HomeMy WebLinkAbout1971-09-21 PZC MINUTESI
I
I
Page 1359
of consultants or whatever. He stated that he felt the money should be requested and that
it should be approved so that the many projects could be accomplished. Discussion followed.
Mrs. Romans stated that the Flood Plain Regulations would be ready for Commission considera-
tion very shortly, and the revised Mobile Home Park Ordinance will follow the Flood Plain
Regulations.
Mr. Carlson suggested that the discrepancy in travel pay for the Planning Commission mem-
bers and other board members be checked into.
Mr. Supinger reported on the Sign Code meeting which he, Mr. Weist and Mr. Lentsch attended.
IX. COMMISSION'S CHOICE.
Mr. Lentsch reported that City Council had designated Girard Avenue from Elati Street to
Logan Street as two-way at their meeting September 7, 1971.
Mr. Lentsch discussed the Broadway/U.S. 285 interchange and the landscaping of the open
areas in the interchange. Mr. Lentsch stated that the State Highway Department will put
in the grass, but if the City of Englewood wants trees and additional landscaping, it
must be put in by the City, and will cost $8,000 per year to maintain it; the trees would
only be a 4 ft. height at the time of planting. Mr. Lentsch noted that there are approximately
four acres of open area to be considered. Mr. Lentsch noted · that a sprinkling system will
be installed, but the City of Englewood will furnish the water, which will amount to ap-
proximately $1,800. Discussion followed. Mr. Mosbarger commented that he felt the greenery
would be better cared for if the City assumed the responsibility. Djscussion followed. Mr.
Lentsch stated that he felt this could be a very attractive area, and would aid the downtown
area revitalization.
Mr. Lentsch stated that Council approved an Ordinance restricting parking within 20 ft. of
an intersection, and also approved an Ordinance prohibiting trash cans in the alley right-of-
way.
It was moved and seconded that the meeting be adjourned .. The motion carried; the meeting
adjourned at 10:00 P. M.
GeEtrude G. Welty
Recording Secretary
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ·* * * * * * * * * * * *
I. CALL TO ORDER.
CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION . ·
SEPTEMBER 21, 1971
The regular meeting of. the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at
8:00 P. M. by Chairman Carlson.
Members present: Patrick; Senti; Vobejda; Weist; Carlson; Henning; Lentsch; Mosbarger
Supinger, Ex-officio
Members absent: Barton
I
Also present: Assistant Planning Director Romans; City Attorney Berardini; Messrs. Eason,
Kramer, Dransfeldt.
----~-
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES.
Mr. Carlson stated that the Minutes of September 8, 1971, were to be considered for approval.
Lentsch moved:
Henning seconded: The Minutes uf September 8, 1971, be approved as written.
The motion carried unanimously.
III. ALLEY VACATION CASE #21-71
Block 79, Sheridan Heights
Mr. Supinger stated that the vacation of the alley in Block 79, Sheridan Heights Subdivision,
has been requested by School District #1. This is the site of the old Scenic View School,
and is no longer in use by the School District. Mr. Supinger stated that the staff has
checked the request out with the Utility Companies and City Departments, and no objection
to the request has been voiced ..
Mr. Carlson asked Mr. Eason or Mr. Kramer if they wished to make a presentation. Mr. Eason
stated that he was appearing for the applicant, School District #1, and that amended surveys
of the subject block have been placed before the Commission. Mr. Eason noted that the
buildings in this block were completed in the 1930's or 1940's. There are no utilities in
this alley, nor has the alley ever been in place in the block or used as an alley. Mr. Eason
noted that with the opening of the new Scenic View School at 2323 West Baker Avenue, this
property (Block 79, Sheridan Heights), became "surplus" property, and it is the policy of
the School Board to dispose of such surplus property at the earliest possible moment. Mr.
Eason stated that the property will be easier to sell if the alley is vacated, and can be
sold as one parcel. Mr. Eason noted that the requested vacation will not leave any property
in this block without access to a dedicated street.
