Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-07-18 PZC MINUTES' e CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JUL y 18, 1995 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, Chairman Mason presiding. Members present: Members absent: Also present: Douglas, Homer, Shoop, Tobin, Weber, Mason Dummer, Garrett , Redpath (all with previous notice) Harold J. Stitt, Planning Administrator Dan Brotzman, City Attorney II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. July 5, 1995 Chairman Mason called for consideration of the Minutes of July 5, 1995. Tobin moved: Shoop seconded: The Minutes of July 5, 1995, be approved as written. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Homer, Shoop, Tobin, Weber, Douglas None Dummer, Garrett, Redpath Mason The motion carried. ID. COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE R-3 High Density Residence District CASE #6-95 Mr. Mason stated that the issue before the Commission is a proposal to amend the R-3 High Density Residence District to allow Animal Hospitals and Clinics as a permitted principal use. Mr. Mason set forth the parameters of the Hearing , and asked for a motion to open the Public Hearing. Tobin moved: Douglas seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #6-95 be opened. 1 AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Horner, Shoop, Tobin, Weber, Douglas, Mason None Garrett, Redpath, Dummer None The motion carried. Harold J. Stitt was sworn in, and presented Chairman Mason with the Notice of Public Hear- ing which was published in the Englewood Herald on July 6, 1995. Mr. Stitt testified that the issue is before the Planning Commission at the request of Dr. Ty Tankersley, owner and op- erator of Hampden Family Pet Hospital at 1220 East Hampden Avenue. Dr. Tankersley's practice has outgrown the existing premises, and he is seeking a new location for the veteri- nary practice in the same general neighborhood. Dr. Tankersley is interested in the property at 3601 South Pennsylvania Street, which is zoned R-3, High Density Residence. This Zone District permits hospitals and clinics "but not animal hospitals and clinics". Staff researched old zoning ordinances in an attempt to determine the history regarding animal hospitals, clin- ics, and veterinary practices in the City of Englewood. No reasons were cited in support of the specific prohibition of animal hospitals or clinics in the R-3 District, which has been in ef- fect since 1958. Mr. Stitt surmised that the prohibition may have been a response to adjoining neighbors' complaints about outside kennels and runs for animals, or to the possibility of "large animal practices" in the City. Mr. Stitt noted that 40 years ago , livestock was still al- lowed within the City of Englewood. Mr. Stitt testified that Dr. Tankersley has indicated that veterinary medicine has become more specialized in recent years, and that he specializes in "small animal" practice. Ms. Tobin stated that animal hospitals with outside runs were very disturbing to adjoining neighbors; animals that had been surgically treated and still in pain were left outside over night with no veterinarian in attendance, and the animals cried and howled. She suggested this was the reason for the prohibition of such uses from residential areas. Mr. Stitt discussed the change in character of the R-3 High Density Residence district, which has evolved from a mixture of residential uses into more of an office/high density residence district. There are few single-family homes used for that purpose in this district; a great many homes have been converted into professional offices and clinics in conjunction with the medi- cal services orientation of the immediate area. Mr. Stitt stated that the staff has proposed four options for the Commission to consider in consideration of the request, those options being: 1. Amend § 16-4-8B 5 by removing the phrase "but not animal hospitals and clinics," and add a new §B 6 "Small animal hospitals and clinics" and renumber the following uses according! y. 2. Amend §16-4-8B 5 to read "hospitals, clinics, and small animal hospitals and clinics." 3. Make small animal hospitals and clinics a Conditional Use in the R-3 District. 4. Retain the prohibition on animal hospitals and clinics in the R-3 District. 2 . e J e If the Commission recommends options 1, 2, or 3, a new definition should be added to §16.8 of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance which definition would read: "Veterinary Hospital or Clinic -Small Animal: A place where small animals such as dogs, cats, birds and the like are given medical or surgical treatment, and where use as a kennel is limited to short-term boarding and only for medically related purposes and where all uses are enclosed within a sound-proof building and no objectionable odor is emitted." Mr. Stitt emphasized the need for the Commission to consider whether neighborhood impacts of a clinic/hospital which treats small animals differs appreciably from medical clinics treating human beings. Mr. Stitt stressed that the proposal, if approved, will allow no outside runs or kennels for the animals, and the use must be totally contained within a sound-proofed building. Mr. Stitt reiterated the need for the Commission to consider the impact a small animal clinic might have on adjoining properties, particularly if the adjoining use happened to be residential. If this impact is determined to be no greater than that of a medical clinic for human beings, there is no reason to continue to prohibit small animal clinics in the R-3 District. Mr. Stitt suggested the probability of the R-3 District continuing to evolve into the high-density resi- dence/office orientation rather than retaining the low-density