Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-05-18 PZC MINUTES• • • CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING C01\1MISSION May 18, 1999 I. CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7 p.m. in the City Council Chambers of Englewood City Hall , Chairman Welker presiding. Members present: Hayduk, Lathram, Rininger, Stockwell, Weber, Willis, Douglas, Dum- mer, Welker Members absent: None Also present: Harold J. Stitt, Senior Planner Nancy Reid , Assistant City Attorney II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES May 4 , 1999 Chairman Welker stated that the Minutes of May 4, 1999 are to be considered for approval. Douglas moved: Stockwell seconded: The Minutes of May 4, 1999 be approved as written. AYES: NAYS : ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Lathram, Rininger, Stockwell, Weber, Willis , Douglas None None Dummer , Hayduk, Welker The motion carried. III. COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE Group Living Facilities CASE #ORD-99-02 Mr. Welker stated that the issue before the Commission is a proposed amendment of the Com- prehensive Zoning Ordinance to address "Group Living Facilities". He asked for a motion to open the public hearing . Douglas moved: Rininger seconded : The Public Hearing on Case #ORD-99-02 be opened . 1 AYES: Rininger, Stockwell, Weber, Willis, Douglas, Dummer, Hayduk, Lathram, Welker NAYS: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None The motion carried . Mr. Stitt was sworn in , and testified that the Public Hearing is to consider a proposed amend- ment to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance by enacting a new §16-4-23-1, Group Living Facilities; amendment of §16-4-5-0; amendment of §16-4-6-N; amendment of §16-4-8-B; amendment of §16-4-9-B and §16-4-9-N; and amendment of §16-8, Definitions. Mr. Stitt re- minded Commission members of a previous study session discussion on the proposed ordi- nance in January, 1999. The proposed ordinance has been prepared by Mr. Don Elliott of Clarion & Associates in conjunction with the City Attorney's Office; Mr. Elliott was in atten- dance at the January discussion . However, Mr. Elliott could not be present this evening; Mr. Matt Gobel of Clarion Associates is in attendance, and will lead the discussion on the proposed ordinance. Matt Gobel was sworn in. Mr . Gobel extended apologies on behalf of Mr. Elliott who had a conflicting engagement. • Mr. Gobel noted that one major change in the proposed ordinance from the draft considered in • January is elimination of "detention facilities" as a category of "group living facility." Mr. Gobel noted that the current draft of the proposed ordinance incorporates many comments and suggestions Mr . Elliott received from study session meetings with the Planning Commission and City Council, and consultations with City Attorney persom1el. Mr. Gobel then reviewed definitions proposed for deletion, and those proposed for enactment. The format of the document before the Commission was addressed. City Attorney Reid noted that anything with a "strike-through" will be eliminated; anything in all capital letters is pro- posed new wording for enactment; regular typing is in existence, and will be retained in the proposed regulations. Mr. Stockwell noted that the definition of "family" is a deletion, yet the word "family" ap- pears in several of the proposed definitions. Mr. Stockwell noted other phrases that are used but not defined, such as "assisted living facility". Mr. Hayduk pointed out that "household" is defined, and appears to take the place of the "family" definition. He suggested that the word "household" be inserted in lieu of "family" where appropriate . Mr. Stockwell questioned use of the phrase "without limitation" versus "but not limited to". Mr. Gobel stated that the phrases carry the same meaning, and "without limitation" is the phrase of preference for the author of the proposed ordinance. Brief discussion ensued. Mr. Welker suggested that the City Attorney's staff review the wording of the proposed ordinance to assure clarity. 2 • I • • Mr. Stockwell expressed concern regarding the definition and cited categories listed for "Small Group Living Facility" and "Small Treatment Facility ". He stated that he had checked the provisions of the Colorado Revised Statutes (CRS), and finds that group living facilities for the aged , for the developmentally disabled , for the mentally ill, family care homes and foster homes licensed by the State may provide "treatment" for residents of those facilities . If "treatment" is provided to residents of those facilities, they cannot , in his opinion, be classified as a "Small Group Living Facility", but must be classified as a "Small Treatment Facility ". This will impact and restrict location of facilities for these classifications of clients . The definition of "Small Group Living Facility " was discussed further. Mr. Weber suggested that the word "treatment " be eliminated, and replaced with the word "assistance " in the second sentence. Citation of the same group classifications and CRS references for both "Small Group Living Facility" and "Small Treatment Facility" was further discussed . Mr. Stockwell suggested that this is redundant and confusing. Ms. Lathram suggested that perhaps the provisions can be rewritten to differentiate between "licensed " to provide treatment and "required " to provide treatment . Mr. Welker noted that if a facility is "licensed " to provide treatment , they could do so at their discretion . Even if a facility is approved as a "Small Group Living Facility", if the licensee determines a need to provide "treatment" the City would not be. aware of the change in status from non-treatment facility to treatment facility. The two facilities are not proposed to be allowed in the same zone districts. Mr. Welker