►
From YouTube: Planning and Zoning Commission 06 Sep 2017
Description
Agenda HTML: https://englewoodgov.civicweb.net/filepro/documents/33741?handle=B368AF726A37422CB9A433C13E590D82
Agenda PDF: https://englewoodgov.civicweb.net/filepro/documents/33740?handle=4816FF8CF97F42A69252FF173C1B4507
Minutes HTML: https://englewoodgov.civicweb.net/filepro/documents/34920?handle=A0E3E8E20687452781DA7DCEB77DABBA
Minutes PDF: https://englewoodgov.civicweb.net/filepro/documents/34919?handle=0B7CD7D7EE7845FAB5D9CBDEF41755AE
1. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 pm in the Community Room by Chair Kinton.
2. Public Hearing
Case ZON2017-002, 3333 South Pearl Street
Audra Kirk, Planner II was sworn in. The public hearing is for an application to rezone 3317, 3323 and 3333 South Pearl Street from R-1-C Single-Unit Residential to a Planned Unit Development. Proof o...
Commissioners discussed the case and the criteria. Commissioners then voted and stated their findings.
3. Public Hearing
Case 2014-01 Accessory Dwelling Units
John Voboril, Planner II, was sworn in. Notice of the public hearing was published in the Englewood Herald on August 24, 2017 and was published on the City's website on August 17. Further, the public ...
The Commission took a 5 minute recess. The Commission asked Mr. Voboril additional questions and discussed the case. The Commissioners then voted and stated their findings.
4. Adjourn
The meeting adourned at 10:00 pm.
Agenda HTML: https://englewoodgov.civicweb.net/filepro/documents/33741?handle=B368AF726A37422CB9A433C13E590D82
Agenda PDF: https://englewoodgov.civicweb.net/filepro/documents/33740?handle=4816FF8CF97F42A69252FF173C1B4507
Minutes HTML: https://englewoodgov.civicweb.net/filepro/documents/34920?handle=A0E3E8E20687452781DA7DCEB77DABBA
Minutes PDF: https://englewoodgov.civicweb.net/filepro/documents/34919?handle=0B7CD7D7EE7845FAB5D9CBDEF41755AE
A
C
A
A
Okay:
let's
go
ahead
and
approve
the
minutes
for
the
last
meeting.
We
have
no
minutes,
okay,
all
right.
Well,
so
we
go
ahead
and
make
a
motion
to
open
the
public
hearing
case
nosy.
Oh
and
2017:
zero,
zero,
two
at
three
three,
three:
three
South
Pearl
Street
Planned
Unit
development
for
seven
units.
Thank
you.
D
E
C
F
F
F
This
better,
okay,
this
is
a
public
hearing
for
Planned
Unit
development
located
at
33
17
to
33,
33,
South,
Pearl
Street.
The
proof
of
posting
and
proof
of
publishing
has
been
submitted,
for
the
record
also
submitted
for
the
record
were
three
emails
from
residents
that
came
in
later
this
week
that
were
not
included
in
the
packet
and
those
were
those
three
emails
that
I
handed
to
you.
F
As
you
came
in
the
room
tonight,
the
applicant
is
requesting
to
rezone
three
properties
from
an
r1c
zone
district,
which
is
a
single
family
on
a
small
lot
to
a
Planned
Unit
development.
The
proposed
planned
unit
development
would
allow
for
a
maximum
of
one
single-family
attached
dwelling
unit
dwelle
one
single-family
attached
dwelling
with
three
units
and
two
single-family
attached
dwellings
with
two
units.
The
property
surrounding
the
subject.
F
Properties
on
the
north,
south
and
west
are
all
single-family
in
the
r1c
zone
district
and
directly
to
the
west
of
this
proposed
Planned
Unit
development
is
the
MU
r3c
zone
district,
which
is
high-density
residential
and
limited
office.
A
neighborhood
meeting
was
held
on
June
6
2017
and
approximately
20
people
attended
that
meeting
included
in
your
packet
tonight.
We're
minutes
from
that
neighborhood
meeting
that
was
held
on
June
6th.
F
The
applicant
has
provided
a
detailed
PowerPoint
presentation
tonight
on
the
proposed
PUD,
so
in
order
to
not
be
redundant
on
the
entire
presentation
I'm
going
to
let
him
go
ahead
and
give
the
details
of
the
PUD
after
his
presentation
and
right
now,
I'm
available
for
questions
now
and
again,
of
course,
after
his
presentation.
So
are
there
questions
for
me
now.
H
H
John
in
the
packet
on
the
conformance
of
the
comprehensive
plan,
it
says,
explore
residential
redevelopment
plans
that
promote
infill
townhome
development
between
the
hospital
and
single-family
neighborhoods
to
the
north,
to
provide
transitional
zone
that
will
diversify
land
use,
mix,
provide
opportunities
for
new
housing
and
home
ownership,
and
the
first
word
in
there
is
explore
and
I've
got
three
quick
questions
for
you.
First
question:
when
we're
looking
at
explore.
What
was
the
outcome
of
our
discussions
for
this
during
the
medical
small
area
plan
sessions.
I
For
the
medical,
smaller
plan,
zoning
rezoning
sessions,
the
area
that
was
looked
at
was
specifically
the
area
that's
now
currently
zoned
as
mu
r3c
between
Pearl
Street
and
then
the
alley
between
Clarkson
and
Emerson
Street,
the
single-family
r1c
areas
that,
but
that
area
were
not
looked
at
and
we're
never
on
the
table.
However,
we
did
get
good
participation
from
the
citizens
who
lived
in
those
areas.
I
They
seemed
to
want
to
keep
their
neighborhood
stable
and
they
were.
They
had
some
concerns
about
what
might
happen
in
that
MMU
r3c
area
between
Pearl
and
the
alley
between
Clarkson
and
Emerson.
They
did
feel
that
there
should
be
some
opportunities
for
some
redevelopment
to
occur
in
that
area,
but
their
achieve
concern
was
to
make
sure
that
the
height
of
any
redevelopment
in
that
area
be
consistent
with
what
is
there
today,
and
so
one
of
the
one
of
the
things
that
was
changed
was
to
lower
the
height
from
60
feet
to
down
to
40
feet.
I
So
the
transition
zones
are
typically
areas
that
are
adjacent
to
a
very
intensive
development.
A
commercial
area
such
as
the
hospitals
themselves,
they're
very,
very
intensive,
high-density
commercial
area.
As
when
you
overtime
typically,
the
consultant
believed
that
there
would
probably
be
some
type
of
pressure
for
some
type
of
change
close
by
approximately
approximation
approximately
located
close
to
that
hospital.
Intensive
hospital
area
use
in
the
past,
I
was
looking
back
at
the
zoning
records
that
we
have
in
our
office
today
and
in
1955
between
95
5
1963.
I
H
Okay
and
again,
we're
taught
and
we're
talking
about
the
exploration
of
residential
development,
townhomes
and-
and
you
know,
adding
multifamily.
When
will
we
do
this
exploration,
these
plans
for
this
and
the
plans
for
this
residential
transition
area?
Are
we
going
to
do
this
tonight
before
we
make
our
decision?
Are
we
going
to
do?
Do
you
think
it's
wise
for
us
to
do
this
exploration,
or
is
this
something?
Maybe
we
look
at
in
December
as
a
possible
priority
for
discussion
next
year,
or
what
do
you
think.
I
John,
as
with
most
tops
of
the
Planning
and
Zoning
Commission,
this
is
not
something
that
could
be
decided
or
figured
out
in
one
session,
and
it's
definitely
not
going
to
happen
tonight.
We
did
earlier
this
year
have
worked
with
the
Planning
Commission
to
go
over
our
comp
plan
strategies
and
to
figure
out
what
would
our
top
priorities
be
in
the
next
three
years.
I
There
was
some
discussion
about
that
was
talked
about
about
the
medical
district
and
what
might
be
done
there,
but,
however,
quite
frankly,
the
city
pride
has
a
lot
bigger
issues
that
we
would
like
to
explore
than
some
of
these
transitional
areas
at
this
time.
So
it
was
not
recommended
that
that
we
work
on
this
in
the
next
three
years
in
these
areas
around
the
hospital.
J
I
guess
it's
more
of
a
procedural
question
so
for
either
of
you,
so
in
UDC,
16
to
8.
Under
our
plan
unit
development,
zoning
reprocess
our
process
requirements,
there's
the
two
requirements
are
the
criteria
for
the
decision-making
body
to
look
at
and
I
just
wanted
a
little
clarification,
so
I'm,
looking
at
F
approval
criteria-
and
it's
mentioned
also
on
page
6
of
our
packet-
says
approval
criteria.
Pewdie
rezoning
shall
be
made
in
the
interest
of
promoting
house
safety,
and
general
welfare
of
the
community
shall
be
consistent
with
the
comp
plan.
J
K
K
K
K
That's
mostly
what
I
want
to
know.
So,
if,
if
this
were
instead
of
an
r1
c
zone,
it
went
our
to
a4
and
our
to
be,
there
would
be
no
need
for
any
PUD.
