Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-09-21 PZC MINUTESCITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 21, 1993 I. CALL TO ORDER. The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairman Lloyd Covens at 7:05 P.M. in Conference Room A of Englewood City Hall. Members present: Tobin, Clemens, Dummer, Garrett, Gerlick, Mason, Covens Merkel, Ex-Officio Members absent: Shoop Also present: Planning Administrator Harold J. Stitt City Attorney DeWitt Mr. Merkel stated that a resignation from the Commission has been submitted by Mr. Michael Bleau, and has been accepted by the City Council. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES August 17, 1993 Mr. Covens asked for a motion to consider the Minutes of August 17, 1993. Garrett moved: Dummer seconded: The Minutes of August 17, 1993 be approved as written. Discussion ensued. The vote was called: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Clemens, Dummer, Garrett, Gerlick, Tobin, Covens None Shoop Mason The motion carried. ill. FINDINGS OF FACT Conditional Use --3958 South Broadway CASE #9-93 The Findings of Fact for the Conditional Use at 3958 South Broadway were considered. Mr. Covens questioned the 1,000 foot rule referred to by Mr. Carter, opponent of the Conditional Use. Mr. Stitt stated that the 1,000 foot rule is in the licensing provisions, and is not adminis- tered by the Planning Commission. Mr. Stitt further discussed the differentiation between an "Arcade" and a "Center", noting that this is determined by the number of video games an es- tablishment has. The Broadway Sports Center and Omak' s Place do not have the same classi- fication; therefore, the 1,000 foot rule would not apply. Mr. Merkel stated that there has been considerable discussion regarding the determination of the Commission to prohibit the retail sale of pagers at Omak's Place. Mr. Merkel related the scope of his discussions with Assistant City Attorney Brotzman, and indicated Mr. Brotzman felt the restriction was within the prerogative of the Commission in light of the applicant's statements regarding the frequent use of pagers for drug deals and by gang members. The Conditional Use request was reviewed for Mr. DeWitt, as was the action of the Planning Commission. Mr. DeWitt commented that he did not feel the use of pagers in drug issues and by gang members was a valid issue for the Commission's consideration. Mr. Garrett stated that another issue of great concern was the size of the building --the subject site is only 250 square feet. Mr. Gerlick and Ms. Tobin both questioned how a use permitted in the zone district (retail sales) could be restricted. Discussion ensued on the action of the Commission regarding this Conditional Use. Mr. DeWitt stated that the Commission has no right to tell a merchant what they can or cannot sell inside their place of business as long as it is a legal item. Mr. DeWitt cited concern over a violation of the right of privacy, possible violation of the first amendment rights, violation of the right to communicate with other people, and other issues he felt could be raised were this decision to be challenged. Further discussion ensued. Mr. Garrett expressed a reluctance to approve the Findings of Fact, and suggested that the consideration should be tabled pending a determination from the City Attorney's office on how to proceed. Mr. DeWitt suggested that a Commission member voting on the prevailing side can bring the matter back for reconsideration at any regular meeting. Mr. DeWitt stated that he would like to discuss the issue with Assistant City Attorney Brotzman prior to making a firm recommendation to the Commission. Mr. Covens stated that the Commission did not have legal counsel present at the meeting of August 17, and asked if Mr. DeWitt could give assurance that legal counsel would be present at future public hearings. Covens moved: Garrett seconded: The Findings of Fact for Case #9-93 be tabled until October 5, 1993. 2 ! AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Dummer, Garrett, Gerlick, Mason, Tobin, Clemens, Covens None Shoop None The motion carried. IV. COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE Proposed Amendments A. Adult Entertainment Uses City Attorney DeWitt distributed copies of the U. S. District Court decision rendered on the Santa Fe Books & Video, Inc. case in April, 1993, which decision found the requirements for Conditional Use approval to be unconstitutional. Mr. DeWitt stated that it is clear the Courts want no "discretion" in the issue of adult uses --the guidelines must be extremely narro w. Mr. DeWitt suggested there are several ways to consider addressing adult uses. The Compre- hensive Zoning Ordinance (CZO) can be amended to make adult uses permitted uses in spe- cific zone districts; definitions can be expanded so that more "satellite" establishments that have some "adult" items for sale would be classified as "adult" establishments. Mr. DeWitt stated that traditionally, there have