HomeMy WebLinkAbout1958-04-24 PZC MINUTESPAGE 274
Date:
Subject:
April 17, 1958
Annexation -Entire College View Area
A Planning Corrunission report, at this time, can show only a
de gree of feasibil i ty and then with many contingencies, and
only if and when a proper petition appears by voluntary
action of the r es idents. Any positive report would tmpfy
that En g lewo od City Hall and City Council are anti cipating
annexation and a re preparing for it premature l y.
Respectfully submitted,
ENGLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION
By: Lee R. Jones
Chairman
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
ENGLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
April 24, 1958
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Jones, at 8:00 P. M.
Members Present: Braun, Hill, Jones, Kelley, Lacy, Rudd
Members Absent: Ro mans
Planning Corrunission
City
Rezonin g
Possible rezoning of Five Areas along
East Hampden Avenue and East Jefferson
Avenue and Addition of Another $-3 Type
Zone District to Zoning Ordinance.
Hearing No. 14-5 8 -A
February 13, 1958
April 17, 1958
Pur s uant to an agreement by Planning Corrunission members on April 17, 1958, the Planning Offive
prepared a tentatave amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to institute a sec ond multiple family
zone district. Copie s of the tentative amendment were transmitted to Planning Corrunis si on
members prior to this meeting. The proposal was given detailed study and discussion by all
members present and certain additions and changes were made.
It was agreed that, on the basis of a recent Planning Department study and public demand for
additional multiple family areas, a definite need for additional multiple family zoning exists.
According to these planning studies, any additional area should be desi gne d and located in
such a way as to provide feasible locations for nur s ing homes as well as modern landscaped
apartment houses.
Braun moved:
Hill seconded: That the tentative proposal, as amended, be recorrunended to En g lewood
City Council as an amendment to the City Zoning Ordinance.
Ayes: Bra un, Hill, Jones, Kelley, Lacy, Rudd
Nays: None
Absent: Romans
City Council
city
Limitations on
Service Stations
Hearin~ No. 15-5 8 -A
March 0, 1958
April 17, 195 8
The above subject was discussed with the result that no agreement could be reached as to the
degree of obligation or right of the City to single out certain retail businesses for stringent
regulations without doing the same for all businesses. Further discussion revealed that if
legislation is to be devised to restrict the number of new service stations, serious le g al
problems undoubtedly might result.
The Planning Director stated that every source of material on this subject had been utilized
in providing the departmental study previously transmitted and that unless specific instruc-
tions are forthcoming from the Corrunission,,rip further research by the Department will be
undertaken.
City Council
City
Trailer Court
Regulations
Hearin~ No. 8-58-B
March 0, 1958
April 17, 195 8
A di s tussion on the desirability and practicability of allowing trailer courts to exist and
expand within thecity limits was held. Members of the Planning Corrunission had received
much data on the subject for study during the past month.
I t was agreed that the City has three alternatives in the matter:
1. To allow existing courts to continue operation as a non-conforming use with no
additional regulations and to allow no more courts to be constructed in any zone,
as at present.
I
I
I
I
I
I
Page 275
2. To allow existing courts to continue operation and expand 25%, as now provided by
the Zoning Ordinance, subject to strict regulations and standards which must be
met with a given period of time.
3. To provide a zone, either existing or to be devised, in which trailer courts would
be permitted uses subject to a regulatory ordinance.
Further discussion on the matter covered the following subjects with discussion material
contributed by Planning Commission members as a result of their study of data previously
transmitted:
1. Potential tax base of trailer courts in comparison with a use already permitted
in a zone.
2. Colorado property tax procedures as they effect trailer courts.
3. The nature of the Denver Metropolitan trailer dweller compared with trailerites
in southern California, Arizona and Florida.
4. Comparison of family economics between the residential property owner and the
trailerite.
5. Comparative number of trailer family children to be educated in public schools .
6. Actual location of present Englewood trailer courts and zoning thereof.
7. The merits of locating trailer courts in residential zones compared to location
in commercial and light industrial zones.