Page 1360
Mrs. Henning asked if the property would be put up for sale by the S~hool Board? Mr. Kramer
stated that the property would be placed on the open market as soon as the vacation has been
approved, and as soon as the School Board has record of the alley vacation.
Lentsch moved:
Mosbarger seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council that the alley in Block
79, Sheridan Heights Subdivision be vacated; the following reasons justi~ying
said vacation:
1 .. The alley requested to be vacated lies entirely within the City of
Englewood, and has no common boundary with any other political sub-
division.
2. The land could more easily be developed in the I-2 Zone as an en-
tire block if it were not divided by an alley.
3. If vacated, no land would be left without access to a dedicated
public way.
4. No utilities are now in place which would need such a right-of-way.
The motion carried unanimously.
IV. EASEMENT VACATION CASE #22-71
Lot 3, Snowbarger Sub.
Mr. Supinger stated that this matter was referred to the Planning Commission by the City
Council at their meeting on September 20, 1971, with the request that the Commission con-
sider the matter at their next meeting, if possible. Mr. Supinger stated that on the south
side of Lot 3, Snowbarger Subdivision, there is an 8 foot utility easement. As far as can
be determined by the staff, there are no utilities situated in this particular easement.
However, there is a 10 foot easement for a 12" water line which angles across the 8 foot
easement in a southeasterly direction. Mr. Supinger noted that this 10 foot easement for
the water line would have to be excluded if the vacation of the 8 foot .easement were recom-
mended to City Council. Mr. Supinger stated there is a single-family home on the property
at the present time, and there is also the foundation and floor of the previous garage on
the property. Mr. Supinger stated that Mr. Dransfeldt, the property owner, has indicated
he wishes to use this existing foundation and floor for the new garage he wants to build.
Mr. Dransfeldt stated that when he made application for a Building Permit to build the
garage, he was informed that he did not have the proper front setback in the location he
had proposed, and that he could not move the garage south without encroaching on the 8 ft.
easement. He stated that the topography of the land is such that he could not move the
building to the west.
Discussion followed. Mr. Mosbarger asked if the property would remain under one ownership,
or if Mr. Dransfeldt planned to split the ownership? Mr. Dransfeldt stated that it would
be one parcel. Mrs. Henning asked what procedure had been followed in other instances
where a cul-de-sac would necessarily interfere with proper set-backs on a parcel of land.
Discussion followed. Mrs. Henning asked if possibly this situation should "be corrected
from the other end" rather than vacating an easement. She asked if it would be possible to
obtain a variance on such a matter? Mr. Supinger stated that he felt this particular situation
was "tailor made for a variance". Mrs. Henning asked Mr. Dransfeldt if he had requested a
variance? Mr. Dransfeldt stated he had not asked for a variance, and stated he would prefer
to have the easement vacated, which would enable him to move the garage to within three feet
of the property line. Further brief discussion followed.
Henning moved:
Lentsch seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council the 8 foot utility
easement on the south side of Lot 3, Snowbarger Subdivision be vacated,
the legal description of said recommended vacation as follows:
"Commencing at the southwest corner of Lot 3, SNOWBARGER SUBDIVISION,
lying in the SE 1 /4 SE 1 /4 of Section 4, T5S, R68W; thence east along
the south line of Lot 3, 8.0 feet to the true point of beginning;
thence north and parallel to the west line of said Lot 3, 8.0 feet;
thence east and parallel to the south line of Lot 3, 182.0 feet; thence
south and parallel to the east line of Lot 3, 8.0 feet to a point on
the south line of Lot 3; thence west along the south line of Lot 3,
182.0 feet to the true point of beginning. This vacation does not in-
clude the water line easement as recorded in Book 924, Pages 207-209 and
211 of Arapahoe County Records."
The motion carried unanimously.
V. AMENDMENT TO COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE
Planned Development District
Patrick moved:
Lentsch seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #18-71 be opened.
The motion car~ied unanimously.
CASE #18-71B
Sept. 8, 1971
Aug. 17, 1971
A synopsis of the Planned Development District was given by Mr. Supinger, and he stated that
he would welcome any questions un the proposed Ordinance.
