Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-04-04 PZC MINUTESCITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING C01\1MISSION APRIL 4, 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 Englewood City Council Chambers, Chairman Mason presiding. Members present: Dummer, Horner, Redpath, Shoop, Tobin, Weber, Douglas, Mason Members absent: Garrett Also present: Merkel, Ex-officio Planning Administrator Harold J. Stitt City Attorney Dan Brotzman Il. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. March 21, 1995 Chairman Mason called for consideration of the Minutes of March 21, 1995. Tobin moved: Dummer seconded: The Minutes of March 21, 1995 be approved as written. AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Horner, Shoop, Tobin, Weber, Douglas, Dummer, Mason None Redpath Garrett The motion carried. ID. COMMUNITY CARE CORP. 3527-3535 South Corona Street CASE #1-95 Chairman Mason stated that the issue before the Commission is a request filed by Community Care Corp. for approval of a Conditional Use at 3527-3535 South Corona Street. Mr. Mason set forth the parameters for conduct of the Public Hearing, and asked that the Public Hearing be opened. Tobin moved: Horner/Shoop seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #1-95 be opened. 1 AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Horner, Redpath, Shoop, Tobin, Weber, Douglas, Dummer, Mason None None Garrett The motion carried. Mr. Mason asked that staff present the case. Planning Administrator Stitt was sworn in, and testified that the issue before the Commission is a request for Conditional Use approval for a residential treatment center for mentally ill children and adolescents at 3527-3535 South Corona Street. The applicant is Community Care Corp, Louis Bruno, M.D., and the property owners are Louis L. and Debra H. Bruno. The proposal is to use the five unit condominium complex as a group home, with four children and an adult supervisor in each of the units. The proposed use is considered a "group home" within the context of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, and the facility will have to be licensed as a Residential Child Care Facility by the Department of Social Services. When final State regulations are adopted, the facility must also seek licensing as a Residential Treatment Center. Mr. Stitt testified that he is aware that some of the neighbors have concerns about the pro- posal, and emphasized the need to make sure the purpose of the treatment center is clearly un- derstood by the neighborhood. Mr. Stitt cited the requirements the Commission must consider in deliberating the request , and stated that based on the professional staff analysis, it appears that the proposed residential treatment center will be compatible with the mixed uses in this corridor. The site is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residence, and the Comprehensive Plan designates this area as a mixed use/medical district, which would accommodate supportive medically-related businesses, medical offices, etc .. to serve patients and families of Swedish Medical Center and Craig Hospital. There is a strip of commercial zoning, approximately 100 feet in depth, along East Hampden A venue from the South Logan/South Pennsylvania alley east to South Lafayette Street. Mr. Stitt addressed the issues of traffic, light, and noise, noting that the five condominium units have been rented and the traffic generated by the residential treatment center will probably be less than that generated by the rental units. Mr. Stitt stated that residents who have expressed concern to him regarding the proposal emphasize that this is a "quiet neighborhood", and a group home accommodating up to 20 children will generate some noise. Neighbors are also concerned about privacy with the influx of youngsters to the area. Mr. Stitt questioned the wisdom of imposing a fencing requirement on the facility; fencing is normally a "good neighbor" policy between adjoining properties. Mr. Stitt stated that the children will be in the school system, and the applicants have met with officials of the Englewood School District. There are 10 off-street parking spaces provided for the complex at the rear of the property; the requirement for the condominium complex is one and one-half space per unit, plus one guest space; the complex has more off-street parking than is required. Mr. Stitt stated that the application had been referred to other City Departments for considera- tion and comment. The proposed use will be classified as "residential occupancy" and not "institutional occupancy" by the Building & Safety Division. 