Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-07-22 PZC MINUTES• • • CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING C01\1MISSION JULY 22, 1997 I. CALL TO ORDER. The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers of Englewood City Hall, Chairman Douglas presiding. Members present: Sty es, Weber, Welker, Dummer, Homer, Douglas Members absent: Tobin, Cottle, Garrett Simpson, Ex-officio Also present: Planning Coordinator Harold J. Stitt Planning Assistant Intern Bradley Denning Assistant City Attorney Nancy Reid II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. July 8, 1997 Chairman Douglas stated that the minutes of July 8, 1997, were to be considered for approval. Dummer moved: Welker seconded: The Minutes of July 8, 1997 be approved as written. AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Weber, Welker, Dummer, Styes, Douglas None Homer Tobin, Cottle, Garrett The motion carried. III. CONDITIONAL USE-HOME DAYCARE-R-1-A ZONE DISTRICT Cindy Gagnon, 3183 South Race Street Genevieve Franklin, 3084 West Radcliff Drive Joan Smallwood, 4737 South Fox Street Tonda Swan, 1015 West Stanford Place Case #CU-97-03 Case #CU-97-04 Case #CU-97-05 Case #CU-97-06 Mr. Douglas stated that the issue before the Commission concerns requested Conditional Use approval of home daycare in an R-1-A Zone District. There are four applicants; however, there will be only one public hearing pertaining to this issue this evening. Mr. Douglas asked for a motion to open the Public Hearing . 1 Homer moved: Dummer seconded: The Public Hearing on Conditional Use approval for Home Daycare in the R-1-A Zone District, #CU-97-03, #CU-97-04, #CU-97-05, and #CU- 97-06, be opened. AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Weber, Welker, Dummer, Homer, Sty es, Douglas None None Cottle, Garrett, Tobin The motion carried. [Secretary's Note: Verification of Public Notice as published in the Englewood Herald on June 26, 1997, was presented to the Chair prior to the opening of the Public Hearing.] Mr. Douglas asked that staff present the case. • Bradley Denning, Planning Assistant Intern, was sworn in. Mr. Denning testified that appli- cations have been received from Ms. Cindy Gagnon, 3183 South Race Street; Ms. Genevieve Bailey, 3184 West Radcliff Drive; Ms. Joan Smallwood, 4737 South Fox Street; and Ms. Tonda Swan, 1015 West Stanford Place, requesting Conditional Use approval for the home daycare businesses they have at their individual places of residence. These requests have come forth as a result of City Council action which amended the R-1-A Zone District regulations to permit home daycare as a Conditional Use only, and granting the home daycare providers who • had been licensed and in business in the R-1-A District prior to June 3, 1996, an opportunity to gain approval for their businesses without having to post their property or pay the Conditional Use application fee. Daycare providers in the R-1-A Zone District who were licensed and in business prior to June 3, 1996, have until December of 1998 to get the Conditional Use ap- proval; after that, there will be no waiving of required fees or posting requirements , and those home daycare providers who do not have Conditional use approval may be closed down. Mr. Denning testified to criteria that has been developed by which to evaluate all home daycare Conditional Use applicants, that criteria being: 1. Licensin2 date: The applicant must establish proof that they were licensed by the State of Colorado, and operating, prior to June 3, 1996. 2. Code Enforcement Violations: The applicant has no code enforcement violations re- garding the home daycare use within the last full year prior to June 3, 1996, and that they have no other type of complaint documented about the designated daycare use at that address, by the city. 3. Daycare Use Conditional: The child care facility that provides less than 24-hour care for 2 or more children on a regular basis in a place or residence. Children in care are from different family households and are not related to the caregiver. Care may be 2 • • 4. 5. 6. • 7. • provided for 6 children from birth to 16 years of age with no more than 2 children un- der 2 years of age. Care also may be provided for no more than 2 additional children of school age attending full-day school. Residents of the home under 12 years of age who are on the premises and all children on the premises for supervision are counted against the approved capacity. Use shall comply with the City of Englewood Compre- hensive Zoning Ordinance. Traffic Congestion/Parking: The traffic created by parents delivering or retrieving children from the daycare address should not unreasonably impair or increase the im- mediate street traffic for prolonged periods of time. Noise: The noise level created by the daycare should not unreasonably interfere with the peace, quiet, or dignity of the neighborhood. Notification of Neighborhood: The applicant must establish proof of notification. The notification process should be accomplished by petition. The applicant must notify neighbors in a one house circular radius according to the petition form. The petition will describe the home occupation use of the residence, allowing neighbors to voluntar- ily print their name, address, phone (optional), and sign their signature verifying their awareness of the applicant's occupation. The