HomeMy WebLinkAbout1971-07-06 (Public Hearing) Meeting Agenda Packet-
------= -~
., ..
•
0
•
" . . .
•
0
I . .
,
-•
• •
(~;;7 '-1. . Jr-f/~.1 Geo. H. Allen Construction Co.
/ 3460 South Sherman Street -Suite 104 -Eng lewood, Colo. 80110
Telephones: 781 -7102 -781 -7755
•
June 15 , 1971
Honorable Elmer Schwa b
4795 So . Inca
Englewood , Colorado 80 110
Dear l'r . Sch wa b:
C O FFICIAL lTY CO U '·,~"-r.OCU MENT
. '
Jt.l6 '/1
Cl COU NCIL h1 EETI 'G FI LE
T'( OF ENGL E WOOD, COLO.
I understand a very imp ortant recommendation is coming before the council
on July 6 , 1971 , regarding an increase in off-street ~arking in all resi-
dential areas, and for new multiple-family units, in particular . I would
like t o emphasize the importance of increasing this new provision for off-
str eet parking from one space per a artment to two spaces per apartment .
(I believe the request is going to be for an average of 11 spaces per
apartment.)
I have been in the a~artment rental business for many years, and eX}er-
ience has taught me that tHo spaces per unit is not excessive ; and it
·~ould be economically f easible , if required before the project can be
put together . '/hen builders are alloNed to build these units without
enough parking , this opportunity is lost f oreve r .
At the resent time, apartment house builders are imp o sing a burden on the
neighborhood , by lining each side of the street with tenant arking. Thus,
instead of improving the a r ea , they are in fact , degrading the neighborhood,
as we ll as creating a traffic hazard for vehicles and a danger to children
in the area .
I ho~e the members of the council and the city staff realize that streets
are provided for safe and sane handling of traffic, and not for bum er
to bumt'er rarkin for t · o blocks in each d irection from an apartment house .
Very truly yours ,
Gl:':dy
''
• .
I • •
·' \ I
I I .. .,.
]-
PUBLISHER'S AFFIDAVIT
STATE OF COlORADO, )
)n.
COUNTY OF . ·Arapahoe )
I, l . I . Niaon, do .olemnly swear that I On'l
1M au,;,.., Manage• of . .The. .En c;le:\-100 d
.... Herald.Sentinel .. ·
ftlot the tome i1o a weekly newspaper publi.Md
Englewood
"'"'"C;tyaf ..............•.
• • • • • • • • • • • 0.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Stote of Coloroclo. and hos a venetol c.irc.ulo ·
--· -IGHI -opope< ha• been pvb· ilhed ~y oncl "ninterrvpted.,. '-' totd
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
fot o period of mare than 52 weeks pr~r to
the ftnt pvblicotlon of tM oftne•ed notke, that
10id newtpa,., is entered in th. post otffc.e at
En~;l3 wood
,;...;..;..;._ .... ~d.;,; ..;.a,;..;..;.~.-..-~
tN toicl MWtPOpet' is o ...-spoper w~i n the _..... ................ o.-a~ .... ........, of ....
Soate ol Colo<ocla . opp<O..d Ma«h JO . 1913 .
and entit4ed "leeol Notices ond •dvertiwments''
oMf ..._ •" reloti"O to the pr intin~ ond pub·
Wotiftl ef ..... notice• ond odwettiwmenh; that .... _ .... --· ............ ;. .... ,...to.
an-d entire •.•.•.••.•• •
. . . . . . . .
tnwe of 10M:t newtpoper for the period of
2
• , • • • COftMC11t1wt~ intertion'l that the fint
June 16
pubt'tcotion of toid newspaper dated . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . 19.7.], .... and,.,_
kl tt pvblfcottoft of 10id ftOtfce was fn the iswe
.June .23
19~
"""'Mono~r
29 .... , .. ,.blOc ...... . .
Juno ........ "?~
9<.-::~~-~.?f. I? t?"«4-1 . .... ..., ,vblo<
•
•
• •
..
1'1 • '.,._(J It
c cou r..;cJL I' .
11):: OF' E NGL E ' ·r:; F I LE
Wooo, COLO .
-NOTI~ ..,,. I'UIILIC
HEARING
Notice is hereby given ·that
the City council of the City ol
Englewood. Colorado, shall
hold a public hearing to
commence at 1 :00 P .M . on
Tuncley, July 6. t971, in City
Hall, 3400 South Elati Street.
Englewood. Colorado, on a Bill
for an Ordinance amending
Chapter 22.5·5a ( 10l of the
comprehensive zoning
ordinance. Ordinance No. 26.
SerieS of 1963. entitled "Private
Off-Street Perking Standards
tor Residential Uses ." by
increasing the required off ·
street parking requirements for
residentiaiUHS .
lsi Stephen A. L.yon
City Clerk
Published in the Englewood
Herald : J11111l6. 1971
'
......
"'-. . '
• .
,;
I • •
0
•' f 2
-
PUBLISHER'S AFFIDAVIT
ST ... TE Of COlORADO. } ,. ..
COUNTY Of . ·Arapahoe )
I, l. I . Niaon, do wlemnly •weor that I om
t+oeluoi.,.., Monog« of .. The .. Enc;le.\<IOOd
. . . . Herald .Sentinel .. ·
ftlot the 101M i• o wee~ly news,poper pvblt.Md
Englewood
intt..C;oyol. ...
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
Counly of -Arep-a:ho·e ·
.................
State of Colorodo. and ho• o teMrol c:irc:u&o ·
lion therein; thot toid new'PQper hen beef, pub-
lished contin~•ly and uninteuuptedly in t.OKI
County of Arapahoe· · · · · ·
~ ~--~~· ~~ ~'~ tkn .52 w-"' pr;o, to
the first publication of the onne•ed notke, ttwlt
toed ne•1p0per i• en,.red in the po•t oif-« ot
Eng~ wood .....................
.....................
Co&oroclo . Ol teeond doll mail ma"•' and lf'H)t
the toid .....,.,oper it o newlPQper within the
........ ol .... oct ol .... General ...... mbly ol "'"
Soo,. ol Colo<oclo. opp<o,.d Mo"h 30. 1913 ,
and ent;tted "L.vol Noticet and Advertitement\"
ond othet oct\ relot;ng to the P''"''"9 and pub·
WMAcl of \eeol noticea ond odwerti .. rnenh, that
tho -aod --publiohod ;., tt.. r011ulor
ondentire . ................
1nue of lOtd newlfKiper for the period of
2 . . . . . • conM<uri.,. in.ertion\; thot the tint
June 16
publicatfon of toid Mwspoper dated . . .
. . . . . . . . . 197.1.. .... and ....
latt pubticotiott of aatd M)tke wot in th• i\we
.June 2)
··~
""'' Mo nooer
29 •• 4oyof P\lbltc:, thit ...
June 19 7~.
•
·,
•
• •
OFFICIAL
CITY C OL' 11""'1l f"lOCU MENT
)
~! L 6 I 1
IJI -
c ou r ~~ iL ~~;_ -i :; Fi! E
CITY OF ENGL E \000. CO LO •
. -NOT I~ U~ ..uaL.tC
HEARING
NotiCe is hereby given that
the City Council of tile City of
Englewood, Colorado. shall
llold 1 pu.blic hearing to
commence at 1 :00 P .M. on
Tuesday, July 6. 1971, in City
Hall, ~00 South Elati Street,
Englewood. Colorado, on 1 Bill
tor an Ordinance amending
Chapter 22 .S·Sa ( 10) of tile
comprehensive zoning
• ~:=~c~~r:,:~i~l~e .. =~i"v!~
Off·Street Parking Standards
tor Residential uses." by
increasing the required off ·
street parking requirements for
raidenllai uses .
/s/ Stephen A. L.yon
City Clerk
Published in tile Englewood
Herald : June 16. 1971
·' \ !
.,.
I
• .
•
f
'I
•
0
2X
•
• •
C ITY c~•~ ~!1 C I A L
--. ~~CU MENl'
.· ~ 6 'II
c ou·.-::.rL r
C ITY OF EN '--·· lG FILE
GLEWOOO CO
MEMORANDUM to Honorable Mayor & City Council from J. L. Sup!ng~:
Dated May 21, 1971.
STAFF REPORT to Planning Commission.
Dated May 4, 1971.
MINUTES OF PLANNING COMMISSION: May 4, 1971 May 18, 1971
MEMORANDUM to Englewood City Council submitted by order of Planning
and Zoning Commission. Dated May 18, 1971; signed by
Gertrude Welty, Recording Secretary.
REPRINT: Chapter 75, Off-Street Parking and Parking Lots
Rathkopf.
PARKING STUDY: Tustin California .
Dated May 11, 1970 Dated November 12, 1968, revised 5/11/70.
PUBLISHER'S AFFIDAVIT: Notice o f Hearing. Published Juoe 16 and June 23, 1971
• .
I . •
.. .• I I
I
" ' 2
•
•
0
•
CITY c%r r.1 C l 4 L
r 'XUMENT
I I
co TO : Honorable Mayor and City Council
via Stanley H. Dial, City Manager CITY OF Ef.(,LE. . FI LE
,\ OOO, COLO.
FROM · City Planning & Zoning Commission
SUBJECT : Amendment of Parking Regulations in Residential
Districts
The City Planning and zoning Commission, at its meetin g May
18, 1971, voted 7-0 (two members abs e nt) to recommend repeal
of parking regulations in individual residential districts
and to amend §22.5-5a(l0) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance
to change reside nt ial parking requirements as follows:
From : ----One (1) off-st reet parking space/dwelling unit.
Type of Unit Required Off-Street Parking
Single-Family DWellings ..••••• Two (2) spaces/unit
To :
Two or More Family Dwellings
Efficiency Unit .•••••...• One (1) space/unit
On e or Two Bedroom Units .•..•.•....•.•• one and one-half (1-1/2)
spaces/unit.
Three o r More Bedroom
Units •.••.•.•.•..•.• Two (2) spaces/unit
Respe~~tted,
~:S L. SUPINGER '?fY
D1recto of Planning
Fo r
C1 t y Plann1n g · Zoning Commi s1on
gw
enc · Staff R port dat d May 4, 1971
11nutes of May 4, and May 18 .
Rathkopf on zon1ng Rep r1 nt
Tu t1n, alifornia Park1ng Study
c : Arcln t cts
D v lop rs
C'ham b t' of ommer c
May 21, 1971
•
' '
•' \ t
I
!
I
. (
• •
t
-
•
•
0 -
STAFF REPORT PARKING REQUIREMENTS
Page --l~-------------------------·-----------C~a~s~e~#~9_-~7~1~-----------
Staff Report Re :
Proposed amendment of parking regulations for res1dent1al
ses.
Date to be Considere d :
May 4 1 1971
Name of App11cant:
C1ty of Englewood
Request :
The amendment of §22.5-5 a (10) of the Comprehensive
Zontng Ordinance. (Parking regulations for resident1al uses.)
FROM: One (1) space per dwelling unit
TO : On e FamilY Residential Unit---Two (2) spaces per unit
Two o Mo e Dwelling Un1ts Effic1ency Unit------------one (1) space per unit.
One or Two Bedroom Un1ts---one and one-half (1 1 /2)
spaces per unit.
Three or more Bedroom Units---Two (2) spaces per
unit.
Subje t Area:
All R s 1dential Zone Districts (R-1-A, R-1-B, and R-1-C
S1n g l -fam11y Res1dent1al; R-2-A and R-2-B Two-famllY Residen-
tla1 ; R-3 -A and R-3-B Multi -family Residential ; and R-4 Residen-
Ltal /P of e s ional .)
Ba kgtound of Prev1ou Act1on :
Th 1955 Zon1ng Ordinance established the present ratio
of one pa1k1ng pace per dwell1ng un1L and the ratio was not
change d w1th the adoption of th 1963 0 dinance. S1nce that
t1me and pat•tlcularly 111 the last several years with the 1n-
c ea s d apat tm e nt house con truction and the crowding of streets
tn all re s 1d nt1al ar as---single family zone districts in-
Iuded, thet·e has b en considerable informal d1scussion as to
th 1nadequa y of this ratio. No off1cial action has been
tak n unt1l thl S t1me.
,_
•
I • •
' 2
-
•
•
•
0
•
STAFF REPORT
Page -2-
Planning Department Recommendation:
PARKING REQUIREMENTS
Case #9-71
It is recommended that §22.5-5 a (10) of the Comprehensive
Zoning Ordinance (parking regulations for residential uses) be
amended as follows:
One Family Res1dential Unit--------Two (2) spaces per
unit.
Two or more Dwelling Units:
Efficiency Unit------------------One (1) space per
unit.
One or Two Bedroom Units---------One and one-half (1 1/2)
spaces per unit.
Three or More Bedroom Units------Two (2) spaces per
unit.
Comments from Other Departments:
Fire: "Traffic and parking congestion is one of major
concern-Dy all city departments, but.probably mor~ especially
the Fire Department since we rely greatly upon the movement
of fire trucks and ladder trucks, and our efficiency depend
to some degree upon the proximity to wh1ch we may approach an
emergency.