It
would
simply
be
allowed
in
that
zone
as
proposed
since
most
of
the
landscaping
and
other
setbacks.
Step
appeared
to
all
be
within
a
to
a
or
b.
Yes.
C
M
M
M
Then,
just
looking
at
the
current
zoning,
which
this
has
been
touched
on
as
well
briefly
tonight,
as
you
can
see,
we
are
r1c
currently,
but
you
can
also
see
that
we
are
directly
adjacent
to
mu,
R,
3
C,
which
is
high
density
residential
again.
This
this
I
feel
is
the
most
important
part
of
what
we're
proposing
I
feel
like.
M
If
you
look
at
most
of
the
scenarios
which
it
makes
sense,
you
you
want
to
have
a
zone
transition
that
falls
on
the
alley.
What
this
does
is.
It
gives
a
uniform
street
frontage
with
similar
zone
districts
on
both
side
of
the
street.
So,
in
our
case,
we
have
somewhat
of
a
mismatch
of
a
street
context
which,
which
creates
its
it's
more
of
an
eclectic,
Street
and
we'll
show
that
a
little
bit
more
here.
This
is
kind
of
a
good
depiction
of
our
context.
M
M
You
have
an
apartment
here
on
the
corner:
single-family
townhomes,
single-family,
high-density
apartment,
several
other
single-family
homes
and
apartments
on
the
corner,
which
I
believe
these
two
houses
just
went
under
contract,
so
I
would
imagine
there
would
be
a
development
there
then
just
kind
of
looking
at
the
context
of
the
west
side
of
Pearl
Street.
You
have
several
smaller
single-family
homes,
RFU
two-story
homes,
single-family
and
then
here's
the
big
lot.
You
know
that
I
am
the
owner
of
there's
a
very
small
alley
home
that
sits
at
the
back.
So
this
is
the
backside.
M
Here's
our
alley,
the
garage
and
the
house
sit
at
the
very
back
of
the
property,
and
then
here
are
the
other
two
homes
that
are
a
part
of
our
PUD,
so
that
just
kind
of
shows.
You
know
that
that
depiction.
You
know
it
clearly
defines
you
know
the
change
in
zone
districts
and
the
eclectic
nature
of
our
street
frontage
right
now
then,
going
on
to
the
comprehensive
plan
which
was
already
discussed
tonight,
this
is
probably
the
most
specific
portion
of
the
comprehensive
plan
that
is
specific
to
our
property.
So
this
is
our
property
right
there.
M
So
you
can
see
this
this
darker,
yellow,
that
is
the
MU,
our
three
C's
own
district,
and
this
a
little
bit
lighter
shade
in
between
here
and
on
the
east
side
of
that
zone
district
are
the
areas
that
were
labeled
residential
transition
area,
which
we
have
already
heard.
The
explanation
to
explore
residential
redevelopment
plans
that
promote
infill
townhome
developments
between
the
hospitals
to
the
south
and
single-family
to
the
north
and
again
I.
Think
this
just
kind
of
reaffirms
our
context.
M
What
we're
seeing
with
that
Street
kind
of
the
different
context
between
both
sides
of
Pearl
Street
in
that
location,
it's
been
identified
in
the
Comprehensive
Plan
as
well,
and
kind
of
go
into
the
concept
prehensile
plan,
as
John
has
brought
up.
I
did
explore
you
know
what
does
this
mean
that
we
are
in
residential
transition?
I
briefly
spoke
at
another
Planning
Commission.
Just
what
does
this
mean
and
the
response
I
received?
Was
you
know?
Well
something
could
happen
or
nothing
could
happen.
M
This
is
an
area
I
wanted
to
keep
that
as
low
as
possible.
When
I
was
laying
out
the
sites
with
the
addition
of
the
garages,
it
was
very
difficult
to
keep
it
at
forty
percent,
so
we
are
proposing
a
fifty
percent
maximum
lock
coverage.
So
that
is
an
area
that
that
would
be
different
than
our
to
be
our
to
be
is
currently
you're
allowed.
M
Sixty
percent
lock
coverage,
but
I
wanted
to
to
keep
the
pressure
down
on
the
lock
coverage
similar
to
our
to
be
25,
feet,
frontage
and
then
everything
else
here,
maximum
height
and
all
of
the
setbacks
are,
will
remain
the
same
and
so
will
the
bulk
plane
so
we're
not
we're
not
proposing
to
increase
the
bulk
plane
or
the
maximum
height
at
all.
We're
proposing
that
all
of
that
stays
exactly
the
same.
M
So
you
know
based
on
that,
given
you
know
each
lot.
33
33
is
an
extra-big
lot,
so
the
potential
for
that
would
be
to
one
option
would
be
to
you,
subdivide
it
into
two
lots
to
4,700
square
foot
Lots
and
build
single-family
homes,
and
the
other
is
to
do
three
townhomes,
whereas
on
the
other,
two
Lots
they're
50
foot
wide
Lots,
they
would
be
able
to
do
duplexes
or,
as
they
are
currently
build,
a
single-family
home
and
that's
the
same
for
both
of
those
lots.
M
So
one
thing
that
this
that
I
think
that
this
does
for
our
neighborhood
is
it
is
it
kind
of
connects
to
the
street
frontage?
You
know
right
now
our
house
sits
at
the
very
back
of
the
lot
so
as
you're
walking
along
there,
it's
definitely
kind
of
a
missing
tooth
within
the
street
frontage
and
just
kind
of
go
into
the
mark
target
market.
You
know
with
our
proximity
to
Swedish.
M
You
know.
I,
think
that
Swedish
medical
professionals
would
be
would
definitely
look
for
new
housing
directly.
North
of
the
hospital
as
I
know
for
a
fact
that
for
Swedish
and
Craig
employees,
housing
is
very
difficult
close
to
the
hospital,
so
this
would
give
them
more
options
closer
to
the
hospital
right
now,
the
majority
of
Swedish
and
Craig
employees
live
outside
of
Englewood
and
just
general
price
range
of
what
what
the
what
these
townhomes
would
hit
the
market.
It
would
be
probably
between
550
and
750.
M
M
I'm
sure
everyone
who
lives
in
Inglewood
understands
the
issues
that
are
going
on
with
the
alleys
they
become
eroded
very
quickly.
So
I
am
in
conversations
with
Public
Works
to
participate
in
the
public-private
partnership
to
basically
pave
the
entire
alley.
In
that
case,
Englewood
would
come
up
with
half
of
the
cost,
and
if
our
PUD
were
to
be
approved
as
the
developers,
we
would
cover
the
up.
M
The
other
half
of
the
funds
needed
to
pay
Valley,
so
we're
in
the
process
of
just
identifying
that
a
little
bit
more
with
Public
Works
right
now,
I'll
be
submitting
a
letter
to
them
a
little
bit
later
this
week,
just
to
make
sure
that
the
funds
are
there
with
Englewood
to
pursue
that
that
Avenue
and
then
another
major
issue
that
I've
come
across,
and
this
is
somewhat
separate
from
what
we're
proposing.
But
this
is
a
very
hazardous
condition
and
we're
probably
not
the
only
ones
as
you're
coming
out
onto
Floyd
from
our
alley.
M
M
If
no
parking
signs
aren't,
you
know
at
least
a
certain
distance
back
from
the
intersection.
So
this
is
just
something
through.
My
walking
has
been
a
major
concern
for
our
our
neighborhood
I've
talked
with
a
few
City
Council
members
about
about
getting
signs.
No
parking
signs
in
that
location,
so
here's
just
a
more
detailed
site
plan
of
what
we're
proposing
so
this
this
lower
one
is
the
three
townhomes
that's
on
the
bigger
lot
and
then
duplexes
on
the
other.
M
Two
lots
to
the
north
part
of
laying
this
out
a
very
important
part
of
it
was
the
undulation
in
the
building
facade
to
kind
of
break
up
the
mass
of
the
townhomes
themselves,
and
so
that,
as
the
minimum
front
setback
is
25,
they
also
sit
back
a
little
bit
more
than
the
existing
houses
on
both
sides.
They
stick
out
a
little
bit
more,
so
our
houses
will
be
set
back
a
little
bit
more
than
the
adjacent
homes.
M
M
We
don't
want
all
the
the
townhomes
to
look
the
same,
but
we
went
there
to
be
somewhat
uniform.
We
definitely
want
to
engage
the
pedestrian
portion
of
the
sidewalks
here
with
front
porches
to
one
minimize
and
kind
of
break
up
the
scale
and
mass
of
the
townhomes,
but
also
to
engage
with
the
street
context.
M
Renderings
of
you
know
the
architectural
character
that
we
envision
for
these
potential
townhomes
just
trying
to
show
you
know
a
variety
of
different
architectural
characters
that
we
see
being
present
with
the
did
this
development,
and
with
that
that
pretty
much
concludes
my
presentation.
I
would
probably
I
would
like
to
have
our
other
property
owners
just
briefly
speak
kind
of
coming
from
their
perspective,
and
you
know
where
they're
at
with
their
property.
N
O
Kelly
Rhodes
and
I
owned
the
property
at
3317,
south
pearl
and
I
have
actually
lived
here.
