Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1971-05-04 PZC MINUTESI I I Page 1327 Discussion of the proposal followed. It was suggested by Mr. Supinger that possibly a series of "study sessions" could be instituted, and one of the above topics discussed at each meeting. Further discussion followed. Mr. Senti questioned how a building permit could be issued for construction in a drainage area while the City is conducting a study on the possible purchase of the drainage area? He stated that this has recently been done, and if the purchase of the land were to be accomplished, the City will now have to expend additional funds for the structure. Dis- cussion followed. Mrs. Henning questioned how one would get people interested and involved in an issue? Dis- cussion followed. Mr.· Lentsch suggested .the possibility of having "neighborhood meetings". Mrs. Henning suggested that perhaps members of the Commission could attend meetings such as the PTA, etc. in an attempt to get people involved. Mr. Weist commented that he felt people were interested in only their small plot of land, and preferred to have ''others look out for them." Mr. Lentsch inquired of each member what they were really concerned about? Mr. Mosbarger stated that he was very concerned about low income housing, and the improvement of properties vs. the subsequent rise in taxes. He noted that this practice may well keep many people from doing many improvements on their property. Mr. Patrick stated that he was concerned in the redevelopment of the core area; he commented. that he felt the buildings would have to be razed, and new construction begun. He stated that even if new fronts were put on the buildings, they would still be "old". He stated that he had also been thinking about the possibility of moving the new construction back from Broadway, and providing needed parking in the front of the lots, just off Broadway. The possibility of a field trip for members of the Commission was considered. Mr. Supinger stated that possibly one of the City buses could be used for transportation.. It was also determined that members of the Workable Program Citizens' Committee should be invited to take the tour with the Commission. Mr. Supinger indicated he would check on the possibility of the bus for some time next week. VI. DIRECTOR'S ~ CHOICE Mr. Supinger stated tha~ he did not yet know the date for the meeting with the Planning Commissions from Arapahoe County. He stated that it will be a dinner meeting, and that when the date has been determined, the Commission will be notified. Mr. Lentsch commented that he would particularly like to meet with the Sheridan Planning Commission. It was moved, seconded and carried that the meeting be adjourned. Gertrude G. Welty Recording . Secretary * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * I. CALL TO ORDER. CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MAY 4, 1971 The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 8:00 P. M. by Chairman Lentsch. Members present: Walsh; Patrick; Mosbarger; Lone; Lentsch; Henning; Carlson Supinger, Ex-officio Members absent: Weist; Senti Also present: City Attorney Berardini; Assistant Planning Director Romans; Planning Assistant Wardlaw. -r II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. April 20, 1971 Mr. Lentsch stated that the Minutes of April 20, 1971, were to be considered for approval. Carlson moved: Lone seconded: The Minutes of April 20, 1971, be approved as written. The motion carried. -- - - - - - - - - ----- - III. AMENDMENT OF ZONING ORDINANCE Repeal of §22.5-3(f) Re: Filling Stations CASE #8-71 Henning moved: Lone seconded: The Public Hearing be opened. Mr. Senti entered the meeting and assumed his chair with the Commission. Mr. Lentsch called for the vote on the motion; the motion carried. Page 1328 Mr. Lentsch asked Mr. Supinger to give the background of this matter. Mr. Weist entered and assumed his chair with the Commission. Mr. Supinger stated that the Public Hearing was concerned with the repeal of §22.5-3(f), which deals with the location of service stations and reads as follows: "Proximity to school buildings and existing filling stations. Fil~ing stations shall not be placed within five hundred .