Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-02-07 PZC MINUTESCITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING C01\1MISSION FEBRUARY 7, 1995 I. CALL TO ORDER. The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission convened in Conference Room A of Englewood City Hall at 7:05 P .M., Vice Chair Mason presiding. Members present: Weber, Douglas, Garrett, Redpath, Shoop, Tobin, Homer, Mason Merkel, Ex-officio Members absent: Dummer Also present: Planning Administrator Harold J. Stitt Mr. Douglas and Mr. Homer were welcomed to the Commission. Il. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. January 17, 1995 Vice Chair Mason called for consideration of the Minutes of January 17, 1995. Tobin moved: Shoop seconded: The Minutes of January 17, 1995 be approved as written. AYES: NAYS: Redpath, Shoop, Tobin, Weber, Mason None ABSTAIN: AB~ENT: Douglas, Garrett, Homer Dummer The motion carried. ID. ELECTION OF OFFICERS. Chair Vice Chair Vice Chair Mason called for election of officers. Redpath moved: Tobin seconded: The election of officers be opened. The motion carried. 1 Tobin moved: Weber seconded: Mr. Mason be nominated for Chair of the Planning and Zoning Com- mission. Mr. Mason asked if there were further nominations. Redpath moved: Tobin seconded: The motion carried. The nominations for Chair be closed, and Mr. Mason be elected by ac- clamation. Chairman Mason called for nominations for Vice Chair. Tobin moved: Mason seconded: Mason moved: Tobin seconded: The motion carried. Mr. Redpath be nominated for Vice Chair of the Planning and Zoning Commission. The nominations for Vice Chair be closed, and Mr. Redpath be elected Vice Chair by acclamation. IV. HOME OCCUPATIONS CASE #4-93B Mr. Stitt discussed the article written for publication in the Englewood Citizen regarding Home Occupations. Mr. Stitt referenced memorandums regarding the Home Occupation issue from City Manager Clark, and from himself to the Commission. The Commission also received a copy of the proposed Bill for Ordinance as was considered by City Council, and remanded to the Com- mission for further consideration. Mr. Stitt stated that the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance has three single-family residence districts, R-1-A, R-1-B, and R-1-C, in addition to the me- dium density and high density residential districts. Home Occupations are permitted in all residential zone districts except R-1-A. Mr. Stitt discussed the work that staff and the Com- mission have devoted to the proposed amendments since the process was begun two years ago, and gave background information on the initiation of the proposed amendments. Mr. Stitt aJso discussed the change in life styles in the 40 years since the restrictions regarding Home Occu- pations were written, noting that home-based businesses are becoming more the "norm" than the exception. Home occupations must be unobtrusive in the neighborhood, signage is re- stricted to one square foot attached to the wall or in the window, there may be no separate outside entrance, and there may be no "employees" except for residents in the home. Many people engage in desk-top publishing, word processing, and other computer-related activities all of which can be a "business", but of which the immediate neighbors are unaware. Other 2 ' e e unobtrusive businesses may include activities such as custom sewing , hobby and art-craft proj- ects , sale of products such as Amway, Avon, Watkins , etc. Mr. Stitt identified four courses of action available to the Commission in the course of consid- ering the remanded amendments: 1. Recommend adoption of the amendments as originally proposed by the Planning Commission. 2. Amend the proposed regulations to limit the type and number of home occupations permitted in the R-1-A Zone District. 3. Amend the proposed regulations to prohibit home occupations in the R-1 -A Zone Dis- trict. 4 . Recommend that there be no amendments made to the home occupation regulations . Traffic generation by home occupations was discussed. Mr. Horner commented that if barber- ing were to be an allowed home occupation, it only takes 30 minutes to cut hair and this busi- ness could generate a lot of traffic in a residential neighborhood. Further discussion ensued regarding traffic generation by various types of home occupations. The approval process for home occupations was discussed. There is a registration form to be filled out by persons applying for home occupation approval; however, most home occupation applicants come to the attention of staff only if they call to determine whether the use is al- lowed, or they have applied for a sales tax license. Mr. Stitt commented that Section "l" from Page 6 of the proposed amendments should also be included under the R-1-A provisions on Page 4. Lack of public participation and input in the Planning Commission process, even though public notice was published, was briefly noted. Mr. Redpath commented on the activities and indi- viduals involved in generating public interest on the issue before the City Council. Mr. Stitt stated that the second Public Hearing on the home occupation amendments before the Planning Commission is scheduled for March 21, 1995 . Mr. Stitt encouraged all members of the Commission to talk to their neighbors, explain what the proposal is, and encourage atten- dance at the public hearing. Mr. Stitt emphasized that the Planning Commission is an "advisory board", and is obligated to make recommendations to City Council . City Council is not, however, obligated to follow any recommendation from the Commission. Discussion ensued. Mr. Stitt commented that he had no idea what City Council's opinion is regarding the home occupation amendments as they would pertain to residential zone districts other than the R-1-A District. The