Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-02-21 PZC MINUTESt e CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION February 21, 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 Conference Room A of Englewood City Hall, Chairman Mason presiding. Members present: Dummer, Redpath, Tobin, Weber, Douglas, Mason Members absent: Garrett, Horner, Shoop Also present: Planning Administrator Harold Stitt Assistant City Attorney Dan Brotzman II. APPROVAL OF MJNUTES. February 7, 1995 Chairman Mason asked for consideration of the Minutes of February 7, 1995. Redpath moved: Tobin seconded: The Minutes of February 7, 1995, be approved as written. Mr. Weber suggested the need to clarify Paragraph 6 on Page 4 to be "round trips". Mr. Redpath and Ms. Tobin accepted Mr. Weber's amendment. Mr. Shoop entered the meeting and took his place with the members of the Commission. The vote on the amendment was called: AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Redpath, Tobin, Weber, Douglas, Mason None Shoop, Dummer Homer, Garrett The motion carried. The vote to approve the Minutes, as amended, was called: AYES: NAYS: Redpath, Shoop, Tobin, Weber, Douglas, Mason None 1 ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Dummer Horner, Garrett ill. HOME OCCUPATION/PAWN SHOP DISCUSSION Assistant City Attorney Brotzman led discussion on the issues of home occupations and pawn shops. Mr. Brotzman noted that City Council is considering legislation on pawn shops which will regulate the hours and days of operation, as well as imposing licensing and transaction fees. The Planning Commission has been asked to consider whether further regulations should be imposed through zoning provisions. Mr. Brotzman emphasized the need to have zoning restrictions based on logical, reasonable determinations. Some of the reasonable concerns could be police activity, aesthetics, and type of clientele. Barred windows could be sufficient reason to place pawn shops into a separate zone category. Mr. Brotzman stated that this same rationale applies to the issue of home occupations: they may be included in one zone district and not in another. Again, Mr. Brotzman emphasized the need for logic and reason to include or exclude home occupations in any particular zone dis- trict. Mr. Brotzman also emphasized the need for the Commission to articulate the reasons for their determinations. Setting distance limitations between pawn shops was discussed. Mr. Brotzman suggested that increased police activity is a reason to impose distance factors. The police activity may not be a result of crime commission at the pawn shop itself, but the fact that items which may have been stolen elsewhere were pawned and show as stolen merchandise when entered into police computers. The aesthetic impact of stores with "barred windows" was discussed. It was pointed out that several other businesses, such as jewelers or appliance stores, have bars on their windows. Also considered was the issue of "perception" versus "fact". Similarities and differences between pawn shops, shops that sell on consignment, and second hand stores were discussed. It was pointed out that some stores, such as the Channel 6 Second Time Shop, accepts "donated" items for sale. Persons who pawn merchandise will, theoreti- cally, redeem the item within a specified time. Only items which are not redeemed are offered for sale to the general public. Regulations on these types of businesses were discussed and contrasted to the regulations under consideration for pawn shops. Mr. Brotzman stated that pawn shops can be held to be different from a typical retail business. Mr. Weber commented that the telephone book lists only five pawn shops that are located in Englewood, and most of those are affiliated with auto pawn. He questioned that there ·is a problem with pawn shops in the City. The pawn shops that are doing auto pawn are already being regulated regarding hours and days of operation. Mr. Stitt suggested that the concern may be based more on what can happen, rather than what is occurring today --fear of "proliferation" of the pawn shops. Mr. Mason stated it is his opinion that people are concerned about the proliferation of pawn shops. Discussion ensued. 2 t e e Mr. Mason commented that there are quite a few retired residents in his neighborhood, and any police activity leads to a sense of insecurity, fear of lower property values, etc. He in- quired about the possibility of distance limitations between pawn shops and residential areas. Mr. Stitt pointed out that if the distance limitations imposed on adult uses were to be imposed on pawn shops, it would effectively eliminate pawn shops from the B-2 District on South Broadway because there are residential districts beginning at the Broadway/Lincoln and Broadway/ Acoma alleys. Discussion followed. Police activities generated by uses such as Seven-Eleven stores and King Soopers were dis- cussed. Do these police activities foster the feelings of insecurity, concern for property val- ues, etc. that police activities in conjunction with pawn shops foster? Mr. Brotzman that po- lice activity in conjunction with a pawn shop is related to the "type of business", which is not so with Seven-Eleven police activity. The issue of "grandfathering" in pawn shops at present locations were restrictions imposed which would no longer allow the business were considered. Mr. Brotzman suggested that if such restrictions were imposed, the pawn shops may be grandfathered in for a limited time, and would assist the Commission in writing such a clause. Lengthy discussion ensued on issues of auto pawn, regulations therefore, and pawn shops that do not engage in auto pawn activities. Mr. Mason pointed out that the transfer of titles to ve- hicles is already regulated by the State. Mr. Dummer stressed that auto pawns are similar to used car dealers, and there are no distance factors imposed on car dealers. Mr. Brotzman reiterated that the Planning Commission has been asked by City Council to consider whether there is a difference between pawn shops and other retail businesses; does the pawn shop activity need to be regulated, and should it be regulated by zoning. The Council wants the Commission to investigate the issue, hold a public hearing, and report back to the Council. The issue of transaction fees was again briefly considered. Mr. Brotzman clarified that the State requires that each transaction be monitored; the transaction fee is a "user fee" based on the transactions the City is forced to monitor. Discussion ensued. Mr. Stitt clarified that permitted uses, and accompanying restrictions thereon, in the B-2 Zone District carry over to the I-1 and I-2 Zone Districts unless specifi- cally prohibited. Mr. Stitt further pointed out that there are ·many locations in Englewood where residential zoning abuts an industrial classification. · The four alternatives cited by Mr. Stitt at the previous meeting were considered: 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. 