Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-03-21 PZC MINUTESCITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 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 the City Council Chambers, Chairman Mason presiding. Present: Shoop, Tobin, Weber, Dummer, Douglas, Garrett, Horner, Mason Merkel, Ex-officio Absent: Redpath Also present: Harold J. Stitt, Planning Administrator Dan Brotzman, City Attorney II. APPROVAL OF :MINUTES. February 21, 1995 Chairman Mason called for consideration of the Minutes of February 21, 1995. Tobin moved: Douglas seconded: The Minutes of February 21, 1995 be approved as written. AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Shoop, Tobin, Weber, Dummer, Douglas, Horner, Mason None Garrett Redpath The motion carried. ID. COMPREHENSIVE ZONJNG ORDINANCE Amendments on Home Occupations CASE #4-93B Mr. Mason stated that the issue before the Commission is consideration of proposed amend- ments to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, which amendments pertain to the Home Oc- cupations currently permitted in R-1-B, R-1-C, R-2, R-2-C, R-2-C SPS, R-3 and R-4 Zone Districts, and proposed to be allowed in the R-1-A District. Mr. Mason asked that members of the audience sign the sign-in sheet being circulated. Mr. Mason asked that staff present the issue. 1 Harold Stitt, Planning Administrator, was sworn in. Mr. Stitt testified that the Planning e Commission has worked on the proposed home occupation amendments for the past two years. Home Occupations are now permitted in all residential districts except R-1-A; this dates back to at least 1955 when the "parent" ordinance of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance was adopted. Mr. Stitt discussed the amendments proposed to the home occupations in all residen- tial districts except the R-1-A. These proposed amendments are inclusion of a fine arts studio and tutoring, with a maximum of four students at any one time. Day care homes "in accor- dance with State licensing provisions" would be allowed, as would beauticians, barbers, cosme- tologists and hairdressers. During the course of deliberations on the proposed amendments by the City Council, the provision limiting vehicular trips in conjunction with home occupations to no more than 15 per 24-hour period was inserted. This provision, while it can provide an extra measure of enforcement power, is also difficult to enforce because it would require de- termining what vehicular trips are motivated by the home occupation versus those of a personal nature. Mr. Stitt then discussed the proposal to include home occupations in the R-1-A District. Staff has, over the last few years, received a number of requests from residents of the R-1-A Dis- trict who want to do things such as desk-top publishing, arts and crafts for sale at fairs and ba- zaars, or day care homes. These individuals have been told they cannot pursue home occupa- tions in that zone district, and on occasion, the resident has chosen to appeal to the Board of Adjustment and Appeals. Staff is aware that there are home occupations in the R-1-A District, which are illegal under the current zoning regulations. The proposal to allow home occupa- tions in the R-1-A District will "decriminalize" these activities. Mr. Stitt stated that opponents to the proposal have advanced the argument that to open this zone district to home occupations will change the character of the entire zone district. Mr. Stitt stated that staff has prepared three options to be considered, those options being: Option 1: This option reflects the amendments as originally approved by the Planning Commission in 1993, in which the home occupations would be permitted in R-1-A, and the home occupations regulations would be identical throughout all residential districts. Option 2: This option would allow a more restrictive list of home occupations in R-1-A District, and amendments proposed for the remaining residential districts would remain as pro- posed in 1993. Option 3: This option would maintain the prohibition on home occupations in R-1-A, and approve the proposed amendments for all other residential districts. Mr. Garrett asked for clarification on the restriction prohibiting employment of "assistants" in the conduct of a home occupation. Mr. Stitt stated that an individual with an approved home occupation may not employ someone not residing in that particular home to assist with the home occupation. Mr. Stitt emphasized that home occupations must be incidental to the prin- cipal use of the property for residential purposes. Mr. Garrett inquired about "incidental con- tact" with employees. Mr. Stitt discussed home "offices" dispatching work crews, but the work 2 crews were coming to the residence to pick up the orders; this is not acceptable. Brief discus- sion ensued. Mr. Mason called for a motion to open the Public Hearing. Tobin moved: Horner seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #4-93B be opened. AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Tobin, Weber , Dummer, Douglas , Garrett, Horner, Shoop, Mason None None Redpath The motion carried. Mr. Mason asked for audience members in favor of the proposed amendments to address the Commission. Marjorie Becker 644 East Yale Place: was sworn in. Ms . Becker testified that she isn 't sure whether she is in favor of or opposed to the proposed amendments. Ms. Becker