(500) feet of an entrance to a school building or a playground, nor within five hundred (500) feet of an existing filling station property line." Mr. Supinger noted that in 1967, the City Attorney's office had submitted an opinion that the restriction was unenforceable, and was discriminatory in nature. Mr. Supinger noted that the Commission was given earlier in the evening, a revised report from Fire Chief Hamilton, and a copy of a report containep in the Planning Advisory Service from ASPO. Mr. Supinger stated that in light of additional information, the staff was no longer seeking the repeal of the entire section, but rather the repeal of the last portion, which reads: "nor within five hundred (500) feet of an existing filling station property line." Mr. Supinger stated that a revision to the section, setting forth "performance standards" might enable a service station to be located near a school, but that the revision has not been prepared, and the staff feels at the present time the repeal oj the last portion of the present section is sufficient. Mr. Lone asked if it would be possible for a gasoline storage tank, sale of gasoline, etc. to be located nea;rer than the 500 ft. limitation to a school if it were an "accessory use"? Mr. Berardini replied that it would be, the way the Ordinance is written at the present time. Mr. Lone stated that he felt the Commission should be concerned with that problem ---not just the service stations, but the sale of gasoline and storage of gasoline whether as a permitted use or as an accessory use. Discussion followed.. Mr. Lentsch asked if members in the audience wished to speak on the matter? Mr. John Kramer, Manager Property Services Englewood School District -stated he was concerned about the repeal of the entire section. Mr. Kramer stated that he felt this was directly concerned with the welfare of the children attending the schools, and of the schools themselves. He stated that he had discussed the matter with Fire Chief Hamilton and Mr. Supinger, and he would agree with the repeal of the last portjon of the section relating to the 500 ft. limit between service station property lines. Mr. Kramer stated he felt the entire section should be rewritten. Mr. George Partridge, Skelley Oil Company - representative asked why the restriction was placed against the business of ."service stations and filling stations" and not against the businesses who dispense gasoline etc. as an accessory use. He stated that the Ordinance as written discriminates against the service stations and constitutes a restraint of trade. He stated that he doesn't feel this would create a fire or traffic hazards, and cited statistics which show that fires per 100 buildings rates service stations at 1.65, garages at 26.17, restaurants at 6.29, etc. He noted that customers usually purchase gasoline and oil either on their way to work, or on their way home; people do not "shop" for gasoline products as they do for groceries, clothing, etc. Mr. Partridge requested the Commission to recommend to City Council that the Ordinance be repealed. The Commission asked Mr. Partridge if he would approve the repeal of the last section only, which would allow service stations closer than 500 ft. to other service station property lines? Mr. Partridge stated that he would approve the repeal of only that section at this time. Discussion followed. Walsh moved: Henning seconded: The Public Hearing be closed. The motion carried unanimously. Further discussion followed. Henning moved: Lone seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council that §22.5-3(f) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance be amended by repealing the following portion of that section: " •.•.. nor within five hundred (500) feet of an existing filling station property line." The motion carried unanimously. Discussion ensued. Mr. Lone suggested that perhaps further amendment should read that "no filling station or ac~essory use which sells gasoline products be allowed within 500 ft." Discussion followed. Mr. Supinger stated that there was one situation where a filling station is to be placed within 500' of another service station, and that any delay in the effective date of the Ordinance will, or course, affect these plans. Mr. Berardini asked if it would be helpful to the Commission to have further information, particularly from Fire Chief Hamilton in regard to his memorandum of May 3rd, and to get into the reasons the 500 ft. rule was instituted in the first place. It was determined that the matter will be further discussed at the next regular meeting, and Mr. Lentsch asked that Fire Chief Hamilton be present for this discussion. -- ---- --- -------- I I I I I I Page 1329 IV. AMENDMENT OF ZONING ORDINANCE §22.5-5a(l0) Re: Parking Standards in Residential Districts CASE #9-71 Patrick moved: Mosbarger seconded: The Public Hearing be opened. The motion carried unanimously. Mr. Lentsch asked for the background on this Hearing. Mr. Supinger stated that this Public .Hearing relates to parking requirements as given in the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for ,residential uses. At the present time, private off- street parking is required one spaee per unit in all residential districts. The staff is proposing, however, that the standards be raised to the following: One Family Residential Unit •.......................