petition should contain addresses of all properties visited. Signatures are required from a majority of neighbors in the given radius area and should be submitted to the Office of Neighborhood and Business Devel- opment, Room 200, Englewood City Hall . Revocation of Conditional Use Permit: All requirements submitted as part of the Conditional Use Permit and all conditions imposed by the Planning Commission shall be maintained in perpetuity with the Conditional Use. If at any time the requirements are not met or are found to have been altered in scope, application, or design, the use shall be in violation of the Conditional Use Permit. If a complaint is lodged directly with the City regarding a daycare provider, such com- plaint shall be in writing and passed on to the Conditional Use Permit applicant and to the licensing agency . If the complaint is not resolved to the satisfaction of both parties within 30 days, the Director will determine whether a violation of the Conditional Use Permit exists. Such a violation will be deemed to exist only if one of the ordinance standards are affected, or if the Director determines that a substantial adverse impact to the neighborhood will result from the continued operation of the facility. If and when any Conditional Use is determined to be in violation of the Conditional Use Permit, the City shall notify the permit holder and the licensing agency in writing of said violation and shall provide the permit holder with a thirty (30) day period in which to abate the violation. In addition, the notice shall state the time and place for a hear- ing, if the violation has not been abated within the thirty (30) day period. The purpose of this hearing shall be to determine whether revocation proceedings or other legal ac- tion should be pursued. 3 Mr. Denning addressed the application filed by Ms . Cindy Gagnon. Ms. Gagnon has met all of the aforecited criteria , and did , in fact , exceed the minimum area of notification by quite a significant distance . • Mr . Denning cited the application filed by Ms. Genevieve Franklin; she , also , has complied with all of the criteria. Ms . Joan Smallwood has presented information verifying her compliance with all of the cited criteria . Mr. Denning addressed the application filed by Ms. Tonda Swan. Ms. Swan has complied with all of the criteria. There is , however , one letter of opposition submitted by Mr. and Mrs. Creed , of 950 West Stanford Drive. This letter of opposition was generated by the contact from Ms. Swan to notify the neighborhood of her application for Conditional Use. Mr. Denning suggested that if the Commission had questions on a particular address , they might be best answered by that particular applicant; if the Commission had questions regarding the staff analysis or criteria , staff would answer them. Mr. Douglas asked that the applicants present their cases to the Commission, and asked that Ms. Gagnon come to the podium . Ms. Cindy Gagnon , 3183 South Race Street, was sworn in. Ms. Gagnon stated that she has prov ided home daycare for six years, and received her first State license in 1992 . Ms. Gagnon • stated that she cares for six children , hours ranging from 6:30 A.M. to 4 :30 P.M. Ms . Gag- non testified that the children arrive and depart at different times, so there is no large concen- tration of vehicles at any one time at her home. Ms . Gagnon stated that parking for daycare parents is either in front of her home , or on the side street and she has a "contract " with her daycare parents stipulating consideration of neighbors when parking -no blocking of drive- ways , etc . Ms . Gagnon testified that she cares for children of teachers, and tries to provide a fun , stimulating day for the children. The kids are allowed outside to play approximately two hours per day in the back yard -always with supervision. Ms . Gagnon stated that the yard is fenced and there are shrubs , lilacs , and pines in the back yard along the fence. Ms. Gagnon stated that she has two children of her own: a high school-age girl , and a boy in second grade. Mr. Homer commented that he lives in close proximity to Ms. Gagnon's residence , and has never noticed a concentration of cars at her home . He asked how many other daycare homes are in the immediate neighborhood of Ms. Gagnon . Ms. Gagnon stated that there are no other daycare homes that she is aware of in her immediate neighborhood . Mr. Welker asked if Ms . Gagnon provided daycare service in evenings or on weekends. She stated that she did not; and that as a rule she seldom does much daycare work during summer months inasmuch as her clients are teachers. Mr. Douglas then called fr om Ms . Genev ieve Franklin to address the Commission . 