"The heavy parking congestion and traffic associated with
apartment complex have come to our attention and was part of
the consideration when we recommended and was successful in
the Council having adopted Ordinance #4, Ser1es of 1971 (copy
attached). This does not necessarily regulate the amount of
park1n g spaces, but it could and does give us the authority to
reduce parking spaces in private parking areas where additional
fire lanes, or ingress is required by emergency vehicles . We
would hope that this would not be necessary around small apart-
ment units.
"We agree that to deal adequately with this park1ng problem,
the extension of the Ord1nance to require additional parking
s pace s sePms to be a easonable approach".
Police : Th e conce n of the Police Department 1s related
to autos, c ampers, vans, etc. pu·king on-street too close to
i nte sections and dr1veways, thus causing visibility and turning
p oblerns.
. .
•.
,
I • •
. ,
-
•
•
0 -
STAFF REPORT PARKING REQ UIREMENTS
Page --3~-----------------------------------~C=a=s~e~#~9~-~7~1~-----------
Public Works (Tr·af fie):
pa k1ug' requ1rPments for new
JUStification for a change in
fo each unit.
"The present 'off-street
apartment units have prove n
the number of stalls equ1 ed
"At thrs t1m the on-street parking is being fully ut1l1zed in
the lo ale of these buildings, thereby causing complaints from
single fasily reside nces.
"lt l.S recommended the pre sent requirement of one stall per
un1 t be t'al. ed to 1 1 /2 stalls for a one-bedroom unit and 2
stalls fot each large unit ."
Plann i ng Department: Concerns relat1.ve to the adequacy
of off-sbeel park1ng in esident1.al areas have been well-
known among the Planning Department staff and the Planning
Commission for some time. Rumors have been circulating for
some t1.me among developers and Architects that the City was
going to increase its off-st reet parking requl. ements.
From ins pection of residential areas the staff has come to the
op inion that the change should be made now rather than wait1ng
for the complete new zoning ord1nance. The proposed change
w1ll base parking on the number of bed ooms in the dwelling
unit. This ha8 been found to be a successful way of gaug1ng
the amount of parking spaces needed, particularly 1.n multiple
family areas, wh1.ch constitute most of our new residential
construction .
It should be noted that the provision of additional off-street
parking will not necessar1.ly solve the p oblem of on-street
park1ng . This problem will only be lessened if oft-street
spaces are more convenient for the users than are the on-
tree t spaces:-An o d1nance is presently being developed
whi c h will r·estrict parking near intersections because of
vi ibl.ll.ty problems. On-street parking near dr1.veways has
e ulted in driver having to tut·n into the dr1veways from
the wrong lane resulting in a violation.
Another problem aused by the present massive use of on-treet
parking is that there 1s little or no space for parking of
delive y and service vehicles. Consequently, they double park.
Park1ng p1oblems are not un1.que to Englewood. Denver ha
recently han g ed its standard in multiple fam1ly areas to 1 1 /2
s pace s per dwell1n g unit. Aurora and L1.ttleton are considering
changes a s follow s :
,._
I • •
.• \ ! '
,.
•
•
0
•
STAFF REPORT PARKING REQUIREMENTS
------------~C~a~s~e~#~-9~-7~1~----------Page ± ___ ------
Au o r a
Single Family ••.......•...•••.••• 2 spaces /dwelling unit
Multipl e family
1 & 2 bedroom units •••....•.••• l 1/2 spaces/dwelling
unit.
3 b e dt·oom units ••..••..•.•.•••• 2 spaces/dwelling unit
4 or mot ·e bedroom units ........ 2 1/2 spaces/dwelling
unit.
Littl e ton
Single Family .................... 2 spaces /dwelling unit
Multiple Family ••••••....••...••• l 1 /2 spaces/dwelling
unit.
We have been told by several developers that this proposed
change will cau e residential development to stop and the City
will lose new tax base. Two general answers to this are
appropriate :
1 . Res1dential uses, except those of ultra-high value, do not
''pay the1r way " fiom a property tax point of view.
2. The c1ty should not be saddled w1th problems caused by
developments, but should learn from expe ience and establ1sh
standards which will not result In problems.
The Planning Department recommends approval of the p oposed up-
gr ade d o f f -s t eet parkin g e quirement for residential develop-
ment s .
Re p ec tfull y u bmttted , ,.,
' a~~~~;-~-~r · ~
AMES • SUPINGER (/ t/
/Di e c lat· of Plann1ng P --"'
c · A1 c h1t ct
D v e lope t
hambe t of Comm e rce
•.
-
I • •
•· ' r I
~
•
•
CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MAY 4, 1971
I. CALL TO ORDER.
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
I I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES.
April 20,1971
Mr. Lentsch stated that the Minutes of April 20, 1971, were to be con-
sidered 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 ~2.5-3(f)
Re: Filling Stations
Henning moved:
Lone seconded: The Public Hearing b~ opened.
CASE #8-71
Mr. Senti entered the meeting and assumed his chair with the Commission.
Mr. Lentsch called for the ·vote on the motion; the motion carried.
Mr. Lentsch asked Mr. Supinger to give the background of this matter.
·Mr. Weist entered and assumed his chair with the Commission.
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 contained 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 re-
peal 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 stan-
dard s" might enable a service station to be located near a school, but
that the r evisi on has not been prepared, and the staff feels at the
present time the repeal of the last portion of the present section is
sufficient.
-1-
•.
I • •
'
•
•
Mr. Lone asked if it would be possible for a gasoline storage tank, sale
of gasoline, etc. to be located nearer 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 portion of the section re-
lating to the 500 ft. limit between service station property lines Mr.
Kramer stated he felt the entire section should be rewritten.
Mr. George Partridge, representative
of Skelley Oil Company -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 ~tations 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 re-
quested 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 snrvice 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 road that ''no filling station or accessory use which sells gaso-
line product s be allowed within 500ft." Discussion followed. Mr.
Supinge r stated that there was one situation where a filling station is
to b e placed within 500' of another service station, and that any delay
,_
I
in th e effec tive date of the Ordinance will, of course, affect these plans.
-2-
•.
I • •
f
•
•
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.
IV. AMENm!ENT OF ZONING ORDINANCE
§22.5-5a(l0T
Re: Parking Standards in Resi-
dential Districts.
Patrick moved:
Mosbarger seconded: The Public Hearing be opened.
The motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Lentsch asked for the background on this hearing.
CASE #9-71
Mr. Supinger stated that this Public Hearing relates to parking require-
ments as given in the Compr~1ensive Zoning Ordinance for residential
uses. At the present time, private off-street parking is required one
space 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 Units ••••.•••••••.•.••• 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 pr~blems 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 -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 transportation; 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 "dcvelopment would be a "very realistic amen ment".
-3-
. '
I • •
I (
I
~
1
•
Mr. Al Snyder
Almar Company
•
60 S. Lincoln St. -stated he •as a developer in Englewood. Mr. Snyder
,._
stated that he would have to go along with the parking
requ ire ments, 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 most developers would
take this route rather than face the financial problems of providing the
1-1/2 to 2 spaces propo sed for multi-family developme nts. Mr. Snyder
stated he felt that some method of enforcement would have to be instituted
to ensure that pe rs ons 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 pro-
vide 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 ge~ financing for a project
such as an apartment 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 pro-
vide 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 build many two-
bedo:-oom units. Mr. Anderson noted that his firm was considering another
de~elopment in Englewood, and while they would try to comply with the
propos e d parking standards, if approved, they couldn't comply 100%. He
also noted that the set-back requirements in Englewood are much "tougher
than in Denver". Mr. Anderson urged theCommission to study the proposal
very seriously, noting that it was "easy to put regulations on", but
difficult to remove them.
Rich Diechmann
Shield Realty -stated that he was neither for nor against the proposal.
He questioned the economics if the proposal were approved.
He noted that the cost of the land and development could not be re-
captured in the rental of the units. Mr. Diechmann stated that the Com-
mission 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
house s . Mr. Diechmann discussed the ground cost ratio, and stated that
develop rs preferred the ratio of $1,000 to $1,200 per unit, rather than
the $1,500 to $1,900 they are paying now, and with the increased parkin g
requirements the ground cost ratio will rise to $2,700 to $2,800 per
unit. Mr. Dicchmann stated that this could not be recovered through the
rentals, and the developer just will not come to Englewood under these
conditions. Mr. Diechmnnn noted that there arc •any old homes in Engle-
wood, but they ar pri d "to what the ground is worth for multi-family
dcvclopm•nt"; h felt if this co ntinued, it would "price the d eve loper
-4-
I • •
1 r
I f
or
•
•
out of the market ". ~l r. Diechmann stated that the increased pat·king
requ irements will "d e tract from th e desirabil i ty of Eng lewood" for
dev e l ope rs. ~lr. Diechmann a g re e d that the parking increase is n eede d,
but the City should con sid e r the economics and growth of the City.
Mr. Le nt sc h a s k e d Mr. Diechmann where theCity would get th e e xtra
parkin g if th e dev e lope r s aren't required to provid e it?
Mr. Di echmann stated it came down to a matter of de c lining areas and
economic s v s . parking and traffic problem s . He a s ked which wou ld be
satisfied first, the parking and traffic, or the economics.
Mr. AI Snyder stated he felt the City should work alon g oth e r lines to
enforce off-stree t parking rather than requiring additional parkin g to
be provided---the City should work on the "street parkin g". He stated
he felt the proposal needed "more consideration",
Lone moved:
Henning s econd e d: The Public Hearing be closed.
The motioncarried unanimously.
Lone moved:
Patrick seconded: The matter be tabled for further consideration.
The motion carried, Mrs. Henning and Dr. Walsh opposing.
Discussion followed.
VI. USE NOT MENTIONED
Dog . Kennel in 1-2
Zone District.
CASE #10-71
Mr. Supinge r stated that Mrs. Gladys Neece and Mr. John Kochis, appli-
cants , want to have a dog kennel at 1860 West Dartmouth Avenue. They
will have Greyhound s , and Pekinese and Poodle dogs. Mr. Supinge r noted
that a do g k e nnel is not listed as a pet~itted use in 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 fe~ puppies ea<~ year. Mr.
Supinge r stated that he felt the application by the Harrington's was
for a "hobby" kennel, but that this application by Mrs. Neece and Mr.
Kochis was very definitely for a "commercial" kennel. Mr. Supinger
noted that the staff report on the matter was prepared and sent to the
Commis si on prior to receipt of additional information, including the
letter from Mr. Negri, and as a result of this, the recommettl ation of
the staff has been modified.
Mr. Lentsch aske d persons in favor of the request to speak,
Mrs. Neece s tat ed s h e was an applicant for permission to have a dog
kennel at 1860 West Dartmouth Avenue . She stated that she was the real
estate agent for the Harring ton's last year when they applied for per-
mi ssio n to have a k e nnel at this location. She stated that she knew
th e Harringto n's planned to have a g rooming parlor installed, and that
they would se ll puppie s , so she didn't feel it was a "hobby " kenne l.
Mr s . Nee ce noted that at the time of the first application for a kennel,
Mr. Ne g ri, o wn er of land immediately to the east of the subject property,
indicated that h e was not oppose d to the propo se d u se . Now, howeve r,
Mr. Negri has written to the Pla~nin g Director opposing the u se of the
land for a kennel, and ha s stated in that lette r that he ha s "mot•al
re servati ons " about the raising of Gre yhounds, and the me thods of d is-
p osin g of pups and non-wi nners . Mrs. Neece noted that s h e ha s n e ver
put dogs "t o s l ee p ", and that th e t·c is a demand for th e Greyhounds.
-5-
,_
I (
* .
I • •
,
-•
Mrs. Neece fu1·ther noted that the raisers of Greyhounds "don't throw
live rabbits into th e pens for the Greyhound s , but take them out into a
large field and turn the rabbit loose." ~!rs. Neece noted that raising
good dogs is a lu crative bu si n ess . Sh e also stated that Mr. Ne gri was
"disc rimi nating a g ain s t '' her by opposing this kennel. Mrs. Neece
stated that it was a rule that all members of the Colorado Breeders
Association cannot race a do g that is bred and born in another state--
they must be Colorado d ogs . :.Irs . Neece noted that the k e nn el for the
Greyhounds is an empty trailer house with crates already in it to accom-
modate 22 of th e dogs, although she didn't think she would ever have
that many of th e Greyhounds. Mrs. Neece noted that the workshop 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 rais e puppies from
these dogs. She not e d 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 pro-
perty 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.
Discussion followed. Mrs. Henning asked about the use of the residence
as a residence in the 1-2 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 as a kennel and the residence was used for a
"caretaker", then the use of the residence could continue indefinitely.
Further discussion 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
opposition?
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 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. Wal sh 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. David so n 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 hou e 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 Comprehensive Plan shows this property to be
indus trial, ::~nd po inted out that the kennel, if approved by the Com-
mi s ion, would remain ; however, he stated that he felt the proper loca-
tion and zoning for a kennel was an agricultural area and agricultural
zonin '.
-6-
,_
• 0'
•.
I • •
'
•
Mr. Berardini question ed hlr . Zwick on his statement that his client
woul d indemnify hlrs. Neece against loss? Mr. Zwick stated that they
woul d purchase the l and, and t hat Mrs . Neec e would make a Sl,OOO profit.
Mr. Berardi ni asked if t his was a written agreement? Mr. Zwick stated
that 1t was not, but that he •ould be willing to sign such an agreement
at any time . Mrs. Neece stated that this proposal was completely un-
ac ceptable to her. Further discussion followed.