3 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 . . 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. Discussion ensued. Tobin moved: Douglas seconded: That a Public Hearing be scheduled April 18, 1995, to consider imposi- tion of minimum distance requirements between Pawn Shops in the B-2 Zone District. Mr. Mason called for discussion on the motion. No further discussion ensued. Mr. Mason then called for the vote on the motion. AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Redpath, Shoop, Tobin, Weber, Dummer, Douglas None None Homer, Garrett The motion carried. The Commission then considered the issue of home occupations. Mr. Stitt reminded the Commission that at the last meeting, it was suggested that members compile a list of accept- able and unacceptable home occupations for discussion. Ms. Tobin inquired whether other municipalities differentiated between residential zone dis- tricts in allowing home occupations. Mr. Stitt acknowledged that some communities do, or apply different restrictions in different zone districts. Mr. Stitt emphasized the need to show a community of interest and need to have one zone district treated differently than others. Ms. Tobin commented that she rather resents the attitude that "your" neighborhood (R-1-A) is more valuable than "mine" (R-1-C). Mr. Douglas responded that "this is what you bought into" and that nothing is being "forced" on the residents of districts other than R-1-A. Discussion ensued. Mr. Stitt stated that the decline of property values argument is a "fear", and cannot be documented. Increased traffic is, however, a real issue and can be addressed. He suggested that the Commission might pare the list of home occupations that might be permitted in R-1-A to those that do not generate traffic. Mr. Stitt pointed out that those individuals testifying be- fore City Council did not voice objection to home office operations, but did to possible uses 4 e such as barbers, beauticians and cosmetologists. The issue of traffic and documentation of vehicle trips per day related to a home occupation was discussed at length. The possibility of imposing a restriction of "no person-to-person contact" on permitted home occupations was discussed. Mr. Redpath agreed that opinions he has heard expressed are in opposition to allowing barbers, hairdressers, etc. Mr. Mason expressed the opinion that cus- tomer inter-action may be a key to whether the home occupations are accepted or objected to in the R-1-A District. Mr. Mason suggested the following possible options for the Commis- sion to consider: • Maintain status quo. • Eliminate uses which generate traffic and promote customer interaction. • Modify the uses allowed in R-1-B by eliminating barbers, hairdressers, beauticians and cosmetologists. · Mr. Douglas inquired about signage. He asked why a home occupation needed any form of sign. Mr. Stitt stated that City Council suggested prohibiting any form of signage for home occupations in all zone districts. Mr. Brotzman cautioned that once signage is restricted, there may be problems with the overall sign code. Traffic generation by home occupations was discussed. Mr. Stitt noted that the inclusion of verbiage regarding no more than 15 vehicle trips per day was done at the City Council level; it is not contained in the existing Ordinance. Mr. Douglas cited the provision from Greenwood Village, and commented on the vagueness of this provision. Further discussion ensued. Ms. Tobin excused herself from the meeting . Mr. Douglas further discussed his concern regarding traffic generation. Mr. Brotzman suggested that "barbers, hairdressers, beauticians, and cosmetologists" be in- cluded in the list of "unacceptable" home occupations to clarify the issue for those R-1-A resi- dents who are concerned. Mr. Brotzman also suggested that "barbers, hairdressers, beauticians and cosmetologists" need to be included as permitted home occupations in the R-1-B, R-1-C, R-2, R-2-C, R-2-C SPS, R-3, and R-4 Zone Districts, if that is, indeed, the intent of the Commission. Brief discussion ensued. The staff is to prepare modifications for the Home Occupation amendments in R-1-A as fol- lows: • Modification of the R-1-B Home Occupations by elimination of barbers, hairdressers, beauticians and cosmetologists. • There shall be no Home Occupations allowed which require face-to-face interaction. • There shall be no increase in traffic as a result of a home occupation. 5 These modified regulations are to be mailed to the Commission members at the earliest possi-e ble date for their comments. IV. PUBLIC FORUM. There was no one present to address the Commission. V. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE. Mr. Stitt noted that Director Merkel is attending the RTD Board meeting in Denver at this hour. He had nothing further to bring before the Commission. VI. COMMISSIONER'S CHOICE. Mr. Mason asked what was on the agenda for the meeting on March 7. Mr. Stitt responded that there are no cases pending; the Commission could review the refined amendments on home occupations. Mr. Mason stated he is aware of time demands on staff and on members of the Commission, and suggested that the meeting of March 7th be canceled. The staff is asked to refine the proposed amendments and transmit to members as soon as possible so that further refinement can be accomplished prior to the public hearing on March 21 if needed. There being nothing further to come before the Commission, the meeting was declared ad- journed at 9:50 P.M. Gertrude G. Welty, Recording Secre 6