discussion before City Council seemed to focus only on the R-1-A District. Mr. Stitt further pointed out that if some home occupations currently operat- ing illegally in the R-1-A District, are obligated to collect sales tax and have not been doing 3 " so, those residents will have to resolve this issue with the Department of Finance if the home e occupation amendment is approved. Mr. Garrett inquired whether, if a list of acceptable home occupations were to be developed for R-1-A, and expanded to apply to the R-1-B and R-1-C areas also, would home occupations which are currently legal in those districts, but not on the "acceptable list" be grandfathered in. Mr. Stitt suggested that this needs to be clarified with Legal Counsel Brotzman. Mr. Mason supported Mr. Garrett's proposal of a list of uses that would be unobjectionable as home occupations. This list would be compiled with consideration given to generation of un- due traffic congestion, noise, and other issues of concern in today's society. He also suggested a list of uses that would not be allowed. Mr. Garrett suggested that these lists 'Could be available for members of the audience at the time of the Public Hearing, and the Commission could ask for feedback from the audience. Mr. Stitt suggested that at the next meeting, the Commission should be prepared to delineate uses they want to see on the lists of acceptable and unacceptable home occupations. This will then give staff time to do the final compilation and present it to the Commission at the first meeting in March for further scrutiny prior to the Public Hearing on March 21st. Mr. Mason discussed additional verbiage to provide protection and a route of appeal to neigh- bors who may find a particular home occupation objectionable. Mr. Stitt pointed out that the City would have to make determinations based on "specific criteria". Discussion followed. Mr. Garrett questioned whether the Commission will be expected to render a decision the evening of the Public Hearing, or whether this can be delayed to give members time to con- sider public input. Mr. Stitt commented on the change in City Council procedures whereby a public hearing is scheduled for a particular date, but final passage of a bill is delayed to a forthcoming Council meeting; there is no reason the Planning Commission cannot follow this same procedure. Mr. Horner discussed the issue of "four cars at any one time, no more than 15 vehicular trips per day" as pertains to a home occupation. Mr. Stitt stated that this provision is not in the cur- rent regulations, and was included during the time the amendments were discussed at the Council level. Mr. Stitt discussed his concerns with inclusion of this provision. Mr. Douglas estimated that 15 round trips per day would equate to a vehicle coming or going every 15 minutes. Inclusion of provisions which are difficult to enforce was discussed. Mr. Mason noted that Code Enforcement response is on a "complaint basis". Discussion ensued. The provision of sales on premises versus sales off premises was discussed. Mr. Stitt directed the Commission's consideration to a synopsis of home occupation restric- tions from Arvada, Greenwood Village, Littleton, Thornton, and Westminster. Mr. Weber presented a draft opinion survey form on home occupations. 4 Chairman Mason called for a brief recess. The meeting reconvened at 8:30 P.M. Eight members present. The Commission further considered Mr. Weber's opinion survey. Mr. Horner suggested in- clusion of examples such as financial planners, brokers, architects, etc.; also, in conjunction with beauty shops include barbers and cosmetologists. Mr. Stitt pointed out that "foster care" is not a home occupation, and should be eliminated from the survey. Taking work home from your place of employment or telecommuting a couple of days per week were discussed. Mr. Stitt stated that a home occupation requires that the home be the principal place of work, but the home occupation must still be "incidental" to the primary use of the premises for residential purposes. The use must be operated only within the confines of the primary structure --it cannot be conducted in a detached garage or workshop, for instance. Mr. Stitt emphasized that one cannot come up with a set of regulations to handle all home oc- cupation concerns, and stressed the need to not make the regulations so involved as to create enforcement problems. V. PAWN SHOPS. Mr. Stitt stated that staff has received regulations regarding pawn shops from Aurora, Broom- field, Lakewood and Westminster. He briefly reviewed the provisions for the Commission, citing that Westminster allows pawn shops in their "heavy commercial" district, with no spe- cific criteria set forth. He cannot find any specific allowance on pawn shops in the Broomfield regulations, and assumes they are treated as a retail use. Lakewood makes distinctions on re- tail sales and loan operations, and allows pawn shops in a combination of those districts; they concentrate more on what cannot be pawned. Aurora's regulations were drafted in 1994, and impose a two mile distance restriction between pawn shops. City Council is considering the issue of licensing and transaction fees for pawn shops, and some members of Council suggested that the Planning Commission consider controls through zoning. Mr. Stitt cited four alternatives that were set forth for consideration of the Commission in his memorandum of January 12th: 1) Maintain pawn shops as a permitted use in the B-2, Business District, but with a spe- cific requirement for a minimum distance between any two pawn shops. This would act to limit the maximum number of pawn shops that could operate in the City at any one time. 2) Make pawn shops a prohibited use in the B-2, Business District, but permit them in the I-1, Light Industrial District, and the I-2, General Industrial District. The existing pawn shops in the B-2 District would be classified as nonconforming uses and amor- tized out over a short period of time, such as three to five years. 