•
Car·lson mov e d:
Henn ing seconded: The request of Mrs. Gladys Neece and Mr. John Kochis
for a k en n e l at 1860 West Dartmouth Avenue be denied
for the fol lowi n g reasons:
(1) The Commission ca nnot see that th e proposal will be an improvement
as far as buildings and ge neral conditions arc concerned over what is in
existancc on the property at the present time.
(2) There ne eds to be additional research done on this matter to deter-
mine th e prope r zone classification and location for a kennel such as
has b een p r oposed by Mrs. Neece.
Furth er 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 Ci ty officials at the time felt that there weren't individual
ownershi p s of a size to accommodate agr·icul tural usage, and furthermore,
the land b ei n g 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. AMEND~!ENT TO ZONING ORDINANCE
§22.5-Sa(l~
Residential Parking Standards
CASE #9-71
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
eccromics alone, and he wasn't convinced that additional research of the
pr0blem was needed. He stated that it was a matter of the Commission's
deciding whether they wanted to up-grade the parking so that 1t meets
the need with the possibility that development will be slowed down for
a period of time, or whether the Commission wanted to encourage develop-
ment with the ensuing p rice of insufficient parking. Mr. Supinger
stated that if the Commission felt they did need additional information
that the staff would be g lad to provide same. Further brief discussion
followed.
Henning moved:
Lone s coude d : The matter be raised from the table.
The mot1on carried unanimously.
Mr s. Henning asked if matters such as set-back requirements, lot cover-
a ge, etc. were under consideration in the revision of the Comprehensive
Zonin g Or·dinance? Mr. Supin ger state d that changes are bt:ing consider·ed
in all areas of the Ordinance. He st ated that the staff is attempting
to put standards in the Ordinance which will allow developers a flexi-
bility in d esig n, etc. Discus ion followed. Mr·. Lentsch commented thnt
th re idcnts of the areas in which apartment houses have been built were
not in attendance to give their opinion on the question. He also com-
mc>ntcd that unl ess extr·a parking space were provided, the cars couldn't
b gotte n off th e strec>ts anyhow. Dr. Walsh agreed this is a key point
in the matter , and also agreed that an enforcement program is needed.
-7-
I • •
,
•
Mr. Sn yder s tat ed th~t h e was definitely concerned with the problem,
and wa nt s to wor k with the city in solving it. He suggested a meeting
of th e d e v e lopers with the Plannin g Commission to see if solutions can
be found. Mr. Snyder pointed out that he has many developments in
Englew o od , and that he has a lot to lose if the correct solutions aren't
found. Mr. Snyder stated that there wasn't too much area in Englewood
avail a bl e for apartment development, and stated that he d~n't feel the
City wo11ld b e faced with a "big problem in the future''.
1\lr. Suping e r common ted 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 1\!r. Diechmann was a
member of th~t Committee. Discussion followed. lllr. 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 theCommission 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 development 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 con-
ference were: l\lrs. Henning, Messrs. Senti, Mosbarge,· and Lentsch.
VIII. BUS TOUR OF THE CITY
May ~97T -------
Mr. Sup1nger stated that the tour of the City for members of the
Planning Commission and the Workable Program Citizens' Committee was
scheduled for lllay 8, 1971, departing from City Hall at 8:30A.M ..
Members of the Commission who indicated they would attend were: Mrs.
Henning, Messrs. Senti, Mosbar·ger, 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 En g lewood.
The meeting adjourned at 11:25
• ·. ,
I • •
f
-•
MEMORA N D U~l TO THE ENGLEI\OOD CITY COUNCIL REGARDING ACTION OR RECOM-
MENDATIO N OF THE CI TY PLA NNI NG & ZONI NG COMMISSION
DAT E: Ma y 4, 1971
SUBJ ECT: Am e ndm e nt of Zoning Ordinanc e : §22.5-3(f)
RE Cm tMEN DATION:. Th e Planning Commission recommend to City Council that
§22.5-3(f) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance be
amended by repe aling th e following portion of that
section: " ••• nor within five hund r ed (500) f eet of
an existing filling station property line."
•
Respectfully submitted,
By Order of the City Planning
and Zoning Commission,
·~ . -:? /~, ( /.v .)!/ z '7 t?t.'-.:_ ,-" // 1\.;-'?
RECORDING SECRETARY
-9-
. '
l •
I . •
0
f X
-
•
•
•
lTY OF E GLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISS ION
May 18, 1971
I . CALL TO ORDER.
Th regulat mcet1ng of the Ctty Plann1ng and Zon1ng Comm1ssion wa ca lled
to ord 1 by Chatrman Lentsch at 8 :05 P. M.
~I miPt·s Pte s nt · We1st; SentJ ; Pat 1ck ; Mosba ge
Lentsch
Supinger, Ex-off1cio
M mb t s ab ent : Walsh ; Lone
Henn1ng; Car l on ;
Al,;o pn•sPnL-C1ty Attorney Berardini ; Assistant Pl a nn1ng Oil ctor
Rom ans.
11. APPROVAL OF MINUTES.
May 4, 1971
hau-man L en ts c h stated that the M1nutes of May 4, 1971, were to be
on~1d red for approval .
Mosbarger moved:
Henn1ng seconded : The M1nutes of May 4, 1971, be app roved a s wr1tte n.
The mot1on ca 1 ried unan1mou sl y .
Ill. AMENmlENT OF ZONING ORDINAN CE
§22. 5-5a (lo)
Re : Park1ng Standards 1n Re 1-
dent1al Distr1ct •
CASE #9-718
MiiY"f' 1 9 71
Ap1 ll 6, 1971
Mr . Supinger tated that th1 · matt wa d1scussed exten 1v ly at the
last meet1ng, and noted that memb of the Commis ion have been g1v n
add1llona l 1nformat1on on th matt this even1ng. One pat o1 th 1n-
format1on I S a s tudy done 1n a Ca liforn ia City in 1968, wh1ch has b n
updated, and the seco nd pot·tion of the add1tional 1nformat1on 1 a re-
p! 111t of 1nform atio n from Rathkopf Law of Zoning.
Mr. Sup1nger stated that he felt htgher standards for tequ1red pa1k1ng
a1 n eded. Mr . Sup1nger stated that he fe lt the C1ty should set park1ng
s tandatd that are felt to be n ces ary, and do not ac pt an d v lop-
m nt~ that don't meet the lo al tandards.
It . Lent ch tated that thP Publt Hearing had been held on thl matter,
but d1 -usst on oJ th e proposal to t•ai e the parking standard 1n re.,t-
d nt1al d1.strtcts ha b n ontt nued . Mr . L entsch asked 1f th •t 11er
p ·t~on~ 1n the audJen who 111 h d to speak 1n favor of th propo al?
Mt. 1-•• Ft..,hktn
1511 E. Dartmouth-sta ted that h an arcl11te l, and ha don ~ v ral
cl v lopments in Aurora, but ha not had an p tOJ ·t s
tn EP~I •11ood . II tat d that he 1s 1n favot• of increas1n g the 1 quued
numbet of <.,paces for off·-tt t parktng. He stated that the propo:::.al 1
tn !1n e 111th th • r qut ements of th JUr1sd1ct1on surround1ng Engl wood.
lr. FtshkJn o:;t ted th t he felt more p ople would be d 1v1ng au lomob1les
unl1l a mas -ttan 1t sys t em 1 a eal1.ty, and that prov1 lOllS mu l b
mad Jot the p, t'k1ng of these a1·s. Mr. Fi hk1n asked 1f pat·k1ng spa
on belnncl th oth would be approved?
Mt. Suptnger· s tat ed that he Jell the ity would accept "land m" patk1ng •
Mt . I~l~hktn Sllf.a:csted that on-str et pa king be con '1det d th "gu st"
park1ug , and that the te n an t s al l be prov1ded spaces off-street. lie
-1-
•
I • •
f
-•
( (
sta t ed that development ~s sti ll going on in Denver , e ven thou gh the re-
qut red parking tandards h a v e been raised, and he d1dn ' t feel the proposal
would "k1l l developm nt" in Englewood as ha s been suggested. He tated
aga1n that he wa i n favor o f the proposal, and felt that 1t wa a ''w 1se
ptopo sa l ".
Mr . Be t ard 1n1 ask ed Mr. F1shk1n about the econom~cs of the propo a l , and
how 1 t ~ould af fect development?
Mr . F1sh k1n stated th at the proposal will "elim1nate" the type of
d velop"t who want s to put "17 unit s on 75 Jt. frontage". l-Ie s tated
that 1f underground park1ng w re required it could well be econom1 cal ly
unf•"a sl bl , but that th 1 -1 /2 :1 isn't; he stated that d e v e lopment s
meet1ng the e standa t ds cou ld be done economically and b e "don e 1ght".
Mr . Al Snyder
Almat· Compa ny
60S . Ltn co l r. St. -tat ed that h e has done "research" on the matt er in
Eng1 wood, driving through the resi denttal area s at
nt g h t, and he agt es that there is a problem. He stated that the l-1 /2 :1
1 s a mu s t, and that it mu t be done in a n orderly way . Mr . Snyder again
qu es t1.oned the proposed 1 :1 for an "eff1ciency" unit, and tated that he
felt 1l too s hould be 1 -1 /2 :1. He further stated that he sttll felt the
se t-ba c k requtrements should be given co n sideratJ_on, pa ticularly on an
''1n ~de lot ". He suggested 7-L /2 ft. on each side for such a lot, and
a 10 ft. front se tba c k. He suggested that automob1le pa rk~n g b e allowe d
in the se tbacks . Mr. Snyder tated th a t h e felt the prese n t 2 5 ft. rear
setback was ne ce s ary, and that maneuver1ng -pa ce was nee d ed for the
pa r kin g p ro v~d e d from the alley. Mr. Snyder tated that he f It the
proposa l wi ll be a good th~n g , and will help defer a s er1ous pa r k~ng
p r oblem 1.n the City of Engl e wood. He u rged that somethtng be done
"~mm edL1 t ly '', de c lartng an emergency ordina n ce o r a mo1 a tot tum on fu -
th r dev e lopme nt unttl the parking requi e ment are f~n a lized.
M1. halm e t sc Park er
3996 South Grant St . -suggested that the efficien y unit s b 1 qu1r d
to provide 1-1 /2 :1 parktn g as the on and two
bedt·oom apar tment will be . Mr. P arker stated that h e wa s tn favor of
a "d •ftntte ·ut-o ff date", and that all apartm e nt bu 1 lt attet· that dat
me t t h tandard rega r dless of how long the dev e loper has owned the
lot.
Ml. L nt
favot• of
h as k ed tf the re we re other person who wt ·hed t o peak ~n
th proposal? No one indicated they w~ hed to peak .
Mr . Lent · h a s ked ~f ther e were p ersons wh o w~shed to s p ak 1n oppos1t1o n
t o the p1oposa l?
MJ . M. M. Summers
3 140 S . Delaware -a s k ed 11 th 1s appl ied to both apartment hou es, and
s1 n g l -fam11y resi dential us es?
~11. Lent :.ch tepll d that the proposa l would apply to all res1d nt1al d~s
t.t ll' t s , but only 1 OJ n w cons tru e t ton.
Mt. Summer· s tat d that he was oppo ed to the proposal a lt a pplted to
th st n g l -f ami ly rc tdenttal use s; as for the appl1cation of the p r o -
posa l to th apat·tm en t ho us s, he stated that he would leave that up to
the C'ommtss ton and th C 1 ty Counctl.
Mt'->. II nntn!-( a s k ed if th pr·oposal, if passed by Coun 11 , would b c om e
e ff cttv immedratcly, or 1f th r would be a d elay untll tt b ·orn e
lfe c tt e? Mr . 8 rardi n1 s t a t d that if an emergency c lau s is ena ·ted,
the ordtnanc wtll become f tnal upon publicat1on afte second rea d i n g.
II tit 't • t ::-; no em y•g ncy c lause , the ord~nance be ·om s e ffe t1v 30 days
aJ t 'l pubhc. t1on Jollowlng sc ond readtn g . D1 io n followed .
-2-
.• \ l
'\'
I
•
•
,
. '
•
-
•
(
H enn ~r.g mov d:
Mo s barget second d: Th Plann~ng CommJ.SS1on recommend to C1 ty CouncJ.l
that the Comprehensive ZonJ.n g Or dinance, §22.5-5a(l0)
be am nd d to requu ·e of·f-stre t pa1k1ng ::;pa ces be provided in re J.d ntial
dtslrt c lb as Jollows:
FRml: On (l) ofJ-s tt·e t p a rk11 g s pa c e /dwelling unit.
TO :
S~ngJ e-Fam1ly Dw e ll111g s •••••..•••••• Two (2) spaces /untt
Two 01 More Fam1.ly Dwellings:
EJficJ.en y Untt ••••••••.••••••• One (1) s pa ce/u n1t
On e 01 Two B edroom Un1Ls ••••••• on e and one-half (l-l /2) s pa e /untt
Three or More Bedroom Un1t •••• Two (2) pace s /un 1t .
The mot1ou carried unanimou sly .
IV. AMENDMENT OF ZONING OR DINANCE
s22.5-3(f>
Re: Se1v1c StatJ.on s
CASE "'8-718
~lay 4, 1971
Aprtl 6, 1971
F1re Chtef W1ll1am Ha milton wa prese nt fo the discussJ.on.