2 Mr. Stitt reiterated the opinion of staff that the proposed residential treatment center will be compatible with the neighborhood. Mr. Stitt stated that he has visited the other treatment center operated by Dr. Bruno, and was very impressed with the facility. It is the opinion of staff that the approval of the residential treatment center is a reasonable request and should be approved. Mr. Horner raised the issue of the number of non-related individuals per unit, citing a rental in his neighborhood where five young people were residing; he understood that no more than four unrelated people could occupy a unit as a "family", but this group home is proposing to have four children/adolescents plus the supervisor. Mr. Stitt stated that the proposal is a "residential treatment facility", and is not strictly a residential use. The definition of "Group Home" and of "Family" was cited and discussed. Mr. Redpath questioned whether the Commission could place restrictions on the proposed treatment center to assure that it does not evolve into the type of "group home" that is on East Floyd A venue in his block. Mr. Stitt stated that if the applicant decided to change the type of operation, the Planning Commission would have to reconsider the request at that time. Mr. Shoop asked if the treatment facility was only for those children/adolescents with mental illness, or whether individuals who are addicted to alcohol or drugs would also be treated. Mr. Stitt stated that the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance does not allow for half-way houses for treatment of substance abuse or individuals who have been through the judicial system. The proposed treatment center is only for the mentally and emotionally disturbed child/ adolescent. Mr. Redpath inquired whether the Fire Department had inspected the premises, and whether any special precautions were recommended to deal with children who may be prone to arson. Mr. Stitt responded that the Fire Department did review the application; no additional changes to the facility are required. Ms. Tobin commented that this is a commercial endeavor, and she has problems correlating the "group home" designation with the commercial aspect. Mr. Mason pointed out that any group home involved in treating and counseling individuals so they can be brought back into their private homes and become a productive member of society is a form of commercial en- deavor. Further discussion on the issue of "group homes" versus treatment centers ensued. Mr. Horner asked how this proposed establishment compared with the existing treatment facil- ity operated by Dr. Bruno, and what process was in effect at the time it was approved 15 years ago. Mr. Stitt stated that he could not find any record of approval by Conditional Use on the Sherman Street site. Mr. Douglas referenced the definition of "group home", and noted that there are five units in the complex; he expressed the opinion that this would be "five group homes" which does not comply with the intent of the ordinance. Mr. Stitt stated that the five units are under one own- ership and comprise a "complex". Mr. Douglas further stated that the Comprehensive Zoning 3 Ordinance prohibits "commercial health care facilities", and expressed the opinion that this is a e commercial, for-profit, endeavor in a residential area. Brief discussion ensued. Mr. Mason announced that he has in hand proof of public notice in the Englewood Herald, and proof of posting of the subject site. Mr. Mason asked that the applicants present their case. Dr. Louis L. Bruno was sworn in. Dr. Bruno testified to the scope of services of the proposed residential treatment center, and to the fact that he has operated an adult treatment center in Englewood on South Sherman Street since 1980. The services offered by Community Care Corp. and other similar organizations provide an alternative to typical institutional care. Dr. Bruno cited his professional credentials. Dr. Bruno emphasized the efforts that his organiza- tion exerts to deal with all concerns of neighbors, and to successfully treat and integrate the patients back into their families and the community. The children/adolescents who will be ac- cepted at the treatment center are voluntary patients , ranging in age up to 18, and the center will not accept any individual determined to be a danger to themselves or to others. The youngsters the center will be working with are under the control of the Social Services De- partment. Dr. Bruno commented that the earlier treatment is available to the mentally or emotionally disturbed person, the easier it is for that person to be successfully integrated into a family situation and into society in general. Dr. Bruno acknowledged that treatment is not al- ways successful, and that some of the youngsters will be institutionalized. Dr. Bruno stated that the proposal is for four children and one staff person per unit, with support personnel as needed. Dr. Bruno emphasized that the treatment center will not accept children/adolescents with drug , alcohol or judicial problems. Dr. Bruno presented letters from Roberto Quiroz, MSW, Chief Executive Officer of Mental Health Corporation of Denver; from William Bane, MSW, Child and Adolescent Program Administrator, Colorado Department of Human Serv- ices; from David W. Briggs, MSW, Executive Director/CEO, Arapahoe Mental Health Cen- ter, Inc.; and Brian Field, Director, Arapahoe County Department of Social Services all sup- porting the application for the residential treatment center on South Corona Street. Dr. Bruno discussed the work the Community Care Corp. does with the local mental health agencies, and with local school districts. He stated that his organization was asked to develop these services in the community. Dr. Bruno testified that he has also spoken with the City Fire Marshal and Chief Building Official regarding the proposed use of the premises, and no special changes were recommended. The premises do have a fire alarm system. Mr. Redpath inquired if the premises will have an overhead sprinkler system. Dr. Bruno stated it will not. Ms. Tobin inquired about food preparation, and dispensation of medication on the premises. Dr. Bruno stated that medication will be "monitored" on the site; a registered nurse will be on staff, but will not be on the premises 24-hours per day. The food preparation will be a "family" oriented process. 