•....•.•..........• Two spaces /unit Two or More Dwelling Units: Efficiency Unit .••.•. ·····················-·················One space /unit One or Two Bedroom Units ••.....................•...........• One and one-half space/unit Three or more Bedroom Uni ts •................................ Two spaces/unit Mr. Supinger stated that slides have been taken of the parking problems existing in the single-family districts, two-family districts, and in the multi-family districts. Mr. Supinger commented that commercial and industrial districts are required to provide adequate off-street parking for their use, and it is felt that residential uses should do the same. The slides of the parking problems were shown the Commission. Mrs. Henning asked the average width of the residential streets. Mrs. Romans stated that they were 34 ft. to 36 ft. width. Mr. Lentsch asked for persons in favor of the proposal to speak. Robert Reynolds 3674 South Hudson Mr. A 1 Snyder Almar Company stated he was a local architect, and would like to see provisions made for "low-cost housing". He stated that he has been involved in some low-cost housing projects, and that the stringent parking requirements still apply, even though these people may not have a car. He noted that the low-cost housing project location is quite detailed, and that one item that must be considered is the proximity of public transporta- tion; he questioned why, if the site for the low-cost housing were close to public transportation, and a number of the people in this type of housing were not automobile owners, the parking requirements of 1-1/2 per unit still applied? He stated that he felt an amendment which would take these facts into consideration and make provisions for the low- cost housing and required parking for such development would be a ''very realistic amendment". 60 S. Lincoln St. -stated he was a developer in Englewood. Mr. Snyder stated that he would have to go along with the parking requirements, but questioned the economic feasibility of the proposal, Mr. Snyder asked what the staff termed an "efficiency" apartment? He noted that he could build such apartments large enough for two people, and both would probably have a car, which will still add cars to those parked on the streets. He stated that he felt mo st developers would take this route rather than face the financial problems of providing the 1-1/2 to 2 spaces proposed for multi- family developments. Mr. Snyder stated he felt that some method of en- forcement would have to be instituted to ensure that persons who have a space provided for them off-street make use of it. Mr. Snyder suggested restricting parking by time, and to one side of the street as means of providing enforcement. Mr. Snyder pointed out that the proposed parking requirements, if approved, will eliminate numerous apartment units that cannot be classified as "luxury" units, simply because the developers cannot financially afford to provide the extra parking and keep the rental within means of the average employed person. Mr. Snyder indicated that providing underground parking would be completely unfeasible for the developers of these units because of the expense involved. Mr. Lone asked Mr. Snyder if the lenders he has worked with are putting requirements for off-street parking heavier than the 1:1 ratio that is presently in effect in Englewood? Mr. Snyder stated that he has never been .faced .with such a stipulation. Mr. Berardini asked Mr. Snyder what the banking institutions require to get financing for a project such as an apart- ment house? Mr. Snyder stated that 1:1 parking ratio is sufficient, and they require that the project meet the codes of the municipality where it will be built. T. W. Anderson 35 Martin Lane -stated that he has developed quite a bit of residential land in Englewood, both single-family and multi-family uses. He noted that Englewood is limited as far as available residential land, and that if the proposed parking standards are approved, to provide 1-1/2 spaces per unit would require 30% more ground, and the costs would have to be "passed on to the tenant." Mr. Anderson stated that he felt the 1:1 requirement was sufficient for both "efficiency" units and one-bedroom units. He commented that his firm doesn't buila many -two-bedroom units. Mr. Anderson noted that his firm