Ch1ef Hamilto n tated th at after meet1ng wtth M • Kramer ol the Englewood
Publ~c School s, and ~lr. Sup1nger, 1t was d ec1ded that th e 1 str·1 ct 1on
s hould b e ra t sed to 600 ft . b e tween a service tat1on and a playground
or s hool. H no t ed that w1th Per·tormance Standa r ds, that a erv1ce
tation could b loc ated closer than the 600 it. Ch1 1 llam1lton stated
that JU l to l1m1nate the 0Jd1nance m1ght be a m1stake on th p ar t of
the C1ty , a n d that he felt the p rese nt controls d1d contrtbut to publ1c
af t y .
h1ef H m1l t on noted that th C1ty n ow allows d e liver t es oJ 9 ,000 g allons
of gasol1n pet · delivery , he sta ted that he felt the entir Ordtnance
hould be .. s trength ene d ".
M • Patr1 c k asked
f1llin g tat1ons?
torag e of gasoline was con s1dercd the arne as
h1 l Hamlltm, ec plied that 1t was.
Mr. Cat·l o n ask •d 1 f th "l way for ne go tJ.atton •· was legal? He noted
that a s rv1ce s tat ton th at m1g ht b e clos than th e 600 ft . as p oposed
m1ght hav an undc-tground tank that would leak, and mt ght e udan ger the
sc hool by eepag ol the g asol1 n e unde rground .
Mr. B e tard int stat d that h e f e lt then g ot1ation l eway would be per-
m1lted . H asked how the 500ft. rule cam about i n th fu l place?
h1ef l!amtlton t ep lJ ed that h lo' d1d n ' t t·eally kno w . D1scu ion followed.
Cluet ll am1lton stated that tlw p1·es nt method of stot·ag o1 ~a s uoder-
gtound pte s eutPd ltltle 01· no hazar·d, x c epl 111 the c a · of a u und r-
~round ta n k l l',lklng : howevct , he al s o potnll'd ou t th at the L PG ·to age
next to school s cou l d Jeopardtze the ·chool , 1n that l1qutd gadeS above
g tound \I 1e hazatdou'5, and ould travel at ground level tn vapot· c loud.
Mt . B ratdttl l a sk d 11 the ~dme s tandatds that would appl to sch ool 111
th e lo alton oJ set·v1c s tat1on · hould apply to hospttals, audtt:oriums,
•
l? Cht 1 l!aml lt oo sta t d that th e tandards c ould ve y w 11 apply to
th • us , and tnclude churches and other use wht h attta c t laJ-ge con-
c •nltalton& o l ptoplc at one ttm Discuss1on follo\1-ed .
Mr. S. R . And t •s
R a l Estat Repr•'5enta llve
Cont lneJJtal O t l ompa n -·stated he felt th ere tr1ct1on of s rv1ce
sta tton s near school and playground s is
•· motJonally" ba cd . li e asked what would happen to erv1 e s tat1on
-3 -
. '
•
I • •
•' \ I . f
"l'
-
•
(
that are now 500 ft. from a schoo l and playground if the s ug~e sted 600
ft. d1stance ~ apptoved? hlt '. And ews asked how the d~stanc e was mea ured,
and s uggc~ted that a deiinilion of the method of mea s uremettt be inc l uded
~n the Otd1nanc:e. lie al-.,o !:>Ug j! Led t hat the 0 dinance inc l ud , 1n
addition to storag mode, th e ca pac1ty, and the manner in which the
produ c t is to be dispen d. H noted that some of the biggest r1sk a e
in the way ~he gas 1 d1sp n5ed to the pr1vat automob ile . He tated
that he quest1oned whethe1· o1· not the r Lr1ct1on between ervtce stati ons
and schools and playgtound 1s n ded . li e stated thal thE'y have a
se1v1ce station located on a orner of the c hool lot 111 Fo t Co lltn s ,
and they have h ad no p oblems whatso v
hlr. Cha lm erse Parke1 sta t d that the 500 ft. ule was devised by the
C 1t y in an eflo t to c utb the r apid expan 1011 of the servtce station
he s tat d that the serv 1ce stat1on were buying up so much of the land
that C1ty ol f1c1als feared It would re duce the ad valore m taxes in the
Ci ty. Mr. Paek et· s tated that "health, safety, and welfare was used as a
g1nuni k to pass the ordtnance".
Dav1d C la yton
4509 South Acoma -stated that there have been cases 111 the City of
Englewood, as well as in Littleton , where und 1ground
tank leaked and three adjo1n1ng residences had to b e evacuated .
Discussion followed.
Henning mov e d·
Senti seconded; The Planning Commission deler a c tion on am e nd1ng the
Comprehens t ve Zoning Ordinance §22 .5-3(f) re st i ting
the location oJ servi ce stations closer than 500 ft . to a school or
playg1ound. The Commiss1on requests the City Attorney , Planning Director,
and File h1ef to furn1sh tnformation on 1mprovement of " afety" standards
1n other ex1sti ng C1ty Codes and Ordinances.
The mot1on carrie d ,
V. FIRE /POL£CE COMP LEX
hlt '. Wm. Mc01 vitL and Mr . Lar y Bourne were present for tills discus•Hon ,
a were FirE' Ch 1ef Hamilton and Pol1ce Ch1ef Clasby.
Mr. McD1v1tt open d the dtscussion by rev1ewing the ba kground on th1s
Complex. 0 t g Lnally, th new s tle was to b a 1·eplacement for F1re
Station .::q only, but after cons1d t·ing the p roposal, 1t was deternnned
that th Sti'U ture at GiJat·d Avenue and South Bannock Str l was 1nadequate
for the Pol1ce D parlm nt. Thus, th File/Poll e CorrununLcauon. Complex
cam about. 11·. McD1vttt ~tated that lt'lPS b) C1ty Offu•tals and ~11·.
Bou r ne to vat iou po1 nts ut tht> country to v1 w s1m1lat· omplexes was
helpful tn the ult1mate des1~n of th ComplE'x. Mt. t·DlVJtt stated
that b1d~ w re to be l t and op n d dur1n~ Jun , and that onstruction,
hopefully, wtll b•g1n by th end ol August, w1th the ·omplet1on date
s t for ~lay ol 1972.
M1. Bou1 n d1splay d a mod 1 of the ptopo d Compl x; Ill' po1nt •d out that
the1 1s vety littl wtndow area to the outs1de--an attempt to make the
bu1ld1ng a::; "!:><'CU I •" as pos•ublc. Th stt·uctur w1ll be mason1y and
bJ tck. ~11·. Bout·ne s tated that th ent1re ompl x w1ll hav 29, 00 s q.
lt., thetc will b tout• Jall cel ls, and four 1nterrogat.10n olf1 e
winch cou ld be used s hold1ng cell
~I t '. Lcnt»ch ask d what expans1011 of th two d partments could b accommo-
dated by the Bui ld1n g? hi f C lasby slated that th1s would g1 v th
Pollee Ucpat•tm nt la 1l1t1es to a commodate a 50% expansion; he also
•
not d that the jail fa il1ti s w re only for the inv s ti gal tv pro css,
and would not be used for "long t 1'111 ommiltmenl s". Ch1 f Clasb y not d
lha t the total commu ni a t1ons opera tlons for th C1 ty would be hou sed in
-4-
\ I
I .,
I • •
-
•
•
th~s structure , and that it is imperative that proper security be pro-
v~d ed for this equi pm ent. Chief Clasby also st ated that there have been
som fire bombings of poli ce facilities in the Denver area.
ClneJ Ham~lton stated that the new faci lity will accommodate the rescue
un1t , on pump t' and the s norkle, and the new pumper when it arr~ves.
~tr. BounlC ~La ted there would be five "bays", f our for pumpers, and one
fot· th snork l e .
Park1n g facilltte were di cussed. Mr. Mosbarger stated that he felt
th 'J'e should be accommodatJ.ons for two crews. Discuss~on Jollowed.
,_ .
Mr . L ntsch xtend d the appreciation of the Commission to Messrs. Bourne
and McD~vJ.tt , and to Chief Hamilton and Chief Clasby.
Vl . DIRECTOR'S CHOI CE
Mr. Sup1nger remind ed membe rs of the dinner meeting May 20, 1971, of th e
Planning Commissions from jurisdictions within Arapahoe County. The
dinner meeting 1s 6:30 P.M. at Guespato Cristofolo Chiacchierone. Mr .
D1al is the g uest s p e aker .
VII . COMMISSION'S CH OI CE
Mr. Patrick presented maps and informati on on parking area s in the down-
town a re a , most specifically those ~va ilable to the 3400 bloc k of L1ncoln,
Broadway, and Acoma . Mr. Patrick pointed out that these pa rki ng lots are
privately owned , and could be eliminated at any time the own ers so c hose.
M • Patrick stated that the merchants on Broadway are conc erned , and
that Mr . Holthaus, owner of Lot #1 on South Acoma, has stated his de-
sire to fence that lot and c harge $.50 parking fees. Mr. Pat ric k stated
he has discus ed the matte r with several of the merchants in the 3400
block, with members of the Planning Department staff , and w~ th members
of the Planning Commission, in an effort to find a way to secure these
park~n g lot s pet~an ently for the downtown area.
Mrs. Henning asked if the City were paying the property owners for the
us e of th eir prop erty as pa rki ng lots? Mr. Patrick replied that the
City ~s not ; there is an association of merchants which collects money
from the individual merchants in payment for use of the parkin g lot •
M • Patri c k stated that property which Mr. Holthaus owns on Acoma re-
qulred 23,868 sq . ft . of parking area, and the parkin g lot which Mr .
Holthau ~ providing is 31,462 sq. ft . Discussion followed. Mr. P atrick
stated that the Zoning Ordinance requires that parkin g be provided, but
do s not &ay wh th r or not the parking lot may be fe nc ed , and a fe
charg d for pa king. Further di scussion followed. ~lr . Lentsch stat d
that. d>velopment or redevelopment of the downtown area cannot b expe ted
unt1l peJmanent park~n g JS assured. It was suggested that po sibly the
C ity should sub idize th park1ng if the area is to develop. Wa ys and
m~ans of financing the pur cha e of land for parking in the downtown area
w r on ~dered. Mrs. Roman s pointed out that a "parking district" had
b en att mpled two or three t~mes before, and has failed to g a~n sufftctent
~uppo1 t 11om land-own rs and bustnes·men . Mr. Lentsch suggest d that p r-
haps the "o cupational tax " &hould be reinstated, and the funds Jrom
~uch Lax used for parking downtown, overing Little Dry Cr k, t c.
Mrs. Henning suggested that there were other problems downtown than
ju t the parking. She no ted tha L the access to the s to1·es from the
pa1k1ng lots at the rear is extremely poor, and asked that the bu ine s-
men consider improving this access to the stores. Mrs. Henning also
s ug ges ted that perhap monie hould be allocated in the publ1 Improve-
ment budg t for the purchase of land for parking. Discussion followed.
Mr . Sup1ng r stated that h had discussed the improvement of th e core
at •a w1th a few consulta nt s that have indicated interest in the project
aJt r the tn~t~al contact. Mr. Supinger stated he would lJ.ke to know
-what lH happ ning with th Englewood Square proj ct. Mt. Lentsch stat d
tha L h d1dn' t think any progr ss would be made ; that th proj t ms
to b ~ta l mat d . D~scus ion followed. Mr. Sup1ng r stat d that h had
-5-
I • •
.. • \ l '
l --
·'
•
contacted the Disney Corporation to see if they would be interested in
do1ng a study of the core area, but the Corporation had other commitments
and could not undertake this project. Mrs. Romans commented that several
consultants have done studies of the core area, among them Dr. Crampon,
Larry Smith, and Jim Small, whose study was completed in 1964, There
have been numerous staff studies of the area. Discussion followed. Mr.
Carlson suggested that the Chamber of Commerce could check into the
possibility of consulting firms doing a study in the downtown area.
Mr. Lentsch asked that Mr. Patrick discuss the matter of the parking lots
further with the downtown merchants, and report back to the Commission.
Mr. Lentsch asked the Plann1ng Director to report back to the Commission
on the Martin-Marietta Company parking lot.
The Bus Tour of May 8th was discussed, Mrs. Henning stated that she felt
the tour was very educat1onal.
Mrs. Henning stated that she understood there was to be a meeting May 24th
on Storm Sewers. Discussion followed. Mr. Lentsch asked that the
Planning Commission be notified if the meeting on the storm sewers was
open to the public.
The meeting adjourned at 10:50 P.M.
-6-
•
. '
•
I • •
f .• I (
' .,.
•
•
•
MEMORANDUM TO THE ENGLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGARDING ACTION OR RECOM-
MENDATION OF THE CITY PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
DATE : May 18 , 1971
SUBJECT : Amendment of Zoning Ordinance: §22.5-5a(l0)
RECOMMENDATION · The Planning Commission recommend to City Council
that the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, §22.5-5a(l0)
be amended to require off-street parking spaces be provided in residential
districts as follow :
FROM : One (l) off-street parking space/dwelling unit,
TO:
Type of Unit Required Off-Street Parking
Single-Family Dwelliugs •.•..•..•.••• Two(2) spaces /unit
Two or more Family Dwellings:
Efficiency Unit •..•.•..••.•.•.• One (1) space/unit
One or Two Bedroom Un1ts ••.•.•• One and one-half (1-1/2) spaces/unit
Three or More Bedroom Units .••• Two (2) spaces/unit.
