCIPAL PERMITTED USES LISTED IN THE INDIVIDUAL ZONE DISTRICTS. c. THERE IS ANY NEW DEVELOPMENT. d. THERE IS ANY REMODELING OF EXISTING BUILDINGS WHICH WILL IN- CREASE THE FLOOR AREA BY 20%. Chamber of Commerce Recommendation: Change sub-section d to read: -2 - "There is any remodeling of existing buildings which will increase the floor area by 40%." Commission Action on October 6, 1987f The Commission concurred with the recommendation of the Chamber _of Commerce and recommended the change. 16-4-18 (As Exists): B. 2. When, because of the characteristics of the land or the location of existing structures, it is not physically possible or feasible to provide for landscaping on the site, the property owner shall deposit one-half percent (1/2%) of the value of the construction in the En- glewood Landscape and Fine Art Fund. This fund shall be used for beautification of public areas as determined by the legislative body. As Proposed to City Council in May, 1987: 2. When, because of the characteristics of the land or the location of existing structures, it is not physically possible or feasible to provide for landscaping on the site, the property owner shall deposit [--l-fr%--frf] the value of the LANDSCAPING IF IT WERE TO BE INSTALLED IN CONFORMANCE WITH THIS ORDINANCE [-ooR-s-:t-fi¾Gt-4-e-R-] in the BEAUTIFICATION ACCOUNT IN THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT FUND OR $1 X 10% OF THE LOT AREA. [~ ~€-frf)€·-atre f+fte At4 ftttffi-.] This fund shall be used for beautification of public areas as determined by the legislative body. Chamber of Commerce Recommendation: 2. "When it is not physically possib"le or feasible to provide for land- scaping on the site, the property owner shall deposit in the beautification account of the public improvement, the amount of dol- lars equal to 10% of the square footage of the lot area." Commission Action on October 6, 1987: The Commission recommends the section be reworded as follows: 2. 11 When, because of the characteristics of the land or the location of existing structures, it is not physically possible or feasible to provide for landscaping on the site, the property owner shall deposit in the beautification account in the public improvement fund an amount equal to the cost of installing landscaping in conformance with this ordinance or an amount equal to $1 x 10% of the lot area. This fund shall be used for beautification of public areas as deter- mined by the legislative body." As Proposed to City Council in May, 1987: B. 3. WHEN ANY ONE OF THE SITUATfONS DESCRIBED IN SECTION 16.4-18 B (1) (a), (b), (c), OR (d) OCCUR WITHIN AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL MALL, SHOP- PETTE OR INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT WHICH WAS IN EXISTENCE PRIOR TO THE ADOPTION OF THE LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE, AND THE DEVELOPMENT DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE LANDSCAPING REGULATIONS; THEN A ONE TIME LANDSCAPING FEE OF $1 TIMES 10% OF THE GROSS FLOOR AREA SHALL BE DEPOSITED INTO THE BEAUTIFICATION ACCOUNT IN THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT FUND . .. 3 - Chamber of Commerce Recommendation: Delete Sub-section B 3 above. Commission Action on October 6, 1987: The Commission agreed that sub-section B 3 above should be deleted. As Proposed to City Council in May, 1987: B. 4. THESE REGULATIONS SHALL NOT APPLY IN ALL ZONE DISTRICTS IF ANY ONE OF THE FOLLOWING OCCUR: a. THE PROPERTY OR BUSINESS COMPLIED WITH THE LANDSCAPING PROVI- SIONS IN EFFECT AT THE BEGINNING -OF THE OCCUPANCY. b. IF THE PROPERTY IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THIS ORDINANCE, AND THERE IS A CHANGE IN THE TENANT OR LESSEE, THE LANDSCAPING REQUIRE- MENTS DO NOT APPLY. 5. THE PROPERTY OWNER IS ULTIMATELY RESPONSIBLE FOR LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS. Chamber of Commerce Recommendation: None Commission Action on October 6, 1987: Leave wording as was proposed in May, 1987. 16-4-18 (As Exists): 1 C. Minimum Landscaping Requirements: 1. All Districts. a. At the time of application for a building permit, there shall be included a Landscape Plan in sufficient detail to determine com- pliance with the Landscape Ordinance. As Proposed to City Council in May~ 1987: As worded above. Chamber of Commerce Recommendation: The Chamber asked that "there shall be included" be deleted, and ''shall be submitted'' included at the end of the sentence. Commission Action on October 6, 1987: The Commission recommends the following rewording: a. At the time of application for a building permit, a landscape plan in sufficient detail to determine compliance with the Land- scape Plan shall be submitted. 16-4-18 (As Exists}: C. 1. b. The Landscaping Plan shall be reviewed by the Planning Division, and if the proposed landscaping complies with the requirements -4 - of this Ordinance, it shall be approved. All landscape improve- ments indicated on or contained in an approved site plan shall be completed prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. As Proposed to City Council in May, 1987: As worded above. Chamber of Commerce Recommendation: None Commission Action on October 6, 1987: No change in wording; 16-4-18 (As Exists): C. 1. b. (1) If all conditions necessary for issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy are met except landscape improvements, and the reason for not finishing the landscape improvements is be- cause completion of construction occurred outside of a planting season, a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy will be issued as provided for herein. In this situation, all landscape improvements must be completed by the next plant- ing season within a time frame established by the Director. Before the Temporary Certificate of Occupancy shall be is- sued, a security instrument naming the City as beneficiary shall be filed with the City, which security instrument shall require the installation of all landscape improve- ments within the time frame established by the Director. The security instrument shall further provide that it shall be in full force and effect for one year after the time frame established by the Director or until the landscaping has been completed. Should action be commenced to enforce the landscaping requirements, the security instrument shall continue to be in full force and effect until the improve- ments are completed. Further, the security instrument shall provide for the payment of all attorneys fees, col- lection fees and expenses of the City in enforcing the landscaping requirements. The amount of the security in- strument shall not be less than twice the value of the landscaping improvements. The form of the security instru- ment and its terms shall be approved by the Director before acceptance by the City. As Proposed to City Council in May, 1987: (i) If all conditions necessary for issuance of a Certificate· of Occupancy are met except landscape improvements, and the reason for not finishing the landscape improvements is be- cause completion of construction occurred outside a plant- ing season, a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy will be issued as provided for herein. In this situatio~, all landscape improvements must be completed by the next plant- ing season within a time frame established by the Director. Before the Temporary Certificate of Occupancy shall be is- sued, a security instrument naming the City as beneficiary shall be filed with the City, which security instrument shall require the installation of all landscape improve- ments within the time frame established by the Director. -5 - The security instrument shall further provide that it shall be in full force and effect for one year after the time frame established by the Director or until the landscaping has been completed. Should action be commenced to enforce the landscaping requirements, the security instrument shall continue to be in full force and effect until the improve- ments are completed. Further the security instrument shall provide for the payment of all attorney fees, collection fees and expenses of the City in enforcing the landscaping requirements. The amount of the security instrument shall not be less than twice the value of the landscaping im- provements. The form of the security instrument and its terms shall be approved by the Director before acceptance [-by-] ON BEHALF OF the City. Chamber of Commerce Recommendation: No changes suggested. Commission Action on October 6, 1987: Leave wording as was proposed in May, 1987. 