All
my
life,
it's
been
in
my
family
since
the
early
60s
and
I
really
don't
plan
on
leaving.
So
we
wanted
to
I
wanted
the
opportunity
to
be
able
to
upgrade.
My
house
and
I
was
just
trying
to
find
out
the
best
way
to
do
with
that
and
I
only
I
actually
only
plan
on
it
being
in
my
family
for
the
rest
of
well
the
rest
of
my
life,
but
to
be
passed
on
to
my
kids.
So.
J
M
M
What
is
the
rest
of
your
street
feel,
like
you
know,
I
mean
they're
there
they're
adjacent
to
you
where
they
ought
with
with
with
things
and
it's
kind
of
interesting
throughout
that
process
and
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong
Audra,
but
the
direction
I
received
from
Englewood
was
if
we're.
If
we
were
to
rezone
your
whole.
N
M
M
Otherwise,
if
the
question
were
during
that
survey,
how,
when
how
would
you
feel
about
rezoning
to
our
to
be
where
you
could
potentially
build
townhomes
I
think
that
the
outcome
would
have
potentially
been
yes
throughout
our
street
being
that
that
wasn't
necessarily
an
option?
My
survey
was
limited
to.
How
do
you
feel
about
stretching
mu,
R
3
C
to
our
alley,
which
would
obviously
increased
density
dramatically,
but
you
know
potentially
and
then
the
other
was
just
getting
a
feel
for
well.
M
K
Could
you
give
us
a
feel
I,
don't
need
you
to
go
into
a
lot
of
detail,
but
I
am
I.
Didn't
I
didn't
find
anywhere
inside
the
the
PU
description
kind
of
how
this
was
going
to
layout
into
the
futures.
I
mean
in
terms
of
you
know
changing
of
property
lines.
Original
owners
maintain
these
is
construction
in
sequence.
Somehow,
or
is
there
any
coordinated
effort?
I
mean
again
you
can
do
whatever
you
want
in
the
end,
but.
L
M
We
probably
don't
have
the
typical
capital
that
goes
into
one
of
these
PU
Dee's
to
where
we
could
potentially
just
scrape.
We
have
the
money
ready
to
go
so
I
would
say
that
the
sequencing
is
a
little
bit
different.
I
would
say
from
my
perspective,
I
plan
to
develop
3333
south
pearl
relatively
quickly,
but
again
from
my
standpoint.
M
L
Q
P
M
M
M
E
E
P
K
F
B
M
That's
good
question:
yeah
I
would
say
a
year
and
a
half
ago
I
mean
my
wife
and
I
have
been
into
just
scratching
the
surface
of
real
estate.
We
have
a
few
contento
condos
around
Denver
and
Littleton,
and
you
know
I
just
kind
of
keep
my
eye
on
opportunities
when
this
property
came
up.
Given
the
you
know,
dilapidated
structure
that
was
on
it,
you
know
it
was.
It
was
a
good
opportunity
for
us
get
with
the
proximity
to
Swedish
hospital
and
I
saw
it
very
underutilized,
as
it
was
with
the
700
square
foot.
M
You
know
house
from
the
1940s
in
the
back,
so
we
we
know
we
bought
it.
We
put
a
fair
amount
of
money
into
it
as
a
rental
which,
which
is
kind
of
what
it'll
be.
You
know,
in
my
opinion,
that's
that's
gonna
the
hard
part
looking
at
developing
it
as
a
single-family
given,
what's
across
the
street
from
us,
it's
kind
of
a
tough
sell,
I
think
as
a
single-family
home
and
that's
really
where
it
makes
sense
to
develop
it
as
as
townhomes,
rather
than
a
single-family
home
I.
A
A
A
R
R
I
really
appreciated
that
mr.
rod
rania
did
address
our
concerns
regarding
particularly
the
architectural
kind
of
nature
of
these
townhouses.
We
were
worried
that
they
would
stick
out
more
or
less
like
a
sore
thumb,
like
I'm
sure
you're,
aware
of
some
of
the
other
new
developments
in
our
neighborhood
to
have
and
do
their
much
boxier.
R
They
take
up
almost
all
of
the
property
omits
because
I
think
of
the
zoning,
the
nature
of
those
areas
so
in
this
transitional
zone,
I
think
he's
done
a
good
job
of
incorporating
some
of
the
architectural
elements
that
are
present
in
other
existing
structures,
historic
structures
and
also
in
not
pushing
the
footprint
of
the
properties
to
the
edges
of
the
Lots.
They
keep
front
yards
and
back
yards
I.
R
R
A
S
S
F
K
F
It
is
something
that
the
staff
discussed,
especially
after
we
found
out
at
the
interest
in
his
neighborhood
and
the
interest
on
his
block
for
being
rezone
to
are
to
be.
It
was
a
timing
issue.
It
was
not
on
our
radar
to
do
it
at
any
time.
It's
something
that
I
think,
as
John
indicated
earlier,
that
we
might
be
looking
at
in
the
future,
but
it
was
a
timing
issue
and
the
applicant
was
wanting
to
have
this
done
sooner
than
later.
F
K
F
Other
thing
I
wanted
to
point
out
was
that
you
had
said
that
possibly
we
would
lose
control
of
design
if,
for
example,
the
other
two
homeowners
didn't
want
to
do
anything
for
maybe
five
or
ten
years.
That
PUD
is
still
going
to
be
in
place
and
there
are
design
guidelines
that
have
to
be
met
and
with
architectural
standards
on
that
that
they
would
still
have
to
meet,
regardless
of
when
they
decided
to
redevelop
their
property.
I
got.
F
D
F
K
T
F
F
T
Then
what
if
they
were,
is
there
anything
that
any
kind
of
work
or
construction
at
the
properties
that
would
trigger
compliance
with
the
PUD?
So
if
they
were
going
to
redevelop
part
of
the
structures
that
were
there,
would
they
be
able
to
do
that
or
where
they
have
to
then
go
into
compliance
with
the
PUD?
Anything.
F
U
K
I
Than
this
they're,
typically
larger
developments
be
mixing,
uses
different
parking
rates,
different
landscaping,
then
the
you
know
they
wanted
to
do
something
significant
different
than
the
zoning
would
allow.
This
is
what
you
have
pointed
out
that
this
is
very
similar
to
an
are
to
a
in
our
to
D
zone.
I
It
is
interesting
to
me
as
a
planner,
that
the
survey
that
they
did
that
said
that
and
the
the
comments
that
was
made
by
the
applicant
that
that
there
would
be
an
appetite
for
townhomes
in
this
area.
That
is
interesting
to
me
and
it
would
be
much
cleaner
if
you
did
the
entire
block
face
to
go
to
an
are
to
be
type
zone
district.
I
K
I
K
I'll
ask
the
really
nitty-gritty
question,
which
is
to
do
a
plant
in
development
as
Miss
Townley
and
mentioned
first,
as
it
has
to
pass
these
four
criteria
and
the
fourth
one
is
the
stickler,
because
I
think
it
passes
the
first
three
pretty
well,
and
the
staff
has
addressed
that.
What
I
don't
see
in
the
staff
report
is
support
for
number
four.
In
fact,
there
are
two
parts:
a
and
B
the
staff
report
clearly
says
that
it
does
not
pass
muster
on
B.
K
However,
the
staff
report
does
not
containing
to
support
a
either
in
its
entirety.
It
supports
the
design
standards,
but
it
does
not,
as
intently
pointed
out
and
would
not
be
possible
or
practical
under
a
standard
zone
district
with
conditional
uses
or
with
a
reasonable
number
of
zoning
variances
or
administrative
adjustments
in
which
it
seems
to
me.
Most
of
the
discussion
tonight
has
clearly
indicated
that
an
r2,
A
or
B
would
be
the
far
superior
solution
here.
So
what
is
the?
What
is
the
unique
characteristic
of
this
property
that
lets
it
pass
muster
on
the.
F
K
K
K
Pud
czar,
granted
only
when
it
passes,
muster
on
number
four
in
which
it
says
there
are
unique
characteristics
about
this
property
and
we
can
go
through
all
the
PU
DS
that
Anglet
has
approved,
which
are
about
twenty
to
twenty
to
twenty-five,
and
you
can
say:
oh,
we
did
a
PUD
year
because
this
property
had
these
characteristics
that
made
it
very
difficult
for
it
to
be
developing
of
the
way,
and
so
that's
my
entire
point
is
I.
Do
not
see
what
is
the
unique
characteristic
of
this
property
that
makes
it
eligible
for
an
PUD.
K
H
K
P
H
K
Staff
perspective,
what
is
the
unique
characteristic
is
property
that
makes
it
eligible
for
it,
because
I
don't
see
that
it
passes
number
four,
either
A
or
B
and
I
don't
see
anything
written
in
the
staffs.
Unlike
one
two
and
three
in
which
the
staff
supports
that
and
provides
rationale,
I
don't
see
the
rationale
in
the
staff,
so
I'm
asking
the
staff
to
provide
that.
F
F
P
F
K
F
V
T
F
Be
completely
honest,
I
don't
know
how
I
can
John
you
might
be
able
to
answer
that
I,
don't
know
how
a
conditional
use
what
conditional
use
could
be
granted
in
order
to
to
have
this
rezone
to
this
way.
