Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-10-19 PZC MINUTES.. 9 CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OCTOBER 19, 1993 I. CALL TO ORDER. The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairman Lloyd Covens at 7:00 P. M. in the City Council Chambers of Englewood City Hall. Members present: Clemens, Dummer, Garrett, Gerlick, Mason, Shoop, Tobin, Covens Merkel, Ex-officio Members absent: None Also present: Planning Administrator Harold J. Stitt City Attorney De Witt II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES September 21, 1993 Chairman Covens stated that the Minutes of September 21, 1993 would be considered for ap- proval. Gerlick moved: Dummer seconded: The Minutes of September 21, 1993 be approved as written. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Dummer, Garrett, Gerlick, Mason, Tobin, Clemens, Covens None None Shoop The motion carried. ill. COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE Accessory Structures CASE #2-93 Chairman Covens stated that the proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordi- nance regarding Accessory Structures are now before the Commission for Public Hearing. Garrett moved: Clemens seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #2-93 be opened. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Garrett, Gerlick, Mason, Shoop, Tobin, Clemens, Dummer, Covens None None None The motion carried. Chairman Covens asked that staff present the issue. Planning Administrator Stitt was sworn in, and testified that the proposed amendments will provide more flexibility in the administration of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance (CZO) in that the amendments set forth the number of garages, carports, sheds, and other accessory structures that may be allowed per ownership. Also, the maximum size of storage sheds has been increased to 150 feet, which should eliminate many property owners from having to ap- ply for a variance from the Board of Adjustments & Appeals. Mr. Stitt stated that the CZO , as presently written, does not address "other accessory structures", which could be a gazebo, a playhouse , free-standing deck, etc. Because these "other accessory structures" have not been addressed in the Ordinance, persons wanting to construct an accessory structure other than a garage, carport, or shed, have had to go before the Board of Adjustments & Appeals. Mr. Stitt reviewed discussions with various staff members regarding the proposed amend- ments, and cited some of the questions and interpretations that arose in those discussions . For instance, the proposed amendments currently state "Recreational or Other Accessory Struc- tures"; one interpretation that was advanced was that this would be an accessory structure where recreational vehicles/equipment could be stored. This was not the intent when the pro- posed amendment was written. Mr. Stitt stated that staff now recommends the elimination of the word "recreational" from the regulations and the definition. Mr. Stitt stated that another question that was posed by various staff members in the discussions , was whether a free- standing "studio" for pottery work, or an artist, would fit into the category of "other accessory structure". Mr. Stitt stated that there may be other structures, such as a "workshop", which may also fall into this category. If the regulations and definition are not "specifically" worded, this would provide a degree of discretion in the interpretation and enforcement of the Ordinance. Mr. Stitt suggested that if it is the Commission's determination to eliminate the terminology "Recreational or" from the regulations, perhaps the existing definition of Accessory Structure is appropriate and the proposed new definition is not needed. Brief discussion ensued regard- ing the elimination of the proposed definition of "Recreational or Other Accessory Use". Mr. Stitt suggested that the regulations for the R-1-A District should be amended on Page 3 to require a five foot setback for side and rear yards for Recreational or Other Accessory Uses (§M 3 d and e) and that M 2 e was inadvertently omitted from the document before the Com- mission , and should be reinserted. 2 J Mr. Covens inquired if City Attorney DeWitt wanted to speak to any of the amendments. Mr. DeWitt stated he had no suggestions on Case #2-93; he did have suggestions to be made on Case #4-93, however. Mr. Covens asked if there were any questions from Commission members of staff. There was discussion regarding the "Recreational or Other Accessory Uses", and the consensus was to eliminate the wording "Recreational or" from the regulations, and that the proposed definition for "Recreational or Other Accessory Structures" is superfluous. Tobin moved: Garrett seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #2-93 be closed. AYES: NAYS: Gerlick, Mason, Shoop, Tobin, Clemens, Dummer, Garrett, Covens None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None The motion carried. Mr. Covens asked the pleasure of the Commission. Garrett moved: Gerlick seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council the amendments to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance pertaining to Accessory Struc- tures (Garages, Carports, Sheds, Other Accessory Structures); all modi- fications made in the course of this Hearing shall be incorporated into the submittal to City Council, including elimination of the proposed definition, elimination of the words "Recreational or" from the proposed regulations, and changing the rear and side yard requirements for Other Accessory Structures to 5 feet in the R-1-A District. AYES: NAYS: Mason, Shoop, Tobin, Clemens, Dummer, Garrett, Gerlick, Covens None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None The motion carried. IV. COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE Home Occupation Amendments Mr. Covens asked for a motion to open the Public Hearing. Gerlick moved: Tobin seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #4-93 be opened. 