Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-12-06 PZC MINUTESe • CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION DECEMBER 6, 1994 I. CALL TO ORDER. . : .· The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Vice-Chairman Mason in Conference Room A of Englewood City Hall. Members present: Mason, Redpath, Shoop, Weber, Becker, Dummer, Garrett Merkel, Ex-officio Members late: Tobin Members absent: Covens Also present: Planning Administrator Harold J. Stitt II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. October 18, 1994 Mr. Mason called for consideration of the Minutes of October 18, 1994 . Garrett moved: Dummer seconded: The Minutes of October 18, 1994 be approved as written. AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Redpath, Shoop, Weber, Dummer, Garrett, Mason None Becker Tobin, Covens ID. COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE Home Occupations CASE #4-93 Mr. Stitt led the discussion regarding the proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance on Home Occupations, which amendments were remanded to the Commission by the City Council at their meeting on November 21, 1994. The Board of Adjustment has re- ceived requests for variances to allow home occupations in the R-1-A District, plus the office staff continually receives inquiries from individuals who are interested in home occupations such as word processing, desk top publishing, handicrafts for sale at bazaars and arts and crafts fairs, custom sewing, day care, music lessons, Avon, Amway and Watkins product sales, etc. When the address is verified, staff has told the individuals that they cannot pursue these occu- pations in their home. Some individuals wanted to take their request to the Board of Adjust- 1 ment, however. This interest in home occupations indicated to staff that there needed to be e some modifications to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. Amendments to the existing home occupation provisions as allowed in the R-1-B, R-1-C, R-2, R-2-C, R-2-C SPS, R-3 and R-4 districts were suggested, as well as proposing home occupations in the R-1-A District. At the same time, staff also proposed amendments regarding accessory structures such as ga- rages, carports, sheds, etc. in all residential districts. The Planning Commission discussed and debated these proposed amendments for almost a year, before making a recommendation to City Council in November, 1993. City Council re- ceived the communication and proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance in February, 1994. Council held several study sessions, as well as a public "meeting" to elicit comments in July . At the public meeting, there were a few members of the public present, the majority of whom supported the amendments on Home Occupations. However, at the Public Hearing be- fore City Council only those individuals adamantly opposed to home occupations in the R-1-A District were in attendance. At the meeting of November 21, 1994, it was the determination of City Council that the proposed amendments, in total, be remanded to the Commission for further consideration, and the Commission is directed to complete their review, required public hearings, and recommendations to Council by June 1, 1995. Mr. Stitt emphasized that the City Council fully expects the Planning Commission to conduct additional public hearings on this issue, noting that at the time of the Public Hearing before the Planning Commission on the proposed amendments, there was no testimony received from the general public . Mr. Stitt suggested four options the Commission may follow in reconsidering the home occupation amendments. 1. The Commission can determine that the proposed amendments are appropriate as cur- rently written, and forward that recommendation to City Council. 2. The Commission may determine that home occupations in the R-1-A District should be eliminated, and recommend the amendments for the remainder of the residential dis- tricts. 3. The Commission can develop a "compromise" on home occupations in the R-1-A Dis- trict, limiting the proposed home occupations to those that do not generate traffic, such as "office" type uses. 4 . The Commission may chose to shelve the entire home occupation amendment issue for all zone districts. Ms. Tobin entered the meeting at 7:15 P.M. Mr. Stitt stated that staff is very aware that there are individuals residing in the R-1-A District who do, in fact, have a "home occupation" but no complaints have been filed .by neighbors and 2 ' . e e I • .. the issue has not been pursued. Mr. Stitt stated that he cannot recall that any resident in R-1-A has been "prosecuted" for having a home occupation. Mr. Redpath commented that he had attended one of the Council public hearings, and the resi- dents were voicing concern about the traffic increase that could be generated by some home occupations . Mr. Stitt acknowledged the residents did not seem to be concerned about the word processing- type of home occupation. It was suggested that "mis-information" has been circulated, and that the general public does not understand what a "home occupation" is --that it Illl!.fil be secondary and incidental to the primary use as a residence . The uses must be non-intrusive on the neigh- borhood. Mr. Stitt pointed out that if the majority of residents of the R-1-A District do not want home occupations in that district, the Commission and Council should abide by that ma- jority opinion . Concern was expressed that future public hearings on the issue will not have a "balanced" representation of the R-1-A residents , in that only those in opposition will make their opinion known . Those who may be in favor, or who currently have a home occupation , may not make their opinion known to the Commission or Council. Mr. Redpath suggested a poll of R-1-A residents to determine if there is support for home oc- cupations in that district. Mr. Merkel suggested that the survey be included in the Englewood