The motion carried unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
By Order of the City Planning
and Zoning Commission •
-7-
. '
•
I • •
r
-
•
•
•
MEMORANDUM TO THE ENGLEWOOD CI TY COUNCIL REGARDING ACTION OR RECOM-
MENDATI ON OF THE CITY PLANNING & ZONING COMMIS S IO N
DATE : May 18, 1971
SUBJE CT : Am e ndment o f Zoning Ordinance : §22.5-5a (l0 )
RECOMMENDATION : The Planning Commission recommend to Cit y Council
that the Comprehens i ve Zoning Ordinance, §22.5-5a(l0)
be amended to require off-street parking spaces be provided in residential
d is tricts as follows:
FROM : On e (1) off-street parking space/dwelling unit.
TO:
Type of Unit Required Off-Street Pa r king
Single-Family Dwellings ••...•.••.••• Two(2) spaces/unit
Two or more Family Dwellings:
Efficiency Unit ••.••••.•..•••.• One (1) space/unit
One or Two Bedroom Units •.••••• One and one-half (l-1/2) spaces/unit
Three or More Bedroom Units •••• Two (2) spaces /unit,
The mot1on carried unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
By Order of the City Planning
and Zoning Commission •
-7 -
. '
''
I . •
.• I [ f
•
-
Chapter 75
Off-Street Parkiq and Parking Lots
~1. Police Power CoDstderationa Justifying Regulation
More and more ZOI\ing ordinances contain provisions for
otT -street parking in connection with the use of multiple
dwellings, hotels, banks, theatres and other places of public
a.ssembly, factories, office buildings, supermarkets, depart-
uwnt stores and other places in which there is or is likely to
he a great density of population or which are, themselves,
naffic generators.• The amount of available space for street
parking is limited. There is no more street parking space
on·ailable for a multi story office or apartment building on a
100 foot front lot than there is in connection with a single
family dwelling on a lot having similar frontage, yet the
requirements of parking space for the former will obviously
be many times that of the latter. There is a constantly grow-
inp; increase in the size of buildings and in the number and
1111e of motor cars and truc:b; the s treet widths remain su~
atantially as they were. The last two decades have seen an
unparallelled growth in motor vehicle ownership and urban
•r••a usage resulting in an extreme shortage of automobile
parking space in most, if not all, American cities and suburban
aro>u.•
The consequence is that provision for off-street parking
u now generally recognized by planners and municipal offi-
cials as the only practical method of controlling street con-
fJ"Btion caused by motor uae of streets."
' The proposed new Zoninc Retolution of the City of New York
~v~n requires that off-street ~rking space be provided in connection
with one and two-family dwellinca .
1 Zo11i"ff afld T raffic , The ENO Foundation for Highway Traffic
Control, 1952 cd., p . 20.
• Zo11irtg and Traffic , supra : "They make it imperative that off-
street parking facilities be provided in accordance wilh a pre-determined
tchedule ... " See Tables XIII, p. 51 to XXIII, p . 70 indicating the
recommended parking space to be provid ed with respect to various
principal uses of property.
7~1
II'.
I 0
,
•
•
0 -
75-2 The Law of Zoninc and Planning Ch . 75
Traffi c conge ·tio n and paucity of parking space hav e con-
scqu enc s far more se rious than mere annoyance, conse-
quences whi rh ha n• proved worthy, in every respect, of con-
sideration loy ruuni ci pal authorities. The lack of parking
space in est al 1li~hed downtown areas has in itse lf bee n the
fundamental ~au ~e of those relatively new phenomenons, the
motel and lh l' outlying shopping center, and of the decen-
tralization of industry to suburban and rural areas. Paral-
leJJing the ril!t-of these has been the decline of the established
downtown business and hotel areas and of established urban
industrial art\88 , with consequent deterioration of buildings,
of fol'tlt'd catering to less desirable tenancies, vacant build-
ings, los~ or revenue and taxes, increased cost of police and
fire proteetlon and, generally, a fonn of urban blight.
Just u the neeeesity for requiring oft-street parking as a
solution for street congestion caused by too many and too
wide automobiles in too narrow streets and, at least partially,
for the eYila mentioned in the last paragraph, has been
widely reoopi~ so the validity of such requirements has
been generally assumed.
The most eaaual consideration of the problems outlined
above, indil'ate that the probll'ms and their solution come
with the broad purposes of the exercise of the police power,
namely, within the scope of the oonoepte of public safety,
health, convenience, morala and general welfare. The pur-
poaea iD view elauae of every zoning enabling act requires
that zoning bt' designed " ... to lessen congestion in the
atreeta; to ~~<JCUre safety from ftre, panic and other dangers;
to promote health and the general welfare; ... to facilitate
the adequate proviaiona of transportation, ... and other public
requirements. Such regulation• ahall be made with reaaonable
consideration. among other tbinga, to the character of the
district, and ita peculiar auitability for particular uses, and
with a view to conserving the value of buildings and en-
couraging the mo s t appropriate ua e of land ... "
A regulation requiring the proriaion of off-11treet parking
facilities for buil<liaga used for thoae purpose& which in
the mselv es are generatora of a volume of tra!ic or wh ich
tend to dt-tl'r iorate or become municipal liabilities for lat'k
• 2 Yokl ey, Zo fllillg Lilw Gftd Procliu (2d eel .), 76, 77. 78 ; 'iry
and ou nt y of Dcnvrr v . Dm~r Buick, lac:. (Su p. Ct . Colo . 1960 ),
347 P .2d 9 19 , dis.cntinc opini0111, ~ 936, 937, 94 7.
,. .
I 0
'
•
•
-
Off-Street Parkin& and Parkin& Lota 75-3
of parking s pace, would fall clearly witb •n one or more of
til e quo t ed purposes of a zoning ordinance . ~or would placing
th e burden of s uch provision upon the landown e r appear to
be op press ive, co nfiscatory, discriminatory or unreasonable
si nce it is the landowner wh ose u ~" of th e premises invitee
and thu s causes the .congestion.•
The validity of the requirement of o ff-street parking facili -
ties for specified us es need not bo established by argument
or by analogy to other restrictions and regulations held valid.
"There are cases which bold particular off-street park-
ing requirements invalid upon the basis of their special
arbitrariness. All of these, however, proceed on the
premise that off-street parking generally is valid." S ee
Rhyne, JIVIlici.pallAw, 967 ...
The decisions which uphold off-street parking gen -
erally deal in each instance with th e legality of the
specific regulation as applied to particular facl This is
apparent from the discussion in Rhyne, supra. No ease
that we have been able to ftnd invalidates the principl e
of off-street parking. For example, in City of New Or-
leans v. Leeeo (In re Wimberly) 226 La. 335, 76 So.2d
387, the Court enfarced an off-street parking require-
ment as applied to movie theatres. lq Roselle v. Wright,
37 N.J. Super. 507, 117 A.2d 661, 667, the Court held an
off-st~t parking requirement for a storage garage to
be unrea10nable in view of its particular terms, but at
the same time recognized the validity of such regulation
where it bean a 1ubetantial relationship to the public
health , ..Cety, moral• or general welfare. The Court
said:
' ... That provision as applied to stores, warehouses,
office buildings, or other commercial structures, to
which it may reasonably be anticipated large numbers
of people would come by means of automobiles, thus
giving riae to congestion in the public streets, appeart!
t o be entirely reasonable and logical ... '
See al10 Allendale Cllngregation of Jehovah's Wit-
nesses v. Groaman, 1960, 30 N.J. 273, 152 A.2d 569 . Tbil
• Dun ham, "A Lqa1 aDd Economic Basis for City Plallninc ," 58
Co l wM bill Law Reviftt•, 650 , 666, «il (May 19 58 , No . 5).
tc..>r•'l~t 1960, ~, M•• H ......... )
,. -
\ I
'!
I • •
'
•
75 -~
•
-
The Law of Zoninc and Planning Ch . 75
holrl~< a rr·quirern~>nl of one parking space for 'VPry three
seat in a chur<'h to b!' r f'aso nabl e.
Sta t~> Px rei. K iiiN ·n Realty Co. v. City of ,b;ast Cleve-
land, 195A, 10 Ohio App. 99 , 153 N.E. 2d 177: r ecog-
nizf's that sue h provisions are valid and c it,-.~ McSo rl ey
v. l•'llz~l'm ld, 359 Pa. 264,' 59 A.2d 14:! and w a ny other
r~IS!'li whil'h deal with similar and related problems.
Mirsr·hcl v. Weissenberger,.277 App. Div. 1039.100 N.Y.S.
:!<1 452, recognizes the general validity of such require-
B~<·nt,; and also hold s that the vesting of authority in a
board to make particular determinations do es not con-
~tit ut e an nnlawfnl delegation of legi slative a uthority.
Se•• also Fleishon v. Philadelphia Zoning Hoard, 385 Pa.
29fl, 122 A.2d 673, and Hill v . Kesselring, 310 K y. 438,
220 S .W .2 d 858, 10 A .L .R.2d 1301 and see Foronoff, The
Relationship of Zoning to Traffic Generators, 20 Law
anol Contemporary ProbleDUJ 197 (1955). Tovm of Islip
v . F'. E. S ununers Coal & Lumber Co., 1931, 257 N.Y.
167, 177 N.E. 409, is analogons in that it upholds a zonin g
ordinance requiring building set backs ." 7
A claim that an ordinance permitting owners of hu si n ~ss
prope rh· to use adjoining residentially zon f'd ltmd, if it co uld
be obtam .. d, for off-street parking faciliti es to be used in
co nnection with the business property, was in'Valid, wa!l r e-
j ec ted hy the Supreme Court of Michigan whi c h held s uch
provision to be a reasonable exercise of th e police power,
~>nacte.l 10 the interest of public safety, health and general
welfar•·. enacted in the interest of public safety, health and
general w~>lfar e, in that it represented an attempt on the
• 't <~te ex rei. Killeen Realty Co . v. City of East Clevelan d wa,
aff 'd m 160 N .E .2d I (Sup. Ct. Ohio 1959 ).
7 ( u v and County of Denver v. Denver Buick, Inc., s upra , dissent
of Doy le, J at page 947 . The majority of the court, while recogni zing
thr probl~ms caused by automobile congestion, declared that other mea-
sures onio:h t he taken to co ntrol it and tfiat the r ~quirement tha t a prOJ>-
~rty owner de vote part of hi s property to off-st reet parking purposes
was co nfi s ation of pr ivate property for public purposes. Three judges
do 'ented fr om thi s pan of the opinion of the majority . See al so City
and t"o11nty of De nv er v Redding-M ill er, Inc. (Sup. Ct. Colo 1960),
in whwh the co urt similarly held that the off-street parking provisions
of thr Denver zoning ordinance "'elle invalid .
•
,._
)
I 0
' f
'!'
I , •
•
•
-
...
Off-Street Parkinc and Parking Lots 75-S
part of the city to protect its citi ze n ~ from t raffi c hazards
in husi n ess di stric t s and to protect th e bu s inesses th emselves
fror n <:('O n o mi c stranJ,"lllation cau sed lJy traffic congestion and
lu .. k of parking s pace.•
Thr· •·ases in whi c h th~ co urts have uphE>Icl o ff -street park-
ing r L"quirements by implication, d e t e rmining only wheth e r,
in t h e c~~>e be fore it, the property owner has complied there-
wi th9 or whether th e particular requirement was reasonable••
Uday v . Cit y of Dearborn (Sup . Ct. Mich . 1959 ), 96 N .W .2d 775 .
• Windsor Hills Imp. Ass 'n v . Mayor & City Council of Baltimore
P lrl. ), 73 A.2d 5J1 , in which the requirement wa s held satisfied by
e•tablishment of the required off-street parking lot on an adjoining
pi• t within 300 feet from proposed multiple dwdling ; McKinney v . ll~oard of Zo ning Adjustment of Kansas City (Mo .), 308 S .W .2d 320,
111 whi ch it was held that the seating capacity of a churrh school ca fete ria n~ed not be included in total seating capacit y of church in calculating
a m~ount of required off-street parking fa ci lit ies ; and see Summers v.
Board of Zoning Adjustment of Kansaa City (Mo.), 299 S .W .2d 883 ,
in whi,·h it was held that a street which did not go through the bloc k in
which the church's proposed parking lot was located was not an "in-
terw.:ting street " within the muning of the ordinance; Fleishon v .
Phil ade lphia Board of Ad justment, 385 Pa . 295, 122 A .2d 673 in whi ch
per mi ts were rev oked as invalid because no access was provided to
parking space ; Roselle v . Wright (N.J . 1955 ), 37 KJ. Super. 507, 117
A.2d 601, in which the denial of a permit for private storage of tru cks
wu renrsed, where ordinance required ofT-street parking ; Chambers
v . Zoning Board of Adjustment of Winston-Salem (N . Car.), 108 S .E.2d
21 I , in which it was held that th e ofT-st r eet parking requirement con-
tai neJ in the zoning ordinance co uld not be waiv ed by the Zoning 13oa rd
of AdJ u stment even th ough on-street parking s pa ce might have been
sufficient ; Morri sville S hopping Ce nter , In c. v. Boa rd of Adjustment
( Pa . l om . Pl.), 8 Buck s 263 in whi ch the co urt co nstrued the term
"gross area per car" as applied to the size of required o fT-s treet parking
>pa ces . Application of Ga rde n City J.ewish Center (N.Y. 1956). 2 Misc .