was considering another development in Englewood, and while they would try to comply with -the proposed parking standards, if approved, they couldn't comply 100%. He also noted that the set-back requiremenis in Englewood are much "tougher than in Denver". Mr. Anderson urged the Commission to study the proposal very seriously, noting that it was "easy to put regulations on", but difficult to remove them. Page 1330 Rich Diechmann Shield Realty -stated that he was neither for nor against the proposal. He questtoned the economics if the proposal were approved. He noted that the cost of the land and development could not be recaptured in the rental of the units. Mr. Diechmann stated that the Commission must consider the future growth of the City of Englewood, and asked if they wanted to continue the development of Englewood now, or have it stymied by the increase in parking requirements for apartment houses. Mr. DiecQmann discussed the ground cost ratio and stated that developers preferred the ratio of $1,000 to $1 200 per' unit, rathe~ than the $1,500 to $1,900 they are paying now, and with the increased parking requirements the ground cost ratio will rise to $2 700 to $2,800 per unit. Mr. Diechmann stated that this could not be rec~vered th~ough the rentals, and the developers just will not come to Englewood under these conditions. Mr. Diechmann noted that there are many old homes in Englewood, but they are priced "to what the ground is worth for multi-family development"; he felt if this continued, it would "price the .develope:i;s o\lt o:(' the market.'!. Mr. Diechmann stated that the increased parking requirements will "detract from the desirability of Englewood" for developers. Mr. Diechmann agreed that the parking in- crease is .needed,,b~t .the .City .should GQ~sider the economics and growth of the City. •· . Mr. Lentsch asked Mr. Diechmann where the City would get the extra parking if the developers aren't required to provide it? Mr. Diechmann ~tated it came down to a matter of decl~ning areas and economics vs. parking and traffic problems. He asked which would be satisfied first, the parking and traffic, or the economics. Mr. Al Snyder stated he felt the City should work along other lines to enforce off-street parking rather than requiring additional parking to be provided --the City should work on the "street parking". He stated he felt the proposal needed "more considera tio.n." Lone moved: Henning seconded: The Public Hearing be closed. The motion carried unanimously. Lone moved: Patrick seconded: The matter be tabled for furt~er considerat~on. The motion carried, Mrs. Henning and Dr. Walsh opposing. Discussion followed. VI. USE NOT MENTIONED CASE #10-71 Dog Kenn_e_l_i_· n __ I ___ 2_Z_o_n_e_D_i_· s_t_r_i_c_t_ Mr. Supinger stated that Mrs. Gladys Neece and Mr. John Kochis, applicants, want to have a dog kennel at 1860 West Dartmouth Avenue. They will have Greyhounds, and Pekinese and Poodle dogs. Mr. Supinger noted that a dog . kennel is not listed as a permitted use ip any zone district. He noted that in October, 1970, a request for a dog kennel by Mr. and Mrs. Harrington was approved by the Commission. Mr. and Mrs. Harrington had indicated that they wanted a place to keep their "pet;, Cocker Spaniels, and that they did not plan to have ·more than 10 adult dogs at any time. They would be selling a few puppies each year. Mr. Supinger stated that he felt the application by the Harrington's was for a "hobby" kennel, but that this applicat 'ion by Mrs. Neece and Mr. Kochis was very definitely for a "commercial" kennel. Mr. Supinger noted that the staff report on the m~tter was prepared and sent to the Commission prior to receipt of additional information, .includ~ng the letter from Mr. Negri, and as a result of this, the recommendation of the staff had been modified. Mr. Lentsch asked persons in favor of the request to speak. . . Mrs. Neece stated she was an applicant for permis~ion to have a dog kennel at 1860 West Dartmouth Avenue. She stated that she was the real estate agent for the Harrington's last year when they applied for permission to have a kennel at this location. She stated that she knew the Harrington's planned to have a grooming parlor installed, and that they would sell puppies, so she didn't think it was a "hobby" kennel. Mrs. Neece noted that at the time of the first application for a kennel, Mr. Negri, owner of land immediately to the east of the subject property, indicated that he was not opposed to the proposed use. Now, however, Mr. Negri has written to the Planning Director opposing the use of the land for a kennel, and has stated in that letter that he has "moral