Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-01-05 PZC MINUTES• • • CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION January 5, 1999 I. CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:02 p.m . in Conference Room A of Englewood City Hall, Chairman Douglas presiding . Members present: Members absent: Secretary's Note: Also present: Hayduk, Lathram , Rininger, Tobin, Weber, Welker, Douglas Dummer One Vacancy Senior Planner Harold J. Stitt Planner Tricia Langon Don Elliott, Clarion & Associates, consultants Assistant City Attorney Reid II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES November 3, 1998 Chairman Douglas stated that the Minutes of November 3, 1998 were to be considered for approval. Tobi n moved : H a duk seconded: The Minutes of November 3, 1998 be approved as written. AYES: NAYS : ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Tobin, Weber, Welker, Hayduk, Douglas None Lathram , Rininger Dummer The motion carried. III. STUDY SESSION Mr. Stitt stated that a request to revise the order of the agenda was made by Mr. Elliott. Chair Douglas so ordered. A. Group Living Ordinance Case #OR-99-02 Mr. Stitt stated that the issue of "Group Living" or "Group Homes" has been of concern to citizens and members of the Englewood City Council for some time, and is being brought forward at the request of Council. Mr. Stitt stated that Mr. Elliott of Clarion & Associates has been engaged to write the provisions of the proposed "Group Living" Ordinance, and is present to lead the discussion on the proposal. Ms. Tobin asked for clarification of Mr. Elliott's position regarding the Group Home/Group Living issue, and whether he was a representative of a group home organization . Mr. Stitt stated that Mr. Elliott is an attorney with the firm of Clarion & Associates , and has been involved with a number of development and ordinance issues as part of his position with the firm. He does not represent clients for group homes . Mr. Elliott addressed the Commission, affirming Mr. Stitt's statement that he , Mr. Elliott, does not represent private clients interested in obtaining approval for group homes/group living facilities . Mr. Elliott then led discussion on the proposed ordinance. Mr. Elliott stated that the issue of group home/living facilities is a highly emotional issue for neighbors of a proposed group living facility , and the Supreme Court/Fair Housing Act have to be taken into consideration whenever an application is received for such a facility. There may be no discrimination regarding specific classes of residents, which may include developmentally disabled, physically disabled , and mentally dis- abled . This "no discrimination" clause does not, however, apply to detention centers or half-way houses for felons, or treatment facilities for substance abusers. Mr. Elliott stated that the residents of group living arrangements must • be given the same consideration and privileges as granted to any other citizen. Mr. Elliott acknowledged that neigh- bors of group living facilities have routinely expressed concern for their physical safety, but.a group living facility is typically a "good" neighbor. Mr. Elliott stated that group living facilities provide resident "caretakers" who assist the disabled individual in everyday activities, whether showering, shaving, dressing, preparing meals, etc., but do not provide "treatment". The caretakers are on the premises on a 24-hour a day basis. Mr. Elliott emphasized that use of the land for "group living facilities " is residential -this is not a commercial use of the land . Mr. Elliott also emphasized that land use codes may not be used as moral codes. Mr. Elliott reiterated that there can be no discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin , or protected class such as handi- capped persons, and families with children under 18 years of age. Mr. Elliott did note that not every type of group living facility has to be allowed in every zone district, and that the proposed ordinance restrictions must be tailored to this specific community . Mr. Elliott reviewed the proposed definitions for "household", "household living", "group living", "ass isted living facility ", "small group living facility ", "large group living facility ", "treatment facility", and "detention facility ". Mr. Elliott pointed out that there is no limitation on the number of family members related by blood , marriage , adoption , or legal guardianship ; however, for those living together, but not related, there is a limit of five people. Mr. Elliott stated that group living encompasses all living arrangements that are not covered by the "hou se hold" definition , and that the maximum number is typically cited as no more than eight. Mr. Elliott noted that the Colo- rado Revised Statutes are referenced throughout the proposed regulations, and each type of State license is refer- enced . He pointed out that if the State has approved a license for a location , they have approved the building, a nd the City should not have to re inspect the premises . Mr. Elliott discussed the definitions of "detention facilities " and "treatment centers", noting that the individuals in treatment centers are not incarcerated, but do live