There were no persons in the audience who wished to speak either for or against the proposed
ordinance.
I
I
I
I
I
I
Page 1361
Lentsch moved:
Patrick seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #18-71 be closed.
The motion carried unanimously.
The Commission reviewed the proposed Planned Development District amendment. Mr. Carlson
stated that the approval of Planned Developments .would be a new procedure, and he felt that
a clear understanding of the reasons behind the Planned Development District would be of
great importance. Discussion followed. Mrs. Henning stated she would prefer that the
landscape plan to be presented as part of the Planned Development not be required to be pre-
pared by a registered landscape architect. It was agreed that this restriction would be r~
moved. There was considerable discussion on the GENERAL REQUIREMENTS section of the proposed
ordinance; Mr. Supinger noted that the Development Plan would take precedence over the basic
restrictions in the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance with the exception of the permitted uses
and density. Mrs. Henning pointed out that the proposed PD District Ordinance makes no
mention of the percentage of lot coverage, ·permitted height, etc., and asked how there
could be a "conflict in regulations" under these circumst.ances. Mr. Berardini pointed out
that the Development Plan, as approved, will prevail over the basic zoning ordinance re-
strictions, except as to permitted uses and density. Further discussion followed. Mrs.
Henning asked if the term "Development Plan" was defined in the Ordinance? Reference was
made to Page 1 of the proposed Ordinance, lines 12 thru 17. This particular definition
was considered, and was changed to read:
"The amenities and compatibilities of the Planned Development classification are to be in-
sured through the adoption of a Development Plan which shall consist of approved maps, diagrams
and written statements setting forth land use relationships and development standards."
Discussion followed. Mrs. Henning stated that the first sentence of the GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
still bothers her, and noted that she could not find any place in the analysis of this PD
District where the restrictions on height, setback, etc. are waived. She asked if these
restrictions were not waived by this Ordinance, did the requirements of the basic zoning
Ordinance prevail? Mr. Berardini commented that he didn't think the individual restrictions
had to be waived in this Ordinance. Discussion followed.
Mr. Carlson discussed the time element mentioned in REVIEW AND APPROVAL on page 5. He
questioned if the 30 days as set forth in §(b) was sufficient time for the Commission to
have the public hearing and render a deoision? Mr. Supinger pointed out that the 30 day
time element mentioned is that 30 days after receiving the report from the staff, the Com-
mission shall hold the public hearing, but the decision may be rendered for indefinite
period after the public hearing. Discuss~on followed. Mr. Berardini stated he would suggest
a time limit of 60 days after the .Public Hearing in which the Commission would render a
decision on a Planned Development application. Section (c) of REVIEW AND APPROVAL was re-
worded to read: "Within 60 days after date of Public Hearing , the City Planning and Zoning
Commission shall make written findings either approving or conditionally approving, or dis-
approving the proposed plan, a copy of which shall be furnished the applicant." Mr. Carlson
asked what was meant on Page 6 , lines 16 -19, which states that uses in the Planned Develop-
ment District must be uses permitted by right or "permitted by special review" .•.•. ; he asked
what uses would be permitted by special review? Mr. Supinger stated that such uses would
be "conditional uses" which now come before the Planning Commission for approval before they
can obtain a permit to locate in a specific zone district.
Discussion of the GENERAL REQUIREMENTS section on Page 2 was again held. It was determined
that this section should be worded as follows:
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS: The PD District, which may be combined with any other zoning district ,
shall be subject to. the. provisions. of this ordinance including those of the basic zoning
district with which it is combined. Where a conflict in regulations occur, the regulations
specified in the Development Plan approved pursuaQt to this section shall apply, except wiib
regard to Permitted Uses and Dwelling Unit Density."
Further brief discussion of the proposed PD District ensued.
Henning moved:
Lentsch seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council that the proposed PD
District, Draft II B, as amended on pages 1, 2, 4, and 5, be adopted.