2d 1009, 155 N .Y.S .2d 52J ; S tate of \\'a hington ex rei. Wenatch ee
Cong . of Jehovah 's Witnesses v. City of Wenatchee ( 1957 ). 312 P.2d
J<l5 ; Redwood Cit y Company of Jehovah's Witnesses , Jnc. v. Ci ty of
:.renlo Park (Cal 1959), 167 A .C' A. 77A ; Young Israel OTganization
()f Cl e"eland v. Dw orkin (Ohio 1956 ), 133 N F..2d 174 : Co ngregat •on
Templt• Israel v. Ci ty of Cre.e Coeur (Mo 1959), 3~ S.\V .2d 451,
111 all of which th e cou rt by impli ca ti on u pheld ofT-st reet parki ng re-
rcop,n1bc 1960, b1 A rdra H Ra tblaor fJ
, .
., ,
,
I
I 0
'
•
•
-
75-6 The Law of Zoninc and Planning l"h 7 ~
are ev en m on • num e rous. There is little doubt but that t he
d ecis ion of Co lorado court in City and County of Denver
v. Denv e r JJni~k. lro c., supra, does _ not represent the gen <'ral
---· .. ---· -----------
quirement > for c hu rc he s as spa:ial exception uses and foun •l they had
been r easo nably complied with .
•o R onda Realty Corp. v. Lawton, 414 Ill. 313 ; Ill /I:.E 2d 310
(Ill. 19 5:lo 1 1 which the requirement of provision for off -s tr~rr parJ..ong
fo r apart m ~1t houses and not for other multiple use buildings wa s held
discriminat<•r:v ; lloard of Zoning Appeals of Decatur v . Decatur . Ind.
Company of Jehovah's Witnessn,ll7 N.E.2d 115 (Ind .) in whoc h the
r equi-reme nt of off-street parking spaces for churches in proport ion to
the number of sc-ats in the church was held unreasonable ; Ridgev iew Co
v . Board of Adjustment of Florham Park (L. Div . Super . Ct :-.I .J .
1959), !54 \.Zd 23, in which the court held that a borough r on ing
o r d inance r~niring six square feet of parking area fo r each one 'quare
foot of gross floor area used for business, commercial o r personal
service establishments and retail stores in the business zone was ar-
bit rary, unreu..nable and not designed to further the proper purposes
of zoning. T he co urt found that such provision was ex~e.si\'e when
measured hy tl~ a verage parkinc ratios as fixed by ordinances elsewhere
and as seen in practice elsewhere; Maher v. Board of Zoning & Appeals
(Unreported . N .Y. Supreme Court, S pa:ial Term, N .Y.L.J. Jan . 23 ,
1959), in whoch the court construed an ordinance which required two
square feet of off-street parkinc apace for each square foot of fl oo r
space use<! f••r commercial purposes within the main building. The court
said :
. the term 'commercial floor s pace' may be the subj ~t of
varit•d in tft'pretation. This is particularly true in entertainment or
recrea tiona l enterprises. Theatres, boxing a r enas, ioc and roller
skat ing r ink s utilire the major portion of floor space fo r the ac -
commodation of spa:tators . Football, bllaeball and polo fields d.-vote
the maj o r area o.f those facilities to the fields upon which th .. par-
ticipants perform . In short, 'commercial floor space' when appl ied
as a c r iterio n of requi red parking space is flexible . Particularly in
recreatiun3l enterprise it varies with the type am usement or r .. crea-
ti on pruvided . The number of spectators intended to be accommo-
d a ted os the better norm and the adequacy of parking facilitirs when
det ernuned in that lig ht is a matter for determination hy admi ni -
trative officials . nless s uch determination is unreasonahle , arbi-
" .
I 0
'
•
•
-
Off-Street Parking and Parking Lots 75-7
rul e and will r e present an even greater minority view a s the
prrJL iem is co n ·idered in more juri ~di ct ion~.
§2 . P&rking Lot u ~oper Accessory Use
The other situation involving parking lots is that in which
tb e zoning ordinance does not r equ ire off-street parking but
the property owner has claimed a right to establish off-street
parking as an accessory use of his property or by means of
a variance.
In Buffalo Park Lane, Inc. v. City of Buffalo," it was h eld
that a hotel had the right to use a small parrel of its land
in a residential zone for parking automobiles belonging to its
guests. The court found nothing in the zoning ordinance for-
bidding the use of vacant ground belonging to or adjoining
a piece of land for automobile parking purposes and said
further that:
"The court has no hesitancy in saying that in its
opinion the provision and use by apartment hotels of
parking space for guests is a necessary incident of the
business of an apartment hotel and in relation to the
Zoning Ordinance an accessory use of · the premises of
the apartment hotel."
Parking lots have been held to be acct>ssory uses to the
principal uae of adjoining premises in a number of other
e&sell."'
trary or capricious the finding of the administrati"~ officials must
be sustained .
S tat~ v. City of Tampa, Fla. ( 1950), 48 So .2d 78 ; Application of
Community Synagogue v . Bates (N .Y . 1956 ), 147 l'i .Y.S .2d 204, aff "d
154 .Y.S.2d 15, I A .D.2d 686, aff'd I N .Y.2d 44 5, 136 N.E .2d 488 :
all of ~hich involve off-street p
1
arking regulations for churches as special
excep!IOf! uses .
11 Buffalo Park Lane, Inc . v. City of Buffalo, 162 Misc . 'ZIJ7, 294
~.Y .S . 413 .
'" State ~x r~l. Szodomka v. Gruber, 201 La. 1068, 10 So .2d 899
( acc~sso ry to hotel); First National Hank & Trust Co. of Pon Chester,
N .Y. v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Greenwich, 126 Co nn . 228, 10
A .2d 691 (would be customarily incidental to use of an island, if sea-
wall had b«n co nstructed as required ); Board of Zoninc Appeals of
(Copyrieilt IHO, b,. Ar4c-a H . llaU.UpfJ
•
"' .
I 0
'
-
•
•
•
0 -
CITY OF TUSTIN MAY 11, 1970
THRU:
TO:
SUBJECT:
City Administrator
HONO RABLE 11AYOR & CITY COUNCIL
~ru LTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PARKING
STANDARDS
The City Council has expressed concern over the adequacy
of parking sta ndards for multi-family residential de-
velopments within the City of Tustin.
This report is an attempt to determine the adequacy of
acc o~~odations and pa~king area problems of the City of
Tustin by compa rison with other communities, observations,
analysis of e >:isting situations and recommendation for
remedial actions.
COY_pARATIVE ANALYSIS -Apartment House Parking
Tustin:
Bachelor apartments
One bedroom apts.
~'o bedroom apts.
Three or more bedrooms -
One (1) parking space
One and one half(l~)
One and one half(l~) ·
Two (2)
Los Angeles County Association of Planning Officials (Model
Standards):
Two (2) parking spaces per dwelling unit.
O ~a ~~e Coun t y Zoning Code:
On e and ·one half (1~) p e r dw e lling unit.
Urba n Land Ins titute:
TWo (2) parking spaces per dwelling unit.
City of Los Angeles:
One {1) s p ace fo r ea ch dwelling unit less than
t r.re e habit a b l e r ooms .•
OnE a n e one half (1~ E?ace s ~0 ~ each e ~elling
un~t o ~ t n ~ee ha b it~ble r o oms.
.i
.... ,. -
'
.
'
•• ' r
I
'!
. '
•
I • •
'
1-
•
•
0
•
• ·~· .... ._.A ... ._ ............ J ,~.,.~,:),J..U t:ll'-.l.d..L 5/11/70 .
Parking Standards
Two (2) spac es for each d\.;elling unit of more
than three habitable rooms.
*(A one b e droom apartment would require 1~ parking
spaces; kitchens are defined by ordinance as a
habitable room.)
Table II of the Apartment Parking Survey dated October, 1968,
presents comparat ive parking requirements for cities in Orange
County, to r ef lect latest amendments.
On a comparative basis, Tustin standards are ·equal to the
average requirements of cities but less than those proposed
by model ordinances.
Ratio of Cars to Units
The Building Industry Association of California, Inc. con-
tracted in Hay 1, 1969, for an analysis of automobile owner-
ship and parking requirements for multi-family residences
in Orange County cities. The results of the study indicated
an average of 1.4 vehicles per unit. However, in three-bed-
room units that catered to family type living for adults and
children, the occupancy rate was three and four persons with
a hi9h of 2.6 vehicles per unit.l
The following extracted statistics pertain to Tustin Apart-
ment Complexes.
Building Name
Castilian
Casa Ganar
Segovia
No. of No.of
Address Units Cars Ratio
14330 Newport Ave. 117 123 1.08
15520 Tustin Village 82 113 1.35
Way
15560 Tustin Village 86 117 1.36
\'lay
Occ u ~ancy standards for multi-family developments within the
City of Tustin indicates 2.206 occupants per unit in the R-3
(1750) Districts and 1.574 occupants per unit in the R-3 (1250)
District.2
,_
-------------------------------------------------------------------
1) B.D.F. Corporation, Fullerton, California, June 6, 1969.
2) State Departme nt of Finance Census Certification.
Page 2
'
• i
I • •
·' \ I
' '
]
•
•
0
•
~ubject: Multi-Family Residential
Parking Standards
.,
5/ll/70
The State Depa r tmen t of r·:o to r Ve hicl es indicates automobile registr~tion in Orange County is e quivalent to one vehicle
fo r ea ch adult. Ba sed on the occupanc y density of apartment
h o uses within the City of Tustin, 1.89 parkjng spaces would
be required fo r each adult unit. Fami ly units with children
of driving ag e could result in an even higher demand for
p a rking accomm odations.
Field Inspections
F ire Chief Morgan Hilton, ap~roximately 18 mon ths ago, made
a survey of apartment house parking at 5:00 A.H. on a Sunday
mo rning.
His survey disclosed cars parked on the stree ts surrounding
apa rtme nt h ou s e s with varying degrees of available on-site
p a rking as follows: street
Bldg. Name Location ~ Parking Vacant On-Site
Palmw ood 467 E. 1st. 102 4 5
Tusti n Acres 650 N. Hai n 180 Numero us 30\
Tustin Village \~ay 15500 Tustin 234 Num e rous Adequate for all
Village Hay cars on street
The Co mm unity Development Director surveye·d apartment house
parking at midnight, Thursday, May 7, 1970, with the following
o bservations:
Bldg:. Name Location Units
Tustin Acres 650 w. Main 180
Las Ca mpana s 1082 Hain 38
\'li lliamshire 1550 0 Hi lliarns 119
Tustin Arms u 15701 Tusti n Village 120
\~ay
The Enrique 15660 Tustin Village 84
Wa y
Vill age \·les t 15610 Tustin Village 76
Way
Aspens 15652 Williams 130
(a ' V aca~~ p~ce s ~e:e ~o :e : o! project
a l on g freewa y.
Page 3
Street vacant
Parking On-Site
36 67
3 10
0 58
Numerous Ad e quate
Numerous Adequate
Numerous Adequate
Numerous Adequate
• <
(a)
I • •
•• 1 r
I f
-
•
•
0
•
Subject: Hulti-Family Residential
Parking Standards
Bldg. Name Location
Hampton Sq. 16411 McFadden
Rancho San Juan Red Hill & San Juan
(County)
Valencia Gardens 15742 \~illiams
Ninston
Luxury
Republic
1132 Bryan
16561 Alliance
15481 Williams
Units
350
165
93
28
224
Street
Parkins_
Numerous
8
0 (c)
9
solid
0
(b) Inconvenient location of available spaces.
(c) Property wall made street parking inconvenient.
(d) High vacancy -new project.
Findings
-. --· . -
5/11/70
Vacant
On-Site
Adequate
16 (b)
Adequate
Adequate
10
250 (d)
The 16500 block of Alliance Street has a critical parking
problem. The four-plexes on the south side of Alliance Street
are hopelessly inadequate for off-street parking. The garages
are sub-standard in size, poorly lighted, and nearly impossible
to use. A compact car is the only vehicle that could utilize
these off-street parking spaces.
All other observed apartment areas of the City had a sufficient
number of off-street parking spaces to accommodate the vehicles
parked on the surrounding streets. (This same observation was
made by the Fire Chief 18 months ago.) However, the number of
on-site parking spaces neither assured adequacy nor use.
Tustin Village v:ay is an example of sufficient numbe r of on-site p~:-kins; s?aces that are vacant .,.,hile there is an abundance of
on-street parking. It appears obvious that tenants will park
th e ir vehicles at the closest, roost convenient place, and on
the street in preference to a remote on-site parking place.
~~en apartment houses were set back from the street, interiorly
oriented, and surrounded by a perimeter wall, there was a
greater tendency to use the on-site parking facilities. Ve-
hicles were' parked on the street 1-/hen on-site accom.-:.odations
were available. However, in the majority of these instances,
the parking spaces were inconvenient to the units served, poorly
lighted and remote.
Page 4
I • •
·' \ !
I f
!