reservations" about the raising of Greyhounds, and the methods of disposing .of pups and non-winners. Mrs. Neece noted that she has never put dogs "to sleep", and that there is a demand for the Greyhounds. Mrs. Neece further noted that the raisers of Greyhounds "don't throw live rabbits into the pens for the Greyhounds, but take them out into a large field and turn the rabbit loose." Mrs. Neece noted that raising good dogs is a lucrative business. She also stated that Mr. Negri was "discriminating against" her by opposing this kennel. Mrs. Neece stated that it was a rule that all members of the Colorado Breeders .Association cannot race a dog that is bred and born in another state --they must be Colorado dog~. Mrs. Neece noted that the kennel for the Greyhounds is an empty trailer house with crates already in it to accommodate 22 of the dogs, although she didn't think she would ever have that many of the Greyhounds. Mrs. Neece noted that the work- shop on the south end of the residence would be finished for the Pekes and Poodles --about 20 Pekes and 6 Poodles, all adults. She would raise puppies fro~ these dogs. She noted that the dogs she would sell would supplement her small income; and that the small dogs have been a "hobby" of hers for many years. Mrs. Neece stated that Mr. Negri has tried to purchase the property at .1860 West Dartmouth for several years, and she feels he is opposing her request in an attempt to get the property. ' Mr. Lentsch asked Mrs. Neece if she has purchased the property or has an option to purchase? Mrs. Neece stated that the purchase of the property would "close" Friday. Mr. Lentsch asked if she purchased dog licenses for the dogs in the kennels? He noted that every citizen of Englewood had to purchase a license for their dogs. Mrs. Neece stated that the only license she purchases is a State license for the business. I I I I I I Page 1331 Discussion followed. Mrs. Henning asked about the use of the residence as a residence in the I-2 Zone District? Mr. Supinger stated that if the primary use was residential, that the use must cease in 1977, but if the primary use was a kennel and the residence was used for a "caretaker", then the use of the residence could continue indefinitely. Further dis- cussion followed. Mrs. Neece noted that the Greyhounds were a quiet dog, and were noisy only when they heard a siren, or when they were fed. Mr. Lentsch asked if there were any one present who wished to speak in oppositicn? Mr. Dwight Zwick 3707 Cherry Creek North Drive -stated he represented Mr. Saul Davidson, owner of property to the west, south and east of the subject property. Mr. Davidson is opposed to the use of the land as a kennel. Mr. Zwick noted that Mr. Davidson stated he would not be as strongly opposed were it to be an aesthetically constructed kennel in conjunction with a veterinary clinic, but the pro- proposal is for an empty trailer and use of the existing residence. Mr. Zwick stated that his client has offered to indemnify Mrs. Neece against any loss she might sustain in not realizing the proposed kennel, and that they have offered to help Mrs. Neece find a more suitable location for the kennel. Dr. Walsh asked if Mr. Davidson's objection was based on assumption that the kennel would have an affect on the land value? Mr. Zwick stated that Mr. Davidson has owned the land since prior to the 1965 flood and would like to develop the property as soon as the Chatfield Dam is constructed. He pointed out that the trailer Mrs. Neece is proposing to house the Greyhounds in is worth nothing, and that the residence is worth very little. Mr. Lentsch asked what the plans of the Planning Department were for this property in the future --would it be industrial, residential, or what? Mr. Supinger stated that the Com- prehensive Plan shows this property to be industrial, and pointed out that the kennel, if approved by the Commission, would remain; however, he stated that he felt the proper loca- tion and zoning for a kennel was an agricultural area and agricultural zoning. Mr. Berardini questioned Mr. Zwick on his statement that his client would indemnify Mrs. Neece against loss? Mr. Zwick stated that they would purchase the land, and that Mrs. Neece would make a $1,000 profit. Mr. Berardini asked if this was a written agreement? Mr. Zwick stated that it was not, but that he would be willing to sign such an agreement at any time. Mrs. Neece stated that this proposal was completely unacceptable to her. Further discussion followed. Carlson moved: Henning seconded: The request of Mrs. Gladys Neece and Mr. John Kochis for a kennel at 1860 West Dartmouth Avenue be denied for