The vote was called; Mrs. Henning stated that she would vote in favor of the motion, even
though she didn't feel the proposal "goes far enough for a Planned Development."
The motion carried unanimously.
VI. COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE
Miscellaneous Amendments
Patrick moved:
Mosbarger seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #19-71 be opened.
The motion carried unanimously.
CASE #19-71B
Sept. 8, 1971
Aug. 17, 1971
Mr. Supinger gave a summary of the proposed amendments. He stated that it is proposed to
amend the R-3-A District to delete the requirement of a minimum of 12 units, and that no
unit contain more than two rooms used primarily for sleeping purposes. In the R-2-B Zone
District, he noted that it is proposed to allow a tri-plex on 75 foot frontage, and a four-
plex on 100-foot frontage. This would not increase the density that is presently permitte~
but will allow the owners and developers of R-2-B property flexibility in redevelopment of
some older areas. Mr. Supinger noted that the parking requirements are listed in each in-
dividual residential zone district, and the increased parking restrictions that were approved
by the City Council in August are now being applied to each individual residential district
to conform with the restrictions listed in the Supplementary Regulations. A definition of
an "efficiency" unit is also proposed as an amendment.
There were no persons in the audience who wished to speak either for or against the proposed
ordinance.
Page 1362
Mr. Patrick asked if the amendments on parking were raising the required parking for apart-
ment districts to the 2:1 ratio rather than the 1-1/2:1? Mr. Supinger replied that such is
not the case; rather, it is applying the new restrictions to all residential zone districts
instead of just listing them in the supplementary regulations .. Brief discussion followed.
Patrick moved:
Weist seconded: The Public Hearing be closed.
The motion carried unanimously.
Senti moved:
Henning seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council that the 14 amendments
to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, as listed below, be approved:
(1) Amending Chapter 22.4-2, R-1-A Residence District, §~, Minimum
Private Off-street Parking, §§(2) Other Permitted Principal Use
Requir~ments, to read:
(a) Dwellings, two spaces per unit.
(2) Amending Cqapter 22.4-3, R-1-B Residence District, §k, Minimum
Private Off-street Parking, §§(2), Other Permitted Principal Use
Requirements, to read:
(a) Dwellings, two spaces per unit.
(3) Amending Chapter 22.4-4, R-1-C Residence District, §k, Minimum
Private Off-street Parking, §§(2), Other Pe~mitteq Principal Use
Requirements, to read:
(a) Dwellings, two spaces per unit.
(4) Amending Chapter 22.4-5, R-2-A Residence District, §k, Minimum
Private Off-street Parking, §§(2) Other Permitted Principal Use
Requirements, to read:
(a) Single-family dwelling .•. two spaces
(b) Two
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
dwelling units:
Efficiency Unit ... 1 space /unit
One or two bedroom units ... 1-1/2 spaces /unit
Three or more bedroom units .•. 2 spaces/unit
(5) Amending Chapter 22.4-6, entitled R-2-B Residence District, §§b,
Permitted Principal Uses, by adding thereto a new §§ (3) reading:
(3) Three or more unit dwellings not to exceed 14 units per acre.
Subsection (3) Religious Institutions becomes §§(4); §§(4) Educa-
tional Institutions becomes §§(5), and §§(5) Public Buildings be-
comes §§(6).
(6) Amending Chapter 22.4-6, entitled R-2-B Residence District, §§c,
Minimum Area of Lot, by adding a new §§(2) (c) to read:
(c) Each additional dwelling unit ... 3,000 sq. ft. per unit.
(7) Amending Chapter 22.4-6, entitled R-2-B Residence District, §§f,
Minimum Frontage of Lot, by adding a new §§(2)(c) to read:
(c) Each additional dwelling unit •.. 25 feet.
(8) Amending Chapter 22.4-6, entitled R-2-B Residence District, §§i.,
Minimum Side Yard, §§(2) (b) to read:
§§(2)(b) Two or more dwelling units ••. 5 feet (total 14 feet for
both sides).