1-
•
•
0
•
Parking Standards
,
The Willi am shire Apartments represented th e City's desire
with ad eq uate parking accorrmodations and no on-street
parking. P arkin g spaces were well lighted , numb e red,
n amed , and conveni e nt to the units served.
Only in rare instances did any apa ~tment complex designate
a convenient area for guest parking.
Analysis
Parking standards for multi-f~mily developments in Tustin
are adequate f o r present occupancy. They are not adequate
to accommodate the trends t ow ard family occupancy of apart-
ment houses and ownership of a vehicle by each adult.
Neithe r do apartment compl exe s provide necessary accommoda-
tions for guest parking.
The design of apartment complexes to assure convenience of
on-site parking spaces and interior orientation to avoid
the use of street parking is a matter of concern to the
Development Preview Committee. They will continue to
exercise jurisdiction to g ain this objective.
The City Counci l should be cognizant that it is highly un-
like ly that any change will be made in the parking standards
for Orange County. Apartment houses will be built within
the sphere of influence of the City of Tustin, but under
Orange County standards. If the standards of the City of
Tustin impose an extreme hardship (from the developer's
vie wp oint) for off-street parking, over and above the
sta nda rds of the County, it can be assumed that the de-
velopments will take place outside of the incorporated
limits and outside of City design standards. Yet, the
City of Tustin will inherit the problems of the future for
those developments which take place within the boundaries
of its ultimate limits.
Th e apartment house parking survey and sta f f reco~~endations
were considered by the Planning Co mmission on Novembe r 12,
196 8. The ma tter was continued and no final action was
t ake n upon the staff proposal. The preponderance of tes~
mony presented to the Pl anni ng Commission was in opposition
to a ny increase in parking requirements for multi-family
d eve lopme nts. Attached h ere to is a copy of the parking sur-
vey presented to the Pla nn ing Commission on November 12, 1968.
It is appare nt that an increase in off-street parking re-
qu irements for multi-fami ly developme nts will receive less
than enthusiasti c support.
The s~uev cone~cted b v the Plannino Staff in 1968, as sup-
pl emented by c~rrent surveys , incicates that parki ng
-s-
,._
I • •
. , ·' I !
I f
!
-
.•
•
•
•
•
·, •
Subject: Hulti-Family Residential
Parking Standards
5/11/70
.)
problems were created in large measure by the developments
prior to 1966. It is also believed that current develop-
ments will create future problems The staff recommends
the following multi-family parking standards:
Bachelor & One Bedroom Apartments -1~ parking spaces.
Two Bedroom Apartments . -2 parking spaces.
Three or Hore Bedroom Apartments -2~ parking spaces.
Not less than 10% of total parking spaces to be
conveniently located and designated for guest
parking.
If it is the desire of the City Council to protect against
future parking congestion and obsolescence by the adoption
of model ordinance standards, it is recommended that this
report be referred to the Planning Commission for the
scheduling of a public hearing and recommendation of an
amendment of the Zoning Ordinance to the City Council.
Respectfully submitted,
fi,~..f~a.-
R. Kenneth Fleagle
Ass't CA -Community
Development Director
RI<F/jat
enclosure:
-6-
. '
I • •
0
. ' .. ' \ !
I
,
'!'
·' '
I
. ,
• . '
I
'
•
I
, .
Page 2 revised by RKF 5/ll/70
PLANNING COMMISSION CONSIDERATION
NOVEMBER 12, 1968
f
•
' • . •
The following indivuals spoke in opposition to
increased parking requirements:
APARTHENT PARKING SURVEY
CITY OF TUSTIN
CALIFORNIA
UY PL ANNING DEPAi\'ll1EN1'
OC TO BER 1968
George Argyros
Robert Hall
Gared Smith
Kenneth Nelson
Charles Greenwood
No final action taken dn proposed in;rease
in parking standards •
rr • • ., \ J1
•
c c
"-'
---.
-
' "
•
, ..
I
Tn trodnction
}\" :~ res ult o f i ncreasing concer n among City Councilme n about the adequacy of parking facilities in apartment districts, the Council
t·cquc·stcd that the Plannin& COt,.nission study the prob lem and make a report of their findings. This report ia a compilation of in-
f c.rm:1t ion obtained by Planni.nr. Dep a rtment personnel, an analysis of the information and a reca.aended iapl.ementation program.
l\.1ck~t·ound
"
Ap:trtmc nt d e v e lopment in the City of Tustin has enjoyed a very dynamic period of grovth during the 1960's. The building slump wh ich
h:ts :1ffectcd m:1n y communiti ~s i.n the late 60's has not _ slowed the development of apartment units in Tuatin ·u witnessed by the statbtics
in Ta b le I be low.
TABLE I
~ril 1966 April 1967 April 1968
Units % Units % Units l
Sing l e Family 20 6 1 51 2252 47 2684 47
Hu ltiplc Family 1980 49 ~ 53 .l.Qll_ 53
" Totnl '•041 4802 5726
Th e dc v c lopmc u ts sumnarize d above took place under the present parking regulations which were adopted in January, 1966 and ·are as followa:
Type Unit
Bachelor
1 Bedroom
2 Bedroom
3 or more Bedrooms
Spaces/Unit
1
1-!
1-!
2
(in each case, one space per unit must be covered)
fh·· •hov e r equi reme nts do nnr. p.i ve cred it for on-street par king spaces and must be considered to provide for guest parking in other
1'. • on -·;tr'-'<'L spnccs. A tour of nra rtme nt arens during early morning hours quickly indicates, however, that parking needs are not
_.• .. ;.·.!lc l y s .•rvc d on the ~itP , S<'verc parking problems are found on Pasadena Avenue and Tustin Village Way m_a though ill spaces
'-~ ~--ntj J l:·c d 2!l site •
, ... "'''•' . tnnJards in Tustin ca n b<' compared with tho se of other Orange County cities in Table II (next page). Twelve cities have less
.. ~ r e quir emen ts than Tustin, eight have more stringent requirements, one city has the s._ requlr-nt and one (Villa Park) does
11 1· : ... ic apartr:le nts.
•
• •
0
rr • -• -~"1
-
<.)
.....
-----.
0
0
•
I
~
•
,......,
•
• •
·~·,ili L E II
PARKING REQUlRE~:EYl'S IN ORA.'lGE COUNTY
1968
Provision for
P~&C 2
::isc.
\_...L tl JJ.\\dl. .L H IJl \.o.-~ Z.. l J V ~U .I. J ...... £. oi:11J.L~ \JU..LQ."~ 'V' ........ U "'U..L V&."" oJt...UA.&. U.a.4'-_1' VU. .... I".A.It_b n ,l;;j i....I..LO • .,
I ' ' I l I I I I I I y I \_.. '. I
.' ll;l: • ..: i:.1 1!,; I . 1 )~ I ·~· n I ' I U; ~ Yes -10 'x20 I Ye s PD . 1 cov..:r.:!d 1 O:'le:-. .. • I ..... --., • I , I I :'l.;,r u:;i:.
!:",•1 : R4 n I R4 l i:; : R4 2 I R4 2 I 1 I Yes 110'x20' Yes I R3 2/u:<it
;.1 :."~-'1 ;>.,rk i 1!; 1!; I 11, I 1!; I 1. \ Yes 110 'x20' Yes
I · l 'I i' J I I For 80 u::its 1/uc: ;;~:.~,; ('co··~, ~:,~.1 1 J Froi-1 1-7 unit comnlex · 1 1 9'x20'· Yes 28 O:)e;l. s "a ccs
I I I J I I Carpo:-t c:::; be if :.: 's
<.:····,;· 1 •2sp.'1 cc~pe::'unit 1!; ~ No 9'x20' ,., not:visib:a.
;-', ::: .. ·:,:.l ev i. • l l..; \ 1!,; I 2 I Ye s I No 10'x20' t:
-:..-J
---, v-\j 't. r -' 1 • '1 · i ··-_,. I I -., "·' · ...... 'I I I 1 on-street par :•:.::• is r ,··':~r.~o·•r 2 2 . 2 2 Yes Yes 9'x19' ;, pe~ittec!ifco ss~!e .
Ful~ ... ~·con i 1!; il ';(I~ I 2 I 2}:; I Yes I !:i1i~s 61 I 8l.zx20' * I 0
'
I """ surroundingl
! : I ,_ I I . !:c::.~ it:::; con llch . J 1 1 1 1'l 1 on-s::.ree: fur ' I . j ( 1 must be covered) I 2 Yes Yes Yes '9 'x19 1 * guests. ,
J j I I h Over 1000 s q. it.
I .. : .. ~:::J 3-::;:ch I l ' 1 I 1 I 1 Yes Yes 10 'x20' Yes -2 parkin:; spaces per
(50 % mus t be covered ) I unit ,
L. 1:.1:n·a 1 1!, 1 L!; ., 1}, 1.!;; Yes Yes 9 'x20 1 * 0
1 ( l must 'be c o ve red)
L .. i'.ll,-... l 1 :! ! 2 I 2 J' 2 I Yes Yes 10 1 x20' * I
------:--:------:-: ~(-i'-l_m::..:u=-s=t be cnc lased) I
LO!: ,\lJ.mitos 1 1·
1
.1 I 1!,; \ 1'i J !>; I I ,-.
I (1 must be c~vered~ Yes I No 10 1 x20 1 It is decided on
I the prec ise plan.
l·:,,·,,,);;rt Jka c il j 1 1· 1 j 1 1 Yes No 9'x20' Yes r-:ore tno1.n t. ut. :-c-
1
quires l acct .. park .
(1 must be covered) s;>a.::e
I I
' i I i I J :Xore t~~ts. ~
r'--p .. I . 1 1 I 1 I Yes Yes No 9'x20' * addtl ~ pu.:-dnl! sc;:.;:e.
!·J .. .;; ..... t .L i..t 1 G .. l l',!P n 1'pt!i , I
I & R) . l • In R-4 all in ~;ar01 r e
I 2 l 2
1
2 2 Yes Yes Yes 10 'x20 1 * ..
Rl.-1 '. 1 ', mu~t be in 1 ":Jr.:~"e i.n nll i 1 •
• _ .. -·0:1',_-;:-_-;:-J.:~·-7-"~~~~ ~U.1&;~.•-,.co-..._.......... w ·----
t • • 1
"
~ __ ...
-.
I
•
I
~
•
. .
\,_o J L )
S.1n ClC'r.lCntc I
I
I
I
S:111 Juan
Capir.tr<Jno
S;111L.:l .\11.1
I
~t ·:ll h,"',lCh I
St."lnton
Tu •:l in I
\' i I 1., l'.1 rk
'~\··; ti:J. i ni.s tc r
Yorb :1 I.in<i 'l
J J,\\J II. 1 .&. ............. ~ .. 2 .._ uv.n,,-,
n~!l)!•'!._I3 C'_: ._.<, R3G
r.;~!_i~~~
H-3 1/ul 111 n ll
R-l• ,<, 1\-.J I ~/ut in a ll
lypr~:
l H; V;
l 1·'r. 1-'i
(No w ' of l l11•m has to
be' •' llt' l ~:c•d) I
1) ul f c•r a ll types
(All mu st be covere d )
1\ 1\ 1-'i
l 1-'2 1 ~
TABLE II
PARJ(ING REQUIREMENTS IN ORANGE COUNl'Y
1968
3 J V.I. 1·1u.L~ \.ro.l L '!&.C ~n .._ar~ort:
Yes Yes
2 Yes No
n Yes Yes Yes
Yes No
2 Yes \ No
2 Yes Yes
'li1IT h?VC no apt regulat ion s tandards
l ', I 1k 2 I 2·\ \
1 02_Cl1 ~ QI>_cn
I
Unti l Ju!:..Y_ 1 1968 the Coun~ Zo nif!S.. Ordinance is used.
11 :;ca ....
9'xl9'
9'x20'
9'x20'
9'x20'
lO'x20'
9'x20'
10'x20'
* .. U.1c king to the portion of stree t right of wa y and direct acce ss to parking spaces or through alleys
are r eg ulated by Rc vie >J llnards, when precise development plan is submitted.
,......
.... ___ --~--~•_!.!!;
Provh ion for
llev. b
Yes
Yes
Yes
Y.;,s
*
*
*
•
'"' • •
, __ .....
·.
\'at,e l ·
L
Nisc.
1'\.Chi QA. '-~
All parki~~ spaces
must be co 1ered .
PO calls fot' l
additional open
parkine s2_ace.
R-4 garde n <J;>art::len ~
requires 1 enclosed
'/
Their defin ~tion of a
carport is s~e as
Rara~e •
l covered
•
I
'
•
' •
I
r-1
Pa&c 4
D··~i !·n <'r -D<'v e lopc r Co u11Tl<'nts
Jn ,1n :tttcmpt to o btain cr>mmcnts relative to the adequacy of our present parking requirements a letter requesting such c~nts "'·1 ~ m:tilcd to c ightcen groups and individuals. Included within the group were Architects, Building Designers, Developers, Real
Estate Sa lesmen, the Building Industries Association and the Chamber of Commerce. The responses are included in the appendix of
this report.
or the five r esponses so far received, the general feeling was that our present requirements are adequate. Ol1e response felt that
the r eq uirements should be increased by one-half space across the board. Another recommended an iDcreue of l/8 space per unit
for i'.lh.!S t parking with credit for on-street parking.
