Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-08-06 PZC MINUTES• • • CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COl\fMISSION AUGUST 6, 1996 I. CALL TO ORDER. The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:05 P.M. by Chairman Mason. Members present: Weber, Tobin, Redpath, Douglas, Mason Members absent: Garrett, Homer, Shoop, Dummer (all with previous notice) Also present: Harold J. Stitt, Planning Community Coordinator Nancy Reid, Assistant City Attorney II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. July 16, 1996 Chairman Mason stated that the Minutes of July 16, 1996 were to be considered for approval. Tobin moved: Redpath seconded: The Minutes of July 16, 1996 be approved as written. Mr. Mason noted two typographical errors, one on Page 4, changing "play days" to "play dates"; the second on Page 7 changing "an" to "and". The vote was called. AYES: NAYS: Douglas, Weber, Tobin, Redpath, Mason None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Dummer, Garrett, Homer, Shoop The motion carried. III. CONDITIONAL USE Small Child Care Center Joel and Marina Roy 3035 South Corona Street 1 CASE #CU-96-01 Chairman Mason stated that the issue before the Commission is a request to approve a small child-care center at 3035 South Corona Street. This is a Conditional Use in the R-1-C Zone • District. Mr. Mason asked for a motion to open the Public Hearing. Tobin moved: Douglas seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #CU-96-01 be opened. AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Redpath, Tobin, Weber, Douglas, Mason None None Garrett, Homer, Shoop, Dummer The motion carried. Harold J. Stitt, Planning Community Coordinator, was sworn in. Mr. Mason stated that before testimony begins, he wanted to compliment Mr. Stitt on the in- depth staff analysis in the staff report. Mr . Stitt thanked Mr. Mason for his comments. Mr. Stitt testified that the request, filed by Joel and Marina Roy, is for approval of a small child-care center at 3035 South Corona Street. A small child-care center is a "Conditional Use" in the R-1-C Zone District. Mr. Stitt reviewed the Conditional Use requirements the ap- plicant must meet, including a written statement, and a site plan. Mr. Stitt stated that Mr . and • Mrs. Roy presently have a "home occupation" day-care home, and propose to expand this use to a "small child-care center" which will allow them to care for a maximum of 12 children. Mr. Stitt cited the goals of the 1979 Comprehensive Plan for residential districts: 1. To protect all existing residential areas, preserving and maintaining those which are sound and improving those areas where there is deteriorating or dilapidated housing stock. 2. To retain the neighborhood school concept. 3. To provide more public housing for the elderly . 4. To improve the visual quality of the City. 5. To maintain Englewood as a full-service City. To supplement the Goals, the Comprehensive Plan also sets forth "courses of action" to be followed in conjunction with the Goals : 1. 2. 3. 4. Provide incentives for home ownership. Attract young families to Englewood by facilitating the process to enlarge existing housing stock which has minimum floor area. Encourage the establishment of day-care centers for working mothers. Support programs to enable elderly citizens to remain in their homes. 2 •• • • • 5. Confine high-density residential development to areas where it now exists and to the business districts, rather than permitting it to encroach into low and medium residence areas. 6. Alter codes to permit greater flexibility in lot coverage and setbacks. 7. Enforce the Noise Control Ordinance. Mr. Stitt stated that the applicants are spending a great deal of money to upgrade their home to accommodate the day-care use, and the block is fully developed with well-maintained homes. The applicants now provide day-care as a home occupation for up to six children, and the pro- posal is to expand to a day-care "center" to provide care for up to 12 children. This proposal does comply with the Goals and Courses of Action set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Stitt noted that the Planning Commission must consider the relationship of the proposed Conditional Use to the surrounding area, and what impact it will have. Mr. Stitt reiterated that the block is fully developed. He noted that since the Staff Report was written, staff has been contacted by residents of the block who are concerned about the number of children that may be cared for, and about the increased traffic and parking congestion they fear will occur. Staff has also been informed that there are two other day-care homes in the block. A letter in oppo- sition has been submitted, and was included in the packet to the Commission. Mr. Stitt pointed out that, assuming all 12 children are from separate families, there could be 24 "trips" per day generated by is Conditional Use just from the parents dropping off and picking up their children. This wo uld not include any "trips" that might be made by members of the ap- plicant's family. Is this a large number of trips per day for one residence? Can the neighbor- hood absorb this amount of traffic? Mr. Stitt discussed the issue