3 CASE #4-93 AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Shoop, Tobin, Clemens, Dummer, Garrett, Gerlick, Mason, Covens None None None The motion carried. Planning Administrator Stitt stated that the proposed amendments will permit Home Occupa- tions in the R-1-A, Single-family Residence District, and other amendments have been pro- posed to allow some businesses which are no longer restricted by the State, such as beauticians and cosmetologists, as Home Occupations. Other amendments proposed include the elimina- tion of the restrictions on size of motors used in Home Occupations, and minor wording changes. Mr. Stitt stated that he had called the State Department of Social Services, and spoke to Sharon Chavez, regarding the licensing of daycare homes. All daycare homes must be li- censed by Social Services, with only two exceptions: 1) if only one child is being cared for; or 2) if the children being cared for are related. Mr. Stitt stated that he had related to Ms. Chavez the language proposed to be included in the amendments regarding daycare, and re- ported that Ms. Chavez felt this was appropriate language. Mr. Stitt further reported that li- censed daycare homes may care for up to six children, PLUS two before or after school chil- dren, plus family children. Mr. Stitt stated that the daycare homes are licensed for care of youngsters from birth through sixteen years of age. Ms. Tobin inquired about senior daycare, noting that there is more need for supervised day- care for senior citizens who may not choose, be eligible for, or cannot afford nursing homes, live-in nursing, etc. Ms. Tobin stated that senior daycare was licensed in the State of Nevada. Mr. Stitt stated that he did not know whether senior care is regulated in the State of Colorado. He reminded the Commission that previous amendments to the Ordinance regarding conversion of unused churches, public buildings, and schools allowed for "dependent care", with no age specifications cited. Ms. Tobin suggested that this approach might be considered. Mr. Stitt suggested the Commission might want to table the discussion, or continue the Hear- ing to a given date, to enable staff to check on regulations for senior care. Mr. Covens asked if City Attorney DeWitt wished to speak to the proposed amendments. Mr. DeWitt suggested that the wording "similar business or activity" be inserted in §§4j of Home Occupations. Also, that §§4 j 10 be reworded to state: (No regulation is intended on the sale of flammable substances packaged according to law.) Sub-section 4 j 9 should have the word "hereof'' added at the end of the sentence. Discussion ensued regarding the senior care issue. The issue of "assisted care living" was also discussed. Mr. Stitt pointed out that with "assisted care living", there is generally additional staff employed; this would not be allowed as a Home Occupation where one of the restrictions is that there shall be no employees. Most personal care boarding homes also require additional 4 ' . e is that there shall be no employees. Most personal care boarding homes also require additional staff. Mr. Stitt reiterated that he would check with the State to determine if senior care is regulated; if it is not, this issue would be up to the determinations of the Planning Commis- sion. Mr. Covens inquired about the restriction of no separate outside entrance to a Home Occupa- tion, and cited IRS regulations. Mr. Stitt stated that he did not interpret the tax laws to require a separate outside entrance; rather credits were based on whether this was the main office, the number of hours spent at the business, etc. Mr. DeWitt indicated that his interpretation is that anyone operating a Home Occupation must use the existing entrances; they may not have sepa- rate entrances or signage denoting the Home Occupation. Discussion ensued. Mr. Merkel cautioned that a Home Occupation must not be intrusive on the character of the neighborhood in general, and can only be incidental to the primary use o f the premises for residential purposes. Mr. Shoop inquired whether any change to the signage allowed for Home Occupations was considered. Mr. Stitt stated that this has not been an issue, and no modifications have been proposed. Residents with Home Occupations are allowed one 12" x 12" sign, which may be affixed to the structure itself, or posted in the window. Mr. Clemens inquired whether the restriction against the sale of guns, knives and ammunition would preclude storage of explosives by miners, for instance. Mr. DeWitt stated that the Fire Code restricts the amount of explosive, flammable material that may be stored. The sale of guns, knives, and ammunition was further discussed. Mr. DeWitt stated that the sale of firearms is prohibited as a business in any residential district; however , an individual may be allowed to sell a personal firearm from his home. Garrett moved: Mason seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #4-93 be continued until November 2, 1993. AYES: NAYS: Tobin, Clemens, Dummer, Garrett, Gerlick, Mason, Shoop, Covens None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None