16-4-18 (As Exists): C. 1. b. (2) To provide the security instrument, the property owner may deposit with the City cash in escrow, certified funds, or an irrevocable letter of credit, in a form acceptable to the Director. The payee of said funds shall be the City, and the funds shall be collectible by the City by the City's giving ten (10) days' written notice to the party giving the instrument and thereafter executing on the instrument. As Proposed to City Council in May, 1987: (ii) To provide the security instrument, the property owner may deposit with the City cash in escrow, certified funds, or an irrevocable letter of credit, in a form acceptable to the Director. ,The payee of said funds shall be the City, and the funds shall be collectible by the City UPON[~] the City's giving ten (10) days' written notice to the par- ty giving the instrument and thereafter executing on the instrument. Chamber of Commerce Recommendation: No changes suggested. Commission Action on October 6, 1987: Leave wording as was proposed in May, 1987. 16-4-18 (As Exists): C. 1. b. (3) The owner(s) of the real property, on proof of ownership and consent of all having a security interest in the prop- erty may place a lien on the property in favor of the City, which lien shall be superior to all other liens and en- cumbrances. The form of the lien shall be as approved by -6 - the Director and shall provide for the payment of attorney fees and costs of collection in the event that enforcement is necessary. The owner consents, in giving the lien, that reasonable expenses may exceed the value of the landscaping required. · (4) In accepting a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy, the owner is consenting and acknowledging the authority of the City to perform the landscaping requirements on the proper- ty and to execute on the security given by the landowner. As Proposed to City Council in May, 1987: No changes were recommended. Chamber of Commerce Recommendation: No changes were recommended. Commission Action on October 6, 1987: No changes were recommended. 16-4-18 (As Exists): C. 1. c. No artificial trees, shrubs, turf or plants or other non-living plant materials shall be used to fulfill the minimum living plant material requirements as set forth in this Section. As Proposed to City Council in May, 1987: c. MINIMUM SIZE REQUIREMENTS FOR TREES AND SHRUBS ARE: ( i) DECIDUOUS TREES: 211 -2 1/2 11 CALI PER. (ii) EVERGREEN TREES: 5' -6' IN HEIGHT. (iii) FLOWERING, DECIDUOUS AND EVERGREEN SHRUBS AND HEDGES: 5 GALLON MINIMUM. (iv) ROCK AND STONE: 3/4 11 DIAMETER MINIMUM SIZE. 311 MINIMUM DEPTH FOR ROCK BEDS. 4" MINIMUM DEPTH FOR DECORATIVE BARK OR WOOD-CHIP BEDS. Chamber of Commerce Recommendation: The Chamber feels there is a conflict between sub-section c above and section A 5, which states: "To promote the installation of drought-tolerant plants and low-maintenance landscaping wher- ever applicable." Commission Action on October 6, 1987: The Commission saw no conflict, and recommends the retention of both sections (§C 1 c, and §A 5). (The insertion of the above section necessitated re-lettering in the existing 16-4-18, which follows and is as it was recommended in May, 1987:) C. 1. d. No artificial trees, shrubs, turf or plants or other non-living plant materials shall be used to fulfill the minimum living plant material requirements as set forth in this Section. -7 - e. All landscaping contained within the public right-of-way shall conform to installation and maintenance standards of the City of Englewood Tree and Shrub Ordinance [~t-Ew--6,,, t-4-t-l-e-H-e-¥ ™ -~+SWQ.00 -Muni<;ipa-l ~]. f. In all zone districts the street tree requirements are in addi- tion to the requirements for minimum living plant material. STREET TREES SHALL BE LOCATED ADJACENT TO THE STREET. STREET TREES SHALL BE OF A DECIDUOUS VARIETY. g. The Department of Community Development shall provide a recom- mended planting guide with information on appropriate types of trees and plants for given areas along with instructions for proper installation and maintenance of landscaping. h. In areas critical to pedestrian and vehicular traffic, shrubs and other plants must be installed and maintained to provide clear visibility as determined by the Traffic Engineer. Chamber of Commerce Recommendation: No changes were recommended. Commission Action on October 6, 1987: No changes from the May, 1987 proposal were recommended. 16-4-18 (As Exists): C. 2. Individual Districts: a. R-1-A, R-1-B, R-1-C Zone Districts. (1) A minimum of forty percent (40%) of the total lot area shall be landscaped. (2) Forty percent (40%) of the total landscaped area shall be in the area described as the front yard, inclusive of any driveway area. · (3) Ninety percent (90%) of the area required to be landscaped shall be devoted to living plant materials at their antici- pated size at maturity as defined in the planting guide. As Proposed to City Council in May, 1987: (3) 100% f-%%-J of the area required to be landscaped shall be devoted to living plant materials at their anticipated size at maturity as defined in the planting guide. Chamber of Commerce Recommendation: Appears to be in conflict with A 5, and 100% requirements is unrealistic and cannot be implemented. Entire section needs more study. Commission Action on October 6, 1987: Retain the 90% figure rather than the 100% figure. -8 - .• . ' 16-4-18 (As Exists): C. 2. a. (4) One street tree is required for forty (40) linear feet of frontage and is to be located a minimum of five feet (5') behind the sidewalk. When the total street frontage is divided by forty feet (40'}, and there is a remainder of twenty feet (20') or more, an additional street tree shall be required. b. R-2, R-2-C, R-2-C/S.P.S. Zone Districts. (1) A minimum of forty percent (40%) of the total lot area shall be landscaped. (2) Forty percent (40%) of the total landscaped area shall be in the area described as the front yard, inclusive of any driveway. (3) Ninety percent (90%) of the area required to be landscaped shall be devoted to living plant materials at their antici- pated size at maturity as defined in the planting guide. As Proposed to City Council in May, 1987: (3) 100% f-9-0%-1 of the area required to be landscaped shall be devoted to living plant materials at their anticipated size at maturity as defined in the planting guide. Chamber of Commerce Recommendation: Appears to be in conflict with A 5, and 100% requirements is unrealistic and cannot be implemented. Entire section needs more study. Commission Action on October 6, 1987: Retain the 90% figure rather than the 100% figure. 16-4-18 (As Exists): C. 2. b. (4) One Street tree is required per forty (40) linear feet of frontage and is to be located a minimum of five feet (5') behind the sidewalk. When the total street frontage is divided by forty feet (40'), and there is a remainder of twenty feet (20') or more, an additional street tree shall be required. c. R--3 District. (1) A minimum of twenty-five percent (25%) of total lot area shall be landscaped. (2) Forty percent (40%) of the total landscaped area shall be in the area described as the front yard, inclusive of any driveway area. -9 - (3) Fifty percent (50%) of the area required to be landscaped shall be devoted to living plant materials at their antici- pated size at maturity as defined in the planting guide. As Proposed to City Council in May, 1987: (3) 100% [-5-0%-J of the area required to be landscaped shall be devoted to living plant materials at their anticipated size at maturity as defined in the planting guide. Chamber of Commerce Recommendation: Appears to be in conflict with A 5; also the 100% requirement is unrealistic and cannot be implemented. The entire section needs more study. Commission Action on October 6, 1987: Revert to the existing 50% figure rather than the proposed 100% figure. 