I,
don't
know
why
it
does
say
conditional
use
on
there.
I,
don't
know
the
conditional
use
that
would
be
acceptable.
Do
you
know
one
that
would
work
conditional.
I
K
H
K
What
is
the
unique
thing
about
this
and
a
size
is
not
a
unique
thing.
I
mean
that's
true
for
a
PUD
itself.
You
can't
do
it,
but
but
but
generally
PUD
s
are
put
into
play
because
there's
some
constraint
on
the
property.
That's
why
it's
always
been.
There's
some
constraint
that
doesn't
allow
for
development
to
occur.
I.
F
Disagree
with
that,
usually
in
my
experience,
a
PUD
HAP
PUD
happens
when
somebody
has
property
and
the
uses
that
are
associated
with
the
property
that
they
have
are
not
the
use
that
they
want
to
use
that
property.
For,
for
example,
you
have
an
industrial
property.
You
want
to
do
residential
there,
that's
not
permitted,
so
you
have
to
apply
for
PUD
the
property
itself.
I
mean
there
may
be
nothing
unique
about
it
other
than
the
fact
that
the
owner
of
the
property
would
like
to
do
another
use
there.
Then
what
prevented.
K
Well
then,
we
would
agree
to
disagree
because
I
mean
I,
I
read
it
through
here
and
I,
say
to
you
know
that
it's
not
possible
or
practical.
Basically
to
do
anything
with
this
property
and
it
clearly
there
is,
you
can
certainly
put
through
single-family
homes
on
it,
so
I'd
I
still
don't
think
it
passes
muster.
But
if
you
don't
have
any
food
to
say
that
my
question
is
directed
to
the
staff.
K
A
H
F
K
M
Going
to
the
uniqueness
question,
I
would
say:
one
factor
that
is
somewhat
unique
to
ours
is
the
relationship
to
hot.
You
know
having
an
r1
zone
district,
that's
directly
adjacent
to
high
density
residential
across
the
street.
I
think
you
just
typically
like
to
see
those
zone
changes
happen
at
the
alley
to
complete
that
context
of
the
street.
C
P
A
A
K
E
E
With
regard
to
any
just
good
practice
of
Zoning
to
go
from
a
single-family
to
to
an
extremely
dense,
highly
intensive
use,
which
is
right
across
the
street,
it
really
does
there's
there's
a
huge
difference
in
character
of
the
neighborhood
I
think
from,
and
you
may
or
may
not
agree,
but
I
think
that
that
what
makes
this
unique
first
of
all
is
the
environment.
The
environment
in
which
staff
operates
in
the
city
is
required
to
respond
to
is
much
more
dynamic
than
what
it
has
been
in
the
past.
As
such,
it
does
ness.
E
It
does
necessitate
a
change
of
priority,
particularly
when
there's
somebody
who
wants
to
create
a
series
of
properties
that
are
going
to
be
worth
a
few
million
dollars
plus
and
want
to
have
the
density
of
the
property
or
the
lot
coverage
of
the
property
less
than
what
it
would
be
if
there
was
to
be
rezone
and
a
ninety
four
hundred
square
foot
lot.
While
it
is
not
in
and
of
itself
a
unique
standalone,
one-of-a-kind
lot
in.
E
It
is
roughly
46
percent
larger
than
the
average
lot
in
Englewood
and
understanding
that
that
in
and
of
itself
makes
it
by
the
time
you
add
up
those
three
Lots
combined,
we
come
in
somewhere
a
neighborhood
of
around
20-some
thousand
square
feet.
That
being
the
case,
I
think
that
makes
it
a
great
opportunity.
Now.
The
question
is:
do
we
have
the
ability
to
to
move
forward
with
this,
particularly
given
the
fact
that
the
neighborhood
wants
it
that
I
think
inherently?
E
The
city
would
like
to
see
this,
but
from
a
planning
perspective
are
not
ready
to
respond,
given
all
the
other
pressures
at
this
point
there
no
disrespect
to
the
city
and
the
staff
working
hard
and
I
just
think
it
makes
a
great
deal
of
sense,
and
so
the
question
comes:
can
we
be
flexible
enough
and
are
we
willing
to
be
flexible
enough?
We
have
the
latitude.
Are
we
willing
to
be
flexible
enough
in
order
to
do
something
that
gets
a
home
off
the
alley
and
puts
a
facade
up
there?
E
That
adds
three
properties
on
3333,
two
properties
on
33,
23
and
33
17?
That
have
all
said,
they'd
like
to
do
this
with
their
property,
but
for
the
fact
we
don't
have
the
details
and
we
didn't
necessarily
get
ahead
of
this
as
a
city,
and
so
that's
those
are
my
initial
thoughts
on
it.
I'll
see
if
I
can
form
the
rest
of
them
as
we
go.
Thank.
A
H
H
K
Yes,
pretty
much
so
I
did
not
discuss
this
particular
area.
The
area
we
discussed
was
north
of
this
and
and
west
of
this,
in
fact
west
of
Logan,
and
it
was
really
in
some
ways
a
different
kind
of
discussion,
but
yeah.
It
was
similar
in
the
sense
that
it's
a
transition
zone,
however
result
of
that
was
the
neighborhood
did
not
want
to
go
that
direction
and
an
overlay
was
placed
to
down
zone
the
area
back
to
single-family,
as
I
recall.
Is
that
not
correct?
We
put
an
overlay
over
that
area
and
yes,.
I
Over
by
grip
on
Grant
Street,
there
is
an
overlay
there
that
allows
only
single-family
and
to
family
properties
to
be
redeveloped
on
any
property
there.
Any
apartment
building,
that's
larger
than
that
can
be,
can
be
redeveloped
at
its
current
density
plus
a
certain
percentage,
but
but
any
existing,
single-family
or
two
family
home
can
only
be
replaced
with
a
single
family
or
two
family
home
and
that
on
that
street,
so.
K
H
The
blend
ability
of
your
design
and
I
think
there
is
enough
across
the
street.
The
thing
that's
hanging
me
up
right
now
and
the
reason
I
ask
you
that
question
Ron
I
can't
remember
Kate.
You
may
have
been
there
during
the
medical
I
can't
remember,
but
I'm
having
trouble
in
that
I
think
that
we've
yet
to
explore,
which
is
what
you're
using,
is
the
ration
now
I'm
going
to
do?
H
P
H
Again,
we've
talked
about
it
before
that
one
PUD
does
not
set
a
precedent,
in
other
words,
in
fact,
I
remember,
Nancy,
Reid,
saying
that,
and
we
can
ask
father
over
there
whether
whether
it
does,
but
my
understanding
is
that
one
peta
that
a
PUD
does
not
set
any
kind
of
precedent,
so
we
may
choose
it
on
the
basis
of
other
things.
Well,
I'm
stuck
on
the
fact
we
haven't
done
that.
K
Well,
I,
don't
think
I've
already
expressed
most
of
my
opinions,
but
I'll
just
summarize
real
quickly,
number
one
I
think
it
is
a
nice
development.
I
mean
I,
have
no
problem
with
that
and
I
think
this
area
needs
to
go
that
direction.
So
I
don't
have
tremendous
opposition
to
it
from
their
perspective,
but
that
I
think
it's
an
appropriate
development
for
that
area.
It
is
a
transition
zone,
and
this
is
what
we'd
like
to
see
happen.
K
My
hang-up
is
that
I
think
we're
stepping
outside
of
a
process
that
was
designed
for
something
entirely
different
and
there's
another
process.
Rezoning
the
entire
block,
or
even
several
blocks
was
a
much
more
rational
decision
in
a
lot
of
ways.
Granted
it
takes
more
time,
I
get
that,
but
the
whole
point
of
this
commission
is
not
to
instantly
gratify
every
one
who
wants
to
do
some
little
thing,
and
you
know
the
markets
there
I
agree.
The
market
moves
fast
in
the
city.
K
It
always
has
always
will
to
say
that
the
city
is
going
to
be
ahead
of
the
market.
Is
it's
pretty
ludicrous
yeah
like
I
can't
ever
kind
of
imagining
it
and
it
shouldn't
be,
but
what
it
should
do
is
provide
a
framework
of
rules
that
are
consistent
so
that
everybody
knows
and
can
play
the
game
on
a
playing
level
field
and
I.
Just
don't
believe
that
a
PUD
here
is
an
appropriate
way
to
go,
but
again,
I
like
the
development,
too
and
I
think.
Ultimately,
that
area
will
be
rezone
and
I.
K
L
K
H
K
You
right,
we
take
a
zona,
the
three
blocks
down
is
commercial
yeah
and
you
could
have
a
whole
little
mishmash
of
different
zones
all
over
the
place
and
one
house
is
this:
Zone
one
house
is
this:
I
mean
that's
the
problem
with
small
PUD
like
this.
Is
it
creates
these
little
micro
zones
everywhere
that
are
hard
to
manage
from
a
certain
perspective,
but
again
I,
don't
think,
there's
a
bad
development,
so
I'm
not
going
to
anymore
I.