The motion carried. v. COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE B-1 Zone District Amendments Mr. Covens asked for a motion to open the Public Hearing. Garrett moved: 5 CASE #10-93 Shoop seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #10-93 be opened. AYES: NAYS: Clemens, Dummer, Garrett, Gerlick, Mason, Shoop , Tobin , Covens None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None The motion carried. Mr. Stitt stated that the proposed amendment to the B-1, Business District, will incorporate a requirement for Planned Development approval for all developments or redevelopments over one acre in area. This requirement is presently in the B-2, Business District. The Englewood Downtown Development Authority and staff suggested that this provision also be included in the B-1 District to provide for citizen input and review of developments and redevelopments over one acre in area. Mr. Covens inquired what the impact would be were this proposed amendment not approved. Mr. Stitt stated that if the PD process were not approved, no development or redevelopment would "require" public review and input. Discussion ensued. Dummer moved: Tobin seconded: The Public Hearing be closed. AYES: NAYS: Dummer, Garrett, Gerlick, Mason, Shoop, Tobin, Clemens, Covens None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None The motion carried. Chairman Covens asked the pleasure of the Commission. Covens moved: Tobin seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council that the Compre- hensive Zoning Ordinance, §16-4-10, be amended by adding a new Sub- section B, and that all subsequent subsections of said §16-4-10 shall be re-lettered appropriately. AYES: NAYS: Garrett, Gerlick, Mason, Shoop, Tobin, Clemens, Dummer, Covens None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None The motion carried. 6 VI. FINDINGS OF FACT CASE #9-93 Omak' s Place -Conditional Use Mr. Covens asked City Attorney DeWitt to discuss the Findings of Fact, and his memorandum to the Commission addressing those Findings. Mr. DeWitt stated that he does not see that the retail sale of pagers relates to any land use is- sue, and is of the opinion that the Planning Commission could be considered to be arbitrary and capricious for restricting the retail sale of pagers at this location. Mr. De Witt noted that the ban on retail sales applies only to pagers, and if the Commission was, indeed, concerned about the use of that commodity by gang members and drug dealers, the proprietor of Omak' s Place could still sell guns, knives, etc., which sales are legal in the B-2 Zone District, but are also used by gang members. Mr. DeWitt discussed a recent shooting incident in close prox- imity to Englewood High School, and the response by the School Administration and School Board who are now considering prohibiting the wearing of all sports teams jackets, caps, etc. by students, as well as having pagers on the school grounds. Mr. DeWitt further stated that in his opinion, the sale of pagers from this business will not have an adverse impact on the neighborhood. Mr. Covens inquired if making judgments that may impact a neighborhood was outside the role of the Planning Commission. Mr. DeWitt stated that this is not the case , and cited con- sideration of parking issues, elderly care --these all have an impact on the neighborhood. The question is whether the sale of pagers has so much impact on a neighborhood that it should be restricted; should business people who apply for Conditional Use approval be restricted to one use. Gerlick moved: Shoop seconded: The Findings of Fact for Case #9-93 be amended by deleting Finding #1. The proper procedure to follow to amend the Findings of Fact was considered. Mr. DeWitt stated that this can be done by motion, but it should be made by a member who voted on the "prevailing" side. The Public Hearing does not need to be reopened; the minutes and facts of the case are not being amended, only the decision. Mr. Gerlick withdrew his motion. Garrett moved: Clemens seconded: The Findings of Fact for Case #9-93 be amended by deletion of Finding #1, and approved as amended. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Mason, Shoop, Tobin, Clemens, Dummer, Garrett, Gerlick Covens None None 7 The motion carried. VII. PUBLIC FORUM. No one was present to address the Commission. VIll. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE Director Merkel stated that the meeting of the Planning Commission and City Council has been moved from November 15 to November 8, at 6:00 P. M. in the Community Room. Brief discussion ensued. Mr. Covens asked what the discussions will cover. Mr. Merkel sug- gested that Englewood By Design, and proposed Ordinance revisions are two issues that could be discussed. He asked what the Commission wanted to focus on, and when no one had any suggestions he requested that they think about topics prior to the Commission meeting on No- vember 2, at which time they could decide. Director Merkel gave an update on Englewood By Design activities . This group has been meeting for approximately two months, and there is a core of 15 to 20 people who are in- volved, and represent a good cross-section of the community. Copies of the Mission State- ment were distributed. The group is beginning to consider implemen tation of the process. Mr. Stitt stated that it has been a good committee demonstrating that there is community inter- est in the future of Englewood. Mr. Dummer asked how the ESITA (Englewood, Something To Talk About) meetings relate to Englewood By Design. His impression of the