HomeMy WebLinkAbout1968-07-24 PZC MINUTESPage 1072
Mr. Woods expressed the appreciation of the Commission to Mr. Smith and Mr. Rall for their
taking of their time to discuss the matter.
A recess was called. The meeting was called to order at 9:50 P.M.
Mr. Woods asked if there were any further business to come before the Commission?
Lone moved:
Lentsch and Carlson seconded: The meetjng be adjourned.
The motion carried unanimously.
Gertrude G. Welty
Recording Secretary
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
I. CALL TO ORDER.
CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JULY 24, 1968
Members present: Carlson; Lone; Parkinson; Touchton
Romans, Ex-officio
City Attorney Criswell
Members absent: Lentsch; Woods
Parkinson moved:
Lone seconded: Mr. Carlson be elected temporary chairman for the evening.
The motion carried, and Mr. Carlson assumed the Chair.
The meeting was called to order at 8:25 P.M. by Mr. Carlson.
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES.
No action was taken on the minutes of July 17, 1968, inasmuch as they have not been returned
from the printer.
III. EASEMENT VACATION
Mr. Wm. Malone
CASE #5-68D(2)
Mrs. Romans stated that on April 3, 1968, the Planning Commission recommended the vacation of
the following two alleys, with the retainment of easements for utilities:
1. That certain alley or street, approximately 16 feet, more or less, in width, lying approxi-
mately 133 feet North of the intersection of the westerly line of South Jason Street and the
northerly line of West Hampden Avenue and between the said westerly line of South Jason Street
(as extended) and the easterly right of way line of the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway
Company right of way.
2. That certain alley or street, approximately 16 feet, more o~ less, in width, lying be-
tween the northerly right of way line of West Hampden Avenue and the southerly boundary line
of the alley or street described in the preceding paragraph, the easterly boundary line of
which alley or street lies approximately 225 feet westerly of the westerly boundary line of
South Jason Street.
The City Council subsequently passed Ordinances, No. 18 and 19, Series of 1968, vacating
these alleys, and retaining an easement for utilities. Mr. Malone has contacted the Planning
Department on behalf of his client, and has requested the vacation of easements retained in
the alley described in Paragraph No. 2 above. Mr. Malone's client has a contract to purchase
land on both sides of this easement, subject to its vacation. Mrs. Romans stated she has
checked with the Utility companies and departments, and there are no utilities existing in
this easement, and there is no objection on their part to the vacation. Discussion followed.
Mr. Parkinson asked whether or not this parcel would have to be subdivided before a building
p ermit could be issued? Mr. Criswell stated that if it was .a part of an approved subdivision,
it would not require the filing of a plat; if, however, it were not .part of an approved sub-
division, then a plat would have to be filed or a waiver applied for. Further discussion en-
sued.
Lone moved:
Touchton seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council the easement retained
In Ordinance #18, Series of 1968, be vacated.
The motion carried unanimously.
-- -- - - --- - --- -----.-
I
I
I
I
I
I
IV. FIRST ATIONAL BANK
Parking Plan
Mrs. Romans read the following memorandum from Chief Building Inspector Wallace.
"July 24, 1968
Parking for First National Bank Build~ng
Page 1073
CASE #27-68
Attached are the plans for the parking for the proposed 12 story 1st National Bank Building
which we are submitting for the review of the Planning Commission.
We have checked these plans out for curb cuts and drainage with the City Engineer, Kells
Waggoner.
A preliminary check of the building indicates 472 parking stalls would be required under
our ordinance. The plans submitted indicated 659 parking stalls which is fine.
We would appreciate review by the Planning Commission and their comments, if any, so we may
reply to Langdon and Wilson, Architects, so they may continue development of their final
plans.
Sincerely,
/S I Beryl A. Wallace
BAW/ss"
The plans submitted by the Bank for two parking structures, one to be located just west of
Cherokee Street, just south of Cherokee Circle, and one located in the 3500 block of South
Elati, were displayed for Commission review. Mrs. Romans mentioned that she had been told
the bank does not plan to build the structure on Cherokee at the present time. Discussion
followed.
Parkinson moved:
Touchton seconded: The matter be tabled for further consideration.
The motion carried unanimously.