at the treatment center and receive on-site medical or psycholog i- cal treatment, therapy, or counseling. A detention facility may include a pri son , jail, probation center, or juvenile • detention home; residents of these facilities are under 24-hour supervision of sworn officers. Mr. Elliott referred to a matrix , which suggests whether a specific group living facility would be an "allowed" use or a "conditional use" in a specific zone district. Mr. Elliott then referenced seven use regulations which all group liv- ing facilities will be required to meet, and an additional three points must be met for those required to gain Condi- tional Use approval. Ms. Tobin cited #8-4 on Page 5 , and asked how the one resident to 200 sq. ft . of living space ratio was developed. Ms . Reid noted that the Uniform Building Code (UBC) cites square footage per person , but could not cite the ratio . Mr. Elliott stated that there are many ratio s that may be used; 200 seems to be a logical figure ; but in no event could the number exceed the aforecited "eight". Number B-5 , on Page 5 , was reviewed . Mr. Elliott noted that this is subjective, and could be eliminated. Most neighborhoods in Englewood have convenient access to grocery, retail stores , public transportation , and public rec- reation facilities. Mr. Welker cited #B-6, Page 5, and asked whether group homes would not be required to be licensed before locating in a neighborhood. This provision , as worded , seems to imply that a group home could locate prior to being li- censed, and that proof of licensing would only be required prior to December 31 of each calendar year. Di sc u ss ion ensued. Mr. Welker suggested that #B-7, Page 5 , should be consistent with non-conforming use requirements ; that is, if not operated as a group home/living facility for a period of 180 days (6 months), such use shall be considered to be abandoned. Mr. Elliott stated that this will be done in the revised proposal. Distance requirements as cited in #B-1 were considered. Mr. Elliott stated that if there are two group living facilities in existence, which are closer than the cited 1,000 ft., whichever one ceases operation first may not reopen at that • 2 • • • location . Mr. Douglas asked ifthe spacing requirement would be applicable to all group living facilities . Mr. Elliott responded affirmatively . Mr. Douglas asked if he understood correctly that group homes/living facilities do not have to be given special privileges, but cannot be discriminated against. Mr. Elliott stated that the residents of these homes cannot be treated any differently than any other resident of the neighborhood . Mr. Welker asked what the 1,000 foot distance equates to . Mr. Stitt suggested 1.5 city block lengths would be 1,000 feet. Mr. Welker asked why distance restriction from religious institutions is proposed; he suggested that many of the group homes/group living facilities are sponsored by churches , and that location in proximity to the church would be logical. Members of the Commission concurred; Mr. Elliott will remove "religious institution" from the 1,000 foot distance restriction . Mr. Douglas asked whether the distance restrictions will hold up in court. Mr. Elliott noted that spacing requirements have rarely been overturned. Mr. Elliott discussed "secondary impacts" that some living facilities may have . Mr. Welker cited half-way houses and treatment facilities , and the need to have distance restrictions between such uses and educational institutions , day care facilities for children, etc. Mr. Welker stated that in his opinion , "group homes" and "group living facili- ties" are acceptable with certain restrictions , but that treatment facilities and detention facilities need much more stringent restrictions and he was not in favor of allowing detention facilities in Englewood. Ms . Reid asked whether a group home for the mentally disabled, where the individuals are receiving psychiatric care, is classified as a "treatment center" and, therefore , not allowed in single-fa mily zone districts , would be ap- proved by the courts. Mr. Elliott noted that the Supreme Court has not required that all types of group living facili- ties must be allowed in all zone districts ; he asked ifthe Commission members would be comfortable allowing small treatment homes in the R-1 and R-2 zone districts . Mr. Douglas stated that he did not feel this would be a cceptable. Further discussion ensued. Mr. Welker suggested that "Conditional Use " approval be required for large group living facilities in all zone dis- tricts . Ms. Reid cited a group home which was allowed because of the Fair Housing Act; at the time the applicant, Dr. Bruno, approached the City his proposal was to use the premises for the developmentally disabled . However, the State has recently cut funding for treatment centers and detention centers , and the Department of Corrections has been placing individuals in this home who have been through the penal system. Ms . Reid stated that the City antici- pates a lawsuit if enforcement proceedings are instituted, but this group home now seems to be a detention fa cil ity - not a group home for treatment of developmentally disabled . Ms. Reid questioned that