Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1968-09-11 PZC MINUTESI I Page 1089 MEMORANDUM .TO THE ENGLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGARDING ACTION OR RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. DATE: September 4, 1968 SUBJECT: Floyd Avenue Agreement Amendment RECOMMENDATION: Lone moved: Touchton seconded: l The motion carried. That, inasmuch as the Floyd Avenue agreement has been amended to permit traffic on the north side of the median strip thus making it impossi b le to landscape the area as originally intended with three rows of trees, that the City Council further amend the agreement to permit a par~way landscaping in the m~dian rather than the "screening" strip that is now specified in the agreement. The .Commission further recommends that the plan for the parkway landscaping be similar to that submitted to the Commission by the Park and Recreation Director. Respectfully submitted, By Order of the City Planning and Zoning Commission. /s / Esther M. Woodhead Recording Secretary * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * I. CALL TO ORDER. . . CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION September 11, .1968 The Special Meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 8:10 P.M. by Chairman Woods. Members present: Members absent: Also p r esent: Carlson; Lone; Touchton; Woods Romans , Ex-officio Lentsch; Parkinson Planning Ass~stant Howard Osborne --, - II. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT . . Mrs. Romans stated that because of new techniques in design and construction, and new concepts in development, the present regulations in the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance are too restricting and seem to be discouraging consideration of the redevelopment of certain older areas in the City. In order to pro~ide the desir ed flexibility, consideration has been given to the addition of a Planned Unit Development District to the Comp Lehensive Zoning Ordinance. Mrs. Romans asked the Commission membe r s to keep in mind three basic questions which they would have to answer before the amendment to the ordinance could be made: 1) Does the Commission want the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance to provide the flexibility which would be possible under the Planned Unit Development Dist ~ict, and if so, will the Commission members be willing to accept the additional wo rk an d responsibility this might entail? 2) If the Commission does want a Planned Uni t Development restriction, what criterion is important in determining whether or not a .pl.an is appr oved? 3) Does the Commission want to go "whole hog" and allow the development to have "incompa t ible" uses, such as by way of example, a small commercial use in a residential Planned Unit Development? Mrs. Romans introduced Mr. Osborne, who has been with the Planning Department for three years. Mr. Osborne stated that the document, entitle~ Englewood Planned Unit, which he would be discussing, was presented for his architectural thesis at Colorado University in May of 1968. In setting the stage for his discussion, he stated that zoning was started in Boston, California, and New York in about 1916, and that basically the same ordinances written then are in use today. Some flexibility has been added with conditional uses, and variances permitted from Board of Adjustment; howeve r , they for the most part do not take into consideration any of the design changes that have come about. Mr. Osborne stated that the relaxation of the rigid setback restrictions would enable a property to be used much more efficiently; also, if houses were "clustered" together, the land left for open space could be developed for a specific recreational use, or devoted just to landscaped open area. Mr. Osborne then gave a slide presentation of some specific developments in the metropolitan area which he felt were particularly aesthetically offensive, and pq i nted out how possibly they could have been improved with just slig htly rigid controls. He pointed out that the Englewood Zoning Ordinance specifies a 25 ft. front yard setback; by permitting the structure to be located closer to the street, the rear yard area would be increased, and could be "used" in contrast to the "maintaining" that is now the case. Mr. Touchton asked if under this Planned Unit Development the percentage of lot coverage would be increased? Mr. Osborne replied 1hat this is not necessarily the case. It would be decreasing the open area "in one p la c e (for instance the front yard) and increasing it in another (the back yard). Page 1090 Mr. Lone commented that he felt such a plan could be much more "livable and usable". Mr. Touchton stated he felt we could have a high degree of inconsistencies, but that it might be good in some ways. Mr. Osborne stated that there were many problems that could be gotten into , but he was trying to give a developer more flexibility which he feels is needed. Mr. Osborne pointed out that in New York City, for example, no building can be erected without first going through a Planned Unit Development. He stated he feels that the Englewood Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance needs to be updated, and that there are many assets in the Planned Unit Development concept for the City. Mrs. Romans pointed out that there are areas in town where redevelopment is neede9, but to encourage people to do this, some flexibility in the Zoning regulations must be provided. The price of land today is proving too high to give an incentive to redevelopment with the same use. She pointed out that in this Planned Unit study by Mr. Osborne, open space, in addition to that devoted to parking, must be provided, and this open space is computed according to the proposed usage. She stated that as an example, requests are coming into the office to permit residential uses (apartment buildings, etc.) in the commercial area along Broadway, and in some of the more desirable industrial districts. Under this proposed plan, these requests could be worked in very satisfactorily, both to the developer and to the City. Mr. Osborne stated that under his proposed Planned Unit Development the density in an R-1 District could not exceed eight units per acre, while under the present ordinance today, the density is approximately seven units per acre. This density was determined using the present restrictions in the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. He stated that the amount of open space was determined by using the square footage of the units multiplied by a predetermined factor. FHA uses this procedure. Additional slides were shown the Commission, and discussion on several slides followed. Mrs. Romans and Mr. Woods stated that the Planned Unit concept was very much a topic at the ASPO convention in San Francisco this last May, and that everyone was concerned, but that no one had an answer to the problem. Various planned unit developments that have been viewed were discussed. Mrs. Romans pointed out that at "The Dam" in Arapahoe County, there is no provision for a small grocery store , dairy store, etc. for the residents of this development, and there is no public transportation. A great many of these developments are devoted to the elderly, retired people, and she felt that such convenience-type uses were needed. The County Attorney had said at the ASPO meeting that the County has been asked to rezone land adjacent to the "Dam" for commercial use. Mr. Osborne agreed that the present ordinances have forced the developer to ignore the needs of life. Mrs. Romans discussed WoodLake in California where there is a small commercial center · for the residents adjacent to the development. Further discussion followed. Mrs. Romans commented that the trend seems to be back to the "neighborhood" development; the small groceries, dairies, etc. to serve that specific area. Mr. Lone asked why there were no area requirements in the R-2 and R-3 and other districts, but there were for the R-1? Mr. Osborne stated that in an R-2 , R-3 , or other districts, a developer might come in with a development plan for only three or four lots, which might be desirable; he did not think it likely that residents of an R-1 area would agree to such a small planned unit development in their neighborhood. Mr. Lone stated he disagreed with that, and cited the development in the 4000 block of Bannock. He felt that if a planned unit development were to be proposed for that block, that the residents in the area would be the first to approve. He stated he could see where a number of older, dilapidated structures in the R-1 zones could be cleaned out, and a new development come in. Mr. Osborne pointed out that under the proposed Planned Unit Development District, in a planned develop- ment of one square block, a commercial use would not be permitted. Mr. Lone stated he felt that was not logical, as a block "planned unit" could not by itself support any commercial use such as a grocery store , etc. Discussion followed. Further discussion followed. The members thanked Mr. Osborne for attending to discuss this matter with them. Mrs. Romans stated that Mr. Osborne would be leaving the employ of the City September 13 1968 for duty with the Air Force, and that a farewell get-to-gether was planned in the Planni~g ' Office from 3:00 P.M. to 5:00 P.M. on that day. She invited any of the Commission members who cared to do so to stop by. The meeting adjourned at 10:25 P.M. Gertrude G. Welty Recording Secretary * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * I. CALL TO ORDER. CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION September 18, 1968 The Regular Meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairman Woods at 8:05 P.M. Members present: Members absent: Also present: Carlson; Lentsch; Lone; Parkinson; Touchton; Woods Eomans, Ex-officio None City Attorney Criswell I I I