4 • • Genevieve Franklin was sworn in, and testified that she has been a licensed daycare provider since 1959, and has provided daycare regularly for over 20 years. Ms. Franklin stated that she has never had a complaint lodged against her property or against her service as a daycare home. Children begin to arrive at her home anywhere from 6:45 A.M. to 7:00 A.M., and are gone by 5:30 P.M. Ms. Franklin stated that she cares for six children; she has no children of her own at home. She testified that her activities with the kids are "regular things you do with kids". Mr. Welker asked about the hours. Ms. Franklin reiterated that typically it is from 6:45 or 7:00 A.M. to 5:30 P.M. She stated there is no problem with parking; she has a double drive- way, and the daycare parents pull in to drop off or pick up a child. Ms. Franklin stated that she no longer provides weekend daycare service. Mr. Douglas asked Ms. Smallwood to address the Commission: Joan Smallwood was sworn in. Ms. Smallwood testified that she has been a State licensed daycare provider for 17 years, the last two years in Englewood. The children arrive beginning at 7:00 A.M., and are gone by 5:45 P.M. Ms. Smallwood testified that hers is a new home, with a six foot privacy fence on one side and across the back, with chain link fencing on the other side. Ms. Smallwood stated that she does offer a preschool program, as well as play ac- tivities for the youngsters -she has a sandbox and a swing set in the backyard. Ms. Small- wood stated that she did not find the "joyful noise of kids at play" to be offensive. Ms. Smallwood stated that she provides care for six children full-time, and for two children part- • time. Ms. Styes asked how frequently Ms. Smallwood provided evening or weekend care. Ms. Smallwood stated that she would provide evening care if a parent had to work late, and she had received previous notification of the parent's hours. She may, on rare occasion, provide weekend care if daycare parents plan to be out of town over a weekend and do not want to, or cannot, take the child with them. Mr. Douglas asked Ms. Swan to address the Commission. Ms. Tonda Swan was sworn in, and testified she has provided home daycare at her residence for the last 3.5 years. The children are in her care from 7:00 A.M. until 5:30 P.M.; parents pull into the driveway to drop off or pick up their child. Ms. Swan presented photos of her property to the Commission. The fencing depicted in the photos appears to be solid wood to a height of approximately 4 feet, with a lattice strip atop the solid wood. Ms. Swan stated that she hopes to have the fence replaced by mid-August with a six foot privacy fence. She stated that she is getting estimates on fence replacement at the present time. Ms. Swan testified that the complainant, Mr. Creed, does not live directly behind her property, but is "kitty-comer" from her property -the properties do not have any common boundary point. Mr. Welker asked if there is an elevation difference between Ms. Swan's property and • that of Mr. Creed -is Ms. Swan's property higher than Mr. Creed's. Ms. Swan stated that 5 she did not know how the elevation of her property relates to the elevation of Mr. Creed's property; she stated that she does know her property appears to be higher than the property • directly to the back of her . Ms. Swan stated that at the present time , she is caring for three children, two of whom are un- der two years of age , and the third is two and one-half years of age. Her own children are 15 , 8 , and 4 years of age. Mr. Douglas noted that out of eight homes to be contacted , Ms. Swan's petition is signed by six. Ms . Swan stated that the resident at 1010 West Stanford Place was on vacation when she was circulating the petition ; however , she spoke to him earlier this date , and he said he would sign a letter or petition supporting her application. The other resident who did not sign is Mr. Creed . Ms . Swan provided background information for the Commission on a dispute between her and a former property owner who lived directly in back of her; this neighbor had been good friends with Mr. and Mrs. Creed. Mr . Douglas asked if anyone else wished to address the Commission. Sue DeLong , 5430 West 102"d Place , Westminster , was sworn in. Ms. DeLong stated that she is president of the Jefferson County Child Care Association , and did not have an opportunity to address "Council " when the issue of daycare homes was initially discussed . Ms. DeLong stated that she was "shocked " that the daycare providers were never told by "Council" that they provide a vital , valuable service to the community. Ms DeLong noted that many people work shifts -medical profession , law enforcement , and others who need childcare providers • during evening hours, over-night, or over weekends. Ms. DeLong stated that she has nothing against daycare "centers ", but daycare homes do not "mill " kids -they have a lower ratio of children to care-provider , and the individual is licensed by the State. When a child is placed in a daycare "center " the "center " is licensed -not the individuals who provide the care. Ms . DeLong stated that there are a lot of issues going on in the home childcare business; daycare providers are required to receive more training; and more and more families will be in need of good daycare. Ms. DeLong testified that she recalled there were 18 home daycare providers when this issue was initially considered by "Council " -there are only four before the "Council " this evening. Ms. DeLong asserted that "you have failed them ". She asked what has happened to the other 14 daycare providers. She stated that she did not believe the bias against home daycare is just because of a "noise level ", and she doesn 't care whether members of the "Council" have personal opinions regarding home daycare . Ms. DeLong stated that she really wanted the four daycare providers present this evening to hear something positive from "Council" regarding the good j ob they are doing, and