testified that she wants to see all citizens of Englewood treated equally ; a home occupation that would be "obtrusive " in R-1- A will be "obtrusive" in any other residential district. Ms. Becker cited types of businesses that , in her opinion, are not obtrusive --such as computer-oriented businesses , and also cited businesses that are obtrusive , such as a limousine service which is operated out of an R-1-C area. Ms. Becker stated that technology has changed and now provides people the opportunity to work unobtrusively from their homes by using computers , fax machines , and modems . Ms. Becker stated that she is aware of people in her neighborhood who have a "hair business", and an art studio, neither of which bother her. She does not want to see a truck with a snow blade attached parked in the street --this is an "intrusive " business, as is the individual who lives on South Logan Street who works for an electrical company and parks the large business truck on the street. Ms. Becker testified that in her opinion, no home occupation should generate more than one additional vehicle at a time, noise from the home occupation must be kept to a mini- mum and not bother neighbors. Ms. Becker referenced a letter from her which had been dis- tributed to members of the Commission prior to the meeting, which letter enumerates sugges- tions for standardized regulations for home occupations in all residential zone districts. Ms. Becker stated that if something is good for one district, it's good for all districts. Mr. Mason acknowledged receipt of Ms. Becker's letter by members of the Comm i ssion. [Secretary's note: Ms. Becker's letter, date of March 21, 1995 , is attached to these Minutes and made a part hereof.] 3 Mr. Chris Hoaglund e 3041 South Franklin: was sworn in. Mr. Hoaglund testified that if a business can be operated so that it is "invisible" to the neighbors, and there are no commercial vehicles parked on the street, he would have no objections to such home occupations. He would like to be able to have such a business. Mr. Mason asked if there were anyone else in the audience who wanted to address the Com- mission in favor of the proposed amendments. No one else spoke in support of the amend- ments. Mr. Mason then called for the opponents to address the Commission. Ms. Grace Pittman 3165 West Pimlico Drive: was sworn in. Ms. Pittman expressed the concern that once a business (home occupation) is in, they cannot be controlled or removed. Ms. Pittman stated there is a home beauty shop next door to her, and there are times when it is difficult to access her own driveway because of the extra vehicles on-street. Ms. Pittman also discussed an auto body shop which operates in her neighborhood; there are "junkers" parked in front , the indi- vidual paints cars and fumes spread all over the neighborhood. The code enforcement inspec- tors say they cannot do anything to alleviate this situation. Mr. Garrett asked Ms. Pittman if she opposed computer-oriented home occupations. Ms. Pittman responded that she did not kriow much about computers. Mr. A. C. Anderson 3900 South Galapago: was sworn · in. Mr. Anderson testified that he is "categorically op- posed" to any changes in the R-1-A District. Mr. Anderson stated that he has lived in Engle- wood for 40 years, and has seen the erosion of µie residential neighborhoods by encroaching businesses. Mr. Anderson testified that several years ago, a resident across the street from him tried to open a printing business in her home; this was closed down by the City. Mr. An- derson expressed concern about signage for home occupations, and expressed his dislike of signs posted on telephone poles advertising garage sales, cosmetic sales parties, etc. Mr. An- derson stated that while the neighbor was trying to start the printing business, there was a constant flow of delivery trucks, persons dropping off or picking up printing jobs, and that his evenings and nights were disrupted many times by individuals looking for the printing busi- ness. Mr. Anderson stated that "the City of Englewood enforcement has always been weak". There are times when something can be done about a problem, and times when nothing can be done. He urged that home occupations and business encroachment not be allowed to go any further. Mr. Weber asked what specific complaints Mr. Anderson has made to the City. Mr. Ander- son responded that he did complain about the printing business, and it was shut down. Mr. Anderson asked if the proposed amendments were developed to address a need for revenue on the part of the City, or if it was to make it easier for people to do business in their homes; he 4 e commented that if it is for revenue, he has no sympathy for the City citing underuse of Trolley Square, and the deterioration of Cinderella City. Mr. Garrett inquired if Mr. Anderson would be opposed to computer-oriented businesses. Mr. Anderson responded that "something that begins small gets larger." Mr. Garrett advised Mr. Anderson that there are sign restrictions regarding home occupations. Chairman Mason stated that home occupations may have one sign, one square foot in size, affixed to their house ad- vertising the home occupation. Illuminated signs are not permitted. Mr. John Wilfley 2885 South Ogden: was sworn in. Mr. Wilfley testified in oppos1tlon to the proposed amendments. He testified that he and his wife purchased their