(9) Amending Chapter 22.4-6, entitled R-2-B Residence District, §§k,
Minimum Private Off-street Parking, §§(2), Other Permitted Principal
Use Requirements, by deleting §§(2) (a) and substituting therefore:
(a) Other permitted principal use requirements:
(a) Single-family dwelling •.. 2 spaces
(b) Two or more dwelling units:
(i) Efficiency Unit ... 1 space/unit
(ii) One or two bedroom units ... 1-1/2 spaces /unit
(iii) Three or more bedroom units .•• 2 spaces /unit
(10) Amending Chapter 22.4-7, R-3-A Multi-family Residence District,
§§b, Permitted Principal Uses, §§ (2) by. deleting: "With a minimum
of twelve dwelling units, each dwelling unit to contain no more
than two rooms designed primarily for sleeping purposes." Sub-
section (2) to read:
(2) Multi-family dwellings, including motels and motor courts.
(11) Amending Chapter 22.4-7, entitled R-3-A Multi-family Residence
District, §§k, Minimum Private Off-street Parking, by. deleting
§§(1) and substituting therefore a new §§(1) to read:
I
I
I
I
I
I
(1) Dwellings:
(a) Single-family dwellings •.. 2 spaces /unit
(b) Multi-family dwellings:
(i) Efficiency Unit ••. 1 space /unit
(ii) One or two bedroom unit ... 1-1/2 spaces /unit
(iii) Three or more bedroom unit ... 2 spaces /unit
Page 1363
(12) Amending Chapter 22.4-8, R-3-B Multi-family Residential District, §§k,
Minimum Private Off-street Parking, by deleting §§(1) and substituting
therefore a new §§(1) to read:
(1) Dwellings:
(a) Single-family dwellings ••. 2 spaces/unit
(b) Multi-family dwellings:
(i) Efficiency Unit .•• 1 space/unit
(ii) One or two bedroom units ..• 1-1/2 spaces/unit
(iii) Three or more bedroom units ••. 2 spaces /unit
(13) Amending Chapter 22.4-9, R-4, Residential-Professional District, §k, Minimum
Private Off-street Parking, §§(1) to read:
(1) (a) Single-family dwelling .•. 2 spaces
(b) Two-family dwelling:
(i) Efficiency Unit ... 1 space /unit
(ii) One or two bedroom unit •.. 1-1/2 spaces /unit
(iii) Three or more bedroom unit ..• 2 spaces /unit
(14) Amending Chapter 22.8, Definitions, by adding thereto under the definition of
(Dwelling) a new §§(6) Dwelling, Efficiency Unit - A dwelling unit consisting
of one room and including a bathroom, kitchen, hallway, closets and dining
alcove directly off of the principal room, providing such dining alcove does
not exceed 125 square feet in area.
The motion carried unanimously.
VII. MERCHANTS PARKING LOT
3400 Blk. S. Acoma St.
CASE #20-71A
Sept. 8, 1971
Mr. Supinger reported that a meeting had been held Thursday Morning, September 16, 1971,
with representatives of the City Council, Planning Commission, staff, Chamber of Commerce,
and businessmen in the 3300 and 3400 blocks of South Broadway. He stated that it was agreed
that the City would up-date the information relative to parking in the downtown area, and
provide this information to the Planning Commission for their recommendation. Discussion
followed. Mr. Carlson stated that Mr. Bob Owens had at one time been chairman of a parking
committee for the downtown area, and he .would like to see that committee revived. Mr. Weist
asked if the additional members of the Cominittee had been appointed? Mr. Carlson stated
that he would like to see the Commission participate on this Committee. Mrs. Henning, Mr.
Lentsch, Mr. Weist and Mr. Patrick indicated they would like to serve on the parking com-
mittee. Further discussion followed.
- --.-- - --- - -- --
. '·
VIII. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE.
Mr. Supinger stated that ; with the Commission's approval, he would like to schedule a
Public Hearing for October 19th on Flood Control Regulations. He stated that material
would be prepared for discussion on October 5th. Mr. Supinger pointed out that the Flood
Control Regulations must be adopted by the end of the year.