V. REZONING CASE #28-68
R-1-C to R-2-B
Mr. Lone discussed the possibility of extending the R-2-B (two-family residential) zoning
westward in the 4000 Block of South Bannock to the Bannock-Cherokee alley. The R-2-B
boundary presently is at the Acoma-Bannock alley line. There are several two-family uses
in the block, and there is a possibility that the property at 4064-4066 South Bannock,
which property has long been of concern to the neighbors and to the City, could be sold
and redeveloped for two-family purposes. The members discussed the matter, and it was
determined that no action would be taken at this time.
VI. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 1969 -1975.
The Capital Improvement Program was discussed. Mrs. Romans stated that Mr. Mack was in
attendance to answer any questions they might have. The moneys available for the storm
sewer project were discussed. Mr. Mack stated that there is $117,263 which is committed
to the project on Kenyon. This will deplete the fund. Further discussion followed. The
relocation of the Police Department was considered; Mrs. Romans pointed out that if the
Police Department is moved, provisions will have to be made for the parks and traffic shops,
which are now situated in the area of City Hall marked for the Police Department. Mr. Mack
directed the attention of the members to a memorandum from Mr. Dial dated July 23, 1968,
and titled "Supplement No. 2 to 1969 Capital Improvements Program". In this memorandum, it
was stated that the City has available $83,830 toward the central shops construction. It is
estimated that a 9,000 sq. ft. building for the Traffic and Parks departments, and a 9,000
sq. ft. building for . the street shops will cost $180,000 to build in 1969. A vehicle storage
structure would be an additional $80,000. Discussion followed.
Mr. Parkinson suggested that perhaps the items that need to be continued from year to year,
such as paving and sidewalk districts, should be given top priority. He then included the
traffic divider strip in the 3400 block on South Broadway as a top priority item. Mr. Lone
questioned the need for this item; he acknowledged that it would be nice, but felt there
were other items that were needed before this one. Mr. ·Parkinson cited the vacancy problem
that exists on Broadway, and felt that perhaps it would be a "shot in the arm" for Broadway.
Mr. Carlson felt that if it enabled one or two stores to be rented, that the sales tax would
repay the $13,000 estimated cost. The possibility that a service club in the City might be
interested in the project was discussed. The golf course was then discussed; Mr. Parkinson
stated he felt it should be accomplished under a different program, such as a bond issue,
and that if the issue didn't carry, then the project shouldn't be done. The signal program
was discussed; Mr. Lone stated he would rather see the school signals modernized than to see
the remainder of the Broadway-Logan signals updated now. The program was further discussed ;
Mrs. Romans outlined the three phase program that was initially begun in · the Planning and
Traffic Department, and, it is assumed, is being carried out under the Public Works Department.
The relocation of the Police Department and the Emergency Operating Center was considered.
It was the opinion of the Commission that there were three items that were very closely re-
lated in this instance --the central shops facility, the relocation of the Police Department,
and the conversion of the present Police Station to Fire Department usage. They did not
feel that all could be accomplished this year; therefore, the Central Shop facility was
given "A" priority for 1969, the relocation of the Police Station was given "B" priority
for 1970, and the conversion of the Police Station was given "C" priority to be done also
in 1970. After further discussion, the following motion was made:
Parkinson moved:
Lone seconded : The Planning Commission recommend that the following items be considered
for the 1969 Capital Improvements Program in order of priority:
Page 1074
1. Paving District (Public Works Dept.)
1. Sidewalk District (Public Works Dept.)
1. Traffic Divider 3400 S. Bdwy. (Public Works)
1. Central Shops (Public Works Dept.)
1. Parks Program (Parks Department)
1. Aerial Housing (Fire Department)
1. Storm Sewer (Public Works Dept.)
1. School Lights (Public Works Dept.)
2. 1 Pumper (Fire Department)
2. Right.-of-way Acquisition (Public Works Dept.)
2. Relocation of Station #2 (Fire Dept.)
3. Traffic Lights (Public Works Dept.)
3. Clarkson Structure (Public Works Dept.)
3. Training Facilities (Fire Department)
$ 90,000.
$ 8,000.
$ 13,000.
$ 97,000.
$ 50,000.
$ 20,000.
$ 50,000.
$ 25,000.
$ 36,000.
$ 10,000.
$ 45,000.
$ 25,000.
