HomeMy WebLinkAbout1971-10-05 PZC MINUTESPage 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
I
I
I
Page 1367
Supinger stated that he felt the new parking requirements approved in August are valid,
but he stated that he didn't think there was justification for requiring 2:1 across the
board.
Mr. Weist asked how the 3 % "sample" was chosen, what determined those apartments and in-
dividuals who would be interviewed? Mr. Supinger stated that they were picked at random.
Mr. Weist asked if the staff felt that a 3 % sampling was valid? Mr. Supinger stated that
he felt it was pretty valid, but did state that he would have liked to have more than a 3 %
sampling. Mr. Weist asked why the "streets are clogged" with cars if, as the ·survey in-
dicates, there seems to be adequate parking off-street? Mr. Supinger stated that he felt
the survey indicated that there were more cars per unit than the parking spaces being pro-
vided. But, he stated, he still felt that the 1-1/2:1 ratio that was approved for efficiency
units, increasing with the number of bedrooms per unit, that was approved in August was
valid, and that the 2:1 ratio across the board was not justified.
Mr. Weist asked if there had been complaints about the convenience of the parking lots as
to location, etc. Mr. Supinger stated that there had been some complaints, but that more
complaints had been received on the lack of adequate maneuvering space.
Mr. Carlson asked members of the audience if they would like to speak on the matter?
Mr. Reece Braun
3173 S. Ogden Street -stated he was an architect by profession, and that he has designed
apartment houses. He stated that he has .done work in Englewood, and
throughout the state of Colorado. Mr. Braun stated he would be most
interested in comments of the residents of single-family homes next
to the apartment houses on the matter of parking. Mr. Braun stated
that he has done projects recently in Jefferson County, Lakewood,
and Federal Heights, and the developers are providing 1-1/2:1 for
one bedroom units; 2:1 for two bedroom units, and 2-1 /2:1 for three
bedroom units. He noted that these standards are not set forth in
the zoning codes as requirements, but are "requirements" of the de-
velopers of the units he has designed. Mr. Braun noted that ef-
ficiency units can have two cars per unit easily, and stated that
the trend for required parking for these units is 1-1/2:1. Mr.
Braun discussed "poorly located" parking, and noted that all tenants
want to "park right in front of their door". He stated that if the
tenant didn't like the location of their particular parking space,
they are inclined to park on the street rather than in their space.
Mr. Braun noted that the City can control on-street parking, and
has the power to restrict any and all parking on the streets. He
stated that he would like to see the City consider requiring parking
on the ratio that the developers of Lakewood, Jefferson County and
Federal Heights seem to be providing in their developments; he stated
that he felt this would stop the encroachment of apartment develop-
ments upon the single-family residential areas. Mr. Braun stated
that the individual home owner has a moral right to .park his vehicle
on the street in front of his home. He stated that he felt if a de-
veloper for an apartment complex needed additional land to meet the
parking requirements and other amenities required of him, then the
developer should get the additional land, and if he does not do so,
then the development should not be permitted.
Mr. Carlson asked Mr. Braun if it would be economically feasible for a developer to provide
the 2:1 parking ratio? Mr. Braun stated that it will be possible to meet these requirements
and have the development be economically feasible. He pointed out that a lot would depend
upon the quality of the development, the size of the development, etc. Mr. Braun pointed
out that there must be additional "give and take" on the part of the City, and cited, for
example, that the setback requirements which were feasible ten or twenty years ago are not
necessarily practical today. He stated that each development should be reviewed individually
to get the best for the City as a whole.
Mr. Virgil Thomas -stated that it seemed to him that the City needed to work toward control
of density; he noted that the more people that are crowded into a small
area the more problems exist. Mr. Thomas stated that he didn't feel the
2:1 ratio would work a hardship on the builders and developers, and he
felt that the quality of construction would be up-graded. Mr . Thomas
further stated that he felt there should be more open space between the
apartment buildings than is being required; he stated that this could
be planted and landscaped, and he felt that such a step would improve
the quality of the environment.
Mr. Braun pointed -out that the "regulations are not retro-active", and stated that "what we.
have existing today we are stuck with until they are torn down and replaced." He stated
that he and Mr. Thomas are trying to get across the point that what is required and built
according to those requirements today, "We are stuck with tomorrow." He stated that he was
asking "for a better tomorrow."