5 3) Make pawn shops a conditional use in the B-2 District. This would create an oppor- tunity for public review of any proposed pawn shop in a public hearing setting. 4) Leave the current regulations as they are. Mr. Stitt reiterated his concerns expressed at the last meeting regarding Conditional Use desig- nation of pawn shops. This designation would necessitate findings that pawn shops so differ from other uses permitted in a specific district that the special consideration is warranted. Further discussion on the provisions imposed by Aurora ensued. Mr. Stitt stated that he did not have any of the background information leading up to the regulations. Mr. Stitt pointed out that the City of Englewood will need to establish that there is a "problem" caused by the pawn shops, and then explore the means to address the problem. Mr. Merkel commented that City Council members have expressed' concerns about deterioration of South Broadway busi- nesses if pawn shops are allowed; the appearance of businesses with bars on windows is of concern. U.S. Pawn and Englewood Pawn were both discussed briefly. The proximity of pawn shops to residential areas was also mentioned. Mr. Stitt stated that the staff has yet to receive any feedback from the Chamber of Commerce. The drafting of a couple of proposals for consideration by the Commission was considered. Mr. Douglas inquired what would be gained by the Conditional Use provision; he commented that imposing distance fac tors might assist in preventing problems. Mr. Mason strongly urged that the City "keep a handle on it", and emphasized that he does not want to see a row of pawn shops in Englewood. Mr. Shoop asked for police reports regarding robberies, break-ins, etc. on pawn shops in Englewood. Mr. Weber asked if staff could also determine when the pawn shops opened for business in Englewood, and what the trend is --is the number of pawn shops increasing. Further discussion ensued. Mr. Stitt stated that the theory is that Denver clamped down on pawn shop operations, particularly in relation to guns, and that the pawn shops are relocating to the suburbs. Mr. Garrett suggested the need for staff to work closely with the City Attorney's office to de- termine the findings and facts that are needed regarding pawn shop regulations. Brief discus- sion ensued. Mr. Stitt suggested asking Legal Counsel Brotzman to attend the next meeting to discuss this matter with the Commission. VI. PUBLIC FORUM. No one was present to address the Commission. VII. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE. Mr. Merkel briefly updated the Commission on the Cinderella City Mall. Staff is now meet- ing with the designated developer to write a redevelopment ag reement; meetings with Equita- ble and Miller/Kitchell are upcoming. He stated that the redevelopment plans probably will not be to the Commission before late summer. Mr. Redpath asked if the redevelopment will 6 • e be only for the Mall property, or will it encompass the individual owners along U.S. 285. Mr. Merkel stated that it will be up to the redeveloper to work with the individual owners such as Republic National Bank and NorWest Bank. Mr. Garrett commented on rumors that the Englewood K-Mart on West Belleview will be closing; he asked if this can be confirmed. Mr. Stitt stated that he has also heard the rumor, but cannot confirm that it is factual. VIII. COMMISSIONER'S CHOICE. Ms. Tobin asked members of the Commission to volunteer to serve on the various task forces for Englewood, Focusing on Tomorrow. She stated that she will be serving on the "Business and Transportation" task force. Ms. Tobin stated that the Business/Transportation task force will meet on February 9, 5:30 P.M. at'Swedish Medical Center. Mr. Stitt discussed the background of Englewood, Focusing on Tomorrow, and stated that the five task forces are: • Business/Transportation • Environment/Culture • Housing/Community Pride • Crime/Government • Education These task forces operate independently from the steering committee, and focus around the nine vision statements which have been written by the steering committee. The task forces will be required to develop goals and an action plan based on the vision statements. Mr. Merkel suggested that the Commission give thought to having representation on each of the task forces. Mr. Merkel and Mr. Stitt discussed the retreat for all members affiliated with Englewood, Focusing on Tomorrow, scheduled for February 25 at Swedish Medical Center. This retreat will be from 9:00 A.M. to 4:00 P.M.; lunch will be provided. Mr. Stitt briefly discussed the proposed agenda for the retreat. Mr. Mason indicated he would try to serve on the Environment/Culture Task Force, and Mr. Weber stated that he would participate on the Business/Transportation Task Force with Ms. ~in. .. Mr. Stitt discussed the Tri-Cities Group composed of Planning Commissioners, City Council and staff members from Englewood, Sheridan and Littleton. Mr. Shoop and former member Covens were Commission representatives to this group. Mr. Stitt discussed the goals and fo- cus of the Tri-Cities Group in working with CDOT on the Santa Fe Drive improvements, the accomplishments, and what is yet to be addressed. The next meeting will be February 15, at 7 ,, 7:30 A.M. in Conference Room A of Englewood City Hall. He asked for volunteers from the e Commission to serve on this Group. No member volunteered to serve. There being nothing further brought before the Commission, the meeting was declared ad- journed at 9:20 P .M. Gertrude G. Welty, Recording Secre 8