Mr. Supinger stated that the City Council appointed a Mr. Barton to the Planning Commission.
Mr. Supinger stated that he had contacted Mr. Barton, who was unable to attend the meeting
this evening.
IX. COMMISSION'S CHOICE.
Reservations for Commission attendance at the Annual Institute for Planning Officials have
been made for Mrs. Henning, Mr. Lentsch, Mr. Senti, and Mr. Patrick.
Mr. Lentsch stated that he would like to invite members of the Planning Commission to attend
a meeting on September 28th on the proposed annexation of an area west of Santa Fe. Mr.
Lentsch stated that property owners within this area have been invited to this meeting, and
City Department Heads, Councilmen, etc. have been asked to attend to answer any questions
that might be raised by the property owners.
Mr. Lentsch stated that the City Council directed the City Attorney -to draft an agreement
with the State Highway Department whereby the City of Englewood will assume maintenance of
the U. S. 285/Broadway interchange open area.
Mr. Weist stated that he had attended a meeting with members of the Planning Commissions an:l
Planning Department representatives of Arapahoe County to discuss the next joint meeting.
Mr. Weist stated that no date has been set, but that the topic for discussion will probably
be Flood Plain zoning.
Mr. Lentsch stated that he felt it would be advantageous to have a meeting with members of
the Council of Governments.
Lentsch moved:
Mosbarger seconded: The meeting be adjourned.
The motion carried; the meeting adjourned at 10:05 P.M.
Gertrude G. Welty, Recording Secretary
---------- - ---- ------ - -- -- - -- -
Page 1364
MEMORANDUM TO THE ENGLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGARDING ACTION OR RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION.
DATE:
SUBJECT:
RECOMMENDATION:
September 21, 1971
Alley Vacation, Block 79, Sheridan Heights
The Planning Commission recommend to City Council that the alley in
Block 79, Sheridan Heights Subdivision, be vacated; the following
reasons justifying said vacation:
1. The alley requested .to be vacated lies entirely within the City
of Englewood, and has no common boundary with any other political
subdivision.
2. The land could more easily be developed in the I-2 Zone as an en-
tire block if it were not divided by an alley.
3. If vacated, no land would be left without access to a dedicated
public way.
4. No utilities are now in place which would need such a right-of-way.
Respectfully submitted,
By Order of the City Planning
and Zoning Commission.
Gertrude G. Welty
Recording Secretary
MEMORANDUM TO THE ENGLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGARDING ACTION OR RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION.
DATE:
SUBJECT:
RECOMMENDATION:
September 21, 1971
Easement Vacation, Lot 3, Snowbarger Subdivision
The Planning Commission recommend to City Council the 8 foot utility
easement on the south side of Lot 3, Snowbarger Subdivision be vacated,
the legal description of said recommended vacation as follows:
"Commencing at the southwest corner of Lot 3, SNOWBARGER SUBDIVISION,
lying in the SE 1 /4 SE 1 /4 of Section 4, T5S, R68W; thence east along
the south line of said Lot 3, 8.0 feet to the true point of beginning;
thence north and parallel to the west line of said Lot 3, 8.0 feet;
thence east and parallel to the south line of said Lot 3, 182.0 feet;
thence south and parallel to the east line of Lot 3, 8.0 feet to a point
on the south line of Lot 3; thence west along the south line of Lot 3,
182.0 feet to the true point of beginning. This vacation does not in-
clude the water line easement as recorded in Book 924, Pages 207-209
and 211 of Arapahoe County l:lecords."
Respectfully submitted,
By Order of the City Planning
and Zoning Commission.
Gertrude G. Welty
Recording Secretary
MEMORANDUM TO THE ENGLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGARDING ACTION OR RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION.
DATE:
SUBJECT:
RECOMMENDATION:
September 21, 1971
Adoptiong of Planned Development Distridt
The Planning Commission recomm~nd to City Council that the proposed PD
District Draft II B, as amended on pages 1, 2, 4, and 5, be adopted.