$ 24,000.
$ 50,000
The following items be considered for No. 1 priority in 1970:
1. Police relocation (Police Dept.)
1. Conversion Police Bldg. (Fire Dept.)
1. 1 Pumper (Fire Department)
1. Right of way Acquisition (Public Works Dept.)
1. Traffic Lights (Public Works Dept.)
1. Paving District (Public Works Dept.)
1. Sidewalk District
1. Storm Sewer
$141,735.
$ 8,000.
$ 36,000.
$ 10,000.
$ 25,000.
$ 90,000.
$ 6,000.
$ 50,000.
In addition to these items, the Golf Course should be considered in 1969
if it can be financed by means other than through the general fund of
the City.
The motion carried unanimously.
The Commission asked that consideration be given to the 1971-1975 Capital Improvement Program
at the meeting on July 31, 1968.
VII . FLOYD AVENUE AGREEMENT.
Mrs. Romans discussed her attempts to contact Mr. Davy, President of New Englewood, to con-
sider the Floyd Avenue landscaping. She gave copies of the following letter from Mr. Peterson
to members:
"July 22, 1968
Ms. D. Andrews Romans,
Planning Director
City of Englewood
3400 So. Elati Street
Englewood, Colorado 80110
Dear Ms. Romans:
Re: Floyd Avenue Landscaping -Cinderella City
Your letter of 16 July 1968, to Mr. W. A. Davy, President, New Englewood Ltd., has been for-
warded to me for reply. Please accept our apologies for all of the confusion which has come
to exist with regard to this subject. In an effort to preclude further confusion, the matter
of the Floyd Avenue landscaping has been put into the hands of this department for resolution.
As you are no doubt aware, we are in the process (at the present time) of installing a sprinkler
system in the Floyd Avenue areas preparatory to the installation of bJuegrass sod. The land-
scaping people are removing approximately 4" of the clay fill dirt presently placed in the
areas to receive the sod and will replace same with 4" of top soil and sod immediately upon
the completion of the installation of each section of the sprinkler system.
It is my understanding that Mr. Brackton, acting in the capacity of a consultant to our office,
has discussed this landscaping matter at great length with various department heads in and for
the City of Englewood. It is my further understanding that you (the City of Englewood) have
agreed to the installation of the sprinkler system and sodding at this time, with the installation
of trees and shrubs to follow next Spring.
We are in the process of preparing detailed dimensioned plans of the pl~nting (trees and
shrubs) for submission to the City of Englewood in accordance with the original Floyd Avenue
Agreement. These plans will indicate the three-row layout calied for in the original Floyd
Avenue Agreement with the northerly most row being 4-6' high Chinese Elm at 15'-0" on center.
The first row to the south thereof will be 4-5' high one-seeded Junipers, Junipers to be in-
stalled at 15' centers staggered with relation to the installation of the Chinese Elms. The
third and most southerly row will be Pfitzer Junipers installed at 15'-0" centers in line with
the Chinese Elms, thus giving us the fully staggered installation as called for on the original
Floyd Avenue Agreement.
The planting of these trees and shrubs will be commenced in April or May of 1969, as soon a:;
the climatic conditions are compatible thereto. We will, however, forward our detailed plans
to you as soon as they are complete.
In view of all the confusiqn and problems which have arisen with regard to the "mini-park"
proposal, it has been decided to complete the landscaping work in accord with the original
Floyd Avenue Agreement.
In order the preclude further delays and/or confusion on the subject please address all
future correspondence relative thereto to the writer's attention. If we can be of further
service to you in any way, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
/S I Neil G. Peterson
Neil G. Peterson
Construction Department
NGP /lc
cc: W. R. Grimshaw Co.
Mr. Al Davy"
I
I
I
I
I
I
Page 1075
She stated she had discussed the matter with Director of Parks and Recreation Romans, and
finds that he is of the opinion that there would not be adequate soil preparation as they
have proposed. It is his feeling that water would sink down the 4 11 to the clay, where it
would stand and would rot the sod; he also feels that locust trees would be much more
satisfactory than the proposed Chinese Elms. He also felt the area would be much easier
to care for if it were planted on the "mini':"'"park" idea, rather than the "rows of trees".