4 e Mr. Redpath inquired whether there are plans to fence the complex, and will the premises be locked and the patients confined to protect the neighbors. Dr. Bruno stated there are no plans to fence the complex, and it will be locked, not to keep the patients locked in but for their own protection. Dr. Bruno commented on the victimization of mentally/emotionally ill people and emphasized that patients they will be treating are "voluntary", not "certified"; and will not be "locked up." Dr. Bruno discussed proposals the organization is considering to keep the youngsters enter- tained, such as installing basketball hoops in the rear of the complex, field trips, etc. --all un- der supervision. Dr. Bruno stressed the intent is to have the patients as "normalized" as possi- ble --to get them into a normal public school setting so they can learn to interact with peers. Dr. Bruno pointed out that part of their program is vocational, also. Ms. Tobin inquired whether tuition would be paid to the local school district for these chil- dren, or are the local tax payers responsible. Dr. Bruno stated that these children are under the control of Social Services, and the "tuition" would be paid by the State. Mr. Weber asked what would happen to an adolescent who reached the age of 18, but wasn't ready for discharge from treatment. Dr. Bruno stated that treatment could, on rare occasions, continue until the age of 21 but most individuals still in need of treatment at the age of 18 would be transferred to an adult treatment center, or referred to a health center. Dr. Bruno stated that while the treatments will be available for those from one year to 18 years, he esti- mated that the majority of the patients they will be accepting will be in the age range of 12 to 16 years. Mr. Redpath again raised the issue of "protection of adjacent property owners" from the youngsters. Dr. Bruno stated that there will be rules on curfew, bed time, loud music, and he wants to develop a "peer pressure" behavior system. He re-emphasized that there will be an on-duty staff member in each of the five units, as well as clinical backup available if needed. Ms. Tobin inquired whether an adolescent girl, who might become pregnant while going through treatment, could stay at the center, and could she keep the baby there. Dr. Bruno stated · that this issue would have to be addressed if and when it happened; there are no proce- dures in place to address it at this time. He suggested possibly the girl might be placed in a therapeutic foster-family-care home. Mr. Horner asked why Dr. Bruno purchased the property, whether he had fixed the property up, and whether this use was his intent at the time of purchase. Dr. Bruno stated that he pur- chased the property approximately seven years ago to meet the apartment need for some people they were trying to place, and most of the units have been rented most of the time. There is one vacancy at the present time. Dr. Bruno stated that he did some landscaping on the site, and tries to see that it is maintained in a clean, orderly fashion. Educational requirements for staff members was discussed. 5 Mr. Shoop inquired about visitors to the treatment center and the impact on parking. Dr. e Bruno stated that they encourage family visits and participation in the treatment programs; this is an important facet in integration of the patient back to the family situation. Dr. Bruno noted that not all families will visit at the same time, and expressed the opinion that the parking con- gestion will be no worse than it is now. Mr. Kerry Golden was sworn in, and testified that he works with the adult treatment facility on South Sherman Street. Mr. Golden cited his professional credentials and employment rec- ord in the field of mental/emotional health. Mr. Golden testified that there are lot of children and adolescents that are placed in more restrictive settings than they need. Family involve- ment in the successful treatment of mental and emotional illness is essential; the children need a "normal setting", attendance at public schools, etc. Mr. Golden reiterated Dr. Bruno's opin- ion that if treatment can begin at a young age, it is much easier for the patient to become a productive member of society. Ms. Susan Epstein was sworn in, and testified that she has been legal counsel for Dr. Bruno's organization since 1982. She has found Dr. Bruno to be very responsive to community and governmental agency concerns. Ms. Epstein testified that "this is not a fly-by-night operation", citing the fact that Dr. Bruno has been in business in Englewood since 1980. Ms. Epstein stated that the South Corona Street treatment center will provide a "home setting", not an "institutionalized" setting; this will assist the children/adolescents in their treatment program, to learn to live in a family setting, and to function on the "outside". Ms. Epstein discussed the close monitoring of the program, and the efforts of the staff to alleviate problems that the neighbors may perceive or experience. Mr. Mason inquired about problems experienced at the adult treatment center on South Sher- man Street. Ms. Epstein stated that she can only recall one