residence to high-density resi- dence buffer characteristics. Mr. Stitt stated that the site Dr. Tankersley is interested in, 3601 South Pennsylvania Street, is between East Hampden Avenue and U.S. 285, and the area is developed primarily with office building and high-density residential uses. Mr. Homer noted that staff had recommended Option 1, and asked why that was chosen over Option 2. Mr. Stitt stated that Option 1 will remove the probibition, clarify the type of animal clinics, i.e., "small animal" clinics, which would be permitted, and specifically cite the use as a "permitted principal use". Mr. Stitt further reviewed the options outlined for the Commission to consider. If the Com- mission were to choose the Conditional Use designation, there must be very specific reasons why this particular use is singled out as a Conditional Use. Mr. Stitt commented that in the long-term he does not believe the impact of small animal clinics in the high-density residence area will be that great. Mr. Douglas asked if the R-3 District were amended, would this amendment also apply to the R-4 and B-1 Districts. Mr. Stitt stated that the amendment would not apply to those zone dis- tricts, but would be specific to the R-3 Zone District. Mr. Stitt commented that a year or so ago, there was a request for an ophthalmology clinic for small animals in the B-1 District; the applicant was informed that this is not a permitted use in the B-1, and the applicant chose not to pursue it. Pet stores, such as PETsMART, are allowed in the B-1, but animal hospitals and clinics are not proposed to be allowed. Mr. Stitt stated that in his discussions with the applicant, several options were explored: 1. Dr. Tankersley could apply to the Board of Adjustment and Appeals for a "use vari- ance". 3 2. 3. Dr. Tankersley could apply for rezoning of the block to B-2, Business. Dr. Tankersley could ask that the R-3 District regulations be amended to allow animal hospitals and clinics as permitted principal uses. Mr. Douglas asked whether amending the R-3 District would allow an animal hospital/clinic as a Home Occupation. Mr. Stitt stated that no employees are permitted in conjunction with home occupations, plus the home occupation can occupy no more than 300 sq. ft. of the dwelling. It was also pointed out that animal hospitals and clinics are specifically prohibited as Home Occupations in all residential districts. The possibility of purchasing a single-family structure and converting it to a small animal hospital/clinic was discussed at length. The re- quired minimum lot area for permitted principal uses was also discussed. Mr. Stitt cited §16- 4-8 C 4, which states: "This Section shall not apply to an existing structure converted to ac- commodate a permitted principal use on a lot having less than 24,000 square feet if no other land is available and if the minimum required off-street parking is provided." Mr. Douglas stated that in his opinion the impact from a small animal hospital or clinic would be greater on adjacent property than other permitted principal uses. He further stated that he doesn't want to see animal hospitals and clinics "springing up in everyone's home". He stated that in his opinion it would be possible to convert a single-family home to a veterinary clinic, sound-proof the house, and have the kennels on the property. Mr. Stitt emphasized that no kennels or outside runs would be allowed under the proposal. Ms. Tobin asked for a definition of "sound-proof". Mr. Stitt stated that he could cite no spe- cific definition, but suggested that the Building Codes would have provisions and requirements for sound-proofing. Mr. Mason suggested there is also a Noise Ordinance which can be en- forced. Discussion ensued. Mr. Shoop asked what districts presently allow animal hospitals. Mr. Stitt responded that animal hospitals and clinics are permitted uses in the B-2, Business; the I-1, Light Industrial, and in the I-2, General Industrial District. Animal hospitals and clinics are not permitted as Home Occupations in any residential zone district. Mr. Weber asked for clarification between a "veterinary clinic" and an "animal clinic". Mr. Stitt stated that it is one and the same thing. Ms. Tobin asked for definition of "small animal". Mr. Stitt stated that a small animal is the typical domestic pet --dogs, cats, birds, etc.; not large livestock. Mr. Weber commented that he has been to the animal hospital near Porter's Hospital, it is very compatible with the neighborhood, and one doesn't really know it's there if you're not familiar with the area. Mr. Weber stated that he didn't think anyone would convert a single-family home for an animal clinic. Mr. Douglas agreed that the Veterinary Referral Center on South Downing is very nice; however, the proposed amendment to allow animal hospitals and clinics in R-3 will apply to the entire R-3 District, not just the site under consideration by Dr. Tank- 4 ersley. Mr. Douglas also commented that he does know of single-family residence structures that have been converted for "cat clinics". Brief discussion ensued. Dr. and Mrs. Tankersley were sworn in. Mrs. Tankersley addressed the Commission, stating that she and her husband purchased the Hampden Family Pet Hospital several years ago; this hospital has been in business at the existing location for 27 years. The veterinary practice has outgrown the existing premises, and they need to expand which cannot be done on the present site. Mrs. Tankersley reviewed their search for suitable locations, and noted that the site at 3601 South Pennsylvania has adequate parking, the size of the facility meets their needs, and the site has good accessibility and visibility from the Hampden/U.S. 285 corridor. Dr. Tank- ersley wants