She stated that she had called Mr. Peterson, and a meeting has been arranged for next
Tuesday morning, July 30, 1968. She stated she felt the installation of the sprinkling
system, the type of grass and trees to be planted, and the soil preparation should all be
approved by the City, inasmuch as it will be the Parks Department that will be charged with
the maintenance of the area. The Commission discussed the situation quite thoroughly.
Mr. Criswell pointed out that the City could not force the "mini-park" idea as versus the
"rows"; however, that the Planning Director must approve the landscaping plans, and that
the soil preparation, types of trees and shrubs and sprinkling system are part of these
plans and could be controlled to that extent. Further brief discussion followed.
It was moved, seconded and carried to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was declared ad-
journed at 11:45 P.M.
Gertrude G. Welty
Recording Secretary
MEMORANDUM TO THE ENGLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGARDING ACTION OR RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION.
DATE: July 24, 1968
SUBJECT: Vacation of Easement in Ordinance #18, 1968.
RECOMMENDATION:
Lone moved:
Touchton seco n ded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council that the easement
retained in Ordinance #18, Series of 1968, be vacated.
The motion carried unanimously.
By Order of the City Planning
and Zoning Commission.
Gertrude G. Welty
Recording Secretary
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
I. CALL TO ORDER.
CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JULY 31, 1968
The Special Meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by
Chairman Woods at 8:10 P.M.
Members present:
Members absent:
Also' present:
Carlson; Lone; Parkinson; Touchton; Woods
D. Romans, Ex-officio
J. Criswell, City Attorney
Lentsch
Ms. Butterfield, Messrs, Marshall, Allen, Olde, Giseburt, Carleno,
Richardson, Traynor, Colber, Norgaa r d.
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES.
Mr. Woods stated the Minutes of July 17, 1968, and July 24, 1968, were to be considered for
approval.
Parkinson moved:
Carlson seconded: The Minutes of July 17, 1968, and July 24, 1968, be approved as written.
The motion carried unanimously.
III. COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT.
Height Exceptions in R-3-A, R-3-B, B-1, B-2, I-1, and I-2.
Mr. Woods stated that this was a public hearing on an amendment to the Comprehensive Zoning
Ordinance to allow exceptions to the stipulated height after consideration by the Planning
Commission and City Council.
Page 1076
Touchton moved:
Lone seconded: The Public Hearing be opened.
The motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Woods asked Mrs. Romans to review this proposal. Mrs. Romans stated that there had been
provisions in the Zoning Ordinances since 1955 whereby the height restrictions could be exceeded
in the business zones following action by the Planning Commission and the City Council. Be-
cause of the increased commercial development . that is taking place in the City, and because
of the limited amount of vacant land that is available for development, the City is getting
more and more requests for buildings that will exceed the permitted height in the multi-family
zones, the business zones, and the industrial zones. Although there is a provision in §22,5-7
of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for height exception which could apply to these areas,
it is not always feasible or practical. It was the feeling of the Planning Commission that,
in addition to. this provision, there should be a m_ethod of approving height exceptions and
gross floor area exceptions that would be similar to that now existing in the business areas.
For clarification, the present provisions in the B-1 and B-2 Zone Districts will be deleted,
and the proposed amendment will be incorporated within the Supplementary Regulations. In
addition to the B-1 and B-2 Zone Districts, the provision will be applicable to the multi-
family residential district and a provision is made in the industrial districts for the maximum
gross floor area to be exceeded.
Mrs. Romans read the following memorandum from Chief Building Inspector Wallace: "I have
reviewed the proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, Section 22.4-10d(2),
Section 22.4-lld(2) and Section 22.5-7a. It is my opinion that this amendment is needed to
further development in these particular zones.
"The Englewood Building Code specifies the necessary provisions for safe structural and
mechanical design of buildings providing adequate fire, health and safety standards."
Chief Sovern of the Fire Department was present to answer any questions in regard to the
effect the proposed amendment might have on his department.
Mr. Woods asked Mr. Sovern if he wished to speak to the point. Chief Sovern stated that the
Fire Department had no objections to the proposed amendment; he stated he felt this was a
good measure and will allow the City to progress.
Mr. Woods asked for any other persons in favor of the amendment to speak.