Respectfully submitted,
By Order of the City Planning
and Zoning Commission.
Gertrude G. Welty
Recording Secretary
I
I
I
I
I
I
MEMORANDUM TO THE E~GLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGARDING ACTION OR RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION.,
DATE: September 21, 1971
.
SUBJECT: Amendments to the Cp~prehensive Zoning Ordinance.
Page 1365
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council that the 14 amend-
ments to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, as listed below, be approved~
(1) Amending Chapter 22.4-2, R-1-A Res~dence District, §k, Minimum Private Off-
Street Parking, §§(2) Other Permitted Principal Use Requirements, to read:
(a) Dwellings, two spaces per unit ..
(2) Amending Chapter 22.4-3, R-1-B Residence District, §k, Minimum Private Off-
street Parking, §§(2), Other Permitted Principal Use Requirements, to read:
(a) Dwellings, two spaces per unit.
(3) Amending Chapter 22.4-4, R-1-C Residence District, §k, Minimum Private Off-
street Parking, §§(2), Other Permitted Principal Use Requirements, to read:
(a) Dwellings, two spaces per unit.
(4) Amending Chapter 22.4-5, R-2-A Residence District, §k, Minimum Private Off-
street Parking, §§(2) Other Permitted Principal Use Requirements, to read:
(a) Single-family dwelling two spaces
(b) Two
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
dwelling units:
Efficiency Unit ... 1 space /unit
One or two bedroom units •.. 1-1/2 spaces /unit
Three or more bedroom units •.. 2 spaces /unit
(5) Amending Chapter 22.4-6, entitled R-2-B Residence District, §§b, Permitted
Principal Uses, by adding thereto a new §§(3) reading:
(3) Three or more unit dwellings not to exceed 14 units per acre.
Subsection (3) Religious Institutions becomes §§(4); §§(4) Educational
Institutions becomes §§(5), and §§(5) Public Buildings becomes §§(6).
(6) Amending Chapter 22.4-6, entitled R-2-B Residence District, §§c, Minimum
Area of Lot, py adding a new §§(~)(c) to read:
(c) Each additional dwelling unit •.. 3,000 sq. ft. per unit.
(7) Amending Chapter 22.4-6, entitled R-2-B Residence District, §§f, Minimum
Frontage of Lot, by adding a new §§(2)(c) to read:
(c) Each additional dwelling unit •.. 25 feet.
(8) Amending Chapter 22.4-6, entitled R-2-B Residence District, §§i., Minimum
Side Yard, §§(2) (b) to read:
§§(2) (b) Two or more dwelling units ... 5 feet (total 14 feet for both sides).
(9) Amending Chapter 22.4-6, entitled R-2-B Residence District, §§k, Minimum
Private Off-street Parking, §§(2), Other Permitted Principal Use Requirements,
by deleting §§(2)(a) and substituting therefore:
(a) Oth~r permitted principal use requirements:
(a) Single-family dwelling ... 2 spaces
(b) Two or more dwelling uni ts:
(i) Efficiency Unit ..• 1 space/unit
(ii) One or two bedroom units •.. 1-1/2 spaces /unit
(iii) Three or more bedroom units ... 2 spaces /unit
(10) Amending Chapter 22.4-7, R-3-A Multi-family Residence District, §§b, Permitted
Principal Uses, §§ (2) by deleting: "With a minimum of twelve dwelling units,
each dwelling unit to contain no more than two rooms designed primarily for
·'sleeping purposes." Subsection (2) to read:
(2) Multi-family dwellings, including motels and motor courts.