E
Appreciate
you
calling
on
me
again:
oh
I
tell
you
what
John
I,
often
think
of
you
I'm
very
fond,
but
it
would
seem
to
me
you
know
to
your
point
and
to
answer
your
question.
We
have
yet
to
explore
that
I.
Don't
agree
with
we're
doing
that
at
this
point
and
an
academic
exercise
in
exploring
what
would
be
the
purpose
of
point
number.
One
would
simply
be
an
academic
exercise
in
futility,
because
none
of
these
people
would
have
an
opinion
that
have
shown
up
here.
E
Presumably
for
this
or
the
neighbors,
wouldn't
have
an
opinion
in
our
academic
exercise.
They
did,
however,
have
an
opinion
regarding
three
properties
being
redeveloped
to
a
tune
which,
presumably,
as
a
matter
of
personal
opinion
and
through
no
disrespect
to
current
property
owners,
are
not
going
to
redevelop
their
properties
but
a
more
attractive,
more
modern,
look,
okay.
E
So
to
that
extent,
we've
explored
that
in
a
real-life
manner,
and
that's
been
going
on
now
for
a
few
months,
so
that
is
commendable
happening
regardless.
I
think
that
that
ultimately,
staff
had
alluded
to
the
fact
that
they
may
need
to
redo
priorities
or
move
this
forward
and
John
I.
Think
you
also
said.
Perhaps
we
should
look
at
that
a
little
bit
differently
and
I
think
in
terms
of
transition
zones
throughout
the
city.
So
what
is
a
reasonable
expectation,
expectation
of
a
transition
zone
from
a
very
low-density
single-family
to
the
high-density
right
across
street?
E
What
other
neighborhood?
Should
we
look
at
and
say
what's
a
reasonable
redevelopment
in
there
and
begin
to
have
that
conversation
not
tomorrow,
but
begin
to
have
that
conversation,
okay
and
I?
Think
that
makes
a
lot
of
sense,
given
the
fact
that
doesn't
necessarily
set
a
precedent
for
anything
it
doesn't,
nobody
can
come
in
hold
our
feet
to
the
fire
it
does
allow
for,
and
what's
proposed
in
front
of
us
is,
is
a
lower
density
of
lot
coverage
or
a
lower
lot
coverage
in
what
zoning
would
be,
and
so
consequently,
we're
actually
getting
quote-unquote
more.
E
A
J
Just
had
a
question:
I
guess,
maybe
of
the
other
commission
members
and
I
agree
that
the
development
itself,
you
know
it
meets
what
we
have
in
the
comp
plan.
The
comp
plans-
visionary,
it's
not
legally
binding.
Zoning
change
is
legally
binding.
So
can
you
help
me
see
what
evidence
that
we
have
here
that
this
can't
be
accomplished
in
another
existing
zone
district.
T
The
only
other
comment
that
I
have
is
that
that's
not
what
I'm
looking
at
one
a
it's,
it's
not
a
lot
of
practice
practicable,
understand
in
a
standard
zone
district,
but
then
the
other
two
provisions
that
are
in
here
with
conditional
uses
and
audre
testify
that
this
isn't
a
situation
where
a
conditional
use
can
fix
the
problem.
That's.
J
K
T
K
Right,
but
they
could
certainly
use
this
the
way
it
is
now
with
no
problem.
It's
not
I,
guess
my
point
and
whether
you
agree
or
not
is
that
this
property
is
not
really
that
unique
in
any
way
that
that
that
makes
it
need
to
have
a
PUD
is
often
used
to
alleviate
a
problem
so
that,
because
it
can't
be
developed,
this
can
quickly
be
developed
in
a
number
of
ways.
K
H
C
J
J
It's
basically
just
putting
in
a
patchwork
where
it
looks
like
you
know,
from
the
survey
and
other
information
that
there's
momentum
in
the
neighborhood
to
rezone.
More
than
just
that
small
piece
of
property
and
I
think
that's
a
more
comprehensive
solution
or
something
that
we
should
explore.
So
I
vote,
no
I.
D
Agree
with
some
of
Kate's
points,
but
I
do
also
think
this
is
a
very
thoughtful
development
I
really
like
the
landscaping
and
the
coverage
of
you
know,
we've
seen
some
developments
that
to
me
didn't
have
as
much
landscaping
that
I
would
like
to
see.
I
do
think
that
it
is
possible
that
we
need
to
look
at
a
tree
zoning
for
areas
of
the
of
the
city,
but
that's
impractical
right
at
this
point,
so
I
vote
YES
for
the
project.
T
I
vote
I
vote.
No,
because
the
subsection,
F,
1a
and
1b
I,
don't
think
can
be
satisfied
for
the
same
reasons
in
this
town.
We
stated
that
when
I'm
going
through
this
and
trying
to
make
this
project,
which
I
really
like
I,
think
it
fits
in
the
neighborhood
I
think
it's
great
for
Swedish
hospital
I
think
it's
great
for
the
businesses
in
the
area,
but
I
find
myself
trying
to
play
war
games
on
how
to
fit
the
project
into
the
criteria.
T
It's
not
a
development
that
wouldn't
be
allowed
in
a
different
zone
district
with
conditional
uses
or
with
administrative
adjustment,
since
so
I
don't
find
that
it
meets
F
1,
a
F,
1,
B
I.
Don't
think,
there's
any
question
that
that
can't
be
satisfied
because
the
property
can
be
developed
under
existing
zoning,
even
through
the
use
of
conditional
use
of
administrative
adjustments.
H
H
But
my
reason
for
asking
the
initial
questions
is:
we've
kind
of
you
know
bounce
back
and
forth
on
this
particular
thing
on
whether
this
should
be
a
transition
area,
how
much
of
a
transition
area
how
much
residential
the
thing
that's
making
me
torn
is
I'm,
god
I
can't
believe
it
I'm
agreeing
with
Mike
here
that
this
could
be
a
very
pragmatic
single
situation
in
that
we
could
say,
okay
with
no
precedent
that
we
like
this,
and
this
is
something
that's
good
for
the
city.
Do
you
agree
miss
mr.
P
H
You
know-
and
this
is
really
tough-
in
other
words,
it
would
be
pragmatic
as
a
bike,
because
the
only
problem
I
have
and
now
I've
heard
Kate's
objections
and
why
this
one's
tough,
but
on
a
very
pragmatic
level
and
the
fact
that
we've
heard
no
negative
responses
from
the
community
around
this
particular
piece
of
property
and
the
quality
of
it.
I'm
gonna
say
yes,
but
again,
I
want
to
echo
the
sentiments
of
all
who
want
to
look
at
it
in
a
different
way
in
a
different
light.
So
you
got
a
yes
there.
K
Transition
areas,
the
mechanism,
the
PUD
is,
it
simply
doesn't
pass
muster
for
me
it
doesn't
meet
criteria
for
a
or
B,
which
means
it
really
can't
be.
A
PUD
and
and
I
strongly
disagree
with
the
statement
that
this
does
not
set
a
precedent.
I
think
it's
very
much
sets
of
precedent
and
I
think
it
sets
a
bad
precedent
in
that.
In
a
sense,
it's
a.
K
A
distortion
of
the
PUD
process
and
I'm
not
terribly
concerned
about
it,
because
it's
not
gonna
do
something.
It's
bad,
it's
a!
She
can
do
something
it's
good,
but
nonetheless
it's
a
distortion
of
the
PUD
and
that's
what
disturbs
me
more
anything
else
and
potential
for
further
PU
DS
to
come
to
play
that
are
essentially
similar
and
say.
Well,
they
did
it
over
there.
Why
can't
we
do
it
here?
B
So
I'm
gonna
echo
some
of
the
sentiments.
It's
definitely
a
difficult
one
and
I've
certainly
been
torn
when
I
first
was
reading.
This
I
mean
one
of
the
questions
that
had
came
to
my
mind
is
why
PUD
I
haven't
been
on
the
commission,
all
that
long
I've
only
seen
I
think
one
other,
maybe
two
others
and
it
was
for
large
apartment
complexes
and
that
made
sense
for
what
the
underlying
purpose
of
the
PUD
was
and
I
and
I
understood
that,
and
it
made
sense
to
move
it
forward.
B
Pud
czar
by
their
nature,
ad
hoc,
you
create
new
zoning
for
them,
and-
and
you
know,
while
while
I
like
also
this
project
I,
do
think
this
is
the
direction
it
needs
to
go.
The
fact
that
this
is
there
are
other
avenues
to
do
this,
and,
rather
than
creating
a
whole
new
whole
new
zoning,
while
the
city
does
have
these
other
avenues
to
do
it
I.
For
those
reasons,
I
vote
no.
E
W
E
Definition
of
a
PUD
could
be,
but
I
think,
based
on
this
I
think
we
like
to
see
that
that
happen
and
I
just
believe
we
have
the
latitude
nor
to
do
that
because
to
everybody's
point,
a
PUD
by
definition,
is
an
ad
hoc
zoning
and
in
this
case
it's
it's
somewhat
unusual
in
that
normally
we
when,
if
we
have
a
PUD
in
front
of
us,
it's
my
impression
that
we
have
people
all
around
saying.