Mr. George Allen stated that he is a representative of the Chamber of Commerce, and that it
has become obvious that the City of Englewood is "hemmed in", and expansion by annexation
is virtually impossible. He stated that with growth, you can expect to have problems, and
he feels that "antiquated ordinances" are some of the problems. The City must continue to
grow, and must have more money to progress; these multi-million dollar buildings that could
be attracted would aid in this matter. He pointed out that the only chance for future growth
would be to "go up"; he stated the Chamber of Commerce is very much in favor of the proposed
amendment, and he urged the Commission to favorably recommend the proposal to City Council.
Mr. Harvey Norgaard stated he was also a representative of the Chamber of Commerce, Business
Council, which is composed of members of the business community in Englewood. He stated
there has been a great influx of people working in the area with the new shopping center,
and that these people are looking for places to reside in the city. He stated the City cannot
expand outward, and must, therefore, go up. He stated that additional high-rise apartments
are needed to round out the business community of Englewood that exists today, He urged
passage of the proposed amendment.
Mr. Harry Carleno stated that much of the industrially zoned land is still vacant, and that
possibly this might help it to develop. He also stated that he didn't feel that people who
work in the City would always want to commute, and that hi~rise apartments and office buildings
are becoming the "th-ing of today". He cited Manhattan, where high-rise buildings are the
accepted mode of development, and the residents of these high-rise apartments work in Manhattan.
He stated he felt the City of Englewood needed this type of provision, and urged the approval
of the amendment.
There were no persons present who wished to speak in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Woods asked for the hands of those persons in favor of the amendment. Ten persons in-
dicated they were in favor of the amendment to the Ordinance. Mr. Woods asked for the hands
of those hands of those persons who were in opposition to the amendment. There were no
persons present in opposition.
Mr. Norgaard discussed the provision in the amendment in regard to the protection of light,
air, and ventilation. He stated he hoped this would be kept in mind, and stated that he
didn't feel Englewood wanted to become another "Manhattan" and be closed in. He asked that
this be made a matter of record, that. each application would be considered by the effect it
would have on the open space.
Mrs. Romans stated she felt this was the intent of the proposed amendment, to protect the
open space, light, air, etc.
Mr. Carleno stated his reference to Manhattan was only to show that numerous people do
reside in the area of their employment.
Mr. Parkinson commented that he was wondering if this would be giving Englewood the same
problems that Denver is now having around Cheeseman Park.
Mr. Ed Olde asked if it would be advisable for the City to adopt an open space ordinance
similar to what Denver is considering? Mr. Criswell stated that he did not feel it would
be appropriate and did not feel that it would be legal to do so. He did not feel such an
Ordinance was needed in view of the provisions that are presently written into our amend-
men~. Mr. Criswell stated that in his opinion i~ would be very difficult to defend an
ordinance such as Denver is con.sidering.
Mr. Touchton stated he felt that the Director of Parks and Recreation should possibly be
required to make a recommendation as to the effect the structures would have on his depart-
ment as the Fire Department and Public Works Department are asked to do, Mr. Criswell
stated that the Fire Department and Public Works were given, more or less, a "veto power";
I
I
I
I
I
I
,,.
Page 1077
that unless the recommendation from these two departments was favorable, the Commission and
Council would not even be considering the situation .. He asked Mr. Touchton if he were pro-
posing to give "veto power" to the Parks Department also? Mr. Touchton stated he thought the
Parks and Recreation Department was a very important means in assuring the preservation of
open area in situations such as this, and that they should have a voice in the matter.
Discussion followed on the requirement that the Fire Department and Public Works Department
review the plans and submit a recommendation to the Planning Commission. Mr. Parkinson asked
if the plans for a building in need of a height exception were viewed differently than a
building meeting the requirements of the Ordinance? Mr. Sovern stated that a building plan
was reviewed for the type of safe guards put into the building itself, and for the type of
occupancy proposed for the building. He stated they have an agreement with the Building
Department and look at all building plans. Mrs. Romans stated that she felt the requirement
that the plans must be reviewed by the Building, Fire and Public Works Departments was a
very good requirement, and that it does serve a real purpose. At such time as public
hearings are held on the request for height exception, the City Council would have the in-
formation from these two departments at hand to better enable them to answer questions from
the audience.