the following reasons: (1) The Commission cannot see that the proposal will be an improvement as far as buildings and general conditions are concerned over what is in existence on the property at the present time. (2) There needs to be additional research done on this matter to deter- mine the proper zone classificstion and location for a kennel such as has been proposed by Mrs. Neece. Further discussion followed. Dr. Walsh noted that at one time, this area under consideration was intensely agricultural, and asked why it was not so zoned when it was annexed to the City? Mrs. Romans stated that the City officials at the time felt that there weren't individual ownerships of a size to accommodate agricultural usage, and furthermore, the land being in close proximity to the railroad, that it was proper that the land be zoned for industry. Discussion ensued. The vote on the motion to deny was called. The motion carried unanimously. Mrs. Neece asked if the objection of the Commission was due to the fact she wanted to raise and sell Greyhounds? She asked if the objection would still stand if she had just the small dogs? The Commission indicated that the objection was to the total request. VI. AMENDMENT TO ZONING ORDINANCE CASE #9-71 §22.5-5a(l0) Residential Parking Standards The matter of the parking ratios was again discussed. Mr. Supinger stated that he didn't feel the decision should be based on a matter of economics alone, and he wasn't convinced that additional research of the problem was needed. He stated that it was a matter of the Commission's deciding whether they wanted to up-grade the parking so that it meets the need with the possibility that development will be slowed down for a period of time, or whether the Commission wanted to encourage development with the ensuing price of insufficient parking. Mr. Supinger stated that if the Commission felt they did need additional informa- tion that the staff would be glad to provide same. Further brief discussion followed. Henning moved: Lone seconded: The matter be raised from the table. The motion carried unanimously. Mrs. Henning asked if matters such as set-back requirements, lot coverage, etc. were under consideration in the revision of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance? Mr. Supinger stated that changes are being considered in all areas of the Ordinance. He stated that the staff is attempting to put standards in the Ordinance which will allow developers a flexibility in design, etc. Discussion followed. Mr. Lentsch commented that the residents of the areas in which apartment houses have been built were not in attendance to give their opinion on the question. He also commented that unless extra parking spaces were provided, the cars Page 1332 couldn't be gotten off the streets anyhow. Dr. Walsh agreed this is a key point in the matter, and also agreed that an enforcement program is needed. Mr. Snyder stated that he was definitely concerned with the problem, and wants to work with the city in solving it. He suggested a meeting of the developers with the Planning Commission to see if solutions can be found. Mr. Snyder pqinted out that he has many developments in Englewood, and that he has a lot to lose if the correct colutions aren't found. Mr. Snyder stated that there wasn't too much area in Englewood available for apartment development, and stated that he didn't feel the City would be faced with a "big problem in the future." Mr. Supinger commented that there had been a Committee of real estate agents, etc. who had worked with the staff for a time on the revision of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, and this Committee had approved and urged the proposed parking ratio of 1-1/2 to 1 as a minimum in the multi-family districts. Mr. Supinger stated that Mr. Diechmann was a member of that Committee. Discussion followed. Mr. Weist asked if it would be proper to consider a change in the parking restrictions on-street as has been suggested? Mr. Supinger stated that he felt it might be proper for the Commission to suggest to City Council such a step be taken, but pointed out that the Traffic Department will be in charge of preparing the Ordinances, etc. Further discussion followed. Mr. Lentsch commented that he felt apartment house de- velopment penalizes single-family developments, and that the single-family uses have to suffer for the apartment developers actions. Gerald Stryka Moore Realty -discussed the economics of the proposal. He urged that the parking ratio be retained at 1:1. Discussion followed. Henning moved: Mosbarger seconded: Discussion of the matter be continued to the next regular meeting of the Commission on May 18th. The motion carried unanimously. VII. ENVIRONMENTAL HOUSING CONFERENCE May 17, 1971 --Cosmopolitan Hotel Silver Glade Room Members of the Commission who indicated they would attend this conference were: Mrs. Henning, Messrs. Senti, Mosbarger and Lentsch. VIII. BUS TOUR OF THE CITY May 8, 1971 Mr. Supinger stated that the tour of the City for members of the Planning Commission and the Workable Program Citizens' Committee was scheduled for May 8, 1971, departing from City Hall at 8:30 A. M. Members of the Commission who indicated they would attend were: Mrs. Henning, Messrs. Senti, Mosbarger, Lentsch, Weist, and Lone. ---- ---- -- - --- - - --- -- - - --- --- IX. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE Mr. Supinger stated that the dinner meeting for members of the Planning Commissions in Arapahoe County has been scheduled for May 20, 1971, at Guespato Cristofolo Chiacchierone Restaurant, 5180 South Broadway, the social hour beginning at 6:30 P. M. Mr. Supinger stated that City Manager Dial would speak on "Intergovernmental Cooperation." --------- - -- - --- ---- ---- -- --- X. ATTORNEY'S CHOICE City Attorney Berardini gave a report on the status of the annexation west of Englewood. The meeting adjourned at 11:25 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: May 4, 1971 SUBJECT: Amendment of Zoning Ordinance; §22.5-3(f) I I I I I I RECOMMENDATION: Page 1333 The Planning Commission recommend to City Council that §22.5-3(f) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance be amended by repealing the following portion of that section: " •.. nor within five hundred (500) feet of an existing filling station property line." Respectfully submitted, 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 May 18, 1971 The re g ular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairman Lentsch at 8:05 P. M. Members present: Weist; Senti; Patrick; Mosbarger; Henning; Carlson; Lentsch Supinger, Ex-officio Members absent: Walsh; Lone Also present: City Attorney Berardini; Assistant Planning Director Romans II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. May 4, 1971 Chairman Lentsch stated that the Minutes of May 4, 1971, were to be considered for approval. Mosbarger moved: Henning seconded: The Minutes of May 4, 1971, be approved as written. The motion carried unanimously. III. AMENDMENT OF ZONING ORDINANCE §22.5-5a (10) CASE #9-71B May 4 , 1971 April 6, 1971 Re: Parking Standards in Residential Districts. Mr. Supinger stated that this matter was discussed extensively at the last meeting, and noted that members of the Commission have been given additional information on the matter this evening. One part of the information is a study done in a California City in 1968, which has been updated , and the second portion of the additional information is a reprint of information from Rathkopf Law of Zoning. Mr. Supinger stated that he felt higher standards for required parking are needed. Mr. Supinger stated that he felt the City should set parking standards that are felt to be necessary, and do not accept any developments that don't meet the local standards. Mr. Lentsch stated that the Public Hearing had been held on this matter, but discussion of the proposal to raise the parking standards in residential districts has been continued. Mr. Lentsch asked if there were persons in the audience who wished to speak in favor of the proposal? Mr. E. Fishkin 1511 E. Dartmouth -stated that he is an architect, and has done several developments in Aurora, but has not had any projects in Englewood. He stated that he is in favor of increasing the required number of spaces for off-street parking. He stated that the proposal is in line with the requirements of the jurisdictions surrounding Englewood. Mr. Fishkin stated that he felt more people would be driving automobiles until a mass-transit system is a reality, and that provisions must be made for the parking of these cars. Mr. Fishkin asked if parking spaces one behind the other would be approved? Mr. Supinger stated that he felt the City would accept "tandem" parking. · Mr. Fishkin suggested that on-street parking be considered the "guest" parking, and that the tenants all be provided spaces off-street. He stated that development is still going on in Denver, even though the required parking standards have been raised, and he didn't feel the proposal would "kill development" in Englewood as has been suggested. He stated again that he was in favor of the proposal, and felt that it was a "wise proposal". Mr. Berardini asked Mr. Fishkin about the economics of the proposal, and how it would affect development?