of parking congestion. He noted that parking for a day-care home is not typical of other "businesses" -it is short-term with heavy demand for a short period of time in the morning and again in the evening . There is no specific standard to apply for short- term parking . It is not advisable to require a specified "off-street parking" site because this would detract from the residential character of the neighborhood. The option appears to be asking the applicant to work with the neighbors to mitigate the parking impact as much as pos- sible. Mr. Stitt stated that staff feels, even taking into consideration the concerns regarding parking and traffic, that the Conditional Use is appropriate for this neighborhood, and recommends ap- proval of the request. Ms. Tobin asked about children who may walk to and from school; increased traffic will in- crease the danger of children walking to and from school. Mr. Redpath asked if staff knew the location of the other two day-care homes. Mr. Stitt stated that he understands the two day-care homes are in the same "block", bu t he is not aware of the addresses of these homes . 3 Mr . Weber inquired about definition of a "small child-care center ". Mr . Stitt cited the defini- tion, and discussed the discrepancies between the definition in the Englewood Municipal Code • and the State definitions. Mr . Mason asked that the applicant address the Commission. Mrs. Marina Roy was sworn in , and testified that she has provided day-care for sixteen years . Her husband is a licensed nurse , who is interested in leaving his present employment and joining her in providing day care for up to 12 children. Mrs . Roy testified to the requirements she and her husband have had to meet to be licensed by the State , these requirements including educational, health and safety training and certification. Mrs. Roy stated that she has a pre- school program for the children, supervised play breaks, and a scheduled nap time. She par- ticipates in the food program for day-care homes , to assure that children are provided proper nutrition. Mrs. Roy stated that she has had no complaints lodged against her regarding her care of children. Mrs . Roy stated that she does not want to create dissension within her neigh- borhood , and noted that she does not provide evening or week-end day -care . The children she cares for do not go out to play before 9:00 A .M., and are not allowed to leave their premises , destroy property , or create disturbances in the neighborhood. Mrs . Roy stated that she has strong principles that she has followed in raising her own children , and follows those princi- ples for her day-care children as well . Mrs. Roy stated that she does have a 16 year-old daughter , who is employed as a lifeguard and is CPR certified, and an 11 year-old still at home. Two older children (23 and 28) are no longer residents of the home . Ms. Tobin inquired about the parking issue . Ms. Roy acknowledged that parking could be of concern. She stated that their property does have a driveway that will accommodate their three personal cars , which would free up the space immediately in front of their home for day-care parents . Mrs . Roy stated she would commit to parking their personal vehicles on the private driveway during the hours of the day-care business . Mr. Redpath stated that he had driven down this block earlier this date , and in the vicinity of Mrs. Roy 's home it was "wall-to-wall cars "; he asked if this is typical. Mrs. Roy stated it is not typical; they are having a lot of re- modeling done at the home -new plumbing, new carpeting, etc ., and these were contractors ' vehicles. Mrs. Roy stated that she has no day-care children this week while the remodeling is going on. Ms . Tobin inquired about second exits for the children. Mrs. Roy stated that there is a second exit now from the kitchen , and they will be getting a permit in the very near futµre to cut an- other exit. Mrs. Roy stated she has a "weather disaster plan " in place for the children. Mrs . Roy stated that she does not provide infant/toddler care. Mr . Mason asked how many children Mrs . Roy provides care for now as a home occupation . Mrs . Roy stated that during the school year , she provides care for six full-time plus two before and after school ; during the summer months she provides care for eight children full-time. She is asking for an additional four children over what she cares for now. Mr . Mason asked about transportation of children to school. Mrs. Roy stated that Charles Hay Elementary School is 4 • • • • • within easy walking distance for the children; on days of inclement weather this last year one of the parents of a day-care child transported youngsters to school. Ms. Tobin inquired if Mrs. Roy had a vehicle which would accommodate all the children for field trips. Mrs. Roy stated that she does have a large van, and carries $1,000,000 insurance on the van/business. Mrs. Roy reiterated that her husband does want to leave his present em- ployment and join her in the day-care business. Mrs. Roy testified to procedures followed by her in choosing her day-care children, including one-on-one interviews with the parents and with the child, desiring to choose children