16-4-18 (As Exists): C. 2. c. (4) One street tree is required per forty (40) linear feet of d. frontage and is to be located a minimum of five feet (5'} behind the sidewalk. When the total street frontage is divided by forty feet (40'), and there is a remainder of twenty feet (20') or more, an additional street tree shall be required. R-4 District: (1) Minimum landscaping for residential properties same as R-2. (2) Minimum landscaping for professional properties same as R-3. e. B-1, B-2, 1-1, and I-2 Districts: (1) A minimum of ten percent (10%) of total lot area shall be landscaped with. no less than eighty percent (80%} of the landscaping installed on the front portion of the lot (from the front of the building to the street line). If the property abuts or is adjacent to an R-1-A, R-1-B, R-1-C, R- 2, or R-2-C Zone District, the remaining twenty percent (20%) of the required landscaping should be installed in the rear yard to buffer the residential development from the commercial use. (2) Fifty percent (50%} of the area required to be landscaped shall be devoted to living plant materials. As Proposed to City Counci'I in May, 1987: (2) 100% fS-0%:J of the area required to be landscaped shall be devoted to living plant materials. -10 - Chamber of Commerce Recommendation: Appears to be in conflict with Section A 5; also 100% requirement is unrealistic.and cannot be implemented. The entire section needs more study. Commission Action on October 6, 1987: Revert to the existing 50% figure rather than the proposed 100% figure. 16-4-18 (As Exists): C. 2. e. (3) One street tree is required per forty (40) linear feet to be located a minimum of five feet (5') from any paved sur- face. When the total street frontage is divided by forty feet (40'), and there is a remainder of twenty feet (20') or more, and additional street tree shall be required. D. Parking Design Requirements; All Zone Districts. 1. If proposed construction of free-standing off-street parking areas contains fifty (50) or more stalls, ten percent (10%) of the total parking lot area shall be landscaped with twenty-five percent (25%) of that area to include living plant material. As Proposed to City Council in May, 1987: D. 1. If proposed construction of [f,--e-e-s-t-a-R4i-R-ft] off-street parking areas contains 50 or more stalls, 10% of the total parking lot area shall be landscaped with 100% [-2:-5%-] of that area to include living plant material. Chamber of Commerce Recommendation: Unclear, grammatical error. Commission Action on October 6, 1987: The Commission determined that the grammar is correct, but recommended that 50% living material would be more appropriate than the present 25% or the proposed 100%, and recommends that this section be changed to read: " ... 10% of the total parking lot area shall be landscaped with 50% of that area to include living plant material." 16-4-18 (As Exists: D. 2. The twenty-five percent (25%) living plant material shall include a minimum of one tree per fifty (50) square feet. As Proposed to City Council in May, 1987: 2. [~~ ~~mater~a~-] THERE shall [~nehid~] BE a minimum of one tree per 50 square LINEAR feet OF PARKING AISLE LENGTH. Chamber of Commerce Recommendation: Grammatical errar; question on 50 square linear feet. Commission Action on October 6, 1987: Agreed that the word ''square" should be eliminated. -11 - 16-4-18 (As Exists): D. 3. In addition to the ten percent (10%} requirement in subsection DI above, parking areas that are adjacent to streets shall meet these requirements: As Proposed to City Council in May, 1987: 3. In addition to the [~ requirements ind (1} AND· (2) above, parking areas that are adjacent to streets shall meet these requirements: Chamber of Commerce Recommendation: No changes recommended. Commission Action on October 6, 1987: No changes recommended from May, 1987 proposal. 16-4-18 (As Exists): D. 3. a. A buffer zone shall be located between the back of the sidewalk, or the street curb line if there is no sidewalk, and the parking area, and shall not be less than five feet (5') in width as mea- sured from the back of the sidewalk or the street curb line. This area shall be landscaped. b. Street trees shall be planted in the buffer zone at the rate of one per forty (40) linear feet. Street trees planted in the buffer zone may be credited toward the tree requirement in sub- section D2 above. As Proposed to City Council in May, 1987: b. Street trees shall be planted in the buffer zone at the rate of one per 40 linear feet. [£.t-ree-t -t-\"-ee-5• pl ante-a· -i-fr the--buffer @M ~ b-s cy,editee--tffita-\04 ¼e---t.y.i.ee ~-4 remeAt 'Ht' ~€-t+efr ~ abeve-.] Chamber of Commerce Recommendation.: No changes were recommended. Commission Action on October 6, 1988: No changes from May, 1987 proposal were recommended. 16-4-18 (As Exists)~ D. 4. Because these areas are critical to pedestrian and vehicular traffic, shrubs and other plants must be installed and maintained to provide clear visibility as determined by the Traffic Engineer. E. Maintenance. 1. The owner of the property, his successors, heirs, and assigns shall be responsible for the proper maintenance of the area subject to an approved landscaping plan. -12 - 2. Landscaping shall be continuously maintained including necessary watering, weeding, pruning, pest control and replacement of dead or diseased plant material. Replacement for dead or diseased plant material shall be of the same type of plant material as set forth in the approved landscaping plan; for example, a tree must replace a tree, a shrub must replace a shrub, a ground cover must replace a ground cover, etc. Replacement shall occur in the next planting sea- son, but in any event, such replacement time shall not exceed one year. Any replacement which conforms to the requirements of this Section shall not be considered an amendment to the landscaping plan. 3. Failure to provide adequate maintenance resulting in the deteriora- tion of trees, shrubs or other living plant material violates the objectives of this Ordinance, and the City Manager or his designee shall have the property posted giving appropriate notice of the violation of this Ordinance and setting forth that the violation must be corrected within five (5) days of the posting of the notice. If the nature of the violation makes it impractical to correct within five (5) days, the owners shall submit a letter of intent to correct to the City Manager and shall correct the violation in the next planting season. Failure to reasonable comply with this Ordinance, either after filing a letter of intent or without such a letter, can lead to action being taken in accordance with the Englewood Municipal Code, Section 1-4-1, as amended. As Proposed to City Council in May, 1987: 3. Failure to provide adequate maintenance resulting in the deteriora- tion of trees, shrubs or other living plant material violates the objectives of this Ordinance, and the City Manager or his designee shall have the property posted giving appropriate notice of the violation of this Ordinance and setting forth that the violation must be corrected within five (5) days of the posting of the notice. If the nature of the violation makes it impractical to correct within five (5) days, the owners shall submit a letter of intent to correct to the City Manager and shall correct the violation in the next planting season. Failure to reasonable comply with this Ordinance, either after filing a letter of intent or without such a letter, can lead to action being taken in accordance with the Englewood Municipal Code, (-5-eet--te-n -~], as amended. IF THE REPLACEMENT DOES NOT OCCUR, THE PROPERTY OWNER MAY BE BILLED FOR THE AMOUNT NECESSARY FOR THE CITY TO CORRECT THE SITUATION. Chamber of Commerce Recommendation: Concurs with sub-sections I, 2, and 3 above; "Excellent". Commission Action on October 6, 1987: No changes were recommended. January 26, 1988 gw -13 - 5. To promote the installation of drought-tolerant plants and low- maintenance landscaping wherever applicable. No changes proposed by the Commission in May, 1987. Chamber of Commerce Recommendation: No changes suggested. Commission Action as of October 6, 1987: No changes proposed. 16-4-18 (As Exists): B. Applicability of Ordinance Standards. 1. These regulations shall apply in all zone districts to any change in use or any new development to any change in use or any new develop- ment or to any property in which the principal building is remodeled, which remodeling cost is equal to or exceeds fifty percent (50%) of the estimated value of the principal building as substantiated by evidence submitted to the Director. For purposes of this Section, remodeling cost shall be equal to the sum of all permit valuations of work. As Proposed to City Council in May, 1987: B. Applicability of Ordinance Standards. 1. These regulations shall apply in all zone districts IF ANY ONE OF THE FOLLOW I NG OCCUR : [ t-& a-n-y, ~e -i-fl-tt-s-e• ff ilf\:Y -i,-ew. Ei-e¥e-l-e p me A~ trr t-e- . / a-i:i-y. fW-Gft&~ -i-R-wfl-k-h w ~~+ B-Lt:H~ i-5--¥1emode1 ed, wl:t4-4 rerti1:Hte-=!-i-~ Efr5-t ,t:s-~ -t-s-B-14' ~ ~-e.f· t-fl.e-es t-i mnt ed ~ ef.. 