Mr. Lone stated he didn't feel the requirement was wrong; he felt that possibly if it were
included, the applicant would necessarily have to present fairly detailed plans, and thereby
eliminate some later problems. He felt this also might have something to do with the open
space problem.
Mr. Touchton stated that his point was that the price of land is going up; pressures can be
brought to bear on the Commission and the Council, and he feels it is necessary to have the
safe guards on open space. He doesn't want crowded conditions to exist as a result of this
amendment.
Mr. Carlson questioned the veto power of the Fire Department ; he stated he felt the applicant
had the right to have his plan reviewed by the City Council no matter what the departments
had to say. Mrs. Romans stated that the applicant would have to present plans that would
meet the requirements of the Building and Fire Codes, and stated she didn't feel that the
Council could approve a building that did not meet these Codes.
Mr. Don Marshall stated that the Chief Building Inspector was charged with the interpretation
and enforcement of the Building Code, and he did not feel that the Council could over-rule his
interpretation. Further discussion followed. Mr. Criswell stated that perhaps the section
should be changed to read: "meet the requirements of the Fire and Building Codes." It was
agreed that at the time of the general revision of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance that
this suggestion would be incorporated into the Ordinance.
Parkinson moved:
Touchton seconded : The Public Hearing be closed.
The motion carried unanimously.
Discussion of the proposed amendment followed.
Touchton moved :
Parkinson seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council the following proposed
amendment to the 1963 Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance be approved:
An amendment to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance which will authorize
the City Council, after consideration by the City Planning and Zoning
Commission, and after Public Hearing before City Council, to allow the
construction of buildings and other improvements to a height greater
than the heights authorized by said Ordinance in those zone districts
known as R-3-A, R-3-B, B-1 and B-2, and of a greater gross floor area
than authorized in those zone districts known as I-1 and I-2, and es-
tablishing criteria and standards for such actions.
I. Section 22.4-10d(2), Maximum Height of Buildings in B-1 Zone
District, is to be repealed.
II. Section 22.4-lld(2), Maximum Height of Buildings in B-2 Zone
District, is to be r epealed.
III. Section 22.5-7a, Height Limitations, is to be amended to read as
follows:
a. Height and Gross Floor Area Limitations.
(1) A principal permitted building or structure, or a building
or structure permitted by Conditional Use, may exceed the
height limitation for the particular Zone District in which
said building or structure is located if, for each additional
foot of height, an additional foot of side yard is provided
in addition to each minimum side yard required .
(2) Church spires, belfries, cupolas and domes, not for human
occupancy, roof signs, parapet walls or cornices for ornament
(without windows) may exceed the height limitation, provided
that the parapet walls or cornices do not exceed the height
limitation by more than five (5) feet.
(3) Bulkheads, elevator penthouses, observation towers, trans-
mission towers, chimneys, ventilators and smoke stacks,
skylights, derricks, conveyors, water towers and tanks,
fire towers, hose towers, cooling towers, grain elevators,
or other structures where the manufacturing process requires
a greater height, may exceed the height limitation, provided
that such structures above the height limitations specified
in this Chapter shall not be allowed for the purpose of pro-
viding additional floor space, and provided further , that
they are set back one (1) foot from all lot lines for each
additional foot in height.
Page 1078
(4) The height of any building or structure to be constructed
in the R-3~A, R-3-B, B-1, and B-2 Zone Districts, or the
gross floor area of any building or structure in the 1-1
and I-2 Zone Districts, may be increased beyond the maximum
specified in this Chapter .by resolution of City Council,
subject to the following conditions:
(a) Any applicant for permission to construct a building
or structure in excess of the limitations set forth
in Chapter 22 in any of the above Zone Districts shall
file an application therefor with the Planning and
Zoning Commission, which Commission shall consider the
same and shall make a report and recommendation upon
the matter to the City Council. In such corsideration,
the said Commission shall not be required to hold a
public hearing or to give public notice of such applica-
tion or consideration.
(b) Upon receipt of the report and recommendation from the
Commission, City Council shall schedule a public hearing
upon such application and shall give public notice
thereof in the manner required by Section 22.8 hereof.
(c) In considering the application, both the Commission
and Council shall be guided by the following criteria:
(i) The effect of the increased height or floor area
on adjacent property including the effect on
light, air and ventilation.
(ii) The availability and suitability of private off-
street parking.