to whom she can provide "help", and instill a desire to learn. Mr. Mason stated that Mrs. Roy has indicated they have three personal vehicles; he asked if she was aware of other "three-car families" in the block. Mrs. Roy stated that a family across the stre d has four cars, the family next door has one vehicle, and cited vehicle ownership of others in the block. Mrs. Roy stated that there was previously a lawn service business in the block, which contributed to parking congestion, but this business has relocated to Hampden Avenue. Mrs . Roy acknowledged there are a number of retired persons in the block and stated she understands their concern about the traffic and parking. Mr. Mason asked if Mrs. Roy had any suggestions to mitigate the impact of parking. Mrs. Roy reiterated her willingness to commit to park their personal vehicles in their private driveway during hours of day-care to free-up on-street parking in front of their property for the day-care parents . Mr. Douglas asked how many day-care personnel are required by the State to care for 12 chil- dren. Mrs. Roy stated that the ratio is one day-care giver to six children. Her mother lives nearby and can provide assistance if either she or her husband were ill. Her 16 year-old daughter can also provide assistance, but only if an adult is present. Chris and Joe Gootee were sworn in. Mrs. Gootee testified that her daughter has been in the care of Mrs. Roy for two years, and commended Mrs. Roy on the care she provides. Mrs. Gootee testified to her comfort level knowing that her child is with a competent care-giver. The day-care home is within close proximity to their residence and commented that she feels it is important to keep a child in their "home community". Mrs. Gootee stated that she could not recall at any time more than two vehicles being at Mrs. Roy's when she has dropped off or picked up her child, and very rarely has she not been able to park directly in front of or in the private drive of Mrs. Roy's residence. Mrs. Gootee emphasized that the parking is, indeed, short-term, estimating that most parents are parked no longer than five minutes }\'hen dropping off or picking up a child. Mrs. Gootee also noted that a lot of children walk to school in the morning, and in fact she drops her child off at school, and the child then walks to Mrs. Roy's day-care after school. Mrs. Gootee opined that the parking impact isn't that great. Mrs. Gootee stated it is important to attract people with families to Englewood, and it is very im- portant that competent day-care be provided to those children. Mr. Gootee then addressed the Commission and stated that many times he or his wife will walk to Mrs. Roy's to pick up their child. Mr. Gootee also commented on the closeness of the ele- 5 mentary school, and the "neighborhood" for the children being cared for. He urged that an amicable solution be reached because he doesn't want to see this quality day-care home lost. • Pamela Kuhr was sworn in, and testified that she has been a home owner in Englewood for eight years , and is a very protective mother. Her eldest child has been with Mrs. Roy for three years; and even though she is now home full-time caring for an infant son , she still takes her daughter to Mrs. Roy's three days a week. The child has progressed well in the pre- school; manners and good behavior are stressed , and the children are provided with quality, loving care. Mrs. Kuhr stated that she wants her little son to go to day-care at Mrs. Roy's place when he is old enough to do so. Mrs. Kuhr stated that "Marina is the best ", and that she does a "terrific job " in providing day-care . Mrs . Kuhr acknowledged that the Commission must take into account the issues of parking and traffic, but implored members to keep in mind the importance of quality day-care for children of working parents . She emphasized that she has "rarely seen another parent" at Mrs. Roy's when she has dropped her daughter off, or picked her up. Mr. Mason asked if Mrs. Kuhr was concerned at all about the increase in the number of chil- dren to be provided care; the home is not "large ", and the density of children to care-giver ap- pears to be more than that of an average kindergarten class . Mrs. Kuhr stated that she has no concerns . Mrs . Roy keeps the children under control. Mrs. Roy stated that according to State regulations , inside square footage requirements is 35 square foot per child minimum ; outdoor square footage is 75 square feet per child. The home does meet these requirements. Mrs . Gibson was sworn in , and testified that she is not against child care, but emphasized that there are three day-care homes in this one block . The 24 trips per day cited by Mr. Stitt are only for the Roy 's day-care home; what about the other two day-care homes -they generate traffic , also. There is a lot of traffic on this street , and kids are out playing in the street; she doesn 't approve of children playing in the street, but there is nothing she can do about it . Youngsters are walking to and from school. The relocation of the lawn service business did alleviate a gre;it deal of the traffic and parking congestion, but "they could come back ". Mrs. Gibson stated that she