the operator of this "home" is licensed, and asked if licensing is required to run such a home. Mr. Elliott stated that if a license is required by the State , they must be licensed. Discussion ensued regarding the group home established by Dr. Bruno; Mr. Douglas recalled that this home is, in actuality, a couple of multi-family structures , and that re s idents were to be placed in each unit of the structures. Mr. Elliott stated that he will consult with a Professor Ziegler, instructor at University of Denver; he questioned that the provisions of the Fair Housing Act can be "stretched" to cover "criminals" as disabled individuals. Ms. Reid noted that the State Statute has provisions regarding spacing; however, contacts to the State Attorney Gen- eral 's Office have indicated that they do not want to address this issue, or institute enforcement. Brief discussion ensued. Mr. Douglas expressed concern because, while a typical "hou sehold" group is re stricted to five individuals , group homes allow eight individuals ; this is giving a "bonus" of three people. Mr. Elliott noted that the "eight" figure includes the care-providers on a 24-hour basis. Mr. Douglas stated that he is still concerned that the group home provisions allow a higher density than that permitted for "household group". Mr. Stitt asked whether a small group living facility could be considered a "treatment facility " if, for example, the home was for the care of elderly who needed exercise and a physical therapist is engaged for weekly "physical ther- apy treatments". Would this be considered "providing treatment"? Discussion ensued. Ms. Reid expressed her opinion that in this hypothetical case, the "treatment" is an "aside" or occasional occurrence . 3 Mr. Welker asked whether a large group living facility, with Conditional Use approval , could be approved for 12 or 15 people. Can the Commission set limits on the number of people living in group homes. Mr. Elliott stated that any Conditional Use must meet the three criteria cited on Page 5, as well as all Use Regulations also cited. Mr. Welker asked if there was anything the City can do regarding placement of individuals by the Department of Corrections in a previously approved group home that was approved on the basis of "developmentally disabled". Ms. Reid stated that the City doesn't have to allow detention homes. Mr. Welker stated that if it is determined that detention homes have to be allowed, that they be made a "Conditional Use" in the industrial districts. Brief discussion on the number of persons to the square footage of structure ensued. Mr. Elliott noted that the UBC is only a "safety code". He stated that there are several issues which have been raised by members of the Commis- sion that he wants to research further. He asked if the Commission wanted to see a revised proposal , or did they want to develop a proposed ordinance and work through it with staff and he would review it as it pertains to legal provisions. Ms . Tobin asked if Mr. Elliott's proposal meets the provisions of the State Group Home requirements. Mr. Elliott responded affirmatively . Brief discussion ensued. Mr. Douglas thanked Mr. Elliott for his time and discussion with the Commission . * * * * * * * * * * A brief recess was called. The meeting reconvened with seven members present, one absent, and one vacancy. * * * * * * * * * * B. Parks, Recreation and Open Space District Case #OR-99-01 .. • Ms . Langon introduced herself to members of the Commission , and stated that the proposed Parks , Recreation and Open Space (PRO) District has been developed and brought to the Commission at the request of the Englewood City Council. It is the opinion of members of the City Council that the parks , recreation facilities , and open space in the • City of Englewood should be designated by a specific zone district -not included as part of industrial , commercial , or residential districts . Mr. Douglas and Ms . Reid both asked why a special zone district is needed. Ms. Langon reiterated that it is at the request of City Council. Ms . Langon stated that placement of the parks , recreation facilities and open space area s in a specific zone designation may also provide some means of protection for those land uses -properties adjacent and/or adjoining such land uses may have restrictions imposed on development and/or redevelopment which would preserve and enhance the PRO land use. Mr. Welker asked if this is being done so that the City can control development adjacent and adjoining parks , rec- reation facilities and open space. Will this proposed ordinance ensure, for instance , that a particular piece of prop- erty can be acquired for park purposes in the future . Mr. Stitt commented that the proposed PRO district will apply only to the lands that are presently developed as a park, a recreational facility , or open space ; staff does not antici- pate that the City will rezone privately owned land to PRO for future park usage . Mr. Stitt noted that counties fre- quently do apply "open space" zoning to properties as a "holding zone" until a development plan is approved. The City does not anticipate doing this . Ms. Reid asked if a private property owner could request rezoning to