Citizen. Discussion ensued. Mr. Stitt commented that the charge to the Commission is to analyze all i ssues to determine what is best for the community. He cautioned that making decisions based on "political feel- ing " is not meeting that responsibility. Mr. Stitt further commented that~ from a professional planning viewpoint, it makes sense to allow home occupations in the R-1-A District. Timing of study sessions, and the public hearing, were discussed. Ms . Becker pointed out that appointments o f members to boards and commissions are traditionally made shortly after the first of the year , and suggested that study sessions should be delayed until the new Commis- sion membership is seated so those members will be "up to speed" on the issue prior to the public hearing. Mr. Stitt pointed out that the City Council has also directed that notice of the Public Hearing before the Commission shall be published in the Englewood Herald AND the Englewood Citi- zen. The Citizen is published on a bi-monthly basis, and will be published in Decem- be r /January , February/March, and April/May. The staff will have to coordinate the notice of the Public Hearing with the publication date of the Citizen . Discussion ensued. Mr. Shoop suggested that the issue might be placed on the next ballot. Mr. Mason pointed out that the City would have to go through the petition process to place the issue on the ballot. Ms. Becker requested clarification of the restrictions in the R-1-A, R-1-B, and R-1-C Districts . Mr. Stitt stated that the R-1-A requires a minimum lot frontage of 75 feet , minimum lot area of 9,000 square feet; R-1-B requires minimum 60 feet of lot frontage, 7 ,200 square feet of 3 ,. l, . . minimum lot area; R-1-C requires a minimum of 50 feet of lot frontage, 6,000 square feet of e lot area. The minimum sizes of the dwellings also vary depending on the district: R-1-A re-e quires a minimum structure of 1, 100 square feet in floor area; R-1-B requires a minimum 1,000 square feet floor area, and R-1-C requires a minimum floor area of 850 square feet. · However, the permitted principal uses in all single-family districts are the same: single-family dwelling, religious institutions, educational institutions, and public buildings and facilities. Ms. Becker stated that there are some home occupations that do not generate traffic, there is no selling or trafficking from the house. She commented that any home occupation that would generate four additional cars at any one time is generating three vehicles too many. Mr. Garrett suggested scheduling the study sessions on the issue of home occupations for Feb- ruary and/or the first meeting in March, and schedule the Public Hearing for the second meeting in March, 1995. This should allow time for publication of the information and date in the February/March issue of the Englewood Citizen, as well as allow for new members to familiarize themselves with the issue. The need to educate the public on the issue of "home occupations" was further discussed. Such efforts could include environmental impacts such as reduced air pollution as a result of de- creased number of vehicles using streets, financial impacts by increased licensing fees, etc. Ms. Becker stated that she has a computer in her basement at home, and does some work for I clients, as part of her own business, who do not come to her house. She also does some work at home for Hewlitt-Packard. Mr. Stitt emphasized that "incidentai" work is a "home occupa- tion"; the individual who works from their home for another company does not have a "home occupation". Mr. Garrett cited instances of some individuals who work for his employer via modems and computers, and never come into the office. He acknowledged that these indi- viduals are not called on to do this work on a full-time basis. Ms. Tobin questioned enforcement regarding home occupations. Will there be "Gestapo" in the home 24 hours per day; will the enforcement officers be checking such things as electrical meters, use of water, etc.; will this result in "everyone hiding". Ms. Tobin cited the issue of music lessons, and the volume of traffic generated by the recitals. Ms. Tobin stated that she knows the Building Codes, and that individuals who host recitals in private homes may well be in violation of the number of people permitted in a given area. Ms. Tobin stated that the City should not be forcing anyone to be "outlaws". Mrs. Becker took issue with the provision of no more than four vehicles parked on the street at any one time, and no more than 15 round trips per day generated by the home occupation, and suggested that perhaps home occupations presently allowed that generate such traffic should be restricted. Mr. Stitt emphasized that this provision was an addition by the City Council, and is not in the existing Ordinance. Mrs. Becker reiterated her opinion that it is inappropriate to have more than one additional vehicle at any residence as a result of home occupation. Mrs. Becker acknowledged that there are uses such as day care centers which do generate higher • traffic, but if they are licensed by the State, there must be some limitations on the number of 4 - j " e e I • children that can be accommodated . Mr. Stitt pointed out that day care centers do not have the vehicles parked on the street all day --only to drop off or pick up a child. Again, the prohibi- tion against additional employees applies to day care centers, so only the number of children that a single individual can be licensed to care for would be allowed. Mrs. Becker stated that she is of the opinion that the residents in R-1-A Districts only want to live in a peaceful, or- derly neighborhood . Mr. Stitt commented that the impact of additional traffic from social events --such as weekly football parties , etc. --can be as annoying as that created by a home occupation, but there is nothing that can be done about the social traffic . Mr. Mason reviewed the options outlined previously by Mr. Stitt. Discussion