incident in the length of time that she has served as legal counsel, an staff did address the issue quickly and resolve it. Mr. Golden commented that they have never had any injury inflicted by one of the residents, but some of the residents have been injured by "outsiders". There has been no property dam- age done by any of the patients that he could recall. The majority of the emergency calls for assistance have been ambulance calls. Mr. Redpath inquired whether some of the patients might be children diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. Dr. Bruno stated that he did not know at this time what the diagnoses of the children may be. Mr. Mason asked if anyone else wished to address the Commission in favor of the proposed residential treatment center. No one else responded. Mr. Mason then asked that those in op- position address the Commission. Barry Beauvais, 3519 South Corona Street, was sworn in. Mr. Beauvais testified that he pur- chased his property immediately to the north of the subject site , and moved in within the last month. He did not become aware of the proposal until this week. Mr. Beauvais asked if a 6 decision regarding this issue would be made this evening, and what could he do to "keep it from going through". Mr. Beauvais expressed concerns regarding the amount of parking, noting that five units, each with five people plus visitors will increase the demand for parking. Mr. Beauvais further contended that 25 people living within 20 feet of his home will generate noise that he does not want. Mr. Beauvais stated that there is a six foot security fence along his property, however, he can still see into the windows on Dr. Bruno's property, and his windows are visible from Dr. Bruno's side of the fence --will he have to keep his blinds closed all the time to prevent the youngsters from looking into his home. Theft and vandalism was also a concern of Mr. Beauvais; he expressed doubt that four youngsters can be success- fully supervised by one person. Mr. Beauvais stated that it has been stated that the complex will be "locked to protect the clients, but who is going to protect me?" Mr. Beauvais took is- sue with the term "voluntary patient" --are they "volunteering", or were they "volunteered". Mr. Beauvais stated that he is a first-time home buyer, and this is a "transitional home" he pur- chased; when he markets his home he will have to disclose uses abutting his property, and ex- pressed concern that this will decrease the value of his property. Mr. Beauvais noted that Chairman Mason referenced "proof of publication", and asked where this notice was published. Chairman Mason responded that Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Englewood Herald on March 23, 1995. Mr. Beauvais responded that he did not see the legal notice, nor does he drive up and down streets looking for signs giving notice of hearings. He again asked "what can we do after this evening to kill the project". Mr. Beauvais stated that this is a pri- vate organization and will reap income over and above that realized from rental of the units to couples or individuals. He asked how many times the police will have to be called because of a disturbance; what will happen to the existing renters; how will the premises be kept clean if 25 people are going to be residing there. He asked that the Commission delay the decision on the request to give him more time to contact other neighbors. Mr. Horner pointed out that at the present time, there can be four un-related individuals shar- ing each of the five units. Mr. Shoop asked if everyone in that block parked on-street. Mr. Beauvais stated that the on- street parking is the accepted place to park, and the street is full now, particularly on the west side. Where is he to park if the visitors or staff park in front of his property. Mr. Redpath asked if there was no alley or parking at the rear. Mr. Beauvais stated that there is one space off the alley, but he and his brother share the house and need two off-street parking spaces. Ms. Malitha King, 900 West Quincy Avenue, was sworn in. Ms. King testified that she and her husband own the property directly across the street from the proposed residential treatment center, at 3540-44 South Corona Street. Ms. King related experiences they had with their business in Sheridan and a group home down the street from the business, citing problems with vandalism, and kids "roaming in gangs". Ms. King stated that they had used the South Corona Street property for rentals for their employees, and that the character of the entire neighbor- hood will be changed if the treatment center is allowed. Ms. King agreed that on-s treet park- ing is difficult in this block, and the treatment center will compound the problem. Ms. King stated that one of their renters will probably be moving if the treatment center is allowed. 