to keep his practice in Englewood; his client base is primarily from Englewood and the south Denver area. Mrs. Tankersley briefly discussed the change in veterinary prac- tices; historically, veterinarians treated both large and small animals. However, in the late 1970's and early 1980's, the veterinary practice became more specialized; students have to declare their choice of practice, and the training and education of the veterinary students is fo- cused in the chosen field of practice. Upon graduation, the student is licensed in the chosen specialized field. Mrs. Tankersley compared client load, noting that the Hampden Family Pet Hospital has between 70 to 80 "patients" per week; an ophthalmologist sees approximately 200 patients per week, and a gynecologist sees approximately 175 patients per week. Mrs. Tank- ersley stated that the traffic generated by the veterinary use will be primarily from a three mile radius, and that 10% to 20% of the clients are walk-in. Dr. Tankersley addressed the Commission, and stated that American Veterinary Medicine As- sociation defines clinics as typically "day-patient" only; while a hospital would provide 24-hour care. A doctor may not be on call at the hospital, but the animal would be provided 24-hour care. Dr. Tankersley noted that PETsMART is a "clinic", and does surgery on animals, but the animals are not kept overnight. Ms. Tobin inquired if anyone would remain 24 hours with a seriously ill animal at Dr. Tank- ersley's clinic. Dr. Tankersley stated that if the animal is sufficiently ill to require 24 hour care, he would refer the patient to an emergency hospital; there is such a hospital in Engle- wood, but most of his referrals are to the Veterinary Referral Center on South Downing. Ms. Tobin asked for definition of a "small animal". Dr. Tankersley stated he specializes in typical domestic animals (dogs and cats) and "pocket pets" such as gerbils, hamsters, etc. He does not treat exotic creatures such as iguanas, snakes, etc. Dr. Tankersley noted that large dogs, such as a Great Dane, are a challenge to treat in his present facility because of their size. Mr. Weber asked what, in Dr. Tankersley's opinion, were the chances of converting a single- family home into an animal clinic. Dr. Tankersley stated that most of the homes are too small; his business currently has 1,500 square feet of floor area, with two interior runs and six cages, which are full all of the time. Dr. Tankersley discussed medical equipment, computer equipment, and medical supplies that are required to run an animal hospital; he emphasized that outdoor runs are a security problem, in that some individuals try to break into the hospital through these runs to steal drugs. 5 Ms. Tobin inquired about the disposition of dead animals. Dr. Tankersley stated that he uses the Denver Pet Cemetery, which provides for private burial or cremation, whichever is pre- ferred by the pet owner. Denver Pet Cemetery provides pick-up services of dead animals when called. Mr. Shoop asked if the elevator in the building being considered by Dr. Tankersley would pre- sent a problem for pet owners. Dr. Tankersley stated that he had practiced at several hospitals in California, and the buildings were equipped with elevators, which presented no problem at all. Mr. Shoop asked for a definition of "short-term boarding". Dr. Tankersley stated that short- term boarding would be less than two weeks. He does not provide boarding service now, and does not want to be a boarding facility. Mr. Mason asked if there were further comments or others who wished to address the Com- m1ss1on. Tobin moved: Homer seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #6-95 be closed. Mr. Homer asked Mr. Stitt and Mr. Brotzman about the timing of the approval of the amend- ment, and whether the Tankersley's could close on the property in the near future. Mr. Stitt stated that if the Commission votes on a determination this evening, the recommendation has to be submitted to the City Council who is also required to conduct a Public Hearing. If the Commission chooses to recommend Option #4, which is to retain the prohibition on animal hospitals and clinics in the R-3 District, the applicant can appeal the Commission's decision to the City Council, which will also require a Public Hearing before that body. In any event, the Council action would not go into effect until 30 days following the Council approval. If the Commission chooses to recommend the Conditional Use option, the applicants will have to apply for Conditional Use approval following the effective date of the R-3 District amend- ment; the Conditional Use approval requires posting the property a minimum of 15 days prior to the public hearing before the Planning Commission. This procedure will add approximately one month to the timetable for the Tankersley's. The vote on the motion to close was called: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Homer, Shoop, Tobin, Weber, Douglas, Mason None Redpath, Dummer, Garrett None The motion carried. Mr. Mason asked the pleasure of the Commission. 