Oh,
how
dare
you
let
them
do
this
and
we
don't
have
that
tonight.
E
We
don't
have
that
in
any
of
the
evidence
before
us.
We
don't
have
that
in
in
any
circumstance,
and
so
I
think
it
begs
the
question.
The
other
way
is:
should
we
take
the
latitude
in
order
to
do
this?
Not
can
we
I
think,
can
we
the
answer
to
that
is
in
the
affirmative?
The
answer
to
should
we
is
also,
in
my
opinion,
in
the
affirmative,
so
I
vote.
Yes,
I.
Q
Q
A
Well,
I,
don't
think
my
vote
matters
at
this
point,
but
nevertheless
I
mean
this
is
definitely
one
that
I'm
torn
on.
But
my
sentiment
is
a
bird
in
the
hand,
and
you
know
you
know
we
might
rezone
this
and
not
get
nearly
this
quality
of
development
and
that's
a
concern.
On
the
other
hand,
it's
a
concern.
That's
been
expressed
it
you.
A
I
I
I
For
this.
At
this
time,
I
would
just
quickly
want
to
go
over
the
record
of
Commission
action
on
accessory
dwelling
units.
The
establishment
of
accessory
dwelling
units
as
a
high
priority
work
item,
took
place
on
at
the
December
2nd
2014
study
session.
That
was
quickly
followed
up
by
a
series
of
stay
sessions
on
accessory
dwelling
units
and
the
dates
for
those
were
January,
9th
February,
3rd
February,
18th,
March,
2nd
June,
2nd
June,
16th
and
July
7th
of
2015.
I
At
this
time
there
was
a
pause
in
accessory
dwelling
units
for
a
number
of
different
reasons.
The
first
reason
was
that
England
forward
and
which
included
the
comprehensive
plan
new
conference
plan,
as
well
as
the
Englewood
light
rail
corridor
next
step
study
and
the
englewood
walk
and
wheel
master
plan,
we're
all
being
finalized
and
needed
the
attention
of
Planning
and
Zoning
Commission.
I
At
that
time,
a
decision
was
made
that
we
needed
to
first
adopt
the
conference
plan
before
we
went
moved
on
with
accessory
dwelling
units,
the
new
conference,
a
plan
was
adopted
in
spring
of
2016
and
with
that
a
new
staff
person
was
assigned
to
handle
accessory
dwelling
units
and
a
new
series
of
of
study
sessions
was
undertaken
in
the
fall
of
2016
and
the
dates
for
those
were
September.
20Th,
October,
4th,
October,
18th,
November,
8th
and
December
6th
of
2016
and
a
final
one
was
held
on
January
18th
2017.
I
I
The
results
from
the
surveys
were
then
compiled
and
analyzed
by
the
Planning
and
Zoning
Commission
at
the
July
18th
2017
study
session.
At
this
time,
I
just
like
to
give
you
a
little
bit
of
a
background
and
analysis
in
terms
of
history
of
accessory
dwelling
units.
The
city
of
Englewood
has
a
long
history
with
these
developments
in
the
1920s
1930s
and
1940s.
Approximately
180
of
these
structures
were
built
in
England
to
address
housing
shortages.
I
What
happened
after
that
was
that
we
had
the
explosion
of
the
suburbia
and
housing
shortages
were
a
thing
of
the
past
and
AD
use
fell
out
of
favor
and
we're
subsequently
and
removed
from
most
zoning
ordinances
in
the
United
States.
However,
in
the
1990s
accessory
dwelling
units
began
making
a
comeback,
especially
in
very
expensive
and
tight
housing
markets,
and
particularly
in
the
northwestern
United
States
and
now
here
in
in
the
Denver
metro
area,
we
find
ourselves.
I
There's
a
number
of
different
benefits
that
can
arise
from
the
building
of
these
properties
in
terms
of
property,
investment
value,
additional
income
to
the
homeowner
alternative
housing
options,
so
that
some
people's,
don't
not
everyone-
wants
to
rent
in
a
large
apartment
building
and
would
like
something
that's
more
affordable,
yet
more
closer
to
a
single-family
residence
to
live
in
infrastructure
efficiency.
You
don't
need
to
build
a
lot
of
infrastructure
with
these.
I
The
infrastructures
are
in
place
and
you
can
utilize
that,
in
a
more
efficient
fashion,
lifecycle
stage
housing
options,
so
many
people
would
like
to
house
an
older
mother
or
father,
so
they
can
keep
an
eye
on
them.
Yet
they
can
have
some
independence
or
do
they
have
might
have
some
older
children
who
have
have
not
yet
established
themselves
financially,
and
this
is
kind
of
gives
them
a
little
bit
of
an
autonomy.
It
can
support
the
local
economy,
bringing
in
more
people
to
the
Broadway
corridor
that
would
park
to
patronize
some
of
the
local
businesses.
I
I
Now,
at
this
time,
I
would
just
like
to
kind
of
give
over
the
details
of
the
amendments.
There,
five
officially
declared
purposes
of
ad
use
number
one
provide
options
for
varied
and
flexible
lifestyle
arrangements,
provide
options
for
tentative
building
structures.
Living
space
number
three
provides
potential:
supplemental
sources
of
income
for
increased
property
values,
encourage
higher
levels
of
property,
maintenance,
five,
provide
options
for
building
structures,
living
space
expansion,
while
simultaneously
encouraging
preservation
of
existing
structures.
I
Our
proposal
has
designate
types
of
ad
use,
the
garden
cottage,
which
is
a
free-standing
structure
located
in
the
rear
yard
and
the
carriage
house
above
or
attached
to
a
detached
garage
in
terms
of
ad
eligibility
for
a
lot
sizes
one
unit
they
will
be
eligible
for
one
unit,
detached
dwellings,
standard
lot
with
a
fifty
foot
minimum
width.
You
may
do
on
these
Lots
a
one
garden,
cottage
or
one
carriage
house
for
a
smaller
lot.
One
unit
detached
dwelling
small
lot
with
a
37
foot.
I
Minimum
width
you'll
be
able
to
do
a
carriage
house
unit,
only
a
tu
creation.
They
are
created
in
the
following
manner,
either
by
new
construction
or
a
conversion
of
a
qualifying
alley
house
located
in
the
rear
yard
to
a
garden
cottage,
while
simultaneously
construct
a
new
principal
dwelling
in
the
front
yard.
We
also
have
designated
a
tu
occupancy
requirements.
The
owner
of
record
with
a
50%
MIM
ownership
must
occupy
either
the
principal
blog
or
the
accessory
dwelling
unit
as
their
legal
permanent
address,
as
demonstrated
by
voter
and
vehicle
registration.
I
The
owner
shall
verify
a
nano
basis.
The
owner
continues
to
occupy
either
the
principal
dwelling
unit
or
the
accessory
going
in
it
as
their
legal
permanent
address
through
the
city's
annual
conforming
ad
you
registered
use
mailing
I
want
to
must
recite
on
the
property
for
a
minimum
of
nine
months
of
the
year.
The
owner
may
not
rent
the
owners
legal
residence
without
applying
for
a
leave
of
absence,
if
owned
by
a
corporation.
The
property
must
be
occupied
by
person
authorized
to
bind
such
entity
in
real
estate
matters.
I
In
order
to
apply
for
a
leave
of
absence.
The
following
must
be
met.
The
situations
that
are
allowed
are
temporary
job
assignments,
military
deployments,
educational
and
research,
sabbaticals,
formal
voluntary
service
for
human
to
human,
at
Arian
organization,
religious
missionary,
service
and
long
term,
hospital,
nursing,
home
and
assisted
living
facility
stays
due
to
adverse
medical
conditions.
I
The
owner
must
reside
in
the
property
for
one
year
after
construction
of
the
Adu,
before
applying
for
the
cities
to
the
city
for
a
leave
of
absence,
the
owner
may
apply
for
a
city
approved,
leave
apse
up
to
one
year
and
may
reply
for
a
second
year,
depending
on
clean
record,
with
no
code
violations
or
notions
or
criminal
activities.
The
owner
owners
away
on
overseas
military
services
may
be
granted
additional
years
based
on
a
clean
record
during
approved
leave
of
absence
owner
may
rent,
both
the
principal
dwelling
unit
and
accessory
dwelling
unit.
I
At
the
same
time,
in
terms
of
AD,
you
design
requirements
number
one
at
80.
You
should
not
exceed
650
square
feet
of
gross
floor
area
number
two
exterior
stairs
for
access
to
an
upper
level
accessory
suite
shall
not
be
located
on
the
side
of
the
accessory
structure.
Parallel
to
the
nearest
side,
lot
line
number
three
and
80:
you
shall
not
exceed
a
maximum
height
of
26
feet,
the
lockup
number
for
the
lock
coverage
for
a
garden
college
80.
I
You
shall
be
counted
toward
the
maximum
allowed,
lock
coverage
number
five
edu
placement
is
restricted
to
the
35%
rear
of
the
lot.
680
use
must
conform
to
all
existing
accessory
structure.