the valuable service they provide to their community. Mr. Welker asked to address Ms. DeLong 's comments ; Mr. Douglas approved. Mr. Welker clarified that this group is the "Planning and Zoning Commission ", and not the "City Council" to which Ms. De Long has been alluding . There may have been 18 home daycare providers in the R-1-A Zone District identified during the course of the City Council meetings ; however, the four home daycare providers present this evening have made application to gain approval • 6 • • as a Conditional Use in compliance with the guidelines established by the City Council. Mr. Welker suggested it is entirely possible there will be additional home daycare providers resid- ing in the R-1-A District who will apply for the Conditional Use approval, and the Planning Commission will hear their application at such time . Ms. DeLong asked who provides assistance to the daycare providers to get them through the Conditional Use process . Assistant City Attorney Re id noted that this is a Public Hearing to elicit public testimony ; if Ms. DeLong has questions , staff can address them later out of the context of the Hearing set- ting. Mr. Douglas summarized Ms. DeLong's testimony as identifying a need for daycare homes. Ms. Caitlin Thomas , 4727 South Fox Street , was sworn in . She stated that she resides next door to Joan Smallwood , and shares the chain-link fencing Ms. Smallwood referenced earlier. She stated that she likes the visibility chain-link fencing provides, and enjoys watching and hearing the children at play . Ms. Thomas stated that "nice things have happened since Joan moved in ", and there are two new houses where previously there was one old home . The children bring cheer to the neighborhood ; she supports Ms . Smallwood 's daycare home , and wants to see it remain. Ms . Franklin again addressed the Commission, noting that her license does say that she can provide care to two children overnight, and for two before and after school. Mr. Dummer cited Criteria #3, "Daycare Use Conditions ", questioning whether there is dif- ferent licensing provisions for overnight care versus less than 24 hour care . Ms . Smallwood stated that homes are inspected , and there are specific criteria that over-night providers have to meet; it must also be stipulated on the license whether they are authorized to provide over- night care . Brief discussion ensued . Mr. Dummer suggested that unless overnight care is spe - cifically stipulated on a license, it would not be permitted. Assistant City Attorney Reid stated that the City of Englewood ordinance doesn 't track State licensing provisions; she suggested there are several ways to interpret this . Mr. Dummer explained his concern that approval could be granted for Conditional Use to a daycare home ; if someone keeps a child longer than the 24 hour period , and a complaint is lodged , the Conditional Use Permit for the daycare home could be revoked. Also , what con- stitutes a "regular basis ". Further discussion ensued. Ms. Smallwood noted that the State differentiates between less than 24-hour care , or more than 24-hour care : less than 24-hour care is "daycare"; more than 24-hour care is "foster care ", and is licensed differently also. Ms. Franklin stated that the only reason she raised the issue of overnight care is because she • didn't want the Commission to think she was doing something that was not allowed if she pro- 7 vides overnight care to a child. Ms. Franklin stated that many years ago, she did provide fos- ter care. Mr. Douglas asked if anyone else wished to speak. No one indicated a desire to address the Commission. Homer moved: Styes seconded: The Public Hearing be closed. AYES : NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT : Welker , Dummer , Homer, Styes , Weber, Douglas None None Cottle , Garrett , Tobin The motion carried. Mr. Douglas asked the pleasure of the Commission. He did suggest that each case be acted upon separately . Homer moved : Styes seconded : The request filed by Cindy Gagnon , 3183 South Race Street for Condi- tional Use approval of a daycare home at that address , Case #CU-97-03 , be approved. Ms. Styes stated that she drove by this property; it is well kept , quiet , and expectations of the daycare parent and daycare operator are spelled out in a contract. Tr affic does not appear to be a problem. Mr. Weber expressed his opinion that daycare homes should be permitted uses and not Condi- tional Uses. Mr. Dummer again expressed concern regarding Criteria #3, and the revocation of a Condi- tional Use Permit based on one complaint. Lengthy discussion ensued. Mr. Douglas sug- gested that possibly clarification could be provided during the revision of the Zoning Ordi- nance , which staff and the Commission are working on. Mr. Welker asked if the concern is on the overall-hours of the daycare home , or extended care extended to one child on occasion. He suggested that a "regular basis " means that a "pattern " has been established -one weekend per month , two evenings per wee k -that sort of thing . Brief discussion followed. The vote was called : AYES: NAYS : ABSTAIN : ABSENT : Dummer , Homer, Styes, Weber , Welker , Douglas None None Cottle , Garrett , Tobin 8 • • • The motion carried. • Homer moved: • • Dummer seconded: The application filed by Ms. Genevieve Franklin, 3084 West Radcliff Drive, for