6 -e ' e Shoop moved: Weber seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council that the Compre- hensive Zoning Ordinance, §16-4-8B 5, R-3 High Density Residence District, be amended by removing the phrase "but not animal hospitals or clinics" and add a new § 16-4-8B 6 "Small animal hospitals and clinics;" all following uses shall be renumbered according! y. Further, § 16-8-1, Definitions, shall be amended by adding the following definition: "Veterinary Hospital or Clinic --Small Animal. A place where small animals such as dogs, cats, birds and the like are given medical or surgi- cal treatment, and where use as a kennel is limited to short-term board- ing and only for medically related purposes and where all uses are en- closed within a sound-proof building and no objectionable odor is emit- ted." Ms. Tobin stated that she has grave concerns about recommending amendment of the R-3 Dis- trict to allow small animal hospitals; this could create very real problems for people who may be living next door to such a use. Ms. Tobin suggested that the Conditional Use route may be the wisest to follow; this would allow the Planning Commission to give specific consideration to each application for a small animal hospital or clinic in the R-3 District. Ms. Tobin also pointed out that the ordinances have rarely been amended upon the request of one individual. Mr. Mason expressed his concerns with the Conditional Use process. Mr. Shoop stated that the Commission has responded to specific situations such as a micro- brewery, recycling centers, etc. by amending the Ordinance. Mr. Shoop pointed out there have been improvements in technology and changes in veterinary practices, which the Com- mission needs to take into account in considering the R-3 amendment. Mr. Shoop stated that he is concerned about the possibility of converting single-family residences into animal hospi- tals/clinics. Mr. Douglas asked if a minimum square footage could be included in the amend- ment which would prevent the conversion of single-family homes for animal clinics and hospi- tals. Discussion ensued. Mr. Brotzman suggested that the Commission could amend the mo- tion to include a provision that animal hospitals and clinics would be prohibited in converted single-family homes. This wording was acceptable to Mr. Shoop and Mr. Weber, and the statement that "Small ani- mal hospitals and clinics will not be allowed in converted single-family homes" was added to the motion for inclusion in the proposed amendment. Brief discussion ensued. The vote was called. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Shoop, Tobin, Weber, Douglas, Homer, Mason None Redpath, Dummer, Garrett None 7 The motion carried. IV. FINDINGS OF FACT Duggan Petroleum Company CASE #5-95 Chairman Mason stated that the Findings of Fact for Duggan Petroleum Company Planned Development were to be considered for approval. Horner moved: Shoop seconded: The Findings of Fact for Duggan Petroleum Company be approved as written. Mr. Horner commented that he had received a call from the architect regarding the concerns that he had expressed on landscaping during the course of the Hearing. The Commission members appreciated the developer's responsiveness to the concerns of the Commission. The vote was called: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Tobin, Weber, Douglas , Horner, Shoop None Dummer, Garrett, Redpath Mason The motion carried. V. PUBLIC FORUM. No one was present to address the Commission. VI. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE. Mr. Stitt shared with the Commission an E-Mail message from Director of Libraries Hank Long regarding a challenge from the Englewood Library Board on sponsorship of a child for the summer reading program. Each summer, the Library and School District have a reading program for those children in need of reading assistance; this year the Library Board has spon- sored a child ($25 fee), and have challenged other Board and Commission members, indi- vidually or collectively, to sponsor a child for the program. Mr. Stitt stated that if the Com- mission wants to sponsor a child, the staff will find the funds in the budget to cover this spon- sorship. The consensus of the Commission is that this would be money well-spent. Mason moved: Horner seconded: The Planning Commission accepts the challenge of the Englewood Li- brary Board, and will sponsor a child in the summer reading program. Staff is directed to initiate payment of the $25 fee for this sponsorship. 8 ' e AYES: NAYS: Weber , Douglas, Homer, Shoop, Tobin, Mason None ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Dummer, Garrett, Redpath None The motion carried. Mr. Stitt stated that on Friday, July 14, staff received a letter from the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) denying access from South Santa Fe Drive to the Duggan Petro- leum development south of Union Avenue. All access into and from the development is to be from West Union Avenue. Mr. Stitt stated that in his opinion, CDOT wants Santa Fe Drive to become a "limited access" highway, and that all access to individual businesses from Santa Fe will be closed. Discussion ensued. Staff met with the Messrs. Duggan earlier on this date, and the Messrs . Duggan will be meeting with CDOT in an effort to regain approval of the Santa Fe access point. Ms. Tobin discussed her concern that CDOT is isolating communities by closing crossings and eliminating access to businesses. Brief discussion ensued. vn. COMMISSIONER'S CHOICE. Ms. Tobin stated that she has received three telephone calls and people have dropped by to ex- press appreciation for the Planning Commission 's position regarding the Trolley Square/King Soopers Planned Development. People are appreciative of efforts to get more landscaping on the site. Mr. Mason commented that possibly an architectural/design review board might gain approval if this is a representative citizen response. Ms . Tobin stated that the people she has spoken to seem to feel the Planning Commission is qualified to address the design review is- sues. Mr. Horner commented that from recent newspaper articles , it appears that light rail in the Santa Fe corridor is a dead issue , and that neither Senators Brown nor Campbell will argue on behalf of the funding . There being nothing further to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned. Gertrude G. Welty , Recording ecretary 9