been two ways that communities have handled adult estab- lishments: the "battle zone" or the dispersal method. The "battle zone" is a designated area where these establishments can develop; the dispersal method i s j ust that --there are distance factors between adult establishments which are established and enforced , as are there distance factors from residential uses, public uses, schools, churches , etc. Mr. DeWitt indicated on a zoning map areas where adult establishments could be developed were they to be "permitted" in the I-1 and I-2 Zone Districts, with distance factors from residential districts , etc. enacted. Mr. DeWitt stated that the distances of 500 feet and 1,000 feet between adult establishments and the "protected" uses are commonly accepted . Mr. DeWitt stated that the "need to protect" classifications must be clearly defined: residences, business community , schools, churches , public uses, and the reputation of a City. The restriction of adult uses to specific zone districts was further addressed by Mr. DeWitt. He pointed out the probable need to rezone property along U.S. 285 from South Elati Street west to a business classification rather than the existing light industrial. Mr. DeWitt reviewed the development of the restrictions on Adult Uses in Englewood during the early 1980's to address problems with the Gothic Theater and the bookstore on South Broadway. The 10% gross sales versus 10% gross floor area proposal was discussed. Mr. Stitt stated that the 10% restriction is part of the definition of "Bookstore" in the Comprehensive Zoning Or- dinance. Discussion ensued. 3 Mr. Garrett inquired about the vulnerability of the City now that the Conditional Use provi- sions have been declared unconstitutional --how soon should we try to have something enacted to control adult establishments. Mr. Stitt suggested that one possibility that might be explored is to ask the City Council to declare a moratorium on issuing permits or approvals to further adult establishments until restrictions are enacted. Mr. DeWitt stated he would like to draft a basic ordinance for consideration by the Commis- sion. The legal staff may also draft alternate ordinances for consideration that would not be quite so "basic". Mr. Stitt noted that he had included a copy of the latest adult establishment ordinance enacted by the City of Littleton in the packet for informational purposes. He pointed out that Littleton has taken a "strict" approach in their ordinance. Mr. DeWitt stated that it appears the Littleton Ordinance is based on the restrictions enacted by Seattle, which has experienced some success in the defense of their Ordinance. Mr. DeWitt did cite one or two areas that he felt could be a problem because of "vagueness"; he commented that he would feel more comfortable with a percentage figure cited for sales rather than a "substantial amount". The issue of the 10% gross sales versus 10% gross floor area was further discussed. Mr. Stitt urged that the restriction be as understandable as possible, and cited enforcement difficulties wi th both approaches. Mr. Merkel stated that the Economic Development staff is trying to attract businesses to Eng lewood, and one of those businesses is "Newsland", which business does realize more than 10% of their gross sales from adult materials. The owners of "Newsland" want to locate in downtown Englewood, but because of the 10% gross sales restriction, they cannot do so -- they are classified as an "adult establishment" because they exceed the 10% gross sales limita- tion. It is at the behest of Newsland and the Economic Development personnel that the change from gross sales to gross floor area is being considered. Mr. Mason asked whether the "saturation point" hasn't been reached; will more such estab- lishments be moving in. Mr. DeWitt stated that he anticipated some escalation, but more in the intensity and activities that will change. Mr. Mason commented that he drives along Santa Fe Drive, and that the Santa Fe Books & Videos outlet is one of the better looking businesses along Santa Fe. He questioned whether the City is being overly concerned about this type of business, and whether a more relaxed attitude might not be advisable . Mr. DeWitt stated that the intent is not to eliminate this type of business, but there is a need to enact protections for the community. Mr. DeWitt summarized that he proposes to "repair" the ordinance we now have; remove adult establishments from the business zone districts, but make them permitted uses in the industrial districts, with distance factors. The definitions should be reviewed for clarification. Mr. DeWitt stated that the gross "sales" is a good point of argument and that his discussions with City Council hasn't clarified whether they lean to the gross floor area or the gross sales restrictions. 