Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-02-23 PZC MINUTES\ CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 23, 1993 I. CALL TO ORDER. The regular meeting of the City Planning & Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:05 P.M. by Vice-Chairman Roger Shoop. Members Present: Garrett, Gerlick, Mason, Shoop, Tobin, Covens, Draper, Dummer Merkel, Ex-officio Members Absent: Cuesta Also Present: Planning Administrator Harold J. Stitt II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. February 2, 1993 Vice-Chairman Shoop stated that the Minutes of February 2, 1993, were to be considered for approval. Draper moved: Tobin seconded: The Minutes of February 2, 1993, be approved as written. AYES: NAYS: Mason, Shoop, Tobin, Covens, Draper, Dummer, Garrett None ABSENT: Cuesta ABSTAIN: Gerlick The motion carried. ID. ELECTION OF OFFICERS Vice-Chairman Shoop opened the floor to nominations for the position of Chairman. Draper nominated Lloyd Covens for Chairman; Mason seconded the nomination. No further nominations were made. Draper moved: Tobin seconded: Nominations be closed, and Mr. Covens be elected Chairman of the Commission. AYES: NAYS: Mason, Shoop, Tobin, Covens, Draper, Dummer, Garrett, Gerlick None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Cuesta Ms. Cuesta entered the meeting and took her chair with members of the Commission. Mr. Shoop then asked for nominations for the position of Vice-Chairman. Covens nominated Mr. Shoop for Vice-Chairman; Draper seconded the nomination. No further nominations were made. Draper moved: Mason seconded: The nominations be closed, and Mr. Shoop elected Vice Chairman of the Commission. AYES: NAYS: Tobin, Covens, Cuesta, Draper, Dummer, Garrett, Gerlick, Mason, Shoop None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None The motion carried. Mr. Covens assumed the Chair for the remainder of the meeting. IV. INTRODUCTION OF NEW MEMBER Ms. Cuesta stated that she has been a resident of Englewood for a number of years, has her own business, is married, and the mother of three children. She looks forward to serving on the Commission. v. COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE. Proposed Amendments CASE #2-93 Mr. Stitt summarized the procedure followed in amending the Comprehensive Zoning Ordi- nance, pointing out that suggested amendments may be made by citizens, the Planning Commission, and staff. Public Hearings are required before both the Planning Commission and City Council on all amendments to the Zoning Ordinance. The role of the Planning Commission in such amendment procedure is strictly advisory --they make recommendations to the City Council on matters pertaining to the Zoning Ordinance, and the City Council is the legislative body enacting the changes to the Ordinance. Mr. Stitt then reviewed the staff report on several amendments staff has proposed to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. Among these amendments would be a restriction that only 2 I .. ' one attached or detached garage or carport be permitted per building site, and the maximum square footage shall not exceed 1,000 square feet; only one storage shed be permitted per building site, and that the square footage of the shed be increased to a maximum of 200 square feet. Mr. Stitt pointed out that there have been a number of requests for variances on these two issues before the Board of Adjustment & Appeals. These restrictions would apply to all zone districts that allow garages and sheds as 11 Accessory Uses 11 • Mr. Stitt discussed interpretations of the Ordinance provisions on previous occasions, and the allowance of both a carport and garage on the building site provided the total square footage did not exceed the maximum of 1,000 sq. ft. The proposed regulations would allow only one of either a garage or a carport. If an attached garage were to be converted to living space, the homeowner would have to provide the same amount of off-street parking "on-site", whether in a detached garage, or on a parking slab. Mr. Stitt discussed the traditional prohibition of using the front 25 feet of a driveway as part of the "required" off-street parking space; when the ordinance was amended in the mid-1980's, the figure was decreased to 10 feet, but this still cannot be counted toward the required off- street parking space. · Ms. Tobin cited a duplex under construction on West Lehigh Avenue, which appears to have garages for both units; how could the proposed amendment be reconciled to this situation. Discussion ensued. Mr. Stitt suggested that the provision might be reworded to stated that every "single-family unit" could have one attached or detached garage; if someone with a duplex applied for two garages to serve the two units, he wou ld be of the opinion this should be permitted. The changes in the proposed wording could be made for the R-2, R-2-C, R-2- C/SPS, R-3 and R-4 Zone Districts. Mr. Stitt pointed out that we could end up with two 1,000 square foot garages on duplex lots, for instance; or, possibly the maximum square footage could be reduced for garages on multiple-family housing sites. Ms. Cuesta inquired about the height of garages. Mr. Stitt stated that the maximum height is 18 feet, which was raised from 