property, bui lt their home, and moved into the completed house late Fall, 1994. They relied on the R-1-A zoning when they purchased the property. Mr. Wilfley stated that he had been contacted by neighbors shortly after they moved in and alerted to the proposed amendments; he participated in circulating petitions in opposition, and of 20 people he contacted, 17 were adamantly opposed to any change in the R-1-A regulations. Mr. Wilfley testified that the proposed amendments do not appear to have support of the homeowners in the R-1-A District, and suggested that any amendments should be a grass-roots movement from the people affected. Mr. Wilfley cited specific objections: he does not want to see signs of any kind or size advertising home occu- pations; neither does he want to see additional parking on-street. Mr. Ray Ludwig 2888 South Ogden: was sworn in, and testified that he has lived in Englewood 50 years. Mr. Ludwig cited his service with various organizations and committees, noting that he was part of the study group when the zoning ordinance was adopted in the 1950's. Mr. Ludwig stated that he understands the intent of the Commission is to better the community, but "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". Mr. Ludwig stated that the goal for many years has been to make Englewood a better place to live and raise families, which means having better residential areas. He is con- cerned that the proposed amendments and the accompanying language will "eliminate" the R-1- A zone classification, and there will be no desirable residential area. Mr. Ludwig stated that a number of years ago, when he was active with the Board of Realtors, it was a requirement of that Board that realtors could operate only in a commercially zoned area. Mr. Ludwig testified that the Chamber of Commerce would be opposed to allowing home businesses, which would have an unfair advantage over the "legitimate businessman". The "legitimate businessman" is not a "burden" to the community, and pays taxes and license fees to operate. The residential uses are a "burden" to the community, because the taxes collected from residential properties are insufficient to pay for municipal services rendered. Healthy business communities are needed in all jurisdictions. Mr. Ludwig testified that a new homeowner such as Mr. Wilfley has the right to rely on the integrity of the R-1-A zoning as much as a 50-year resident such as himself does. To remove the "protection" against home occupations is an injustice to the resi- dents of the R-1-A District. Mr. Ludwig testified that he is "not concerned with what we can't see", and there is nothing wrong with taking work home. Mr. Ludwig expressed the opinion that there is nothing "magic" about computers; they only provide a new way of writing what was once done by pen and ink. 5 Mr. Mason asked if Mr. Ludwig felt that property values in Greenwood Village have been e damaged because they allow home occupations in their residential districts. Mr. Ludwig stated that he is not familiar with the Greenwood Village ordinances. Mr. Ludwig expressed the opinion that when a residential district is "opened up", land values will be damaged. Mr. Ludwig stated that he objects to some of the home occupations allowed in the R-2, Medium Density Residential District. When protective language is deleted from zoning regulations, that zone district is damaged. Mr. Ludwig asked "why does the author of the proposed regu- lations want to do this?" Mr. Mason explained that the issue has arisen because of the reasons cited by Planning Admin- istrator Stitt in the opening presentation. People residing in the R-1-A District have requested permission to have home occupations. Mr. R. J. Berlin 2130 East Dartmouth Avenue: was sworn in. Mr. Berlin testified to his participation on the Code Review Committee and the Housing Task Force. One of the goals of both committees was to attract affluent young families to Englewood, and to accomplish this there is need for good residential areas. Mr. Berlin stated that there is nothing that can be done about the "non- intrusive business", and commented that he could run his business from his home if he so chose and the City would never know about it . When someone parks business trucks on the street for a lengthy period of time, this is intrusive. Mr. Berlin stated that the purpose of zoning is to create a residential "charisma", and allow residents to enjoy the peace and quiet of their neighborhood. Mr. Berlin stated that in his opinion, custom sewing is a commercial business and should not be allowed. However, no one knows about a lawyer taking telephone calls at his home. Mr. Berlin stated that he wanted to see his neighborhood stay the way it is; he moved to this area 22 years ago from Denver for the quality of the neighborhood and the quality of the school system. Mr. Berlin stated that he did not want to see any signs in win- dows advertising home occupations, and did not want to see the integrity of the neighborhood destroyed. Mr. Mason inquired whether Mr. Berlin opposed the parking of business vehicles on-street, even though the driver/owner may not be involved in a home occupation. Mr. Berlin stated that residents should not have business trucks , recreational vehicles or other vehicles of this type parked on-street, particularly for extended periods of time. Mr. Weber commented that Mr. Berlin's testimony seems to advocate the "City turning a blind eye to some of the residential business operations, and not others". Mr. Berlin stated that this is not what he is advocating, but emphasized that the City cannot find the non-intrusive busi- nessman who works out of his home. The City cannot, according to Mr. Berlin, do anything about such non-intrusive businesses. He stated that it is not in the "spirit of community" to spy on the neighbors and turn them in. The problem, emphasized Mr. Berlin, is that "once the door is open, you can't close it." The residents of the R-1-A District are entitled to peace, quiet, and enjoyment of their homes. 