'Hl1=· -p-r+~ -1:tttt+cl-+tr§-~ ~ttb-s-t-a+rt-4-fr:t-ecl--a-y--e-v-i-6-eftee--s-1.1emi tted• ;t.e.. t-fi.e -9-h0 e et o l" • fe-14 "17tl l" pose s-* -t-1,-i-s. &ee#&R, flemod e 1-4 A9· ~ &Rill * ~-a+ t-& t-h-e· 5-Hffi -6-f --a-=!+ -J'}~t:i-t-~trs f)f-viGl"~.] a. THERE IS A CHANGE IN OWNERSHIP OF THE IMPROVED PROPERTY OR BUSINESS. Chamber of Commerce Recommendation: Delete B 1 a in its entirety. Commission Action on October 6, 1987: Concurred with Chamber recommendatiqn to delete Sub-section a. As proposed to City Council in May, 1987: B. 1. b. THERE IS ANY CHANGE IN USE AS DETERMINED UNDER THE PRINCIPAL PERMITTED USES LISTED IN THE INDIVIDUAL ZONE DISTRICTS. c. THERE IS ANY NEW DEVELOPMENT. d. THERE IS ANY REMODELING OF EXISTING BUILDINGS WHICH WILL IN- CREASE THE FLOOR AREA BY 20%. Chamber of Commerce Recommendation: Change sub-section d to read: -2 - CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 2, 1988 I. CALL TO ORDER. The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairman Carson at 7:00 p.m. Members present: Russell, Hanson, Draper, Fish, Carson, Schultz, Such, Barbre. Romans, Ex-officio. Members absent: None. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. January 19, 1988. Mr. Carson stated that the Minutes of January 19, 1988 were to be considered for approval. Barbre moved: Russell seconded: The Minutes January 19, 1988 be approved as written. AYES NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Such, Barbre, Russell, Hanson, Carson. None. None. Schultz, Draper, and Fish. The motion carried. III. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS. Chairman Carson stated the Ftndings of Fact for January 19, 1988 were to be considered for approval. Hanson moved: Barbre seconded: The Findings of Fact in Case #1-88 be approved as written. AYES NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Such, Barbre, Russell, Hanson, Carson. None. None. Schultz, Draper, and Fish. The motion carried. Barbre moved: Russell seconded: The Findings of Fact in Case #1-88 be approved as written. AYES NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Such, Barbre, Russell, Hanson, Carson. None. None. Schultz, Draper, and Fish. -1 - The motion carried. IV. ELECTION OF OFFICERS. Chairman Carson stated that the floor was open for nominations for Chairman. Russell moved: Such seconded: That Mr. Hanson be nominated for Chairman of the Commission. There being no further nominations, the Commissioners voted as follows: AYES NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Such, Barbre, Russell, Hanson, Carson, Draper and Fish. None. None. Schultz. Mr. Hanson was elected as Chairman for 1988, and he assumed the Chair. Russell moved: Carson seconded: That Mr. Barbre be nominated for the office of Vice Cha'irman. .,. There being no further nominations, the Commissioners voted as follows: AYES NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Such, Russell, Hanson, Carson, Draper and Fish. None. None. Schultz, Barbre. V. LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE. Mrs. Romans stated that the Landscape Ordinance had been passed two years ago, and several changes in the ordinance were recommended in April by the Commis- sion to the City Council. The Council voted to return the ordinance to the Commission for further study after several issues were raised by the Greater Englewood Chamber of Commerce. Several of the Commission members met with the Governmental Affairs Committee of The Greater Englewood Chamber of Commerce, and that committee submitted a list of proposed amendments which were considered by the Commission at the October 6, 1987 meeting. Some of the changes were incorporated, and the Com- mission voted to consider .those amendments at a public hearing held on February 17, 1988. For the benefit of the new members, Chairman Hanson went over the ordinance, pointing out changes which the Commission had made after considering the recommendations of the Chamber of Commerce. VI. PUBLIC f'ORUM. Gus Guerin, 2995 South Ogden, asked what circumstances would trigger the Land- scape Ordinance. Mrs. Romans said a change of use, a new development, or the remodeling of a structure which would increase the floor area by 40% or more. -2 - -~JI: DIRECTOR'S CHOICE. Mrs. Romans said that she had received a call from RTD concerning HB 1249, and that a representative of RTD will speak to the Commission concerning this Bill following the public hearing on February 17. Mrs. Romans said she would set up a meeting with the new members and the As- sistant City Attorney. Assistant City Attorney Nancy Reid has been assigned by City Attorney DeWitt to attend Planning Commission meetings whenever her legal assistance will be required. Mr. Hanson asked to be notified of the meeting with the Attorney and the new members. VIII. COMMISSION'S CHOICE. Mrs. Russell thanked Mr. Carson for having served as Chairman during the past year. Mr. Carson thanked the staff for their assistance. The new members were welcomed. Mrs. Russell discussed the need for Park and Ride lots. Mrs. Romans suggested that the Comprehensive Plan will be reviewed this year and the Commission might wish to include Park and Ride as a consideration. The meeting adjourned at 7:45 p.m. -3 - CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 17, 1988 I. CALL TO ORDER. The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:00 P.M. by Chairman Hanson in the George Perrin Conference Room in the Englewood Public Library. Members present: Russell, Such, Draper, Barbre, Hanson, Fish, Schultz, Carson Romans, Ex-officio Members absent: None Also present: Bob Marx, Greater Englewood Chamber of Commerce Roger Mutz, Regional Transportation District J. Bear Baker, Regional Transportation District (Mr. Baker was not present at the time the meeting was called to order, but entered later during the course of the meeting.} II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. February 2, 1988 Chairman Hanson stated that the Minutes of February 2, 1988 were to be con- sidered for approval. Carson moved: Draper seconded: The Minutes of February 2, 1988 be approved as written. AYES: Such, None None None Draper, Barbre, Hanson, Schultz, Fish, Russell, Carson NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: The motion carried. I I I. LANDSCAPING ORDINANCE Section 16-4-18 CASE #15-87 Mr. Hanson stated that a Public Hearing on proposed amendments to the Land- scaping Ordinance section of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance is scheduled for this evening, and stated that he has received a copy of the public notice which was published in the Englewood Sentinel on February 3, 1988. Mr. Hanson asked if the staff had a presentation. Carson moved: Barbre seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #15-87 be opened. AYES: Schultz, Barbre, Hanson, Fish, Draper, Russell, Carson, Such NAYS: None -1 - ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None The motion carried. Mrs. Romans was sworn in, and stated that at the previous meeting of February 2, members of the Commission were given a work copy citing the landscaping provisions as they presently exist in the Englewood Municipal Code, citing amendments which were recommended to Council by the Commission in May of 1987, citing amendments which were suggested by the Greater Englewood Chamber of Commerce, and citing a resolution to the sections which had been questioned by the Chamber, which resolution was determined by the Commission in October, 1987. This has been refined to one document which is before the Commission for Public Hearing, and the issues to be heard by the Commission are those which were determined in October. Mrs. Romans submitted for the record a let- ter from Mr. Kenneth R. Hope, Representative of the City liaison and Governmental Affairs Committee of the Greater Englewood Chamber of Commerce, expressing the satisfaction and pleasure of the Chamber with the resolution of their concerns on the landscaping Ordinance. Mrs. Romans stated that there has been no contact from the general public regarding the proposed amendments since the public notice was published. Mr. Hanson asked if there were any questions of Mrs. Romans from the Commis- sion. No questions were posed to Mrs. Romans. Mr. Hanson asked if anyone in the audience wished to address the Commission. Mr. Bob Marx was sworn in, and testified that he maintains offices at 3701 South Broadway, and is a representative of the Greater Englewood Chamber of