4 Mr. Covens inquired about a time frame --when could the Commission expect to see a pro- posed ordinance revision. Mr. DeWitt suggested that this could be done by his office within the next two weeks to one month. Mr. Covens thanked Mr. DeWitt for his attendance and discussion, and the Commission looks forward to receipt of the revised ordinance within the next month. B. Accessory Buildings Case #2-93 Mr. Stitt led discussion on the proposed amendments pertaining to Accessory Buildings (garages, carports, sheds, recreational structures). Suggestions made by the Commission during the course of previous discussions were incorporated into the latest staff report. Mr. Stitt posed questions regarding "Recreational" accessory structures; there is a need to address structures that may not be covered by any other classification, some of which may be recrea- tional in nature, some of which may not. Mr. Stitt suggested that perhaps the word "Recreational" should be removed, and the word "Other" inserted so that the title would be "Other Accessory Structures". Discussion ensued. The consensus of the Commission was to have the title, references, and definition read "Recreational or Other Accessory Structures". The Commission then addressed the issue of Garages and Carports. The number of structures that could be permitted on a single building site was discussed at length. Mr. Merkel cited a property on East Floyd Avenue on which five garages have been constructed. This case is an extreme, but does underline the need for control of the number of accessory outbuildings. Mr. Stitt stated that in some of the residential districts, there is a maximum percentage of lot coverage, which could control to an extent. The restriction on number of garages, carports, sheds, and other accessory buildings would be an added development control, providing the property owner the right to have accessory outbuildings for parking and storage of vehicles, and yet protecting the visual impact on the surrounding neighborhood. The suggestion was made to allow "No more than one of the following: (1) Attached garage; (2) Detached garage; (3) Carport; ( 4) Attached garage and carport; (5) Detached garage and carport; or (6) Detached and attached garage. The maximum total floor area on any one of the garage/carport developments shall not exceed 1,000 square feet. ********** A short recess of the Commission was called at 8:40 p.m. The meeting reconvened, with all members present but Mr. Shoop. ********** Mr. Covens asked the pleasure of the Commission. 5 Garrett moved: Dummer seconded: That three additional categories (Attached garage and carport; Detached garage and carport, and Detached and attached garage) be added to M-1- a, and that the words "each of' be deleted from the Maximum Number. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Garrett, Mason, Clemens, Dummer, Covens Gerlick, Tobin Shoop None The motion carried. Further discussion ensued. There was no change made to the Storage Shed section. Mr. Stitt stated that the changes as discussed at this meeting will be incorporated into all residential zone districts for the Public Hearing. Garrett moved: Clemens seconded: The Planning Commission schedule a Public Hearing on the proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance as outlined in Case #'2-93 for Public Hearing on October 19, 1993. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Gerlick, Mason, Tobin, Coleman, Dummer, Garrett, Covens None Shoop None The motion carried. c. Home Occupations Case #4-93 Mr. Stitt stated that this proposed amendment began as a consideration to allow home occupa- tions in the R-1-A, Single-Family Residence Zone District. However, when staff started scru- tinizing the home occupation sections of the remaining residential districts, it was determined that revisions needed to be made there, also; notably to eliminate the restriction against beau- ticians and cosmetologists as a home occupation. Again, these regulations will be incorporated into all residential zone districts once the Commission determines the final proposal prior to the Public Hearing. Ms. Tobin questioned that the inclusion of a Fine Arts Studio limiting group instruction to not more than four persons, and tutoring of not more than four persons at any one time, would have any effect on the situation in her neighborhood where piano lessons are given in the home, and recitals are held several times per year at which times the on-street parking is hor- rendous. Mr. Stitt acknowledged that these provisions probably would not resolve the prob- lems experienced in Ms. Tobin's neighborhood. 