personally has had no problem with parking in front of her property be- cause she parks in the alley ; there are two rental properties in the block and the tenants fre- quently have large parties and during these parties a parking space on-street cannot be found . Mrs . Gibson pointed out that by approving the expansion of Mrs. Roy 's busines,s , there will be the equivalent of four typical day-care homes in one block. Mr. Redpath asked the location of the other two day care homes in the block . Mrs. Gibson stated that one day-care home is directly across the street from Mrs. Roy ; the second is on the comer of Cornell/Corona . Mr. Mason asked if a lawn service is a permitted home occupation in the R-1-C District . Mr. Stitt stated it would depend on the type of operation. If only an office is maintained with tele- phone, it would comply with the intent of the home occupation provisions. If, however, em- 6 • •• ' • • • ployees and workers are dispatched from the site , and there are several vehicles associated with the lawn service at the location it does not comply with the intent of home occupation provi- sions . Mr. Mason commented on a lawn service business in his immediate area, with a truck at least 20 feet in length plus at 20 foot trailer. When parked on-street, this certainly impacts parking for neighbors. Ms. Becky Hamill was sworn in , and stated that she has no criticism against day-care homes, or against the care provided by Mrs. Roy. She is greatly concerned about the increase in the volume of traffic . Mrs. Hamill testified that she has lived in this block for 11 years; her chil- dren are grown, and they now have friends coming and going which probably does add to the amount of traffic and parking congestion . Mrs. Hamill stated that her drive has not been blocked by day-care parents , but her neighbor has had her drive blocked. Mr. Mason asked if Mrs . Hamill felt if the traffic volume related to the day-care homes, or to the nearness of this neighborhood to Charles Haye Elementary School. Mrs. Hamill stated in her opinion , the greatest volume is from people dropping off or picking up children from the day-care homes. There are lot of kids walking in the block, and there is a potential for chil- dren to be injured with increased traffic and parking congestion. Mr . Mason asked if Mrs. Hamill had any thoughts on mitigation of the traffic and parking im- pacts. Mrs . Hamill stated that she felt Mrs. Roy committing to parking personal vehicles in their private drive will be of help; however, this will not alleviate the traffic increase . Mrs . Nancy Kuzava was sworn in. Mrs. Kuzava stated that she lives directly north of Mrs. Roy 's property, and has had a couple of times when she was not able to access or exit her driveway because of blockage by day-care parents. Mrs. Kuzava stated that she appreciates th e quality of care provided by Mrs. Roy, because her child was cared for by Mrs. Roy. Mrs. Kuzava stated that a vehicle belonging to a day-care parent was broken down in front of her home for three days; there are sail boats and RV's that are also parked in the block which add to the congestion. Mrs. Kuzava expressed concern on the impact a day-care "center" would have on the sale value of her home; she felt it might be more difficult to market if potential buyers realized that a day-care "center" is next door. Mr. Redpath asked if Mrs. Kuzava had any suggested solutions. Mrs . Kuzava stated that the willingness of Mrs. Roy to commit to parking personal vehicles in their private drive will be of some assistance regarding the parking problem; however, this will do nothing to alleviate the increase in the amount of traffic. Mr. Mason posed some possibilities for consideration: • On-street parking spaces in front of the Roy home would be left free and open to provide parking for day-care parents. • Children to be provided day-care would be limited from outs id e the Charles Hay school "district " . • The Commission will schedule a review within six months to one year to determine the im- pact of the day-care expansion. 7 Mrs. Roy again addressed the Commission, stating that she did not want to start a "war" within her neighborhood , she has tried to be a good neighbor, and feels that she is providing a • service which is needed within the neighborhood and the City. She stated that she will be willing to stipulate to a review of the operation within six months; she pointed out, however, that not all of the remodeling is completed , and it will be some time before she will be up to the maximum of 12 children. Brief discussion ensued. Redpath moved: Douglas seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #CU-96-01 be closed . AYES : NAYS: Redpath , Tobin , Weber , Douglas , Mason None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Homer , Shoop , Dummer, Garrett The motion carried . Mr. Mason stated he would entertain a motion to approve the Conditional Use with the fol- lowing provisions: 1. 