Conditional Use approval of a daycare home, Case #CU-97- 04 be approved. AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT : Dummer, Homer, Sty es, Weber, Welker, Douglas None None Garrett, Tobin, Cottle The motion carried. Homer moved: Styes seconded: The application filed by Ms. Joan Smallwood, 4737 South Fox Street, for Conditional Use approval of a daycare home, Case #CU-97-05, be approved . Ms. Styes commented that she had driven by this site, also, and that it appears to create no neighborhood problems. AYES: NAYS: Homer , Sty es, Weber, Welker, Dummer, Douglas None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Garrett, Tobin, Cottle The motion carried. Homer moved: Styes seconded: The application filed by Ms. Tonda Swan, 1015 West Stanford Place, for Conditional use approval of a daycare home, Case #CU-97-06, be ap- proved. Mr. Douglas expressed his concern that Mr. Creed has submitted a letter in opposition to the request, and that one other neighbor has not signed the petition, reportedly because they were on vacation. Mr. Douglas acknowledged that Mr. Creed is aware of the Public Hearing and of the nature of the request which prompted his letter. He suggested Ms. Swan needed to acquire the signature of the resident who was on vacation, or get a statement from them in support or opposition to the proposal. Mr . Douglas pointed out that there are only eight properties the daycare applicants have to contact. Mr . Denning referenced Criteria #6, citing that a "majority" of neighbors in a given radius area verify their awareness of the applicant's proposal. 9 Mr. Welker and Mr. Homer stated that they see no problem with Ms. Swan's application, and the fact that one resident did not sign verifying notification of the proposal. Ms. Styes stated • that Ms. Swan testified that she did approach Mr. Creed, which generated the letter in opposi- tion; Ms. Swan had further testified that she did attempt to contact the all residents, only to find that the one was out of town. Mr. Welker stated that not all neighbors are going to be home at any one period of time, and during summer months people are on vacation. If the intent of the Commission is to assure notification, the applicants should be required to sent notification by certified mail, return re- ceipt requested. He stated that the Commission needs to take an applicant's word that they made an attempt to notify the required neighbors. Mr. Welker stated that the Commission has taken the word of other applicants that they contacted their neighbors even though the petitions are not notarized. Mr . Douglas pointed out that normal procedure is to require property owners to post the prop- erty giving notice of the proposal , date, time, and place of the Public Hearing. City Council did not require that, and asked in lieu of posting that the applicants personally notify their neighbors of the hearing. Brief discussion ensued. The vote was called. AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Homer, Sty es, Weber, Welker, Dummer, Douglas None None Tobin, Cottle, Garrett The motion carried. Members of the Commission thanked the applicants for attending and participating in the Hearings and discussion. IV. FINDINGS OF FACT Indoor Shooting Range 2980 South Galapago Street James Peterson, applicant CASE #CU-97-02 Mr . Douglas stated that the Findings of Fact on Case #CU-97-02 on the indoor shooting range proposed by James Peterson, were to be considered for approval. Welker moved: Dummer seconded: The Findings of Fact for Case #CU-97-02, Indoor Shooting Range at 2980 South Galapago Street, James Peterson, applicant , be approved as written . 10 • • • • • AYES: NAYS: Sty es, Weber, Welker, Dummer, Douglas None ABSTAIN: Homer ABSENT: Tobin, Cottle, Garrett The motion carried. V. PUBLIC FORUM. No one was present to address the Commission VI. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE. Mr. Stitt noted a CML workshop notification which was included in the packets. Any Com- mission member interested in attending was asked to notify staff within the next week so that registration can be handled. VII. COMMISSIONER'S CHOICE. Mr. Homer inquired about the Lincoln/Floyd site previously approved for the South Medical Center. Mr. Stitt related a conversation he had with representatives of the owners in May of this year; at that time, they were proposing to rescind the PD which approved a couple of years ago, and develop the site with three smaller buildings. He has had no further contact . Mr. Welker asked about the time frame on approved PDs that do not develop. Mr. Stitt stated there is a two-year time period; however, the applicants were talking about abandoning the PD anyway. To formalize it, the City would notify the applicants of the time element and the fact that no action is cause for revocation. Mr. Dummer commented on the development occurring on South Santa Fe at Union Avenue. Mr. Homer inquired about the date and subject of the next meeting. Mr. Stitt stated that the .next meeting of the Commission is scheduled for August 5th; a public hearing has been sched- uled on an amendment to the South Suburban Park & Recreation District Planned Develop- ment. There was nothing further brought before the Commission. The meeting was declared ad- journed. Gertrude G. Welty, Recording Secre f:\dept\nbd \group\boards\plancomml minuies 97\pcm 07-97b.doc 11