ESITA meetings was they were asking the same questions and following a very similar process to that of EBD. He asked if the information gathered at the ESITA meetings would be used by EBD. Mr. Merkel stated that although ESITA and EBD are related, they complement each other rather than duplicate each other. ESITA has focused on what the City has been doing, dilemmas it faces, and asks citizens for comments and feedback. EBD focuses on goals for the future of Englewood as a community . EBD may use a number of the contacts that were developed through the ESITA meetings to encourage community participation. ********** Mr. Covens suggested that the Commission hear City Attorney DeWitt at this point. Mr. DeWitt presented members of the Commission with a draft of the proposed Comprehen- sive Zoning Ordinance amendments relating to adult businesses. Mr. DeWitt stated that the proposal would allow adult businesses as a permitted use rather than as a Conditional Use in the B-2, I-1, and I-2 Zone Districts. Mr. De Witt noted that he has presented three options for a definition of "Adult Bookstore", and suggested that the Commission peruse the draft ordi- nance, and that a date be scheduled for full discussion. Mr. DeWitt stated that the staff needs 8 .. e to develop a map, which would indicate locations where the adult businesses could locate and still meet the distance factors of the Ordinance. Discussion ensued. Mr. Garrett suggested the possibility of considering the adult business amendments at one of the meetings in December. Mr. Stitt stated this would provide staff some time to develop the map. Mr. DeWitt updated the Commission on progress on Cedar Mountain; approximately 20 % of the stocked shingles have been chipped, the operators have posted a bond, and the site must be totally cleaned no later than June of 1995. Mr. DeWitt briefly discussed the work load in his office, noting that under the TABOR amendment , the election work-load has been "horrendous". Mr. DeWitt apologized for not getting the adult business information to the Commission on a more timely basis, and than ked the members for their understanding. ********** The Commission then resumed discussions under "Director's Choice". Mr. Merkel discussed his role as the Director of Community Developmen t, and as E x-officio Member of the Planning Commission. Mr. Merkel pointed out that the Department of Co m- munity Development has several divisions , all of which have a board or commis si on , and fo r which staff support i s provided. Mr. Merkel stated that i t becomes rather awkward for hi m when he is seated with the Commission as an Ex-officio member to also be the lead staff per- son. He stated that this has been discussed with Planning Administrator Stitt, and Mr. Stitt will serve as the lead staff person, presenting all cases and leading discussions pertainin g to those cases with the Commission, as well as general housekeeping matters for the Commission to consider. Mr. Merkel will serve as the resource person to address the rel ation of an i ssue before the Commission to another facet of the City, such as Economic Development. Brief discussion ensued . Mr. Merkel distributed information sheets on three election issues: Paving Districts #35 and #38, and the Concrete Replacement District. Mr. Merkel pointed out that even though the entire electorate of the City will vote on these issues, only the properties within the districts will be assessed for the improvements. Mr. Gerlick asked whether the City had ever advised the trash trucks not to drive along the concrete "pans" next to the curb line when picking up trash; this breaks up the concrete be - cause it is not designed for vehicles of this weight. Mr. Merkel stated that he would check into this. Ms. Tobin noted that curb, gutter and sidewalk in her block were damaged by the City when they used a grader and blade to chip ice. Mr. Dummer stated that Public Works needs to review the repair work wh ich has been done on South Logan from East Yale south to U .S. 285; this repair work was very poorly done , and 9 the street is very difficult to drive on. Mr. Merkel stated that he will check into this, also, and e report back. Mr. Garrett inquired about the Oxford Avenue/Santa Fe intersection closing. Further brief discussion ensued on the concrete replacement district. Mr. Clemens stated that he had been a member of the Concrete Replacement Committee, which met to consider equi- table ways of financing concrete replacement. Mr. Stitt presented modifications which Swedish Medical Center (SMC) proposes to their Planned Development. These modifications are partly as a result of the merger with Presbyte- rian/Saint Lukes, and partly as a result of medical staff input. Mr. Stitt emphasized that the net change is minimal, and that in fact, some of the structures which are shown on the ap- proved PD probably will not be built, at least not within the next five years. Inasmuch as the net change is minimal, with only minor footprint changes, staff recommends this be handled administratively and not go through the PD hearing process. Mr. Stitt noted that on changes to approved PDs, if the change makes for a "greater impact", they must come back through the amendment process; if, however, the changes lessen the impact, they can be handled ad- ministratively. Mr. Stitt stated that these modifications are being presented to the Commission for its information. IX. COMMISSIONER'S CHOICE Nothing was brought up for discussion. The meeting was declared adjourned at 9:30 P. M. Gertrude G. Welty d Recording Secretary 10