Commerce. He expressed the appreciation of the Chamber for the cooperation they have received from the Planning Commission, and particularly from Mrs. Romans, regarding the concerns that were expressed by the Chamber on the pro- posed amendments. Mr. Marx stated that he felt, with these amendments, the City now has a good, total ordinance. The Chamber is pleased to be included in the drafting and consideration of laws that affect the City. Mr. Hanson asked if there were any further questions, or anyone else who wished to address the Commission. There were no other persons who wished to do so. Carson moved: Such seconded: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Barbre, None None None The Public Hearing be closed. Hanson, Schultz, Fish, Russell, Such, Draper, Carson The motion carried. Mr. Fish asked for clarification of the $1 x 10% of lot area; is this square footage, or acreage. Mrs. Romans stated that lot area usually is cited in square footage, but it would pertain to acreage, as well. It would be 10% of the size, or area, of the lot. -2 - Carson moved: Such seconded: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Hanson, None None None The City Planning and Zoning Commission approve the amend- ments to the Landscaping Ordinance, and refer the document to the City Council with a recommendation for favorable consideration. Draper, Fish, Russell, Such, Schultz, Carson, Barbre The motion carried. IV. REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT. Mrs. Romans introduced Mr. Roger Mutz from the Regional Transportation District. Mr. Mutz stated that House Bill #1249 was passed last year. In response to this Bill, RTD set out to develop a regional rapid transit system. Mr. Mutz presented a slide show of various types of rapid transit systems, such as the light rail transit, high occupancy vehicle lanes, automated guideway transit, guided bus, etc. The slide show also addressed issues such as routes, cost estimates, sources of funding, construction timetables, and technologies to be used. At the close of the slide show, Mr. Mutz asked for questions from the Commission. Mrs. Russell stated that she was familiar with the rapid transit system in Chicago, which goes through high density residential areas and is readily ac- cessible by a large ridership. The Denver metro area is so spread out, how will potential riders get from their places of residence to the rapid transit stations. Mr. Mutz suggested park 'n ride lots will be used; large 2,000 vehicle lots in the outlying suburban areas, and the closer in areas can use the bus system. Mrs. Russell suggested that RTD might consider the use of smaller park 'n ride lots. Mr. Mutz stated that they will also look at joint use facilities, such as shopping center parking areas. Mr. Mutz stated that the parking needs along the transit corridors have yet to be determined, and availability of area for park 'n rides along the corridors has also to be determined. Mr. Fish stated that it appeared the transit system is a "spoke system"; how does the bus system work with this proposed design. Mr. Mutz stated that it makes for an efficient system; the buses would serve a collection/distribution purpose to the rapid transit stations from the normal bus stops. Mr. Carson asked who made the determination on the Santa Fe corridor. He ex- pressed his opinion that development of this corridor for rapid transit would not be of any benefit to the City of Englewood. Mr. Carson stated that the Englewood City Council has turned down park 'n ride proposals at Cinderella City for the last 10 years that he is aware of. Mr. Mutz stated that in determining the corridors, the policy group looks at location, ridership, and other facets, and the Santa Fe corridor was recommended by the Santa Fe Corri- dor Policy Group. Mr. Carson questioned Mr. Mutz's statement, and stated that Englewood Councilman Joe Bilo is a member of the policy group and is opposed to the Santa Fe Corridor. Mr. Carson stated that he doesn't want to see Cin- derella City used for Park 'n Ride, but wants to locate such a use in near -3 - proximity to bring people into the area. Mrs. Romans pointed out that when discussion of a Park 'n Ride location near " Cinderella City has been considered, it was in the area north of the shopping center, not in the existing customer parking areas. Mr. Fish stated that a Park 'n Ride in close proximity to the shopping center could encourage shoppers. General discussion on the various types of rapid transit ensued. Mr. Schultz asked how weather might affect an automated guideway transit if such were to be developed in the Denver area. Mr. Mutz pointed out that this system is used successfully in West Germany, and the weather is very similar to that of Colorado. Mr. Schultz discussed his trip to Vancouver, B. C. during Expo '86 and the public transportation system used there. He stated that a ticket for $1.25 would allow a rider to use any form of the transportation system, and that one could get to almost any point quite easily, quickly, and safely. The system was very convenient to the customer, and the ridership was high. Mr. Schultz stated that he would like to see a system designed for the Denver metro area which would allow riders access within walking distance, and would eliminate the need for private automobiles to be used to get to a Park 'n Ride. Mr. Mutz discussed the problems of designing such a system with the lower residential densities that much of the Denver metro area has; this may change with an influx of population, however, or a change in population centers. Mr. Fish stated that Washington, D.C. also has a good rapid transit system. Mrs. Romans agreed, and stated that she found the system in Washington, D.C. to be clean, quick and convenient. Mr. Schultz asked why the plan appears to make use of several systems before a final overall system is imposed. Mr. Mutz stated that part of this is a reflection of the various population centers and needs to be served, and part is determined by the financing required. Financing and the acquisition of right-of-way were discussed. The ridership on the RTD buses was also discussed. Mr. Carson and Mr. Draper both stated that they had seen many buses traveling South Broadway that had very few passengers, and that they had never seen a bus that was full. Mr. Baker stated that the routes that extend to downtown Denver fill up at Alame- da, and that very often buses that are traveling south on Broadway from down- town Denver have unloaded the great portion of the ridership at some point in Denver. Mr. Fish asked the status of the project, and what "moves" the project forward from this point. Mr. Mutz stated that HB #1027 which is before the legisla- ture now will address the matter of funding and financing which can be used to implement the plan which has been developed in response to HB #1249 which was approved last year. Mr. Mutz stated that right-of-way will have to be ac- quired, and design of the actual system will begin. Mr. Baker discussed "alternative analysis", and noted that only one can be done at any one time in a given community because of a Federal funding restriction. Mr. Baker stated that once a corridor is determined, such as the -4 - Santa Fe corridor, one must "get in line for the funds", and that it could take about 18 months before construction could begin. Mr. Carson asked Mr. Baker why the Santa Fe Corridor was chosen. Mr. Baker stated that this corridor has great potential for ridership, is a very cost efficient corridor, and a great deal of the right-of-way is already acquired. Discussion of a transit corridor on C-470 was discussed, as was the Transit Construction Authority's plan for the 1-25 corridor. Mr. Hanson thanked Mr. Mutz and Mr. Baker for their attendance and the presen- tation to the Commission. V. PUBLIC FORUM. No one was present to address the Commission under Public Forum. VI. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE. Mrs. Romans presented members of the Commission with copies of the Goals adop- ted by the Commission for 1985/1986. Mrs. Romans identified several of the goals which have been accomplished. She suggested that the members of the Commission review these goals, and be prepared to make additions to the list and discuss goals for 1988 -1989 at the next meeting. Mrs. Russell excused herself from the meeting. Mrs. Romans stated that one vacancy remains on the Commission, and that the City Council will be interviewing to fill this vacancy on February 29. The City Council approved the vacation of the right-of-way in the 3500 block of South Jason Street on first reading at the meeting on February 16th. Mrs. Romans asked that if any members of the Commission have questions about any matter before it, to please call her rather than other members of the staff. Mrs. Romans pointed out that she is the ex-officio member of the Com-; mission appointed by the City Manager, and that in order to carry out that responsibility effectively, she prefers to be the staff contact. In response to a query from Mr. Hanson, Mrs. Romans stated that there are no cases on the agenda for the Commission on March 8. Mr. Hanson suggested that discussion of the goals for the ensuing year be scheduled for that meeting. VII. COMMISSIONER'S CHOICE. Mr. Carson stated that he wanted staff to bring back to the Commission for reconsideration the provisions of the B-2 Zone District pertaining to auto sales lots. He expressed his dislike ''telling used car dealers they have to set cars back 10 feet from the property line", and to landscape that area. He pointed out that other uses along South Broadway have weeds and trees over- hanging the sidewalk making it difficult or impossible to walk along a portion of the sidewalk. Mrs. Romans pointed out that there is a suit before the Court at the present time, and that before this issue is considered further by the Commission she -5 - would suggest that it be cleared with the City Attorney to determine any pos- sible ramifications on the suit. Mr. Carson stated that he did not feel this issue needed to be cleared with the City Attorney, and that the City Charter "'· indicates the Commission can have items brought back for further consider- ation. Discussion ensued. Mr. Hanson suggested that this might be one of the goals to be listed for dis- cussion at the next meeting. Carson moved: The staff bring the B-2 provisions pertaining to used Car dealerships back to the Commission for further consideration. There was no second to the motion. Discussion ensued. Mr. Hanson asked if there was anything else to be brought before the Commission. Mr. Carson stated that he wanted a second to his motion. Mr. Barbre stated that he is of the opinion this should be cleared through the City Attorney's office. Mr. Draper stated that he wanted to read the ordinance through and familiarize himself with the details before it's brought back to the Commis- sion. Again, no member of the Commission seconded Mr. Carson's motion. Mr. Hanson stated that he felt the reconsideration of the B-2 District should be included on the "laundry list" of items the Commission will consider this next year, and that items will be prioritized following a general discussion at the next meeting. The meeting adjourned at 8:35 P. M. ,. I~ L' ,··f:ef .1/~ ··-··.7 t,; ~ ~ 1/, -_¼ ta .. ~ . . .~ Gertrude G. Welty' Recording Secretary -6 - CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO IN THE MATTER OF CASE NO. 15-87 ) FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS, ) AND RECOMMENDATION RELATING TO ) AMENDMENTS TO THE LANDSCAPE ) ORDINANCE, SECTION 16.4-18 OF THE) COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE ) THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION, AND THE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS. A Public Hearing was held on February 17, 1988 to consider Case #15-87, which Case related to certain proposed amendments to the Landscape Ordinance, §16-4- 18 of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, (Title 16 of the Englewood Municipal Code of 1985, as amended). The Public Hearing was held in the George Perrin Room in the Englewood City Hall. The following members of the City Planning and Zoning Commission were present: Barbre, Carson, Draper, Fish, Hanson, Russell, Schultz, and Such. No members were absent; one seat on the Commis- sion was vacant. FINDINGS OF FACT Upon review of the evidence taken in the form of testimony, presentations, reports, and the draft of the proposed amendments to the Landscape Ordinance, the City Planning and Zoning Commission makes the following Findings of Fact. 1) That notice of the Public Hearing was given in the Englewood Senti- nel, the official City newspaper, on February 3, 1988. 2) That the City Council amended the Municipal Code of the City of En- glewood by adding a section titled "Landscape Ordinance" to the Com- prehensive Zoning Ordinance through the adoption of Ordinance No. 2, Series of 1984. 3) That in adopting the Landscape Ordinance, the City Council found it necessary to do so in an effort to create an attractive environment for living, doing business, and working in the City of Englewood, and to provide relief from the high concentration of off-street paved parking areas along local, arterial and collector streets. 4) That after having had a period of time to assess the application of the Landscape Ordinance to specific properties and specific develop- ments, certain provisions proved to be either impractical or unclear. 5) That the members of the City Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the Landscape Ordinance and identified certain sections which in their opinion should be modified and considered amendments to those sections at a Public Hearing on April 21, 1987. 6) That after having considered the evidence and testimony presented at the Public Hearing, the Planning Commission referred the proposed amendments to the City Council with a recommendation that they be approved. -1 - 7) 8) 9) 10) 11) 12) 13) 14) That the Englewood City Council received the recommendation of the Commission on May 18, 1987 and set a date of June 19, 1987 to con- sider the proposed amendments to the Landscape Ordinance and several other sections of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. That the Government Liaison Committee of the Greater Englewood Cham- ber of Commerce, by letter to Mayor Eugene Otis dated May 29, 1987, requested that the City Council not act further on the proposed amendments to the Landscape Ordinance until such time as the City Council and Planning Commission met with the Government Liaison Com- mittee to discuss their concerns about the purported contradictions, inequities and conflicts in the proposed amendments. That members of the Planning Commission and Planning Division staff did meet with the Government Liaison Committee members to discuss their concerns on June 9, 1987. That at the meeting of the City Council on June 29, 1987, the Land- scape Ordinance was withdrawn from the matters to be considered at Public Hearing and the City Council referred the proposed amendments to the Landscape Ordinance back to the City Planning and Zoning Com- mission for further study and for further discussion with the Govern- ment Liaison Committee. That the Government Liaison Committee submitted suggestions to the Planning Commission by letter dated August 13, 1987, identifying cer- tain changes to the proposed amendments to the Landscape Ordinance which they would recommend. That the suggestions of the Chamber Committee were cons·idered by the Planning Commission and at the meeting on October 6, 1987, the mem- bers of the Commission approved certain revisions to the proposed amendments to the Landscape Ordinance and set a Public Hearing to consider the proposed amendments as revised on February 17, 1988. That during the Public Hearing on the proposed revisions to the Land- scape Ordinance, a letter signed by Kenneth R. Hope on behalf of the City Liaison and Governmental Affairs Committee of the Greater Engle- wood Chamber of Commerce was read into the record of the Hearing in which letter the committee stated their concurrence with the proposed amendments. That at the Public Hearing, Robert Marx, Marx Realty Corporation and a member of the Chamber of Commerce Committee, gave testimony in favor of the proposed amendments to the Landscape Ordinance. CONC1USION 1) That proper notice of the Public Hearing was given. 2) That a letter in support of the proposed amendments to the Landscape Ordinance written by Kenneth R. Hope as a representative of the City Liaison and Governmental Affairs Committee of the Greater Englewood Chamber of Commerce, was read into the record of the Public Hearing. -2 - 3) That Robert Marx, a member of the Chamber Committee, spoke in favor of the proposed amendments. 4) That there were no other persons present who wished to address the Commission, either in favor of or in opposition to the proposed amendments to the Landscape Ordinance, §16-4-18 of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. 