7 Cheryl Huelker, 3540 South Corona Street, was sworn in, and testified that she lives directly e across the street from the proposed treatment center, and rents from Mr. and Mrs. King. Ms. Huelker testified that this is a pretty quiet neighborhood, but with three shifts of employees, plus the children and parents visiting, this will change. She is concerned that this center could provide care in some cases for individuals of 21 years of age who have mental and emotional problems. She asked "what is their problem --are they violent?" If there are to be children at the treatment center, what provision is made for a play area --will they be allowed to play in the street. Ms. Huelker urged that a complaint process be in place in the event there are problems and concerns so that neighbors will have someone to call immediately. Ms. Huelker asked whether the operation of the treatment center could be reviewed within six months or one year to determine what impact and problems the neighborhood has experienced. Ms. Huelker discussed the previously raised issues of noise and traffic congestion, and commented that if the children will be attending public schools there will be youngsters from school com- ing home with or over to visit the children/adolescents living in the treatment center. These youngsters coming in "may not have the morals, values, and ethics [she] may have." The parking issue was further discussed. Mr. Mason asked if there was overflow parking from Swedish Medical Center using this block. Ms. Huelker stated that she was not aware the people using the on-street parking were from Swedish; she noted that there are some small businesses on the north end of the block, but most of them do have some off-street parking spaces provided. Ms. Huelker stated that there are evenings she cannot park in front of her home; there is parking in the alley, but the alley is unlighted. She is a single woman and will not park in the unlighted alley area. Richard King, 900 West Quincy Avenue, was sworn in, and asked members of the Commis- sion "do you want to live next door or across the street from this facility?" Dr. Bruno was asked to respond to some of the concerns expressed by opponents. Dr. Bruno clarified the difference between a "voluntary" patient and someone who has been "certified", or must be institutionalized. The residential treatment center will accept only the "voluntary" pa- tient. These children/adolescents will be under the custody of Social Services, who will de- termine where the youngsters are placed. Dr. Bruno reiterated the center will not accept chil- dren/adolescents who are determined to be a danger to themselves or to others. Dr. Bruno ex- pressed his opinion that this neighborhood is appropriate for the type of use he is proposing, and that the development in this corridor is, indeed, "mixed use". Dr. Bruno stated that to his knowledge, such a treatment facility does not appear to decrease property values of adjoining properties. Dr. Bruno stated that there is a complaint process in place, and numbers for neighbors to contact are distributed to the neighbors. Mr. Beauvais commented that "I don't have any problems and I don't have to call anybody now, but if you go in there how many times will I have to call you?" Mr. Mason asked Dr. Bruno an estimate on police calls. Dr. Bruno estimated maybe every three months or so a call is made to the Police Department. Dr. Bruno recalled that the 8 Englewood Chief of Police of 15 years ago didn't feel there were any more problems from a treatment center than from a single-family residential unit. The profitability of such a center was briefly discussed. Dr. Bruno stated that the Grand Junc- tion treatment center cost $75,000 for the first year, which is out of their pockets. He stated that running these centers does provide a living. Mr. Mason asked about the disposition of existing renters. Dr. Bruno stated that the treatment center, if approved, will be phased in over the next year to 18 months. He commented that there is still the licensing process to go through, which can take up to six months. The traffic issue was discussed. Mr. Mason commented that if the patients are 16 years and younger, the 10 parking spaces the complex now has seems ample. Dr. Bruno stated there will be one staff person per unit, and the families will not be visiting every day or evening, and not all at the same time. He acknowledged there may be a traffic crunch at times. Mr. Mason asked if there is a time over-lap for shift workers, and asked about the security fence. Dr. Bruno stated that he would be willing to negotiate a higher fence between the complex and Mr. Beauvais if this is permitted. Ms. Tobin asked about the kids traveling in "gangs". Dr. Bruno replied that if the youngsters are out in a large group, there will be supervision. Dr. Bruno also noted that youngsters may be attending elementary, middle school, or high school and classes dismiss at different times. Some of the patients will be transported to and from school. Mr. Redpath asked about visits by school peers. Dr. Bruno stated this would have to be ap- proved by the supervisors. The complaint procedure was addressed. Dr. Bruno emphasized they have complaint proce- dures in place for their other facilities, and noted that just because they have the procedure in place does not signify a lot of problems. Mr. Dummer inquired about parental rights. Dr. Bruno stated that these children/adolescents are in the custody of Social Services, and the State pays the treatment facilities for services rendered. Mr. Dummer asked if the parents are responsible for any of the expenses. Dr. Bruno responded that this may be resolved on an individual basis between Social Services and the family --the treatment center is not involved in this aspect. Mr. Dummer asked for fur- ther clarification of "voluntary" versus "certified", which Dr. Bruno provided. Mr. Dummer asked what happens if a patient does not "progress" as expected. Dr. Bruno stated that the de- termination for further treatment or institutionalization is the responsibility of Social Services. Mr. Mason asked if there were further comments. Hearing none, he asked for a motion to close the Hearing. Horner moved: Redpath seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #1-95 be closed. 