6 e Mr. Fred Tromley 3104 South Vine Court: was sworn in. Mr. Tromley testified he has lived there 43 years, was formerly in real estate sales, and worked in the County Assessor's Office. Mr. Tromley discussed property values and the impact the allowance of home occupations in R-1-A would have on those values. The taxes paid on a home reflect the value of that home, and affects the revenues coming to the City. Mr. Tromley cited the article regarding home occupations which was published in the February-March edition of the Englewood Citizen. and asked what the "need" is that has been expressed by the community. Mr. Tromley asked if staff has a listing of the requests for home occupations in R-1-A, whether staff has a list of contacts regarding the proposed amendments. Have there been any communications in favor of home occupations in the R-1-A? Mr. Tromley reiterated that if the amendments are approved, it will devalue the R-1-A property, and result in a tax increase for all residents. Mr. Mason asked Mr. Tromley if he felt that R-1-B, R-1-C, R-2, R-2-C, R3, and R-4 prop- erty values have been damaged by allowing home occupations. Mr. Tromley suggested that one has only to consider the selling price of properties in the various zone districts; in his opinion, properties of the same lot size, and the same structure square footage will have differ- ent sale values because of the zone district they are in. Mr. Dick Dittemore 2239 East Floyd Place: was sworn in. Mr. Dittemore testified that he is a former County Attorney, and is familiar with zoning issues. Mr. Dittemore suggested that zoning regulations should not be changed unless there is a "flood of events" showing a need for change, such as an overwhelming number of applications to the Board of Adjustment on the same issue. Mr. Dittemore stated that he and his wife raised their family in Englewood, and this neighborhood is a "hospitable place to live". Mr. Dittemore further suggested that there is no need to con- sider the issue further because there is no grass-roots movement to support the proposed change. Mr. Dittemore stated that he did not want to be repetitive in his remarks, but he does not want the neighborhood to be disturbed. Ms. Sandra Kaplan 2939 South Lafayette Drive: was sworn in. Ms. Kaplan testified she moved to this address approximately one and one-half years ago, and likes this location better than any place she has ever lived. She is a painter by profession, but does not maintain a studio in her home. Ms. Kaplan stated that she is not opposed to "invisible activity" in the homes, but doesn't want to see additional traffic, and large trucks coming into the neighborhood. Ms. Kaplan stated that several months ago, there was a variance request for a two car garage in the neighborhood, which was denied even though it would have increased the value of the home, and possibly of the immediate neighborhood. Ms. Kaplan objected to such home occupations as the limousine service previously cited, even though it is several blocks from her home. Ms. Kaplan stated that if something going on in the neighborhood "really bothered" her, she would take action and complain to the City. Ms. Kaplan stated that she does feel the "invisible business" should be allowed, and has no problem with computer-oriented businesses. 7 Mr. Shoop asked if he understood Ms. Kaplan's premise that "it is OK to be a 'fugitive' busi-e ness". Ms. Kaplan reiterated her belief that "invisible businesses are acceptable", but the re- strictions should not be liberalized to allow other forms of home occupations, or to allow sig- nage. Once the businesses are started, it's difficult to stop them. Mr. Tom Slocum 4665 South Huron: was sworn in. Mr. Slocum testified to a neighbor across the street from him who runs a "garage" on his property; there are trucks with cars in-tow which come in during the middle of the night; motors are revved at all hours, and he is considering selling his home because he doesn't know how much more of this disruption he can endure. He testified that the kids call him a "mean S.O.B." because he stands up for his rights. There was a large truck parked on-street for three weeks without being moved --no one from Code Enforcement or the Safety Services department did anything about it. Mr. Slocum testified that he has had screen doors and storm doors pulled off his house, and reiterated his statement about motors being revved during the night. Mr. Slocum stated that in one of his contacts with the Police Department, he was advised to "get the license number". Mr. Slocum stated that he would not object to home occupations that are computer-oriented, but would oppose occupations that in- crease the amount of traffic in the neighborhood. Mr. Slocum