urged that the City must have some means to know about provision of treatment , and some means of control to assure compliance . He stated that if a facility is licensed by the State , and they are allowed by license to provide treatment , enforcement personnel are not going to tell them they cannot provide treatment even though the facility is approved as a Small Group Living Facility that is not, by this definition , to provide treatment. Mr. Dummer suggested that facilities in question be eliminated as categories permitted as "Small Group Living Facilities". Mr. Hayduk suggested that the Commission is not suffi- ciently knowledgeable to eliminate large classifications of people from group living in the "Small Group Living Facility" category just because the State license may state that a facility is licensed to provide treatment. Further discussion ensued -what constitutes "treatment ": receipt of occasional medication, or on-going counseling , dispensing of medication , etc . Mr. Welker stated that if control of who needs treatment in a facility is not in the control of the City in some way, there will be violations and treatment facilities will be located in zone dis- tricts where they should not be. Another point to consider, suggested Mr. Welker , is why should the City be concerned about provision of treatment. If a certificate of occupancy is is- sued for a "Small Group Living Facility" that is licensed by the State, but Englewood stipu- lates that treatment cannot be provided , will Englewood be in violation of the Fair Housing Act , and discriminating against a class of citizen. The issue of "licensing " was discussed. Mr. Stitt stated that the group facilities are issued a • State License , which requires sign-off by various departments such as Building & Safety , 3 Zoning, and Fire . This proves to the State that the particular location/structure is in compli-• ance with requirements of applicable departments . Mr. Stockwell stated that the proposed ordinance does not require documentation to be pre- sented to the City showing licensing by the State prior to beginning operation. Discussion followed. Mr . Stockwell suggested that proof of State licensing should be shown the City prior to commencement of operation . Mr. Gobel referenced a matrix of the zone districts in Englewood, indicating in which zone districts the various categories of group living facilities will be allowed, and which will require Conditional Use approval. Mr. Gobel also referenced the Conditional Use requirements that a group treatment center or large/special group living facility will have to meet; he emphasized that all three of these requirements must be met. Mr. Gobel stated that distance requirements of 750 feet from any day care facility for children, elementary or high school, or another group living facility is suggested. Mr. Welker suggested that "middle school" must be added to this provision. Location of group living/treatment facilities to provide convenient access to grocery and other retail stores, commercial services, public transportation access points, and public recreation facilities was discussed . The need for this provision was questioned, inasmuch as the residen- tial areas in Englewood meet these standards. Discussion ensued. Mr. Welker noted that we must look at the intent of the provision from the perspective of a group home operator/client. • Mr. Gobel stated that the Fair Housing Act wants to make sure that group living/treatment fa- cilities are not "shoved into a corner", and that it would be well to include these provisions even though Englewood's residential districts do meet the intent of the guidelines. The provision addressing vandalism or harassment by residents of a group living facility was then discussed . Concern was expressed that six occurrences is too many. Discussion of sub- stantiation of complaints on harassment and/or vandalism ensued. Is "conviction" required, or is record of police notification sufficient substantiation. Ms. Reid stated that if a substantiated complaint is lodged, the City will prosecute. Members discussed whether one individual might be responsible for problems, and if that individual were to be relocated whether continued op- eration of the facility would still be jeopardized. Mr. Dummer pointed out that the provision, as written, indicates that the charges of vandalism and/or harassment are against the "facility". The Commission members strongly urged that the maximum allowable number of transgres- sions be reduced to no more than three. Further discussion ensued. Ms. Reid noted that if the group facility houses juveniles, those juveniles taken through the judicial process are not jailed, but are remanded to custody in the same location and sentenced to community service. In any event, it is highly unlikely a juvenile would be removed from a group home for vandalism or harassment. Mr. Welker suggested that this provision be modified to state that "convictions" rather than "accusations" trigger enforcement actions. Mr. Douglas asked what other residential use in Englewood has this same condition placed on the occupants. Is this discriminatory on the part of the City to target residents or clients of 4 • \ I • • • group living facilities? Discussion followed. Mr. Gobel acknowledged that this is an unusual provision , and suggested that there may be due process issues in revoking a license to operate based on actions of residents . Mr . Weber pointed out that parents are held responsible for ac- tions of their children ; in this case, it is a "facility" and not a "parent " that is being held re- sponsible for the residents under their supervision . Mr. Gobel noted that many communities have forfeiture laws , and that vehicles and homes can be forfeited depending on the severity of the judgment. Mr. Welker asked that this