T0 nn :1t 1 nt<'r v i<'W
Th e npi ni on s of a parLmcnt unit tenants was obtained through interview of a sampling of tenants in 19 apartment complexes. Althou&h
th <' :~:~r:~pling was mi n im al it is felt that the infonnation derived is useful.
Th iny -<'i ght interviews we re made asking eight questions. Of the units intervie"WCd, One Bedroom Units averaged 2.3 residents and
1.3 aut om obiles . Two Bedro~n Units, averaged 2.4 residents and 1.63 automobiles. Three Bedroom Unit& averaged 3.7 reaidents and
1.67 automobiles.
Three quest:ions wer e .askc cl which solicited an opinion from the tenant being interviewed:
l. Are parking spaces convenient to your apartment unit1
2. Would you be willinS to sacrifice open space to have
parking spaces located closer to your apartment?
3. Are guest spaces available? Y/N
adequate? Y/N
convenient? YIN
______ Y/N
______ Y/N
Only . tenants felt that parking spaces were not convenient: to his unit and only 5 tenants would agree to sacrifice open space to
h"v•· ~p ace s closer to the unit. The questions rel3tive to guest parking spaces elicited a more significant response; approximately
onc -La l1 of the persons felt that guest spaces were not available, were not adequate and were not convenient.
•
• •
. •
0
\
..__~
N
'
__ ...
-.
"
•
•
• •
-·-------··------------------·
C ity of Tu s tin
TABLE III
APARTME NT PARKING SURVEY
Oc tobe r 1968
Pase 5
Planning Department
~.1 nic of comple x I :-:o . & Type of 'j Parking Type ·No. o f I I Parking I j Are ,. Sac . Open 1 I Units in Como lex Parking S pacefi Unit ! Pers . :Autos Ch arac. Rent 'Space s Space for Guest So :.:·c:.:e'-=s~----
~n . of TntC'rvi.c "s B:tch . lbr. 2br . 3br.l Cov. IOoen Unit. Inte rvie wed •in ut. Owned Res . St.Space 1 Conven. a d dtl. Pk11:. Avai lable1Adeo •:a . Conv;:r.icn::
p,llmwood Gardens 79 23 97 45 1.39
1 2 bdrm . 3 2 2 Yes No No No . t:o No .
2 2 bdrm. 4 1 1 Yes Yes No Yes Ye :. Yes .
3 2 bdrm. 2 2 1 1 Ye s Yes :lo No No t:o
!, 2 bdrm. 3 2 1 1 Yes No Yes ~o No No
~: _5 _ !-:=--2 bdrm . 2 2 1 1 Yes Yes Yes No No No
Ra :1c!w 'iC'rb:t 28 1 12 40 20 l. 5 I
~ 1 bdrm. 2 1 1 No Yes Yes ·:cs Ye s ·:~s
:! I l bdrm . 2 1 1 No Yes !lo Yes Yer; Yes
J I I 2 bdrm. 2 2 1 l No Yes 1 :->o Yes Yes Y<:s
· ·Tu.:t:Tn-;\cres -n: ·o) 180 90 1.5
1 2 bdrm . 3 1 l No Yes l'o Yes No 1 Yes
2 2 bdrm. 3 1 1 No Yes :\o ~-o No I No
T01m Ce nter Ap a rts. 16 16 8 l. 5 I
1 2 bdrm. 2 1 1 No Yes No No No No •
2 2 bdrm. 2 2 1 1 No Yes No No No No 1
r \~in s t o.l Pk-:-cdns . · -------
1 2 bdrm. 3 2 2 No Yes No Yes Ye : Yes
2 2 bdrm. 4 2 2 No Yes No Yes Ye : Yes
r ... ~: i-: Sq u.ue 56 :>o plus '{
1 2 bdrm. 2 1 1 No Yes No Yes , Ye: Yes
2 2 bdrm. 2 1 1 No Ye s No Yes No Yes
--~,inl t.1:·L onl tall 1 34 10 44 lb 1.36
l 1 2 bdrm. 2 2 2 No Yes No I Yes Yes Yes
··17 0u 2 -C.ll:1annC.i r c-le~ J 1 4 2 1.5
1 I 2 bdrm. 2 2 l l No Yes No No No No
-Tr in-id :.J Apartments -. 22 32 54 27 l. 5
1 2 bdrm. 2 2 1 1 No Yes No No No No
2 2 bdrm. 3 2 1 1 No No No No No No
-i·i~wp ort C:tla:<ie Apts 9 48 36 93 47 1.09
1 1 bdrm. 3 2 2 No Yes No Yes Ye~ Yes
2 2 bdrm. 5 2 2 No Yes ~o Yes Yes Yes
· i·he-.: .. ·:tilian I -92 2 5 121 56 1.51
I 1 ~ 2 bdrm . 2 1 l No Ye s No Yes Yes Yes
! 2 _____ 1 _ _ _ _ _ 2 bdrm. 2 1 l No Ye s No Yes Yes Yes
I r he s. ~o v ia I .I 48 38 I a·6t?+3 I .,...-----
. l j 2 bdrm. 2 2 1 1 No Yes No No No ~-o
. _ _ 2 I 1 2 bdrm. 2 2 1 1 No Yes No No No No
: •: 1 t _ ,~ ." He~ t I 52
1
24 52 24 I 1. 0 I
: 1 . · I J l ' , 2 ~rm. 2 1 1 No Yes Yes I No No !:o
'
__ ...
-.
•
I
'
•
, •
•
• •
-~---~ %"t Pa~:>C 6
~
City of Tu s tin
I !\;:m:c of Comp l ex No. & Ty pe of
l~i ts i n Comn lcx
I :~v . ,>~ Inr~rvicws I Bach .: lbr . 2b r.l 3br.
I
Wi lliilms hire 28 56 35
l
~ 2 ... . \ 20 1 80 , 20 \ , o,;;t1.n , rms
· t:E c o;.'Williams & \
I : I . i I r'l Alliance
\ -Tus t i~ vi llagcll2 (114 uts -1,2,3,4
I bedrooms )
l
\ 2
3 -Hol iday Gardens .
l
TABLE 1II (C ontinued)
APARTI!ENT PARKI:-.'G S UR VEY
October 1968
\ Parkingj Type No . ofj I Parking
Parking ' Spaces{ Unit Pers. Autos Charac .
Cov .I Op e n Unit. Inte rvie wed in ut.!Owned Res St.
119 60 1.5
2 bdrm. 3 2 2
3 bdrm. 4 1 1
120 60 1.5
2 bdrm. 2 2 2
-r6 l.O
2 bdrm. 3 1 1
7
3 bdrm. 3 2 2
2 bdrm. 4 1 1
3 bdrm. 4 2 2
60 26 1~48
2 bdrm . 1 1 1
1
Planning Departr-ent
Arc I Sac . Open l
Ren t !'paces . Space for Cues t Snz ces
Spa ce Co nve n. : addtl. Pkg .l Available 1 Acecua. \ Cc:-.·;c:-...
' ' ;
I I I
No Yes No Yes Yes Yes I .No No Yes Yes ' Yes I Yes
I '
I
No Yes No Yes ~0 l\O I
I I i No Yes No Yes Yes p_ Yes j
' I I
I
No Yes No No ~0 ~:o I
No Yes No No :::\0 !~o
No Yes No Ye s Yes '!es
No Yes No Yes ~0 No
No Yes No No No ~;o 34 1 24 I
2
2 bdrm. 2 2 1
·-:~TLi n g 68 14 82 24 1.29 j 2 bdrm . 2 2 1 1 No Yes No No No ~0
1 No Yes No No • ~:n Nn
I
I
I
j
I
1 2 bdrm . 2 2 1
3-lbdrm . l I
32-2b drm
3-3bdrm. l I
Conclusive e vidence could not be obtained by calculating statistics on the apartment developments as a whole either. Cocplexes with si•ilas
p.:1rking spaces ?e r un it and parking spaces per b edroOill ratios appear to have differing parking characteristics. This tact cay indicate t i -lt
the.: des i gn o f t he comp lex plays a significant role in parking characteristics .
•
u \ I
I I
~·
~
.---....
-.
/
•
·'
\
'
•
C ity o f Tu~t i n
TA L:LE J V
APARTi'IENT PARKI NG StnWEY (Continued)
October 1968
~
•
• •
,.,.lJ., ,
Planning Dcpa~tacnt
P.:trkin 1 Total~Warking-Spaces/ j Park ing S paces/ I
C:<>mnlr·x ~l\-a_c_h __ ..,..-1-~r:~~~~~-!--T-o_t_a_l_I~C::.ov=..!!..~~O-pc-n--:-I -T-o-t-a-:-l_; Bedrooms I Unit Bedr o om I Zo n i n z
~:...__. l'l\l=,~~l G.:t r d~+-1 79 23 I 102 97 -45----142 T 227 j 1.39 . 0.63 T R-4 1
': _"·"'.""" Y o <b'~-~-_ ~ . I . '.'._ :' __ I 40 40 20 60 ! 52 1.50 1.15 I R-3 J
). T u'>tin .\L r·c ~ I I ! ! · PO
1
. -~r ·
I I 16 I . I I 5 . \Hn slan Pk .G.ndc ns j Break?own not .availa b l e1 PO !
I I I & • Tu ' tit. Sq uare Br eakdown not 1available R-3 1
I , • To•-n CL·nLc r Apts . 16 16 8 24 32 1.50 0.75 R-3
~~~~l cto n Jl.J.ll . . 34 10 J 44 44 16 60 I _54 1.36 l.ll R-3 !
il . l70f>2 Ca rl.:tn:1 Cir. I ) 1 4 4 2 6 9 1.50 0.67 R-3 _j
,,~--:r ;.~~J.td Ap ~.r t. I 22 32 54 54 27 81 86 l. 50 0. 94 R-3 j ____,
36 I 93 93 47 r4o 100-C-2-20 000
--··-, I
9 48 213 1.51 0.66 10 . r:,·wp o rt Gal.txic
ll. Tile C:~,;til i .J.n 92 25 117 121 56 177 142 1.51 1.25 R-3
12-~TheSC!~ov: . .J. ---~~~ '•B 1 38 ! 86T861 --43 129 I 124 1.50 1.04 R-3 i
--·· -I
JJ . Vill a,·.c ~:!s t -~~ 52 24 1 76 76 39 115 100 1.51 1.15 R-3 ,.
u •. 1<1 Lli-:~'~~~r~ -J-28 56 35 119 119 60 179 245 -i -:-50 --0.73 • -PD-2-7 0 0 -... ,
~~~Tt~:tir: .~n:~: I 20 I SO 20 : 120 120 ?O 180 240 1.50 0.75 R-3 l
8 6 I 43 124
82 1.55 1.10 R-3
''' ·:,: c.11·. \.'i ll i~~s i ' 16 I I 16 I 16 16 32 1.00 0.50 R-3 J
. !. A l, . ILC(' I I
~. ;·11·:t.n '.'i ll.!n.; 112 1 . I j Bre.J.l<down not
1
a vail.J.b1e PD 1
l !; . •:.•! •'i ,; .• rJ>.!ns I 34 24 58 62 28 90
I I I I ·
l 'J. ::.:i !n, . · 1 68 14 I 82, 82 24 106 96 I 1.29 I 1.10 a-3
• •
""'
__ ...
-.
,--
~-...
•
\
"
•
' •
I
•
• •
-----------~----~~~~---------
\'~p,a 8
Co n e 1 u c: ion s
lL :~p;>e:ns t!:a t a s li p,ht inc r e.•se i s warranted fo r two bedroom units and tha t incre ased attention s hould be given to guest parking.
J ncr L'.IS • s shou l d not be m:o d•', h o'1"ve r , at the ex pe n s e of ne e de d o pen space.
Al t ho u r,h sir,nifica nt pro blems ex i s t on both Pasade na and Tu s tin Village Way, it wo uld not ne c ess arily be advantageous to ban on-
s treet pa r king in the ar e a if t here are not e nough o f f-s tre et spaces. It can also be argued that the public stre ets are designed
t o pc•n:~i t on-street parki.nc . Cer t a inly adjacent property owners have a right to utilize such on-street parking unless such use
adv C'r se l y a ff ec t s t he pub l i c we l fa re.
p,
3
·
1
cd ~.o;•C'n o ur st udy of pa rking characteris tics in apartment districts, the following standards are suggested.
Tvpc of Unit
Bache l or
On e Be d room
Two Be droom
Three or Mo re Bedroom
.,., AL l .;,a~ t one pa rking spa ce pe r unit shall b e provide d in a garage or carport.
Spaces/Unit*
1
1.5
1.75
2
Tn ad ·l ct i on t o t hc a b ov e r e q u ired space s , a m~n 1.m um of one ( 1) on-site open or covered parking space shall be provided f or g uest parking
c .. r ,.,,c h te n (1 0 ) dl<ellin r; units or fraction thereof. Said space s shall be marked for "guest parking" and t h e c onvenience of said spaces
L ~ v t ~itor ; 5ha ll be c o n s idered by the Architectural Committee when plans are considered for Architectural Review.
4 t~e~~ k ;:>t-UY 'j,,,...,.~ !.~p i~g.:;r
'r !~n r!ng Di r e ctor
J L~/ jat
--·~--.~·--( -•. -. ~ ~--1
~
__ ....
-.
• \
\_
I
•