5) That the proposed amendments will facilitate the efficient ad- ministration of the Landscape Ordinance, thus implementing the original intent of the City Council in adopting that Ordinance. RECOMMENDATION Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Planning and Zoning Commission to the City Council that the proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, §16-4-18, Landscape Ordinance, be adopted. Upon the vote on a motion made by Mr. Carson and seconded by Mr. Such follow- ing the Public Hearing on February 17, 1988. Those voting in favor of the motion were Mrs. Russell and Messrs. Barbre, Car- son, Draper, Fish, Hanson, Schultz, and Such. No one voted in opposition to the motion. One seat on the Commission was vacant. By Order of the City Planning & Zoning Commission. Stephen Hanson, Chairman dar/gw -3 - Mrs. Dorothy Romans _. ¢:' 7i ,/C-<--U/4-,~/ 1\,1,11.,rn,,rn:NT or-coMMUNIP DEVEI..OPMENT• 1!'.NGLE\NOOD.~OLOR~'M FEB 16 1988 ~~ 0~ ..... () -··-··--------r-C) February 12, 1988 F Director of Community Development City of Englewood Englewood City Hall 3400 S. Elati Street Englewood, CO 80110 Re: Landscape Ordinance Dear Dorothy: During the most recent meeting of the City Liaison and Governmental Affairs Committee of the Greater Englewood Chamber of Commerce, the Landscape Ordinance was once again discussed. It was the conclusion of our commit tee that we would concur with the most recent recommendations made by the Planning Commission. These recommendations were made and reflect certain changes that our committee felt were necessary to adquately promote the intent of the ordinance. Our committee is pleased that we were allowed to have certain input into the decision making process. We are also pleased that the planning commission, city council, and staff, were receptive to some of our suggestions. As with most ordinances, certain modifications and amendments may be required in the future due to facts, circumstances, or ambiguous interpretations that are not anticipated at the time of drafting. Members of the committee are hopeful that if in fact these problems in the future do occur, and problems do develop with respect to interpretation or enforcement, that we would again be consulted so that we could aid in resolving any problems. £;TL+--- KRH/ca cc: Chamber of Commerce Kenneth R. Hope Representative of the City Liaison and Governmental Affairs Committee 701 West Hampden Suite G 34 Englewood, Colorado 80154 (303) 789-44"7'.\ I.II (J I 16-4-18: LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE: A. Statement of Intent. The City Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council recognize that landscaping is a necessary means of gaining quality development, of creating visual and environmental public amenities, and for enhancing the single-family, multi-family, commercial and industrial areas of Englewood. It is to this end that the following goals are set forth and the regulations in this section are deemed necessary: 1. To create an attractive environment for living, doing business and working in the City of Englewood, and to provide relief from the high concentration of off-street paved parking areas along local, ar- terial, and collector streets. 2. To encourage a quality design [el:ri~d~R9] concept and to require a [ees~§A] SITE PLAN that contributes to THE QUALITY OF DEVELOPMENT [-e-etrt-e)E-:t;.], that enhances or complements what exists, that recognizes the street or site as important, and relates [~tructures] DEVELOPMENT to human scale. 3. To promote [-a, comp at i bi'I i ty between industrial uses and adjacent residential districts. 4. To require any new development or any change in use in any residen- tial, commercial or industrial area to be landscaped and to require that the landscaping be maintained. 5. To promote the installation of drought-tolerant plants and low- maintenance landscaping wherever applicable. B. Applicability of Ordinance Standards. 1. These regulations shall apply in all zone districts IF ANY ONE OF THE FOL LOW I NG OCCUR: [-t-e-Ettl;" eh-at'l'§~ i-ft tt5-e-itt" itl'\Y' new de-v-ef-~ -e-r ~ -afl:Y-p¥'opcrty, 4ft Wfl4eh -Hte-f31"-i ne i fttti' h-tt+l-d+rtg +s-r-emodel eeh wl'l-i-ert .P.em~ ~ :j.,s.-~ -t-tr ~ ~ 50%' f}f-, t+te -est i matee v-a-"kte-* -t-lte-13-M nc i pat ttttt ~ding ~ s-~-t-i-a-t-ea e;i -ev-~ -sl:IOOl4-t4ef!. t-& tfl.e- ~. ~ ~ e+ t+rf-g-See-t+o-n' ~~ €{H;4;. Sfl-a+I. BG- ~ .:w ~ ~ 0-f a+l ~ ~ -ef ~. ] a. THERE IS ANY CHANGE IN USE AS DETERMINED UNDER THE PRINCIPAL PERMITTED USES LISTED IN THE INDIVIDUAL ZONE DISTRICTS. b. THERE IS ANY NEW DEVELOPMENT. c. THERE IS ANY REMODELING OF EXISTING BUILDINGS WHICH WILL IN- CREASE THE FLOOR AREA BY 40%. 2. When, because of the characteristics of the land or the location of existing structures, it is not physically possible or feasible to provide for landscaping on the site, the property owner shall deposit IN THE BEAUTIFICATION ACCOUNT IN THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT FUND AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO THE COST OF INSTALLING LANDSCAPING IN CONFORMANCE WITH THIS ORDINANCE OR AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO $1 x 10% OF THE LOT AREA. -1 - This fund shall be used for beautification of public areas as deter- mined by the legislative body. 3. THESE REGULATIONS SHALL NOT APPLY [+N-M± ffiN-E OISTRl€ffi] IF ANY ONE OF THE FOLLOWING OCCUR: a. THE PROPERTY OR BUSINESS COMPLIED WITH THE LANDSCAPING PROVI- SIONS IN EFFECT AT THE BEGINNING OF THE OCCUPANCY. b. IF THE PROPERTY IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THIS ORDINANCE AND THERE IS A CHANGE IN THE TENANT OR LESSEE, THE LANDSCAPING REQUIRE- MENTS DO NOT APPLY. 4. THE PROPERTY OWNER IS ULTIMATELY RESPONSIBLE FOR LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS. C. Minimum Landscaping Requirements: 1. All Districts. a. At the time of app'l ication for a building permit, [~ s-h-aH &e :i-fl.€+~] a Landscape Plan in sufficient detail to determine compliance with the Landscape Ordinance SHALL BE SUBMITTED. b. The Landscaping Plan shall be reviewed by the Planning Division, and if the proposed landscaping complies with the requirements of this Ordinance, it shall be approved. All landscape improve- ments indicated on or contained in an approved site plan shall be completed prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. (1) If all conditions necessary for issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy are met except landscape improvements, and the reason for not finishing the landscape improvements is be- cause completion of construction occurred outside a plant- ing season, a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy will be issued as provided for herein. In this situation, all landscape improvements must be completed by the next plant- ing season within a time frame established by the Director. Before the Temporary Certificate of Occupancy shall be is- sued, a security instrument naming the City as beneficiary shall be filed with the City, which security instrument shall require the installation of all landscape improve- ments within the time frame established by the Director. The security instrument shall further provide that it shall be in full force and effect for one year after the time frame established by the Director or until the landscaping has been completed. Should action be commenced to enforce the landscaping requirements, the security instrument shall continue to be in full force and effect until the improve- ments are completed. Further the security instrument shall provide for the payment of all attorney fees, collection fees and expenses of the City in enforcing the landscaping requirements. The amount of the security instrument shall not be less than twice the value of the landscaping im- provements. The form of the security instrument and its terms shall be approved by the Director before acceptance -2 - [-ey, ON BEHALF OF the City. (2) To provide the security instrument, the property owner may deposit with the City cash in escrow, certified funds, or an irrevocable letter of credit, in a form acceptable to the Director. The payee of said funds shall be the City, and the funds shall be collectible by the City UPON [~ the City's giving ten (10) days' written notice to the par- ty giving the instrument and thereafter executing [-9ft-] the instrument. (3) The owner(s) of the real property, on proof of ownership and