2 . Parking spaces in front of the Roy home will be kept open to allow parking for day-care parents dropping off or picking up children. A review will be scheduled, either within six-months or within one year , to determine impact of the Day Care Center on the neighborhood. Mr. Stitt pointed out that even though Mr. and Mrs. Roy commit to parking their private vehi- cles in their private driveway , this will not assure the availability of that on-street space for day-care parents. This is public right-of-way and anyone could park there and there is nothing that can be done to prohibit it. Brief discussion ensued. Mason moved: Weber seconded: The Planning Commission approve the Conditional Use for a small child care center at 3035 South Corona Street, applicants Joel and Marina Roy , with the following provisions: 1. Members of the Roy family will park their personal vehicles in their private driveway during the hours day-care is provided. 2. The Planning Commission will schedule a review of the day-care center within six months of the date of approval to determine im- pact on the neighborhood. 8 • • • • • The parking issue was discussed. Mr. Weber suggested that the bigger problem is the increase in the amount of traffic . Ms . Tobin discussed the narrownes s of the street . Mr. Douglas agreed that the increase in the amount of traffic is the biggest issue , and he is of the opinion that the amount of traffic is already straining the neighborhood . Discussion ensued. Mr. We- ber pointed out that if he lived next door to a day-care center, he would be concerned about nois e . yet no one expressed any concern regarding noise. Mr. Weber noted that the testimony reflected, to him, that this is a needed and well-run day-care and is beneficial to the neighbor- hood and to the City . Ms . Tobin noted that most day-care centers do have a schedule for the childre n: classes, play breaks, meals , naps , etc. The children are not outdoors creating no ise all day long. Mr. Mason agreed with Mr. Weber 's assessment that the day-care center is bene- ficial to the community; the question to be considered is what impacts can be mitigated. Mr. Weber pointed out that small day-care centers are a "Conditional Use " in the R-1-C Zone D is- trict ; where else wou ld a day-care center be located . Mr. Douglas suggested that a day-care center would be better located in a block that does not also have two other day-care homes ; or located in an area where no opposition is voiced by neighbors . Mr. Douglas stated that the approval of this request will accommodate only one resident and "tell those who have concerns they don't count." Mr. Mason noted that any resident of a block impacts that block in one way or another; this Conditional Use does present some impacts -can they be mitigated. The big- gest problem perceived by Mr. Mason is that of traffic. He inquired of Attorney Reid whether the Commission can state no further conditional uses would be approved in this block. Ms . Reid stated that the Commission cannot , as a reason for approval, state that no further Condi- tional Uses would be approved. Each Conditional Use must be considered upon its own merit. If further requests for a Conditional Use in this block are forthcoming, the Commission may then take into account the fact that there is one Conditional Use in existence . Discussion en- sued . Ms. Tobin noted that eight persons signed the letter in opposition. It was pointed out that the eight signatures represented six ownerships. Mr. Mason stated that this is six homes out of an assumed 20 homes on the block. Mr. Douglas asked for clarification of the phrase "provided public interest is fully protected". Ms. Reid stated that th is is a determination that the Commission must make based on the crite- ria outlined for Conditional Uses . Brief discussion ensued. The vote on the motion to approve, with conditions , was called. AYES: NAYS : ABSTAIN: ABSENT : Redpath , Tobin, Weber , Mason Douglas None Shoop , Dummer, Garrett, Horner The motion carried . 9 Members of the audience were thanked for their attendance. A short recess was declared. The meeting reconvened with Douglas , Redpath , Tobin, Weber, and Mason in attendance . IV. PUBLIC FORUM. No one was present to address the Commission . V. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE. Mr. Stitt reported on the City Council acceptance of the Clarion Report and authorization to proceed with negotiations on Cinderella City . Mr. Stitt reported that membership of Planning Commission members on the Englewood Downtown Development Authority has been determined to be a conflict of interest, and would not be allowed. VI. COMMISSIONER'S CHOICE. Ms . Tobin expressed interest in attending a workshop on "Planning a Livable Community ", which will be at Denver University on August 19 ; the fee is $25, the workshop begins at 8 :00 • A.M . and ends approximately 4 :30 P.M. Transportation Secretary Peiia is keynote speaker. • Mr . Weber commented about the location of basketball hoops in the "parking" area between curb and sidewalk. Is this permitted? Ms. Reid stated that if it is a permanent fixture it is not permitted . If someone is concerned or offended by location of such a structure , to call Code Enforcement. Brief discussion ensued. The meeting was declared adjourned at 9 :15 P.M. - Gertrude G. Welty , Recording Secre \ \$nds \.eng_ ch_ sys.city hall .eng lewood\de pt\nbd \group\boards\plancomm\pcm8-96a.doc •• 10