Setbacks
number
seven,
a
bulk
plane
height
of
12
feet,
will
be
established
at
the
side
property
lines
number
eight
one
off
street
parking
space
will
shall
be
provided
for
each
accessory
going
in
it
number
nine
80
use
must
connect
to
the
principal
dwelling
unit,
water
and
sewer
lines.
Separate
lines
are
not
allowed.
I
Number
ten
Adu
properties
may
not
be
subdivided.
Ats
may
not
be
sold
separately
from
the
primary
structure
allowed.
Zoning
districts
for
ad
use
will
be
as
follows:
mu,
r3b,
mixed-use,
medium
to
high
density,
residential,
limited
office,
mu,
r3,
a
mixed-use,
low
density,
residential
and
limited
office
are
to
be
medium
density,
single
and
multi
dwelling
unit
residential
are
to
a
low
density,
single
and
multi
dwelling
unit,
residential
and
finally,
our
1c
single
unit
residential.
I
J
P
K
C
K
Sure
asked
all
the
changes
in
designations
which
I
missed.
The
chair
has
stated
that
we've
discussed
a
lot
there's
a
by
Authority.
It's
a
clearly
legal
document
of
a
bill
for
the
ordinance
and
there's
a
bunch
of
things
in
there.
I
just
was
wondering
remember
ever
seeing
that
in
any
of
our
public
hearings,
which.
K
I
I,
the
the
city
attorney
was
asked.
Ky,
gimmick,
heads-up,
I
think
it
was
also
beneficial
for
them
to
get
a
head
start
on
this,
but
we
decided
that
we
had
let's
go
ahead
and
put
this
into
the
actual
ordinates
format.
They
would
go
to
council,
okay,
so
that
that's
what
you
are
seeing
this
is
what
counts
would
see
so.
I
This
is
just
simply
the
we're
asses
that
are
kind
of
standard
for
an
ordinance
okay.
It
borrows
heavily
from
the
staff
report,
we're
asses
and
the
recommendations
that
say
that
this
and
this
that
this
and
this
so
I
have
also
written
a
staff
report
for
the
City
Council,
and
that
was
also
used
to
compile
these.
Whereas
statements,
but
following
those
warehouse
statements,
then
it
goes
into
what
the
code
will
look
like
in
terms
of
black
line
underlined,
which.
K
J
We
have
the
list
of
purposes
that
the
Commission
put
together
in
order
to
kind
of
guide
our
recommendations
for
the
code,
change
and
those
are
currently
in
the
code.
Change
I'm
wondering
are
those
going
to
be
used
like
does
it
would
an
applicant
need
to
prove
that
they
are
meeting
one
of
those
purposes
or
certain
situations,
I
think
it's
how
it's
written?
Do
you
have
to
prove
that,
in
order
to
be
able
to
apply
to
build
one?
No.
Q
Q
It
says
approval
of
application
is
dependent
on
city
inspection
of
existing
primary
structure.
All
primary
structure,
deficiencies
and
code
violations
documented
in
the
city's
Priya
tu
permit
inspection
must
form
must
be
brought
into
full
compliance
with
city,
housing
and
building
code
standards
for
a
tu.
Can
you
describe
the
depth
of
that
because,
and
maybe
somebody
roughed
in
a
toilet,
that's
15,
inches
or
11
inches
off
a
wall
and
code
today
is
15
inches
off
the
wall.
You
know
what?
How
deep
are
they
going
to
go
into
code?
I
Q
K
A
X
My
name
is
Rebecca
Alexis
I
live
at
1982,
south
Pennsylvania
Street,
that's
in
Denver,
I,
don't
live
here,
so
I'm
an
architect
and
a
retired
contractor
I
have
been
passionate
about
these
a
to
use
since
2007,
when
I
heard
that
Denver
was
considering
them
in
their
2010.
Zoning
and
I
worked
very
hard
going
to
neighborhoods
and
trying
to
explain
what
the
benefits
were
of
these
ad
use,
and
you
listed
certainly
a
lot
of
them.
X
A
couple
more
is
that
it
allows
people
to
stay
in
their
home
if
they
need
to
make
additional
income
or
have
a
caregiver.
It
also
puts
more
eyes
on
the
alley
which
reduces
crime
less
graffiti,
less
break-ins
and
I
really
like
what
you
guys
have
are
proposing
I.
Think
it's
a
lot
better
than
Denver.
For
example,
the
cottage
house
option
your
height
limit
of
26
feet
is
better
than
verse.
24
oh
I
get
nervous
talking
in
front
of
people
on
creating
an
off
street
parking.
X
X
These
little
jewels
are
very
costly
and
if
see-
and
if
you
could
allow
it
attached
a
to
you
I
think
you
would
get
more
of
these
so
far,
Denver's
only
permitted
about
250,
AD
use
and
I'm.
We
think
it's
out
high
since
2010.
That's
not
very
many
and
I'd
like
to
see
a
lot
more
of
these
I
think
that's
about
all
I
had
to
say.
V
V
Four
years,
working
on
ad
use
and
I
I'd
like
to
say
thank
you
that
you
guys
are
getting
on
board
with
the
Adu
situation.
A
couple
of
comments,
I,
think,
there's
one
more
beneficial
item
to
ad
use
is
that
when
you
undertake
this
kind
of
project,
it's
outside
of
your
house,
if
you
do
a
carriage
house
or
or
stand
alone
against
an
alley,
you're,
not
disrupting
your
household,
you
are
building
something
new,
doesn't
disrupt
you
and
your
family.
V
You
don't
have
contractors,
subcontractors
roaming
through
your
property,
your
house
and
you
don't
have
to
secure
it
quite
the
same
way.
You
still
secure
the
site,
but
your
main
residence
is
still
pretty
much
well
protected.
So
that's
another
benefit
to
ad
use.
Aside
from
all
the
other
ones.
That
have
been
stated.
A
couple
of
comments:
I've
noticed
in
the
language
that
you
have
item
1
no
stairs
going
up
to
the
second
level.
V
If
you
have
a
carriage
house
over
a
garage
on
the
side
portion
of
it,
I,
don't
know
why
you
would
want
to
limit
that
kind
of
access.
It
does
change
your
access
into
the
upper
level.
A
to
you,
as
opposed
to
just
encroaching
further
into
the
space
that
you
have
in
the
backyard,
it
can
be
a
straight
run:
stair.
Perhaps
it's
a
stair,
that's
just
a
little
bit
outside
the
perimeter
and
it's
an
l-shape
stair
I,
don't
quite
understand
language
and
I.
Think
from
an
architectural
and
a
construction
point
of
view.
V
V
Denver
doesn't
allow
them
and
you
have
to
go
through
a
whole
nother
procedure
to
get
a
deck,
whether
it's
on
the
side
to
the
alley
or
even
to
the
backyard
within
that
35%
back
yard
zone
lot
area,
so
just
something
that
I
that
I
saw
within
your
language,
and
perhaps
there
may
be
some
clarification
of
that
coming
up.
That's
what
I
have
thank
you.
Thank.
W
My
name
is
Jeff
Stillwell
I
live
at
2935,
South
Marion
Street
I'm
relatively
new
to
this.
So
the
idea
of
an
Adu
and
read
through
the
documents
and
so
I,
probably
miss
things.
I
read
through
it
quickly
in
the
allowed
zoning
districts
it
shows
for
single
unit
residential
zones.
Only
r1c
I
was
wondering
if
there
I
didn't
see
any
explanation.
Why
you
specifically
excluded
or
when
B
and
r1
a.
W
Y
Hi
I'm
Cynthia
Searfoss
I
live
at
3297,
South
Downing
Street,
that's
the
yellow
house
on
the
corner.
I,
don't
want
these
in
my
neighborhood
I
live
in
the
yellow
house
on
the
corner.
I
live
in
a
residential
community
on
purpose
I,
don't
appreciate
the
tremendous
increase
in
congestion
and
Inglewood
the
comment',
the
tremendous
increase
in
traffic
noise
crime,
the
tremendous
decrease
in
city
services
in
Inglewood
with
the
growth
of
population.
My
neighbors
don't
appreciate
it.
We
have
the
monstrosity
at
the
end
of
the
block
at
Corona
and
Girard,
which
is
a
neighborhood
travesty.
Y
So
I,
guess
that's
a
transition
area.
I,
don't
think
any
r1c.
A
B
should
have
an
accessory
dwelling
unit
because
they
say
in
their
own
code
that
they're
going
to
determine
that
the
other
property
on
your
residential
property
is
a
household.
So
then
you
automatically
have
two
residences
on
your
property.
So
that's
no
longer
a
single-family
property,
that's
a
two
family
property.
So
what
is
the
difference?
Y
And
how
is
that
going
to
protect
our
residential
communities
from
becoming
these
magical
transition
communities
where
they
do
these
lovely
things
like
slap
up
the
monstrosity
that
they
have
at
the
end
of
Corona
and
Girard,
which
is
a
neighborhood
disaster?
And
it's
just
not
the
nature
of
a
residential
community?
And
they
say
here
that
they
want
to
maintain
the
atmosphere
of
a
residential
community.