6 .' Ms. Tobin further noted that the recitals are held in the basement of the home, and there is only one exit; she expressed concern for the safety of the participants and attendees should there be an emergency requiring immediate exiting. Mr. Stitt suggested that it could be questioned whether the music lessons are a "home occupa- tion" or a "profession"; he discussed the delicate balancing act between maintaining the resi- dential character of the neighborhood versus the commercial aspect of home businesses. The restriction on horsepower of motors used in home occupations was discussed. Mr. Stitt noted that in his research of zoning ordinances from other communities, many do not even address the issue of horsepower. He suggested that he would not be averse to eliminating all reference to the size of motors. Ms. Tobin and Mr. Gerlick were also supportive of removing all reference to horsepower size of motors. Mr. Dummer asked what this restriction was to control --noise? Mr. Stitt stated he could not answer that --the restriction has been in the zoning ordinance for many years, and he could not address the reasoning for the restriction. Gerlick moved: Tobin seconded: Item "j", the restriction on the horsepower of electric motors, be elimi- nated. AYES: NAYS: Mason, Tobin, Clemens, Dummer, Garrett, Gerlick None ABSENT: Shoop ABSTAIN: Covens The motion carried. Day Care homes were discussed. Ms. Tobin expressed concern on the phrase "which is li- censed by the State of Colorado", pointing out that any number of day care "homes" are not licensed. Mr. Stitt stated that it was his feeling that if day care homes are to be allowed, they should meet State regulations. Discussion ensued on the licensing requirements. Ms. Tobin emphasized that day care homes operate under different regulations than a day care center. In response to a query from Mr. Garrett, Ms. Tobin stated that one does not have to be licensed to operate a day care home. Mr. Stitt stated that in terms of safety and the peace of mind for parents, it is his opinion the City should support State efforts to have all day care operators licensed. Discussion ensued. Mr. Covens excused himself from the meeting at 9:30 P.M., and asked Mr. Gerlick to take the Chair in the absence of Vice-Chairman Shoop. Ms. Tobin also noted that day care homes are limited to six children maximum, PLUS two before and after school children. Further discussion ensued. Mr. Garrett suggested that this section be reworded to read: "A day-care home for the care of children in accordance with State licensing regulations." 7 Mr. Clemens inquired about provisions for items such as publications that are printed some- where else, stored on the premises, and sold via mail-order from the premises. Is this permit- ted. Mr. Stitt noted that the sale of publications or catalogs via mail would be allowed; the problem would be a stream of customers coming to buy books or other publications. Mr. Stitt noted that at the present time, no home occupations are allowed in the R-1-A Zone District. Garrett moved: Tobin seconded: The Planning Commission schedule Case #4-93, Home Occupations, for Public Hearing on October 19, 1993. Case #4-93 is to be amended by the modification of section "i", day care home, as cited in this evening's discussion, and by the deletion of section "j" pertaining to horsepower of electric motors. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Tobin, Clemens, Dummer, Garrett, Gerlick, Mason None Shoop, Covens None The motion carried. Mr. Merkel stated that the Home Occupations will apply to all residential Zone Districts. D. B-1. Business District Planned Development Case #10-93 Mr. Stitt stated that a recommendation has come from the Englewood Downtown Development Authority (EDDA) that the B-1 Zone District be amended to include the Planned Development provisions as the B-2 District presently requires. Mr. Stitt suggested that his suggestion is to incorporate §16-4-12 B into §16-4-11 in the appropriate place. This section reads: "Planned Development. A Planned Development shall be filed for the development of any lot having one or more acres in area. See Section 16-4-15 for development procedure. (Comprehensive Zoning Ord. 1985)." There were several Urban Renewal Authority projects which were over one acre, but were not required to go through the Public Hearing process required of a Planned Development. There is the potential for redevelopment of some of the downtown area, and former City Manager Fraser committed to soliciting public input on matters such as the redevelopment of Cinderella City. The Planned Development process requires a Public Hearing and would be one means of receiving public input. Mr. Stitt suggested that staff assign a Case Number to this issue, and that it also be scheduled for Public Hearing on October 19. 8 Garrett moved: Tobin seconded: The Planning Commission schedule the proposed amendment of the B-1 Zone District for Public Hearing on October 19, 1993. AYES: NAYS: Tobin, Clemens, Dummer, Garrett, Gerlick, Mason None ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Shoop, Covens None The motion carried. V. PUBLIC FORUM. No one was present to address the Commission. VI. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE Mr. Merkel stated he had nothing to bring before the Commission. VII. COMMISSIONER'S CHOICE. Nothing was brought up for discussion under Commissioner's Choice. VIII. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was declared adjourned at 9:50 P.M. Gertrude G. Welty, Recording Seer 9