(iii) The location of the structure with reference to
fire, health and safety factors.
(iv) Such other factors as may affect the public health,
safety and welfare.
(d) No application shall be approved until written evidence
has been received from the City Fire Department and
Department of Public Works that the preliminary plans
for the proposed building or improvement include adequate
features for fire protection and public safety.
(e) All expense occasioned by the application shall be paid
by the applicant, including any necessary economic
feasibility. studies or other planning surveys deemed
necessary either by the Commission or by City Council,
which studies or surveys will be furnished by applicant
upon request.
The motion carried unanimously.
IV. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 1969-1975
The Commission members reviewed the prio~ity list for 1969 and 1970 which was agreed upon
at the meeting of July 24, 1968. It was felt that possibly the relocation of the Police De-
partment should also be included as a No. 1 priority in 1969 if there are funds available.
Considerable discussion followed.
Parkinson moved:
Touchton seconded: The following priority list be approved.
ENGLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY OF ENGLEWOOD CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
1969 -1975
#1
#2
1969
(Paving
District
(Sidewalk
District
(Storm Sewer
(School
Lights
(Parkq
Program
(Aerial
Housing
(Central
Shops
(1,'raf f ic
Divider
R/W
Acquisition
Station #2
1970 .
Paving
District
Sidewalk
District
Storm Sewer
Traffic
Lights
R/W
Acqu_isi tion
1 Pumper
Police R2-
loca te
Convert
Pqlice
Station to
Fire.
NW E. Green
belt.
NW E.
Ball field
Relocatior Station
#4 Repla-
cement.
1971 1972 1973
Paving Paving Paving
District District District
Sidewalk Side w.alk Side.walk
District District District
Storm Sewer Storm Sewer Storm Sewer
Traffic Traffic Traffic
Lights , Lights Lights
R/W R/W R/W
Acqu .:tsi t.i0n -Acquisition .Acquisition
McLellan McLellan McLellan
Rec Area
Library
Expansion
Maddox Tot
Lot.
Belleview
Park.
NW E.
Greenbelt ·
Rec Area
Library
Expansion
Union Re-
al ig nmen t 4
Jason Shelter
Rec Area
Library
Expansion
Bates-Logan
Park
H;ouse.
NW ·E.
Greenbelt
Platte Rvr.
Bridge
Light Ball
Fields.
Fire Alar~
System.
NW E.
Greenbelt
Fire Alarm
System.3
. 1974
Paving
District
Sidewalk
District
Storm Sewer
Traffic
Lights
R/W
Acquisition
McLellan
Rec Area
Library
Expansion
Bates-Logan
Park
NW E.
Greenbelt
1975
Paving
District
Sidewalk
District
Storm Sewer
Traffic
Lights
R/W
Acquisition
McLellan
Rec Area
Library
Expansion
Bates-Logan
Park
Oxford Bridge
tNW E.
Greenbelt
Oxford Green-
belt.
Jr. Hi Bathhouse
Sr. Hi Bathhouse.
I
I
I
I
I
I
Page 1079
1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975
I
#3 Traffic
Lights '
Clarkson
Bridge
Training
Facilities
Golf Course
1. Golf Course to be considered #1 priority in 1969 if financed by means other than
General Fund.
2 . Police Relocation to be done in 1969 if funds are available.
3. Fire Alarm System funds in 1972 are to be put in escrow, and project accomplished
in 1973.
4. Dependent upon location of Columbine Freeway.
The motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Woods discussed the amount o f very important work that is underway in the Planning
Department, and asked the Councilmen to attempt to assure an adequate staff for the Depart-
ment when the budget is under consideration.
VI. OFF-STREET PARKING PLAN
3601 S. Clarkson
CASE #20-68C
Mrs. ·Romans stated that she had talked to Dr. Bigelow, one of the doctors who will have
offices in the proposed clinic at 3601 South Clarkson. He had indicated to her that the
plans for the clinic are being redone, and that he agreed that the curb cuts should be re-
located as the Commission and staff had suggested.
Parkinson moved:
Lone seconded : The meeting be adjourned.
The motion ca r ried, and the meeting was declared adjourned at 10:35 P.M.
Gertrude G. Welty
Recording Secretary
MEMORANDUM TO THE ENGLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGARDING ACTION OR RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION.