provision be thoroughly researched and revised: reduce the occa- sions of vandalism or harassment to no more than three in any one calendar year; require sub - stantiation or conviction on charges of vandalism or harassment; and investigate and address the issue of due process . The yearly license issue was discussed . Mr . Dummer pointed out that the proof of licensing on or before December 31 of each calendar year is to ensure operation for the following year - not the preceding year . Determination of abandonment was then discussed . The period of inactivity as a group living facility has been increased from six months to twelve months in this proposed ordinance. Mr. Welker stated that , as he recalled the prev ious discussion , six months was suggested by the Commission , and would be in line with other time limitations imposed. It was the consensus that the six months time limit should be imposed . Mr. Gobel discussed the parking requirements contained within the proposed ordinance . It was noted that uses such as dormitories, fraternities, and sororities are not defined. Mr. Hay- du k asked if the parking standards for various uses will be covered elsewhere in the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Stitt stated that the Zoning Ordinance has parking standards for a variety of uses . It was noted that definition of "boarding and rooming houses " is proposed for elimina- tion under this proposal ; yet they are included in the parking standards cited. Mr. Gobel stated that boarding and rooming uses are included under the umbrella of large living facilities. Mr. Welker suggested that boarding and rooming houses should then be included in that definition. Mr. Welker stated that he would prefer to see issues such as parking , fencing , and landscaping requirements contained in the overall zoning ordinance , and not addressed in each section . Mr. Gobel then discussed §16-4-23-4, Reasonable Accommodation . He stated that this ad- dresses the Federal language of the Fair Housing Act. Mr . Stockwell referenced information on Page 9 , noting that he gathered from notes of the previous discussion that "reli g ious institutions " was to be eliminated . Mr. Stitt clarified that the information on Page 9 is what is existing in that particular zone district, and is not part of the proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance. Only the sections which are crossed out in this section will be part of the amendment. 5 Mr. Douglas asked that the distance factor of 750 feet from schools and other group living fa- cilities be revisited. He recalled that discussion regarding distance issues were suggesting a • minimum of 1,000 or 1,200 feet. This would prevent a group living facility in every block. Mr. Gobel stated that he understood that Mr. Elliott would like to see a higher distance figure , also. Discussion ensued. Mr. Douglas suggested that the 750 foot minimum from schools and day care centers might be appropriate , but that the distance between two group living facilities should be greater. Various distance figures were discussed , and 1,200 feet , in all directions , between two group living facilities is the figure the Commission feels is appropriate. Mr. Hayduk asked if R -2 would allow any use in R-4 , or is it only R-4 that allows any use in R-2. Mr. Stitt stated that R-4 allows any use in R-2, but not vice versa. Mr. Stitt presented the notice of Public Hearing, which was published in the Englewood Her- ald on May 7 , 1999. Mr. Welker asked how the Commission should proceed. Mr. Stitt stated that the Commission may take action at this meeting, or have a revised proposed amendment be brought back for consideration in which case the Public Hearing needs to be continued to a date certain . Up- coming agendas for the Commission were discussed. Mr. Stitt suggested that June 22 will provide adequate opportunity for Clarion Associates to make the revisions and get a new draft to staff. Lathram moved : Douglas seconded : The Public Hearing on Case #ORD-99-02 be continued to June 22 . AYES: Stockwell, Weber , Willis , Douglas, Dummer , Hayduk , Lathram , Rininger, Welker NAYS: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None The motion carried. IV. PUBLIC FORUM There was no one present to address the Commission V. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE Mr. Stitt stated that City Council received the Parks , Recreation and Open Space (PROS) Or- dinance for first reading on May 17 . City Council amended the proposed PROS Ordinance , approved it as amended on fir st reading , and scheduled a Public Hearing for June 7, 1999. Mr. Stitt stated that the amendment is to strike the following sentence : "The development re- view team shall then submit a written advisory report and recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Commission for review and recommendations after a public hearing." 6 • • \ • • • Mr. Douglas expressed concern that "something affecting the private sector is treated as a big deal , but something affecting the City is handled in this manner." Mr. Stitt stated that a proposed ordinance on historic preservation will be coming before the Commission within the next month to six weeks. VI. ATTORNEY'S CHOICE Ms . Reid said she had nothing to bring before the Commission. VII. COMMISSIONER'S CHOICE Mr . Welker commented that he was impressed with the discussion on Capital Improvement Projects which occurred at the previous meeting . Mr. Stockwell asked why the Planning Commission cannot be represented on the Development Review Team for Parks projects. Ms . Reid suggested that this may be an issue to be raised before City Council at the Public Hearing. Mr. Welker suggested that City Council members might also be called regarding this concern. There was nothing further brought before the Commission. The meeting adjourned . 7