9 AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Redpath, Shoop, Tobin, Weber, Douglas, Dummer, Homer, Mason None None Garrett The motion carried. A recess of the Commission was called at 9: 10 P.M. The Commission reconvened at 9:25 P.M. Mr. Mason stated that the Planning Commission makes the final determination on Conditional Use requests, and that Findings of Fact will have to be written indicating the basis for the de- cision. Further, any motion made will have to be "affirmatively" worded. Shoop moved: Redpath seconded: The Residential Treatment Center at 3527-3535 South Corona Street be approved; this Conditional Use shall be reviewed following licensing ap- proval, or after six months of operation. Mr. Douglas questioned the "fairness" of granting approval, and then six months in the future determine that the Commission erred in approval. Mr. Mason asked whether it would be fair to deny based on the "potential" problems that may arise. Mr. Shoop stated that the review process would provide an opportunity to pinpoint problems and give the treatment center an opportunity to resolve them. City Attorney Brotzman suggested that the Commission consider granting the conditional use for a "period of time" rather than using the review and revocation approach. Discussion en- sued. Ms. Tobin discussed her concern that each "unit" is a group home, and that the neighbors do have concerns about the number of children to be at the treatment center. Further concerns were expressed on whether allowance of the residential treatment center will make this a less desirable neighborhood. Mr. Homer stated that he, too, is concerned about the "units" and the number of children to be allowed, and asked whether the restrictions in the definition can be overridden. Further dis- cussion ensued. Mr. Homer summarized that most of the concerns expressed by neighbors pertained to traffic, noise, and youngsters playing in the street; he pointed out that this is an R- 2, Medium Density District, and suggested that this area is subject to higher traffic and park- ing problems because it is a medium density district. Mr. Horner pointed out that the treat- ment center may have less impact on the on-street parking than if each of the five units were rented to adults, or to families with teenagers with cars. He stated that this argument has not convinced him of a "problem", and that parking problems are a risk when you live next to a multi-family unit. 10 Mr. Mason commented regarding subsidized housing in his neighborhood, and of the need to be sure vehicles are locked, and nothing of value is left in the vehicle. This is not a "group home", but a single-family home where the rent is subsidized. Discussion ensued. The issue of one complex versus five units and the group home designation was discussed at length. City Attorney Brotzman cautioned the Commission to not get caught up in the number of units, and suggested that discussion be continued to enable legal research on the issue. Mr. Brotzman stated that a member of the audience had requested that the "hearing" be continued; the Commission can chose to continue the hearing, or continue the discussion. Discussion en- sued. Mr. Shoop, with the consent of the second, withdrew the motion to approve. Homer moved: Discussion be continued to the next meeting; the Hearing is to remain closed, and the Commission will accept only written information at the next meeting. Mr. Stitt stated that the Commission cannot accept new information from the public, written or verbal, as long as the Hearing is closed. Discussion followed. Mr. Homer withdrew his motion. Mason moved: Tobin seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #1-95 be reopened. AYES: NAYS: Tobin, Weber, Douglas, Dummer, Homer, Shoop, Mason Redpath ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Garrett The motion carried. Homer moved: Redpath seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #1-95 be continued to May 2, 1995, at which time the Planning Commission will accept additional written in- formation only. Brief discussion ensued. The vote on Mr. Homer's motion was called. AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Douglas, Dummer, Homer, Redpath, Shoop, Tobin, Mason None Weber Garrett 11 The motion carried. IV. COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE Home Occupation Amendments CASE #4-93 Chairman Mason reviewed the testimony received at the Public Hearing of March 21, 1995, commenting that those testifying were very articulate and expressed no objection to the "invisible home occupation", but did not want allowance of less desirable, higher impact uses. Mr. Mason stated that he is aware of several home occupations in his immediate neighborhood that have been in existence since the 1950's; people know fibout them, but the home occupa- tions have not been detrimental to the neighborhood. Mr. Mason commented on the impact of other home occupations, some of which were mentioned during the course of the public hear- ing , and suggested some might be categorized