DATE: July 31, 1968
SUBJECT: Amendment to Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance.
RECOMMENDATION:
Touchton moved:
Parkinson seconded: The Planning Commission ·recommend to City Council the following propose:!
amendment to the 1963 Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance be approved:
An amendment to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance which will authorize
the City Council, after consideration by the City Planning and Zoning
Commission, and after Public Hearing before City Council, to allow the
construction o f .buildings and other improvements to a height greater than
the heights authorized by said Ordinance in those zone districts known
as R-3-A, R-3-B, B-1 and B-2 , and of a greater gross floor area than
authorized in those zone districts known as I-1 and I-2, and establishing
criteri~ ....and .standards for such actions.
I. Section 22.4-10d(2), Maximum Height of Buildings in B-1 Zone District,
4s ~o -be -repealed.
II. Section 22.4-lld(2), Maximum Height of Buildings in B-2 Zone District,
is to be repealed.
III. Section 22.5-7a, Height Limitations, is to be amended to read as
follows:
a. Height and Gross Floor Area Limitations.
(1) A principal permitted building or structure, or a building
or structure permitted by Conditional Use, may exceed the
height limitation for the particular Zone District in which
said building or structure is located if, for each additional
foot of height , an additional foot of side yard is provided
in addition to each minimum side yard required.
(2) Church spires, belfries, cupolas and domes, not for human
occupancy, roof signs, parapet walls or cornices for ornament
(without windows) may exceed the height limitation, provided
that the parapet walls or cornices do not exceed the height
limitation by more than five (5) feet.
Page 1080
(3) Bulkheads, elevator penthouses, observation towers, trans-
mission towers, chimneys, ventilators, and smoke stacks,
skylights, derricks, conveyors, water towers and tanks,
fire t0wers, hose towers, cool-ing towers, grain elevators,
or other structures where the manufacturing process requires
a greater height , may exceed the height limitation, provided
that such structures above the height limitations specified
in this Chapter shall not be allowed for the purpose of pro-
viding additional floor space, and, provided further , that
they are set back one (1) foot from all lot lines for each
additional foot in height.
(4) The height of any building or structure to be constructed
in the R-3-A, R-3-B, B-1 and B-2 Zone Districts, or the
gross floor area of any building or structure in the I-1
and I-2 Zone Districts, may be increased beyond the maximum
specified in this Chapter by resolution of City Council,
subject to the following conditions:
(a) Any applicant for permission to construct a building
or structure in excess of the limitations set forth
in Chapter 22 in any of the above Zone Districts shall
file an application therefor with the Planning and
Zoning Commission, which Commission shall consider
the same and shall make a report and recommendation
upon the matter to the City Council. In such considera-
tion, the said Commission shall not be required to hold
a public hearing or to give public notice of such applica-
tion or consideration.
(b) Upon receipt of the report and recommendation f rom
the Commission, City Council shall schedule a public
hearing upon such application and shall give public
notice thereof in the manner required by Section 22.8
hereof.
(c) In considering the application, both the Commission
and Council shall be guided by the following criteria:
(i) The effect of the increased height or floor area
on adjacent property including the effect on
light, air and ventilation.
(ii) The availability and suitability of private off-
street parking.
(iii) The location of the structure with reference to
fire, health and safety f actors.
(iv) Such other factors as may affect the public
health, safety and welfare.
(d) No application shall be approved until written evidence
has been received from the City Fire Department and
Department of Public Work~ that ,the preliminary plans
for the proposed building or improvement include adequate
features for fire protection and public safety.
(e) All expense occasioned by the application shall be paid
by the applicant, including any necessary economic
feasibility studies or other planning surveys deemed
necessary either by the Commission or by City Council ,
which studies or surveys will be furnished by applicant
upon request.
The motio n c arried unanimously.
By Order of the City Planning
a n d Zoning Commission.
Gertrude G. Welty
Recording Secretary
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
I. CALL TO ORDER.
CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
AUGUST 7, 1968
The Regular Meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairman
Woods at 7:40 P.M.
Members present:
Members absent:
Carlson; Lentsch; Lone; Parkinson ; Woods
D. A. Romans, Ex-officio
J. A. Criswell, City Attorney
Touchton
- -- ------ --- --- --- -
I
I