Lacy moved:
Hill seconded:
Kelley moved:
That existing trailer courts be allowed to continue operation as
non-conforming use and be allowed to expand, as such, up to 25% of
their present g ross land area, subject to the approval of the
Zoning Board of Adjustment; and that regulatory ordinance specify
minimum standards and inspection for trailer courts be devised, and
that all existing trailer courts be required to comply with these
standards within a specified time or discontinue operation.
That the matter be tabled for further consideration.
The motion died for lack of a second.
Chairman Jones called for a vote on the original motion.
Ayes: Braun, Hill, Jones, Kelley, Lacy, Rudd
Nays : None
Absent: Romans
City Council
City
Master Plan Aid Hearing No. 16-58
The Planning Director presented a preliminary report on steps taken to secure Federal aid
for the City's Master Plan, as requested by City Council. The Planning Director repo r t e d
that the following chronological steps were necessary in order to apply for F e d e ral P l a nning
Aid:
1. Inventory City's planning needs.
2. Contact planning consultants for estimate of cost to meet needs.
3. Prepare formal request, based on inventory and cost estimate, for submission to the
State Planning Commission.
4. Modify proposed plan as required by State and Federal authorities .
5. Select planning consultant firm to do the job.
The Planning Director stated that the planning inventory was nearing completion and that
the results, along with a tentative list of planning needs, will be mailed to each member
of the Commission within the next few weeks.
There being no further business to come before the Planning Commission, the meeting was
adjourned at 11:45 P. M.
John D. Curtice
Recording Secretary
MEMORANDUM TO THE ENGLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGARDING ACTION OR RECOMMENDATION OF THE
ENGLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION.
Da te:
Subject:
April 24, 1958
Tentative Proposal for Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to
Institute a Second Multiple Family Zone District.
Page 276
Recommendation: That the Zoning Ordinance be amended according to the attached
Proposal.
Respectfully submitted,
ENGLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION"
TENTATIVE R-3-A --MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
1. Permitted Principal Uses.
(a) Any use permitted in R-1-D Zone District.
By: Lee R. Jones
Chairman
(b) Multi -family dwellings with minimum of 12 dwelling units, each d welling unit to
contain no more than two rooms designed primarily for sleeping purposes.
(c) Boarding and rooming houses with minimum of 12 units.
(d) Hotels with minimum of 12 units.
(e) Tourist homes and motor courts with minimum of 12 units.
(f) Rest and nursing homes.
(g) Institutions --Educational, philanthropic, religious and eleemosynary.
(h) Doctors' offices and other professional offices in which chattels or goods, wares
or merchandise are not commercially created or sold.
(i) Hospitals and clinics but not animal hospitals or clinics.
2 . Minimum Area of Lot.
(a) For single-family, same as R-1-D Zone District.
(b) For multi-family dwellings.
(1) Per building site, 9,000 sq. ft.
3. Minimum Floor Area.
(a) For single-family, same as R-1-D Zone District.
(b) For multi-family dwelling units, 450 sq. ft. minimum .
4. Maximum Percentage of Lot Coverage --35%.
5. Minimum Frontage of Lot.
(a) For single -family, same as R-1-D Zone District.
(b) For multi-family --75 ft. per dwelling structure.
6. Maximum Height of Buildings --4 stories --but not higher than 50 ft.
7. Minimum Front Yard.
(a) For single -famiky, same as R-1-D Zone District.
(b) For multi-family and other permitted uses.
(1) Principal buildings --20 ft . (See Supplementary Regulations, Article VI,
Section 8).
8 . Minimum Side Yard.
(a) For single-family, same as R-1-D Zone District.
(b) For multi-family and other permitted uses.
(1) Principal building --15 ft . (See Supplementary Regulations, Article VI,
Section 8).
(2) For corner lots (short street side) --20 ft.
9. Minimum Rear Yard.
(a) For single -f amily, same as R-1 -D Zone District.
(b) For multi-family and other permitted uses.
(1) Principal building 25 ft.
10. Minimum Off-Street Parking.
(a) Dwellings --1 space per unit. (See Supplementary Regulations.)
11. Minimum Off-Street Loading Requirements.
(a) See Supplementary Regulations.