as an "irritating hobby". Mr. Homer discussed recent newspaper and magazine articles regarding home occupations. Other jurisdictions , such as Littleton and Highlands Ranch, have a high percentage of home occupations, and this activity does not seem to negatively impact those communities. Mr. Homer expressed his opinion on the argument that home occupations would prove detrimental to the health of the business community . Mr. Homer stated that it is his personal opinion that the City needs to do something to make it proper for the residents who so desire to have the "invisible home occupation ". Mr. Mason commented that even when home occupati ons are prohibited in a district, they are still occurring, and estimated anywhere from 20% to 40% of R-1-A District residents may be engaged in some type of home occupation. Mr. Shoop stated that he is bothered that the City is being asked to maintain the posture to "keep it invisible and illegal ". The three options suggested by Planning Administrator Stitt during the course of the Public Hearing were considered , those options being: Option 1: This option reflects the amendments as originally approved by the Planning Commission in 1993 , in which 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. 12 Shoop moved: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council that Option 1, the amendments as recommended by the Planning Commission in 1993, be approved. Further discussion ensued. Mr. Mason commented that one of the concerns of the opponents was the issue of traffic; he suggested that the recommendation encompass prohibitions on any increase in the amount of traffic. Mr. Horner suggested that the provision be worded to state there should be no increase in "third party" traffic. Mr. Weber suggested that, while he favors implementation of Option 1, Option 2 might be more acceptable to the residents and to mem- bers of City Council. Mr. Mason agreed there was strong testimony in opposition from the residents, and a recommendation for restricted home occupations might be more acceptable. Brief discussion ensued. Mr. Stitt clarified that the only home occupations that would be al- lowed in the R-1-A District under Option 2 would be professional offices, with no public con- tact. There was no second to Mr. Shoop's motion. Mr. Douglas pointed out that the people from the R-1-A District expressed clear opposition to any home occupations, and were not in favor of any changes in the zone regulations as they apply to that District. The issue of signage was also considered. Opponents were adamantly opposed to allowance of any signage in the R-1-A District. Mr. Stitt stated that if the determination is to not allow sig- nage in the R-1-A, if home occupations are allowed, the Commission needs to make specific findings on why the signage would not be allowed. Discussion on allowance versus disallow- ance of signage and the impact of the Sign Code ensued. City Attorney Brotzman discussed the risks involved in imposing signage restrictions and the length of time required to amend the Sign Code, and cautioned the Commission of the need to make an informed determination. Mr. Douglas commented that he understood there is some support to have all zone districts carry the same restrictions on home occupations, signage, etc.; he stated that he could not sup- port this position and felt there should be differences between the district requirements. Mr. Weber agreed that the nature of zoning is that there will be differences between zone districts. The issue of traffic was again addressed. Mr. Stitt pointed out that the wording pertaining to no more than 15 trips per day was added at the City Council level during their initial consid- eration of the amendments; this wording is not part of the current ordinance in force. The suggestion to use wording similar to that of Greenwood Village, which is that a home occupa- tion "cannot increase traffic or have excessive cars parked near the home" was suggested for all zone districts. Mason moved: Horner seconded: The Planing Commission recommend to City Council that Option 2, which provides for restricted home occupations in R-1-A, and amends 13 the existing home occupation provisions for the remaining residential e districts be approved with the following additional amendments: 1. The home occupation cannot increase traffic or have excessive cars parked near the home, and there shall be no appreciable impact on the residential character of the district. 2. No signage shall be permitted in the R-1-A Zone District for home occupations. Amendment #1 shall apply to all residential zone districts. Brief discussion ensued. The vote was called. AYES: NAYS: Dummer, Horner, Redpath, Tobin, Weber, Mason Shoop, Douglas ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Garrett The motion carried. In response to an inquiry from Mr. Mason, Mr. Shoop stated he does have a problem with the "invisible but illegal" concept, and cannot support Option 2. Mr. Douglas stated that he could only support Option 3 based on the testimony received during the Hearing. V. PUBLIC FORUM. No one was present to address the Commission. VI. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE. Nothing was brought up for discussion. VII. COMMISSIONER'S CHOICE. Nothing was brought up for discussion. The meeting was declared adjourned. ~ .J£zkJ,y /~Jt -- Gertrude G. Welty, 'Recording Seiretary 14