Mr. Peterson
Chamber of Commerce -stated that the members of the Chamber of Commerce are concerned about
the quality of construction in the City. He .stated that if the quality
was improved, he felt the developer could be assured of a better
occupancy rate in the future. Mr. Peterson pointed out that there is
now no vacancy rate in Englewood, and the developers can demand what
they want to. Mr. Peterson stated he would like to see the 2:1 ratio
"across the board", and stated that he felt "it will average out." Mr.
Peterson stated that he felt the City might be encouraging developers
to build a greater number of efficiency units by requiring only 1:1
parking for this particular type unit. Mr. Peterson stated that he
felt the residents of single-family units in a multi-family zoned
district should be interviewed on the parking situation. Mr. Peterson
stated that he was asked to speak for Chamber of Commerce President
Allen, and stated that Mr. Allen is a contractor and has built several
apartment buildings; plenty of parking is provided, and Mr. Allen has
felt that the additional expense this has caused will be returned.
Page 1368
Mr. Thomas commented that responsible builders should realize that the best interest of the
community is also their best interest.
Mr. Weist stated that he felt there was an attitude in Englewood that "we have enough apart-
ments". He asked if, in the control of population density, it was felt that additional
parking requirements, more space between buildings, etc. was the appropriate way to approach
it? Mr. Supinger stated that if the City wanted to control the population density, he felt
that parking requirements was not the correct way to do · so. Mr. Supinger pointed out that
there is a great deal of land zoned for apartment use that is not so developed.
Mr. Lentsch asked· if the City shou1d set a goal of the number of apartments that is felt to
be feasible? Mr. Supinger stated that he felt it should be the concern .of every community
to have "goals".
Mr. Peterson stated he wasn't thinking particularly of limiting the population density,
but that he was concerned about the quality of construction. He stated that he "isn't
eager to see three-story apartments all over town."
Discussion followed. Mrs. Henning stated that she was concerned, and pointed out that we
are considering a "problem of cars", which wouldn't be totally solved with more parking
spaces. She pointed out that she felt an improved mass transportation system would be of
great aid in the solution of this problem. Mrs. Henning noted that she felt the parking
ratios for efficiency units should be raised to 1-1/2:1, but not to 2:1.
Mr. Carlson asked what ratio was felt appropriate for guest parking? He suggested perhaps
1:4? Mr. Supinger stated that he felt this might be too high, and suggested possibly 1:10.
Discussion followed. Mrs. Romans discussed a situation of an apartment owner who was
allowed to build an apartment house (27 units) and provide four less parking spaces than
was required at that time. The developer later attempted to provide additional parking
on the rear of lots he owned across the alley from the apartment house, but was denied by
the Board of Adjustment and Appeals after opposition from .neighbors.· Mrs. Romans stated
there was need for "loading space" and spaces for the service vehicles which necessarily
frequent apartment units. It was .also pointed out by Mrs. Romans ·that there is usually a
charge for an off-street parking space, and some tenants will park on-street rather than
pay the fee. Discussion followed.
Lentsch moved:
Weist seconded: The Planning Department staff be directed to draft an amendment to the
Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance requiring off-street parking spaces to
be provided for guest parking on a rBtio of 1:5 (one space for each
five units)·, and raising the requirement for an efficiency unit to
1-1/2:1. This proposed amendment is to be submitted to the Planning
·Commission for further study and the setting of a public hearing date.
'I
Discussion followed. Mr. Berardini noted that whatever the minimum standards are that may
be established by a .City, they become the maximum standards for the developer. Further
discussion followed.
The vote was called; the motion carried with Mr. Senti voting nay.
IV. STATE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT
1972 -73 Work Program
CASE #24-71
Mr. Supinger stated that an addendum to the staff report had been prepared and given numbers.
Set forth in the addendum are staff recommendations for projects to be included in the re-
quest to the State Highway Department for the 1972 -73 Work Program.
Mr. Waggoner discussed the various categories and how they are funded. He noted that the
TOPICS program is to be gradually phased out. Discussion followed. Mr. Supinger noted that
the Planning Department staff could not recommend that the over-passes, at U. S. 285 and
Logan or Sherman and U.S. 285 and Elati Street, be included in the request.