stated that he moved back to Englewood following World War II, and has seen many of the problems the City has experi- enced. He stated he would like to see the neighborhoods stay good, but they are going downhill in his esti{llation. Mr. Merkel stated that the auto repair operations and garages are illegal uses in residential districts, not home occupations. Ms. Tobin inquired whether Mr. Slocum had called the City regarding the loud pipes on the cars. Mr. Slocum discussed his latest contact during a Neighborhood Watch meeting; he was advised to "get the plate number and they would 'try' to help". Ms. Cathy Law 3106 South Vine: was sworn in. Ms. Law stated that it appears from the testimony that the residents are opposed to signs, cars, and obtrusive businesses. She asked whether there is some way the regulations could be worded to allow only the unobtrusive businesses, and pro- hibit signage and additional traffic. Mr. Merkel stated that in his opinion, this is a possible solution. This is one of the alternatives that is being considered. Mr. Merkel commented that some City Council representatives were interested in applying the same regulations to all residential zone districts. Mr. A. C. Anderson again addressed the Commission regarding "ratting" on neighbors. He asked why some of the blatant violations are not noticed and cited by the Code Enforcement officers. Mr. Anderson commented that there are untold yards in the City that are full of trash, junk cars, etc. Mr. Merkel commented that the City has three Code Enforcement Offi- cers, and that their areas of enforcement are rotated periodically in an effort to keep observa- 8 e tion skills honed. He urged citizens to not hesitate to call the City, it is not "ratting" and it is not City policy to disclose the name of a complainant. Ms. Pittman addressed the Commission further, emphasizing that the "inspectors don't re- spond", or side with the violator when they do. Ms. Pittman stated that follow-up procedures by the inspectors is very poor. Ms. Pittman stated that there is a wrecking yard two blocks from her home, and an inspector came out to inspect a new fence, but did not issue a citation on the wrecking operation. Mr. Mason asked if there were further comments from members of the audience. Garrett moved: Shoop seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #4-93B be closed. AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Weber, Douglas, Dummer, Garrett, Horner, Shoop, Tobin, Mason None None Redpath The motion carried. Mr. Ludwig asked if it would be premature of the audience members to ask the Commission which way they are "leaning" on this issue. He noted that the audience has expressed the de- sires of the community, and they want to be reassured they will not be up against this issue again. Mr. Mason stated that the Commission members want to discuss this issue further, and that it is not appropriate for the members to indicate any inclination on the matter at this time. The Commission will consider all testimony which was entered on the record this evening prior to rendering a decision. The Commission recommendation, based on what they feel is best for the City of Englewood, will be made to the City Council who will have final determination. A brief recess was called at 8:47 P.M. The meeting reconvened at 9:02 P.M. Mr. Mason asked whether the Commission wanted to discuss the proposed amendments further at this time, or do so at the next meeting of April 4th. Mr. Dummer suggested that staff needs to modify the wording on the proposed regulations. He suggested that it will not be possible to enact "blanket" restrictions applicable to all residential districts. Discussion ensued. Problems cited by members of the audience such as Ms. Pittman and Mr. Slocum which are not being addressed were mentioned. Mr. Weber commented on concerns about signage and traffic which seemed to be mentioned by the majority of the audience. 9 Shoop moved: Garrett seconded: That Case #4-93B be discussed further at the meeting on April 4, 1995. The need for new verbiage was briefly addressed. Ms. Tobin asked if staff could provide a number of complaints regarding home occupations in the R-1-A District, and the number of requests for home occupations in that district for that meeting, also. AYES: NAYS: Douglas, Dummer, Garrett, Horner, Shoop, Tobin, Weber, Mason None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Redpath The motion carried. IV. PUBLIC FORUM. Ms. Becker addressed the Commission. She stated that in listening to the testimony presented this evening, she made a few of observations. 1. Code Enforcement, and the lack thereof. She asked whether it would be of assistance if citizens appealed to Council for additional personnel to handle this work load. 2. Some members of the audience are under the impression that the Chairman already has his mind made up on this issue. 3. Also, some members of the audience categorized residents with home occupations as "slime balls" . 4. She is concerned with the prevailing attitude that "invisible but illegal is OK". Ms. Becker stated that something is wrong with this attitude. Ms. Becker stated that there are four businesses within her R-1-A neighborhood that she can easily cite, and the City will have to face this issue again unless home occupations are totally restricted, and restrictions enforced, in the R-1-A District. Mr. Mason thanked Ms. Becker for her participation on the proceedings this evening. V. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE. Mr. Merkel stated he had nothing to bring before the Commission. VI. COMMISSIONER'S CHOICE. Nothing was raised for discussion by Commission members. 10 e Vll. ADJOURN. The meeting was declared adjourned. 11 To: Commissioners Lee Merkel, Director Planning and Zoning Commission ~ ~ ~ Marjorie L. Becker ~ \,. ,,i ~1 t) ;( jif 644 East Yale Place Vv X ~ Englewood, Colorado 80ll0 , ( ! p March 21 , 1995 From: Date: Subject: Home Occupations R-1-A The issue of home occupations in the R-1-A is not whether or not to allow these occupations. Rather , it is how to best control the home occupations that are now in existence and those that will come into existence in the future. This is the year 1995. In 1995, we are expected to use improvements in technology to make our lives more productive. One of those improvements rests with home computers , fax machines, and computer modems. All of these technological improvements contribute to the ease with which a worker can complete work in a home environment. Some of these workers will work at home while actually being associated with another business ; they will not "own" the business venture that goes on in their homes. On the other hand , some of them will own their own businesses. When two Englewood residents are located in an office space at home, using a computer to complete business work, can you tell by looking at them which one owns the business for which the work is being completed and which one "works" for another company? No , of course not. Therefore, if they are completing the same kind of work, which one is adversely impacting the neighborhood? And, if one assumes that either of these people is adversely affecting the neighborhood in an R-1-A zone , do we assume that the same operation in other residential areas is adversely affecting those neighborhoods? Apparently not. For in the other areas, they are permitted. Does this , then, mean that as a city we should offer the citizens who live in R-1-A more protection from business that appears to impact each area in the same way? Let us take a look at another home occupation, such as one we have in our neighborhood. My house is on the border of the R-1-A zoning; my yard abuts properties that are smaller and have fewer feet of frontage. Yet, the families in these smaller homes, with smaller frontage requirements must tolerate a business with a vehicle that takes up most of the frontage on the street. It is a limousine service. Because _this veh i cle takes up the street, the person who rents the (legal) basement apartment parks his truck on the grass , between the fence and the curb, where if you were to walk on that street, you would have to detour around the truck. Code enforcement has not seen fit to insist that the truck be parked in a driveway or on the street. Where would the impact of th a t business be felt most? Where the limo is parked across a short frontage or a larger frontage? e This limousine home occupation has created infinitely more impact on the neighborhood than the beautician who lives around the comer from me, or the artist who lives down the block. So, will we stop the children's writer from writing because he or she lives in an R-1-A neighborhood? Or the professional photographer from taking pictures and getting them to galleries? Or the artist? Or the computer expert? I don't think so. You just won't hear about them. May I suggest that rules for home occupations in all areas of residential zoning be standardized. Any ordinance allowing home occupations in any area should include, but not be limited to, the following restrictions (in addition to general health and safety requirements). 1. The business must be operated by the owner with no employees. 2. The business must not attract more than one additional car at any time. 3. Persons who work at home but are employed by another company shall register as a home occupation. 4. Business vehicles, other than those used for the business owner's private transportation (in other words, only passenger cars/trucks -and not dump trucks, snow plows, step vans, delivery trucks, limousines) are to be stored overnight in front of the premises or anywhere on the lot. 5. No signage is allowed to identify the home occupation. 6. No sales are allowed directly from the home. All selling must be done off-site. 7. Sounds created by the business (use .of machines, musical instruments, etc.) are not to interfere with television reception, sleeping, or general use by neighbors of their property. 8. In the event the home business involves providing music lessons, recitals will be held off premises. As I said before, this is 1995, soon to be 2000. Citizens all over Englewood are going to have home occupations. If home occupations are allowed in all residential zones except R-1- A, it is clear that residents living in those other areas are being treated as "second-class citizens." In addition, residents in R-1-A areas are going to continue the home occupations they have already started and will start new ones. They simply will only tell a few people that the business exists. Restrict the home occupations in all areas to a specific, narrow group. Other businesses belong in business/industrial districts. Then, strictly enforce the requirements.