consent of all having a security interest in the prop- erty may place a lien on the property in favor of the City, which lien shall be superior to all other liens and en- cumbrances. The form of the lien shall be as approved by the Director and shall provide for the payment of attorney fees and costs of collection in the event that enforcement is necessary. The owner consents, in giving the lien, that reasonable expenses may exceed the value of the landscaping required. (4) In accepting a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy, the owner is consenting and acknowledging the authority of the City to perform the landscaping requirements on the proper- ty and to execute [-&R-] the security given by the landowner. c. MINIMUM SIZE REQUIREMENTS FOR TREES ANO SHRUBS ARE: (1) DECIDUOUS TREES: 2" -2 1/2" CALIPER. (2) EVERGREEN TREES: 5' -6' IN HEIGHT. (3) FLOWERING, DECIDUOUS ANO EVERGREEN SHRUBS AND HEDGES: 5 GALLON MINIMUM. (4) ROCK AND STONE: 3/4" DIAMETER MINIMUM SIZE. 3" MINIMUM DEPTH FOR ROCK BEDS. 4" MINIMUM DEPTH FOR DECORATIVE BARK OR WOOD-CHIP BEDS. d. No artificial trees, shrubs, turf or plants or other non-living plant materials shall be used to fulfill the minimum living plant material requirements as set forth in this Section. e. All landscaping contained within the public right-of-way shall conform to installation and maintenance standards of the City of Englewood Tree and Shrub Ordinance, Title 11, Chapter 5 of the Englewood Municipal Code. f. In all zone districts the street tree requirements are in addi- tion to the requirements for minimum living plant material. STREET TREES SHALL BE LOCATED ADJACENT TO THE STREET. STREET TREES SHALL BE OF A DECIDUOUS VARIETY. .. 3 - g. The Department of Community Development shall provide a recom- mended planting guide with information on appropriate types of trees and plants for given areas along with instructions for proper installation and maintenance of landscaping. h. In areas critical to pedestrian and vehicular traffic, shrubs and other plants must be installed and maintained to provide clear visibility as determined by the Traffic Engineer. 2. Individual Districts: a. R-1-A, R-1-B, R-1-C Zone Districts. (1) A minimum of forty percent (40%) of the total lot area shall be landscaped. (2) Forty percent (40%) of the total landscaped area shall be in the area described as the front yard, inclusive of any driveway area. (3) Ninety percent (90%) of the area required to be landscaped shall be devoted to living plant materials at their antici- pated size at maturity as defined in the planting guide. (4) One street tree is required for forty (40) linear feet of frontage and is to be located a minimum of five feet (5') behind the sidewalk. When the total street frontage is divided by forty feet (40'), and there is a remainder of twenty feet (20') or more, an additional street tree shall be required. b. R-2, R-2-C, R-2-C/S.P.S. Zone Districts. (1) A minimum of forty percent (40%) of the total lot area shall be landscaped. (2) Forty percent (40%) of the total landscaped area shall be in the area described as the front yard, inclusive of any driveway. (3) Ninety percent (90%) of the area required to be landscaped shall be devoted to living plant materials at their antici- pated size at maturity as defined in the planting guide. (4) One Street tree is required per forty (40) linear feet of frontage and is to be located a minimum of five feet (5') behind the sidewalk. When the total street frontage is divided by forty feet (40'), and there is a remainder of twenty feet (20') or more, an additional street tree shall be required. c. R-3 District. (1) A minimum of twenty-five percent (25%) of total lot area shall be landscaped. -4 - ' . (2) Forty percent (40%) of the total landscaped area shall be in the area described as the front yard, intlusive of any driveway area. (3) Fifty percent (50%) of the area required to be landscaped shall be devoted to living plant materials at their antici- pated size at maturity as defined in the planting guide. (4) One street tree is required per forty (40) linear feet of frontage and is to be located a minimum of five feet (5') behind the sidewalk. When the total street frontage is divided by forty feet (40'), and there is a remainder of twenty feet (20') or more, an additional street tree shall be required. d. R-4 District: (1) Minimum landscaping for residential properties same as R-2. (2) Minimum landscaping for professional properties same as R-3. e. B-·1, B-2, I-1, and I-2 Districts: (1) A minimum of ten percent (10%) of total lot area shall be landscaped with no less than eighty percent (80%} of the landscaping installed on the front portion of the lot (from the front of the building to the street line). If the property abuts or is adjacent to an R-1-A, R-1-8, R-1-C, R- 2, or R-2-C Zone District, the remaining twenty percent (20%) of the required landscaping should be installed in the rear yard to buffer the residential development from the commercial use. (2) Fifty percent (50%) of the area required to be landscaped shall be devoted to living plant materials. (3) One street tree is required per forty (40) linear feet to be located a minimum of five feet (5') from any paved sur- face. When the total street frontage is divided by forty feet (40'), and there is a remainder of twenty feet (20') or more, an additional street tree shall be required. D. Parking Design Requirements; All Zone Districts. 1. If proposed construction of [..f~--s-t-aft4+f1~] off-street parking areas contains fifty (50) or more stalls, ten percent (10%) of the total parking lot area shall be landscaped with [-~ te-r--c~ ~] 50% of that area to include living plant material. 2 . [ +ke-~ t+v-t.r,i, ft+·a-A-t ~-4] THERE s ha 11 [-4fr~] BE a mi n i mum of one tree per 50 [~] LINEAR feet OF PARKING AISLE LENGTH. 3. In addition to the f-}-f)%i requirements ind (1) AND (2) above, parking areas that are adjacent to streets shall meet these requirements: -5 - . .. . . 3. a. A buffer zone shall be located between the back of the sidewalk, or the street curb line if there is no sidewalk, and the parking area, and shall not be less than five feet (5') in width as mea- sured from the back of the sidewalk or the street curb line. This area shall be landscaped. b. Street trees shall be planted in the buffer zone at the rate of one per 40 linear feet. [~~ ffl-e-5 ~~aAtee ffi' ~ ~ijffe~ l!-GM ma;' -&e ~ ~ -th& t;,,,e,e--~t 'HI' Seeti OA ~ ~] 4. Because these areas are critical to pedestrian and vehicular traffic, shrubs and other plants must be installed and maintained to provide clear visibility as determined by the Traffic Engineer. E. Maintenance. 1. The owner of the property, his successors, heirs, and assigns shall be responsible for the proper maintenance of the area subject to an approved landscaping plan. 2. Landscaping shall be continuously maintained including necessary watering, weeding, pruning, pest control and replacement of dead -0r diseased plant material. Replacement for dead or diseased plant material shall be of the same type of plant material as set forth in the approved landscaping plan; for example, a tree must replace a tree, a shrub must replace a shrub, a ground cover must replace a ground cover, etc. Replacement shall occur in the next planting sea- son, but in any event, such replacement time shall not exceed one year. Any replacement which conforms to the requirements of this Section shall not be considered an amendment to the landscaping plan. 3. Failure to provide adequate maintenance resulting in the deteriora- tion of trees, shrubs or other living plant material violates the objectives of this Ordinance, and the City Manager or his designee shall have the property posted giving appropriate notice of the violation of this Ordinance and setting forth that the violation must be corrected within five (5) days of the posting of the notice. If the nature of the violation makes it impractical to correct within five (5) days, the owners shall submit a letter of intent to correct to the City Manager and shall correct the violation in the next planting season. Failure to reasonable comply with this Ordinance, either after filing a letter of intent or without such a letter, can lead to action being taken in accordance with the Eng·lewood Municipal Code, Section 1-4-1, as amended. IF THE REPLACEMENT DOES NOT OCCUR, THE PROPERTY OWNER MAY BE BILLED FOR THE AMOUNT NECESSARY FOR THE CITY TO CORRECT THE SITUATION. January 29, 1988 gw -6 -