ensued . Mrs. Becker suggested that "snow removal" businesses run from a home should be added to the list of restricted or prohibited home occupations , citing the on-street parking of trucks with attached blades ; this can be a traffic hazard . Mr. Garrett discussed the need to address the questions posed by the City Council regarding the home occupation issue. The policing of illegal home occupations was further discussed by Mr. Dummer. If those individuals who are complaining of home occupations refuse to notify the City officials when they know of such an business , how can the City respond, and why is so much credence being given to this opposition now. The question "do the R-1-A residents hold more sway than the remaining districts ' residents" was posed , with the response that it appears they do carry more weight because of the City Council's response on this issue. The i ssues of "discrimination", "emotions ", and "politics" were briefly addressed . Mr. Mason questioned whether res idents of R-1-A districts think differently regarding their homes than residents of other residential districts ; do the residents of an R-1-C district have any less desire for a peaceful , orderly neighborhood than the residents of an R-1-A district? Mr. Redpath pointed out that the R-1-C districts have smaller lots, smaller homes , homes are closer together , and there is more "noise" because of the closer proximity of structures. Mr. Mason suggested that perhaps the Commission should consider "objectionable uses" for all the residential districts , and to ensure enforceability . Brief discussion ensued. It was the consensus of the Commission that study sessions on the issue of home occupations will be scheduled in February after Council appointments to the Commission are finalized; a Public Hearing will be scheduled for the second meeting in March , and that it be advertised in both the Englewood Citizen and the Englewood Herald. A survey regarding home occupa- tions , to be developed by the staff, shall be included as part of the February/March Citizen mail out. IV. PUBLIC FORUM • There was no one present to address the Commission. 5 v. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE Mr. Merkel updated the Commission members on the Cinderella City redeveloper search. Twelve responses were received to the RFQ which was mailed in September, and the selection committee has narrowed this down to four finalists. Interviews were scheduled for December 5 and 6, and follow-up interviews are scheduled for December 19 and 20; the field will be narrowed to one, possibly two, and referred to City Council for the final determination. The four finalists are: • Dial Companies, Omaha and Denver • Homart, Chicago and Denver • Comstock, Crosser, Hickey /Pacifica Holding of California and Denver • Miller/Kitchell of Denver and Phoenix Ms. Tobin stated that she is repeatedly asked why the Planning Commission members are not involved in the redeveloper selection process. Mr. Merkel stated that, as has been pointed out in previous meetings, members of the Commission will be involved in approval of the devel- opment plans, and there is a need for impartial review. This impartial review could be com- promised were the members of the Commission to be included on the selection committee, as well as recommending approval of the development plans. ' l . e e Ms. Tobin said that she is also asked when the Planning Commission is going to "plan" for I Englewood, noting that Englewood -Focusing on Tomorrow, is doing the "planning". The Commission has zoning meetings but no "planning" meetings. Mr. Merkel again advised Ms. Tobin of the role E-FOT has in conjunction with the role of the Commission. E-FOT is not usurping the role of the Commission, and are, in fact, addressing issues outside the scope of the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Redpath and Mr. Shoop both made additional inquiries regarding the Mall . Mr. Merkel stated that the general point of view is to "scrape the site clean". The uses with private pad ownership such as the two banks along U. S. 285 and Chuck E. Cheese , will have to negotiate with the redeveloper on an individual basis. VI. COl\.tMISSIONER'S CHOICE. Ms. Tobin extended an invitation to the E-FOT meeting on December 7, 6:00 P.M., at Swed- ish Medical Center. Mr. Mason noted that the Paddy Boots restaurant in the Brookridge Shopping Center has been razed; he asked what was proposed for the site. Mr. Merkel stated that construction ·of a Black-Eyed Pea Restaurant is proposed . 6 • . J l e e I • Mr. Mason asked what is on the agenda.for the meeting of December 20. Staff responded that there are no cases scheduled at this point in time. Mr. Mason suggested that unless an emer- gency arises, the meeting of December 20 will be canceled. Mr. Merkel stated that a discussion of Pawn Shops will be scheduled in January, 1995. Mr. Redpath inquired about the "nursing home" or "group home" on East Floyd Avenue. Mr. Stitt stated that amendments to the Fair Housing Act, enacted several years ago, ban discrimi- nation in housing because of disabilities. There are five people living in this group home, some of which are related. The garage which has been converted is attached to the house, and apparently has been for some time. The use is legal, even though some of the neighbors don't like it being located in their area. Mr. Stitt emphasized that the Federal Government prohibits discrimination. Mr. Stitt discussed the definition of "family" in the Zoning Ordinance, which is any number of people related by blood, marriage, or adoption; or, not more than four persons of the same sex living together in one household. He commented that this definition has not been tested in Court, but suggestions have been made that this definition may not comply with Federal regu- lations. There was nothing further to come before the Commission. The meeting was declared ad-. joumed at 8:35 P. M. Gertrude G. Welty, Recording Sec 7