• ' I
(11) .Amending Chapter 22.4-:7, entitled R-3-A Multi-family Residence District, §§k,
Minimum Private Off-street Parking, by deleting §§(1) and substituting there-
fore a new §§ (1) to read:
(1) Dwellings:
(a) Single-family dwellings .•. 2 spaces /unit
(b) . Multi-family dwellings:
(i) Efficiency Unit ... 1 space /unit
(ii) One or two bedroom unit ..• 1-1/2 spaces /unit
(iii) Three or more bedroom unit •.. 2 spaces /unit
(12) Amending Chapter 22.4-8, R-3-B Multi~family Residential District, §§k, Minimum
Private Off-street Parking, by deleting §§(1) and substituting therefore a new
§§(1) to read:
(1) Dwellings:
(a) Sin gle-family dwellings .•. 2 spaces/unit
(b) Multi-family dw~llings:
(i) Efficiency Unit •.. 1 space /unit
(ii) One or two bedroom units ••. 1-1/2 spaces /unit
(iii) Three or more bedroom units ... 2 spaces /unit
Page 1366
(13)
(14)
Respectfully submitted,
Amending Chapter 22.4-9, R-4 Residential-Professional District,
§k, Minimum Private Off-street Parking,. §§(1) to read:
(1) (a) Single-family dwelling ... 2 spaces
(b) Two-family dwelling:
(i) Efficiency Unit •.. 1 space /unit
(ii) One or two bedroom unit ... 1-1/2 spaces /unit
(iii) Three or more bedroom unit .•• 2 spaces/unit
Amending Chapter 22.8, Definitions, by adding thereto under the
definition of "Dwelling" a new §§(6) Dwelling, Efficiency Unit -
A dwelling unit consisting of one room and including a bathroom,
kitchen, hallway, closets and dining alcove directly off of the
principal room, providing such dining alcove does not exceed 125
square feet in area ~
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
October 5, 1971
The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 8:00
p.m. by Chairman Carlson.
Members present: Senti; Vobejda; Lentsch; Carlson; Barton; Patrick; Henning
Supinger, Ex-officio
Members absent: Weist; Mosbarger
Also present: Assistant Director of Planning D. A. Romans; Messrs. Peterson; Braun; Thomas;
Waggoner.
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES.
Mr. Carlson stated that the Minutes of September 21, 1971, were to be considered for approval.
Lentsch moved:
Vobejda seconded: The Minutes of September 21, 1971, be approved as written.
Discussion followed.
The vote was called; the motion carried.
Mr. Weist entered the meeting and took his seat with the Commission.
Mr. Mosbarger entered the meeting and took his seat with the Commission.
III. OFF-STREET PARKING SURVEY
Apartment Interviews
CASE #23-71
Mr. Supinger stated that the staff of the Planning Department had conducted a survey of the
parking situation on a sampling of apartment houses. Mr. Supinger stated that the results
of this survey do not give support to the proposal to raise the off-street parking require-
ments. The survey revealed that generally people were satisfied with the parking provided,
and were not interested in additional open space if it meant the loss of their parking area.
The average cars per unit, according to the survey, is 1.25. Mr. Supinger stated that this
would indicate that there is no need to increase the parking requirements. Mr. Supinger
stated that the staff does recommend, however, that the Commission consider setting standards
for maneuvering space in parking lots, and requiring the provision of spaces for guest parking.
Mr. Carlson asked if the tenants were using the parking that is being provided, or if they
are parking on the street? He also asked how tenants could be persuaded to use the off-street
parking that is provided? Mr. Supinger stated that he felt the new parking requirements, ap-
proved in August, 1971, would help in getting extra cars off the street.
Mr. Patrick asked if the questionnaires were sent to tenants and managers of apartment houses,
and to the residents of single-family .homes next to the apartment units? Mr. Supinger stated
that the survey was conducted by interview, rather than mailing the questionnaires out, and
that residents of single-family homes were not included in the interview.
Discussion followed. Mr. Lentsch stated that he felt from the results of the survey that
the staff was saying the parking restrictions didn't need to be increased from 1:1 to the
1-1/2:1 for efficiency units, etc. that was approved in August by the City Council. Mr.
Lentsch asked, if the survey showed an average of 1.25 cars per unit, where the ,25 car
was parked? Mr. Supinger stated that it is parked on-street, and pointed out that the
parking that was being provided even under the 1:1 ratio averaged out to 1.02:1. Mr.
I
I
I