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