Mr. Lentsch asked who drafted the requests to .the Highway Department, and asked why the re-
quests couldn't be submitted to the Planning Commission far enough in advance that they would
have sufficient time for adequate consideration of the requests? Mr. Supinger stated that
the requests were drafted by the Planning Department and Public Works Department. He pointed
out that the notification from Arapahoe County had been received by the City on October 4,
1971, and that notification from the State had been received in the Planning Department on
September 27th.
Mr. Weist asked if any of the items could be considered "controversial?" Mr. Supinger stated
that he felt the request that Clarkson from Yale to Littleton Boulevard be placed on the
Federal Urban System could very well be controversial. Mr. Supinger stated that there would
be a meeting at the Greenwood Village City Hall on October 13th, at which time the matter of
Clarkson Street and other matters would be discussed. He stated .that this would be a meeting
with Planning Commissioners of the jurisdictions concerned, and hoped that members of the
Commission would make an effort to attend.
The matter of establishing priorities was discussed. Mr. Waggoner stated that Dartmouth
Avenue and South Santa Fe Drive was a very bad intersection and that something must be done
to improve it. Mr. Waggoner also pointed oµt that the proposed widening of Broadway is of
great importance to the downtown merchants. He also discussed the drainage problem at South
Federal Boulevard and West Union Avenue.
Patrick moved:
Lentsch seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to the City Manager the following be
submitted to the State Highway Department for inclusion in the 1972 -
73 Work Program:
Federal Aid Urban System:
Add to System:
I
I
I
I
I
I
Page 1369
a. Clarkson from Yale to Littleton Boulevard.
b. Quincy from Yosemite to Wadsworth.
c. Yale from University to Federal.
d. Windermere and Santa Fe Lane from Ridge Road to Kenyon.
e. Kenyon from Santa Fe Drive to Broadway.
f. Union Avenue from Federal Boulevard to Windermere.
g. Tufts from Windermere to Broadway,
Urban System --Construction Projects:
1. Broadway from Yale to U.S. 285 to be widened to same width as Broadway south of Quincy,
providing left-turn pockets.
2. Clarkson from U.S. 285 to Littleton Boulevard.
Construction Projects:
1. Improve West Dartmouth Avenue at its intersection with South Santa Fe Drive by widening
both the east and west approaches to accommodate two lanes in each direction, with a
left-turn pocket. It is recommended that the west approach be 300 feet long and that
the east approach be 250 feet long.
There is a 60 foot right-of-way on Dartmouth and it is proposed that 56 feet of this
right-of-way be utilized for the traffic lanes and left-turn pocket --the left-turn
pocket would be 10' wide and the two inner lanes 11' wide, and the two outside lanes
12' wide.
2. South Santa Fe Drive widened and improved to a six-lane major arterial.
3. Improvements to the Santa Fe Drive and West Union Avenue intersection, extending Union
across Santa Fe to Windermere and then tieing into West Tufts Avenue.
4. Broadway from U.S. 285 to Quincy to be widened to the same width as Broadway south of
Quincy with a painted median providing left-turn pockets.
5. Widen Belleview from Clarkson to Santa Fe with left-turn pockets at those intersections
where a study shows they are warranted.
6. Improve the off-lane from U. S. 285 westbound onto East Hampden Avenue at approximately
South Lafayette Street.
7. Install storm sewer at Federal and Union.
8. Storm inlets on the north side of Belleview from Elati to Big Dry Creek.
TOPICS:
1. Signalization of the Santa Fe/Union intersection.
2. Replace the existing controller and signal heads for more efficient operation at South
Downing and East Dartmouth.
3. Add another group to the master traffic control system which will take counts every 15
minutes and adjust the master controller to accommodate the heavy flow of traffic.
Mr. Weist asked why the over-passes would be deleted? Mr. Waggoner stated that he would .
like to speak in favor of inclusion of the over-passes. He noted that there is considerable
pedestrian traffic crossing U.S. 285, that the highway is a very wide street, and that when
pedestrians use the push-buttons to cross the highway, it backs traffic up for several blocks.
If pedestrians don't use the push-buttons, they cannot cross the highway in the time allotted
the cross-street movement. He stated that if the over-passes were installed, all ground-
level crossings would be eliminated; he felt this action would force the pedestrian to use
the overpass, and improve traffic movement along U.S. 285. Mr. Carlson asked Mr. Waggoner
if school children crossing at Logan and Sherman streets were causing a problem? Mr. Waggoner
indicated that the children crossing ·at these points were of concern, and stated that at one
time an under-pass had been considered, but in light of problems that could result from that,
the over-passes seemed to be the best solution to the situation. Brief discussion followed.