PRO. Ms. Langon stated they could ; however, she questioned what benefit it would be to the property owner beyond a possible tax break. Ms. Langon reiterated that the intent of the proposed PRO district is to apply it to public parks, public recreational facilities , and public open space -it is not intended to be applied to privately-held property . Mr. Douglas stated that he isn 't sure he understands "why" the district is being proposed. Ms. Langon the proposed ordinance will provide protection and safety to existing public park, recreation facilities , and open space, and control impact of adjacent development. Mr. Stitt stated that if the PRO is approved, and applied to the public parks, public recreation facilities , and open space, future development will have to provide protection to that park, facility or open 4 • • • • space. Mr. Stitt recalled that the issue arose during discussion of truck routes along West Union A venue , and it was noted that Centennial Park is included in the I-1 Zone District. Mr. Douglas asked ifthe proposed ordinance will cover "streets" as open space . Ms. Langon stated it will not. Mr. Welker questioned the inclusion of public educational facilities as a permitted principal use. He asked if the City wants to have some of this land for park purposes . Ms . Reid asked if property around Duncan School, for in- stance, be zoned as park land under this ordinance. Ms . Langon responded that property at Duncan School is not City-o wned property, but is owned by the School District. Mr. Welker asked if the City could zone those lands owned by the School District at public schools , and thereby gain control if and when the School District relinquishes their control. Mr. Douglas stated that the title of the proposed ordinance leads the reader to think the ordinance will pertain to parks and open space; however, when reading the proposed ordinance in full , it allows such items as "public build- ings and facilities'', "public educational institutions'', "public and publicly supported cultural facilities "; he does not regard these uses as "parks and open space"; he also questioned inclusion of "public recreation faciliti e s" su c h as the Recreation Center and the Malley Center -these uses are not park land or open space . Mr. Stitt stated that Ms. Lan- gon made a very important distinction between the zoning of the land and the use of that land -it will be the respon- sibility of the Parks & Recreation Department to administer how the PRO zoned lands are used -whether it be as actual park and open space , or with a recreational facility . Mr. Stitt reiterated that the proposed PRO District is for protection of the park/open space land , as well as adjacent/adjoining properties ; lighted ball fields or skate board rinks in close proximity to residential uses would have negative impact on the residential uses . Mr. Welker asked if the PRO zoning is proposed so the City will have absolute control of the property . Could this Commission/Council zone property for PRO now with the idea of developing it for park purposes in the future . He noted that Littleton has developed small "pocket parks" throughout the City . Mr. Stitt stated that the uses cited as Permitted Principal Uses are presently publicly owned, and are used for Park, Recreation , or Open Space purpose s . Mr. Douglas asked if a green area contained within an approved PUD be zoned for PRO . Mr. Stitt stated that it could be ; however, it would require that the PUD be amended. Discussion ensued . Mr. Stitt suggested that the greenbelt and bicycle path along Little Dry Creek can be included as part of the PRO. Ms. Reid asked if this proposed ordinance is only to set up the "zone district '', and that separate action will be re- quired to rezone the parcels of land to PRO . Ms. Langon stated that this is exactly the nature of the proposal -only to set the restrictions/guidelines of the "district". Application of the "district" to the land , or rezoning , is an addi- tional step that can be taken only after the "district guidelines" are approved by Council and become part of the CZO. Ms . Reid asked ifthe City creates a PRO zone district, why would a building be permitted . Mr. Douglas again questioned the inclusion of the six permitted uses , and reiterated his concern that this district is not really about "parks". Why not map out all publicly owned property in Englewood, and be done with it; what is the intent of this Ordinance. Mr. Douglas expressed the opinion that there are ways to o ffer more protection to parks and open space than is offered through the proposed PRO . He reiterated that he does not regard the recreation center as a "park" -when he looks at a "park" he sees a "park" -not a structure housing recreational activities . Mr. Weber stated that enactment of the PRO could eliminate objectionable adjacent uses from park boundaries - adjacent new developments may have constraints placed on them to assure compatibility with the park, recreation , or open space site. Mr. Weber also pointed out that if the parks , open space , and recreation sites are zoned to PRO , then the land will have to be rezoned before the City can do anything else with this land. Mr. Welker cited Cornerstone Park, which has various commercial venues within it s boundaries , such as the mini- golf course, the skate board facility , soccer fields , etc . -all of which citizens probably pay to use , but it is all part of a generic "park". Ms . Reid asked if allowance of "public buildings and facilities " could result in placement of a new ServiCenter in the middle of an existing park, such as Cornerstone or Belleview Park . 