12. Accessory Buildings and Permitted Accessory Uses (in addition to the following see
Supplementary Regulations.)
(a) Private Garages --Designed or used for the storage of motor vehicles owned or operated
by the occupants of the principal building. Commercial vehicles shall be limited to
3/4 ton carrying capacity.
I
I
I
I
I
I
(1)
(2)
(3)
Maximum Hei ght --1 story --15 ft.
Minimum Front Yard (See Supplementary Regulations.)
Side Yard 3 ft. (If detached and on rear 1/3 of lot.)
Page 277
(4) Rear Yard --3 ft. If no alley. 6 ft. if opening directly on alley.
(NOTE: Sections 12 (b), (c) and (d) and Section 13 (a), (b), (d), and (e) and Sections
14 are the same as original R-3 Zone. Only other changes are as follows:)
13. Conditional Uses --provided the public interest is fully protected and the following
uses are approved by the Board.
(c) Minimum Yards --For any building or structure permitted by Conditional Use
F~ont Yard .............. 20 ft.
Side Yard ............... 15 ft. (except electric substations and gas regulator
stations, which may be 5 ft.)
Rear Yard .............. 25 ft. (except electric substations and gas regulator
stations, which may be 5 ft. if having an entrance on the alley; if such structures
do not have an entrance on the alley or if there is no alley, a rear setback is
not required.)
15. Other Regulations.
(a) No building on the same lot with the principal dwelling or structure except
bungalow courts, shall be used for residence purposes unless it shall meet all
the yard requirements as provided in this section for single-family dwellings .
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
ENGLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MAY 8 , 1958
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Jones at 8:15 P. M.
Members Present: Hill, Jones, Kelley, Lacy
Members Absent: Braun, Romans, Rudd
Planning Commission
City
Rezoning
Three Areas in Sceni c View
To be Rezoned From P Zone,
M-2 Zone and C-2 Zone to M-1,
R-1-D and M-2.
Hearing No. 4-58-E
January 16, 1958
January 30, 1958
February 27, 1958
March 20, 1958
April 10, 1958
I The property having been properly posted and public notice given , a hearing was held regarding
rezoning as shown in the following five land descriptions:
Lots 21 through 2 8, inclusive of Block 77, Sheridan Heights Subdivision to be rezoned from
"P" Zone to R-1-D.
Lots 1 through 20, and Lots 29 through 48 of Block 77, Sheridan Hei ghts Subdivision to be
rezoned from M-2 to R-1-D.
A strip of land 130 feet east of and parallel to the center line of S. Tejon Street from
the center line of the alley between W. Evans Avenue and W. Adriatic Ave nue, to the center
line of W. Baltic Avenue to be rezoned from "P" Zone to M-2.
A strip of land 130 feet east of and parallel to the center line of S. Tejon Street from
the center line of W. Iliff Avenue to a line 786.1 feet south of and parallel to the
center line of W. Harvard Avenue to be rezoned from "P" Zone to M-2.
A parcel of land east of the north, north-east --south, south-west irrigation ditch, and
west of a line 150 feet west of and parallel to the west line of S. Santa Fe Drive from
the center line of W. Yale Avenue to the existing M-1 Zone, to be rezoned from C-2 to M-2.
Chairman Jones stated that the ~earing was open and asked the Planning Director to review,
for the benefit of all interested persons present, the areas as shown on the map and the
proposed changes.
After Mr. Lacy completed the clarification, Chairman Jones stated that any citizens who·
wished to speak would be heard at this time.
Mr. James Quinlan asked for a clarification o f the difference between original and proposed
zones involved and same was explained by the Planning Director, Mr. Lacy.
There being no further discussion or persons to be heard,
Hill moved:
Lacy, seconded: That the hearing be closed.
Ayes: Hill , Jones, Kelley, Lacy
Nays: None
Absent: Braun, Romans, Rudd
Mr. Braun entered and was seated with the Commission.
Later in the meeting and after brief discussion,
Hill moved:
Braun, seconded: That the Planning Commission recommend to City Council that rezoning of