Y
That
is
not
the
atmosphere
on
a
residential
community
and
neither
are
the
lovely
chicken
coops
that
they
put
up
at
the
corner
of
what
Logan
and
Floyd
all
those
are
chicken
coops
are
just
charming,
so
I
I,
don't
think
that
it
is
in
the
nature
of
a
residential
community.
I.
Don't
think
it
adds
anything
to
my
my
area
and
now
I
do
my
neighbors
by
the
way.
P
P
U
Randl
Friesen
45,
81,
South,
Cherokee,
Street
I,
really
just
wanted
to
echo
most
of
what
planning
has
put
forward
here
as
far
as
the
benefits
for
all
this
I
really
see
this
as
helping
the
diversity
of
of
our
city,
bringing
a
few
more
people
in
without
major
influx
like
we're,
seeing
with
all
the
apartments
and
everything
I
really
see
it
as
an
opportunity
for
families
to
stay
together.
My
particular
case
I
bought
a
little
Ally
house
a
year
and
half
about
a
year
ago,
I
plan
to
scrape
that
put
a
house
on
for
myself.
U
In
the
meantime,
I've
put
my
daughter,
30
year
old
in
she's,
renting
that
house
from
me.
If
this
goes,
we
have
a
little
family,
calm
down
and
I
really
think.
That's
the
majority
of
what
this
is
about.
My
friends
that
have
these
in
other
areas
of
Denver,
that's
kind
of
what
they're
doing
I
know
I
had
one
friend
and
Stapleton
that
when
we
had
a
pasture,
they
needed
a
place
to
stay
for
six
months.
There
was
a
place
to
do
that.
That's
the
benefit
to
it
and
I
really
hope
you
guys
do
it.
Thank.
A
L
So
my
name
is
Tiffany
Madrid
and
I
live
at
three
three
six,
nine
South
Grant
Street
I
also
would
like
to
echo
many
of
the
benefits
that
I've
heard
this
evening
and
voice.
My
support
for
allowing
accessory
dwelling
units
in
our
neighborhoods
I
would
like
to
suggest
that
some
of
the
language
around
the
criteria
for
these
units
be
considered
going
forward,
specifically
as
it
pertains
to
the
size.
L
L
You
know
really
sounds
confining
considering
the
sizes
of
their
bodies
literally
I
think
that
most
other
jurisdictions
that
have
adopted
a
UDS
have
looked
at,
making
the
size
requirements
larger
around
800
to
a
thousand
square
feet
and
I
think
that
Inglewood
should
consider
increasing
that
square
footage
to
take
into
account
that
not
all
people
are
the
same
size.
I'd
also
like
to
ask
that
the
language
around
the
residency
requirement
be
considered
a
little
bit
further.
I.
L
However,
as
a
property
owner
and
thinking
about
the
long
run,
there
may
be
an
instance
in
the
future
where
our
family
would
like
to
retire
and
use
the
property
for
income,
and
we
would
like
the
option
to
be
able
to
rent
out
both
the
primary
and
the
accessor
where
excess
accessory.
Excuse
me,
the
AUD,
so
being
able
to
have
that
flexibility
I
think,
would
be
an
important
part
to
ensuring
that
residents
use
connection
or
residences
excuse
me.
L
Residents
can
actually
use
their
properties
as
an
investment
strategy
going
forward
for
retirement,
so
maybe
thinking
about
maybe
having
a
your
residency
requirement
and
then,
if
that
resident
decides
to
move
forward
and
in
rent,
they
could
do
that
long
as
they
showed
that
they
had
a
commitment
to
the
neighborhood.
So
those
are
my
thoughts
and
thank
you.
Z
My
name
is
Jacob
Pettis,
so
I
think
I,
just
misheard
you
on
there
I'm,
2961,
South,
bayinnaung,
Street,
so
I
definitely
agree
with
what
was
just
said
regarding
the
length
of
time
in
the
unit
before
potentially
using
it
as
a
rental
in
the
long
term
retirement
plan
for
any
individual,
as
someone
at
my
age,
I'm
sure
that
that's
not
something
that
you
guys
would
expect
to
hear.
But
definitely
people
are
thinking
about
that
all
over
the
place
and
I
think
that
that's
a
huge
value
in
the
interim.
AA
Hi,
my
name
is
Judy
Brown
I
live
at
10:33
West
Stanford
place.
I
was
very
excited
to
see
that
you
were
all
considering
this
I
think
it's
a
fabulous
thing
for
our
community.
I
do,
unfortunately,
disagree
heartily
with
the
last
two
comments
about
doing
anything
different
with
the
residency
and
the
reason
that
I
disagree
with.
That
is
one
of
the
biggest
challenges
that
I
know
as
an
Inglewood
resident
and
I
am
a
real
estate
broker
I'm
very
familiar
with
the
biggest
challenge.
AA
Is
we
have
one
of
the
highest
densities
of
non-owner
occupied,
single-family
residences
in
the
south
area?
It's
one
of
the
biggest
challenges
for
our
schools
and
it
does
not.
It
does
not
help
when
you
have
changes
going
through
neighborhoods
and
rentals
are
not
the
number
one
thing
and
I
don't
I
would
hate
to
see
this
turn
into
two
rental
properties.
I
think
that
you're
going
to
have
an
issue
ongoing
with
neighborhoods.
If
you
change
the
residency
requirement,
I
think
it's
essential
that
that
be
part
of
the
accessory
dwelling
unit.
AA
AB
My
name
is
flora,
Jones
and
I'm
at
3106.
South
Sherman
I
just
want
to
say
that
I'm
really
in
support
of
doing
the
ad
use.
I've
lived
in
Inglewood
for
about
four
years
and
originally
about
our
house
thinking.
We
would
stay
for
a
couple
years
and
we've
really
grown
to
love
the
community
and
want
to
stay
here.
We
have
two
kids
now
and
so,
where
our
house
is
tight
and
my
parents
are
retiring
as
well
as
my
in-laws,
and
we
envisioned
building
the
ad
you
to
use
that
both
as
rental
income,
but
also
facilitate
guests.
AB
So
it's
really
important
to
our
family
that
we
don't
have
to
have
guesting
in
hotels
or
scrape
our
house
to
build
a
massive
house.
We
feel
like
the
ATU
is
the
perfect
solution
for
both
our
neighborhood
and
our
family,
and
the
only
thing
that
I
ask
would
be
that
we
move
forward
because
we
have
a
garage,
that's
really
old
and
unusable,
and
basically,
since
we
bought
the
house,
we've
been
looking
at
the
internet
and
you
all
like
what
is
gonna
happen
here.
AB
And
you
know,
a
lot
of
the
dates
have
been
thrown
out
or
we've
been
talking
about
it
not
talking
about
talking
about
it.
So
I'm
really
happy
to
be
here
at
the
public
hearing
today
and
I
just
hope
that
we
continue
to
move
forward.
So
we
can
move
on
yay
or
nay,
I
hope
it's
a
yay,
but
we
really
want
a
useable
garage
in
our
lot.
So
thank
you.
A
G
Barbara
Peterson
at
3371,
South,
Coronis,
Street
and
I
realized
that
the
ad
use
can
be
great
in
specific
areas.
Understand
that
I
didn't
like
some
of
the
concepts
when
we
were
in
the
jun
and
they
showed
us
some
of
the
pictures
of
some
of
the
examples.
I
disagree
with
the
one
gentleman
that
changed
the
exclusion
on
a
certain
zoning,
because
I
do
believe
Cynthia
we're
excluded
right
now
in
our
area.
So
I'd
like
that
to
maintain,
as
is
cuz
I,
do
agree.
I
think
somebody
was
talking
about
how
dense
it
is
right.
G
Now
we
would
like
to
keep
some
of
those
areas.
Please
please,
please
keep
some
of
the
single
residential
single
residential,
that's
my
fear.
There
I
do
also
somebody
commented
on
even
keeping
it
not
all
rentals
I
think
that
gets
to
be
disgusting
too,
and
it
starts
suggest.
We've
got
enough
rentals,
even
in
our
single
residential
areas,
which
becomes
a
problem
in
just
home:
maintenance,
yard,
maintenance,
etc.
I
think
one
of
the
other
items
I
forgot
was
Oh
in
the
look.
G
Is
this
a
possibility
that
can
have
a
single
residential
in
the
front
and
the
ATU
can
be
two-story?
Is
that
correct
on
how
this
can
look
right?
I
thought
so
then
I
think
I
find
not
a
good
look
at
all.
If
you
have
only
a
single
residential
and
then
you
go
down
a
neighborhood,
and
then
you
see
these
second
stories
in
the
back
I
think
that's
not
a
good
look
at
all
that
should
be
considered
I.
Think
just
the
carriage
house
is
alone
kind
of
in
the
old
days
in
the
original
carriage
houses.
G
S
W
C
A
Already
I
was
going
to
take
the
it's
we're
not
in
our
usual
chairs
and
I
was
gonna.
Take
a
offer
to
see
if
there's
a
consensus,
to
take
a
five-minute
break,
to
use
a
restroom
and
to
stretch
because
I
need
to
okay.
All
right
can
we
just
go
ahead
and
do
that
I?
Don't
think
we
need
to
vote
on
that
right?
Let's
do
it.