The vote was called; the motion carried, Mr. Weist and Mr. Barton voting nay.
V. FLOOD PLAIN DISTRICT CASE #25-71
Mr. Supinger stated that the date for Public Hearing on this amendment to the Comprehensive
Zoning Ordinance had been moved from October 19th to November 9th. He suggested that the
proposed amendment could be discussed at the meeting of October 19th.
VI. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE
Mr. Supinger discussed the meeting with representatives of Greenwood Village, Littleton,
Cherry Hills Village, Arapahoe County and Englewood, which has been scheduled for October
13, at Greenwood Village City Hall, 5788 South Ulster Street. He pointed out that this
meeting will be devoted to discussion of projects submitted to the State Highway Depart-
ment for inclusion in the 1972-1973 Work Program. Mr. Supinger urged members to attend
this meeting, if possible.
Mr. Berardini gave the results of the annexation election held October 5th in an area west
of Santa Fe Drive which both Englewood and the City of Sheridan had tried to annex. The
results were: For annexation --3; Against Annexation --23; For annexation to Englewood
--6; For annexation to Sheridan --3.
Page 1370
VII. COMMISSION'S CHOICE.
Mr. Carlson discussed a letter he had received from the League of Women Voters regarding the
establishment of bicycle trails in the City of Englewood. Mr. Carlson stated that the City
of Littleton has established such trails, and the City of Denver has the matter under con-
sideration at the present time.
Mr. Supinger stated that City Manager Dial asked him to make a recommendation on the proper
approach to this matter. Mr. Supinger stated that he had received a letter from the City
of Denver on the establishment of bicycle trails, and that he had suggested in reply that
the cities should work together on the establishment o f the bicycle trails, and asked that
a meeting be called for this purpose. Mr. Carlson asked that Planning Director Supinger
answer the letter from the LWV and suggest that the staff is working on the matter.
Mr. Lentsch reported on the Conference for Planning Officials held in Boulder September 30
and ctober 1. He stated that he would like to have Mr. Joe Simmons, who was a speaker at
the Conference, meet with the City Planning Commission and City Council. Mr. Lentsch stated
that he felt Mr. Simmons' presentation was excellent, and he felt a roundtable discussion
would be very worthwhile.
Mrs. Henning stated that she was very impressed with Mr. Simmons' presentation also.
Mr. Senti stated that he felt the entire conference was "excellent."
Mr.Patrick stated that he was very interested in discussion on Boulder's attempt to limit
population density; he noted that it seemed to be the concensus that such an attempt would
not stand up in court.
There was discussion on the procedure of submission of the Planning Commission minutes and
recommendations to City Council.
Lentsch moved.
Mosbarger seconded: The meeting be adjourned.
The motion carried; the meeting adjourned at 10:30 P.M .
Gertrude G. Welty
Recording Secretary
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
I. CALL TO ORDER.
CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
October 19, 1971
The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at
8:03 P.M. by Chairman Carlson.
Members present: Senti ; Vobejda; Carlson; Lentsch; Barton; Patrick ;
Supinger, Ex-officio
Members absent: Weist; Henning; Mosbarger
Also present: City Attorney Berardini
--- ----- -- ---- - - --- - - --- --- -
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES.
Mr. Carlson stated that the Minutes of October 5, 1971, were to be considered for approval.
Lentsch moved:
Patrick seconded: The Minutes of October 5, 1971, be approved as written.
Discussion followed.
The vote was called; the motion carried.
Mrs. Henning entered the meeting and took her seat with the Commission.
Mr. Weist entered the meeting and took his seat with the Commission.
III. AMENDMENT TO COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE . Case #25-71A
Flood Plain District
Mr. Supinger referred the Commission to the copy o f the Flood Plain Regulations which they
had received at the last meeting. He reminded them that the Public Hearing on the .proposed
Zone District will be on November 9, 1971.
Mrs. Romans was asked to outline the proposed Ordinance for the Commission.
Because there are several new members of the Commission woo may not be familiar with the
National Flood Insurance Program, which Program has occasioned the necessity for the City's
action on the Flood Plain District, Mrs. Romans first reviewed the Flood Insurance Program.
•I
I
I
I