5 Mr. Douglas reiterated that he finds the proposal very confusing; he questioned why schools are even included in an ordinance that purports to be for Parks, Recreation and Open Space . Ms. Langon asked if Mr. Douglas feels the title • is confusing, and that the cited list of permitted uses is too permissive . Mr. Douglas stated that this is his opinion. Mr. Stitt referenced the "preamble" of the proposed PRO District and also referenced the "preamble" of other zone districts , and cited the need for consistency for all zone districts. Discussion ensued. Mr. Welker suggested that a statement be included that would eliminate non-recreational struc- tures in park and open space sites . Mr. Douglas suggested that Section "C" be amended to say any "building" inci- dental to and related to the permitted principal use, striking the present word of "use" incidental to .... Further discussion ensued . Mr. Welker stated that City Hall, or the new civic center, should not be included in the PRO; the primary use would be governmental offices and not recreation. He did express the opinion that the drain- age way along Little Dry Creek could and should be included as part of the open space district. Ms. Lathram com- mented that if the site of the existing City Hall were to be zoned PRO , then the only use for this site in the future would be for parks, recreation , or open space purposes. Mr. Douglas asked the opinion of other members. Mr. Hayduk stated that he felt #8-6 is "too broad" in scope, and questioned what constitutes an "accessory use ." Mr. Hayduk also suggested that #E-2 be definitive on "action" to be taken to rezone properties. Ms . Lathram suggested that public buildings and facilities should not be prohibited , and suggested that the y might be designated as a "conditional use " in a park or open space . Assistant City Attorney Reid suggested that #8-4, #8- 5 , and #8-6 be designated as "conditional uses ." Discussion ensued. Mr. Douglas expressed the opinion that the ordinance is addressing three separate issue s: Parks , recreation facilitie s such as the recreation center and the Malley Center, and open space that isn 't developed . Ms . Langon referenced #E-1 , noting that any development, redevelopment or expansion of an y use within the PRO • shall require a site plan submitted to the City for review by the Development Review Team. Mr. Douglas stated that he is of the opinion any such request for development, redevelopment or expansion should be reviewed by the Plan- ning Commission, not the Development Review Team. Ms. Langon emphasized that the proposed PRO ordinance sets up only the "district"; it does not make any attempt to dictate what the land must be used for , nor does it set forth how the Parks & Recreation Department will admin- ister the land -this is still the prerogative of that Department. Mr. Welker suggested that staff make the changes regarding the conditional use designation and requirement of public review and involvement on changes to land that may be zoned PRO. Mr. Douglas emphasized that he w a nts public review on an ythin g that isn 't "accessory" to the primary permitted use . Discussion ensued. Mr. Douglas cited the extension of South Inca Street through Cushing Park, and his concerns regarding this exten- sion . Mr. Douglas stated that he does not recall ever being informed of this proposed street extension . Mr. Welker pointed out that ifthe PRO were presently enacted, a public hearing would have been required prior to extension of the street through Cushing Park. Mr. Welker suggested that the PRO should contain redevelopment criteria for open space. Mr. Rininger suggested that the proposal needs to be "tightened". Mr. Weber stated that he likes the idea of the PRO District and designation of the lands used for parks , open space , or recreational facilities. This will be a good regulatory tool to cover development on park boundaries. Ms . Langon asked whether the Commission is of the opinion that "public recreation facilities " applies to only buildings or would it include uses such as ball fields, tennis courts , etc . Mr. Douglas stated that his concern is "structural" development/use in a park/open space land. Ms . Langon thanked the Commission for their input and direction . 6 • • • • V. PUBLIC FORUM No one was present to address the Commission . VI. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE Nothing was brought forth under Director 's Choice. VII. ATTORNEY'S CHOICE Ms. Reid brought nothin g forward for discussion. VIII. COMMISSIONER 'S CHOICE Mr . Douglas suggested that the Capitol Improvement Program be included on an up-coming agenda for di scu ss ion . The meeting was declared adjourned. Gertrude G . Welty , Recording Secretary f:\de pt\n bd\group\bo ard s\plan co mm\minutes 99\pcm 0 l-99a.doc 7