15 feet in the mid-1980's to allow for RVs. The "one" garage "or" carport issue was discussed, as was the maximum square footage. Mr. Dummer advocated the limitation for garages and/or carports, or a combination thereof, to not exceed 1,000 square feet total area. Further discussion ensued. Mr. Stitt stated that a lot of people want a workshop in conjunction with their garage; the 1,000 square foot maxi- mum provides space for two vehicles plus a nice workshop area. Mr. Shoop supported the rewording of the provision to include "either/or" carports or garages, or a combination thereof to not exceed 1,000 square feet total area. The issue of storage sheds was then addressed. Mr. Stitt stated that there have been repeated requests for variances before the Board of Adjustment for more than one storage shed per building site, and for sheds in excess of the present 100 square foot maximum. The proposal would provide for one shed per building site, but would increase the square footage to 200 3 I maximum. Discussion ensued. Mr. Gerlick pointed out that a 200 sq. ft. shed is quite good A sized, and suggested that the maximum be lowered to 150 sq. ft. Mr. Stitt further pointed out • that the Building Code does not require a permit for sheds less than 120 square feet in size; and a number of people have put more than one shed on the lot believing that if no Building Permit is required, they do not have to check with Zoning to determine how many are allowed per site. It was the consensus of the Commission that a maximum of 150 square feet for the one shed to be allowed per site. Mr. Dummer discussed the wiring of some sheds to provide lighting. Mr. Merkel indicated that wiring would require a building permit. Mr. Stitt suggested there would be no problem with wiring the sheds unless this led to the conversion to a workshop. Wiring of garages/sheds was discussed more fully. Mr. Stitt pointed out that garages are built to fire code and building code provisions and electricity is provided for. Recreational Accessory Structures, a new category proposed for consideration in the Ordi- nance, was discussed. Mr. Stitt stated that this category would cover such uses as gazebos, free-standing decks, playhouses, etc. Maximum floor area for any one of these uses is pro- posed at 200 square feet, maximum height proposed at 10 feet, minimum side and rear yard requirements at 3 feet. It is also proposed that these used be located in the "rear yard". Mr. Covens inquired why the rear yard is proposed as the only location for these uses. It was pointed out that with playhouses, and play equipment for children, most parents want this equipment in a fenced area away from streets; the issue with gazebos and free-standing decks is that most people want "privacy" which a back yard can provide. Mr. Stitt suggested that he would have no problem allowing these uses in a side or back yard. Discussion ensued on where a "front property line" begins in relation to sidewalk and curb line. The issue of tree houses was discussed, and it was the determination of the Commission that tree houses shall not be addressed. Further discussion on the proposed height limitations ensued. The consensus was to limit maximum height to 12 feet, and that the recreational accessory structures may be located in the side or rear yard of the site. Home Occupations were then discussed. Mr. Covens suggested that this section be tabled for further consideration at a later date, and distributed a copy of an article from the August, 1992, edition of Nation's Business, entitled Zoning Laws vs. Home Businesses for the perusal of the Commission members and staff. Mr. Dummer pointed out that previous discussions have noted that state laws governing barbers, cosmetologists and beauticians have changed, and that these businesses could no longer be restricted as home occupations. Mr. Stitt agreed, and noted that this provision will be eliminated from the proposed regulations for the R-1-A District. Ms. Tobin also pointed out that day care homes licensed by the State allow six children rather than four. 4 Mr. Covens stated that there are a lot of "generic problems" that go with approval of home occupations, and cited parking problems that have been mentioned on several occasions by Ms. Tobin. He suggested that he felt a thorough discussion of Home Occupations could take the better part of an hour, and that he wanted time for this discussion slated for the next agenda. Mr. Merkel briefly discussed the agenda for the March 2 meeting as set thus far, proposing to begin the meeting at 6:00 P. M. with a study/training session with Assistant City Attorney Brotzman (dinner will be served), and the City Manager would join the regular meeting at 7:00 P.M. to discuss the economic development progress in the City. Mr. Merkel asked Mr. Brotzman to briefly summarize the reasons for the study/training session that is proposed. Mr. Brotzman elaborated on the need for the study/training session. It was agreed the issue on Home Occupations would not be further considered at this time. Mr. Covens then inquired regarding the proposed amendment regarding "Adult Bookstores". Mr. Stitt stated that the present wording contains the statement "that derives not more than ten percent (10%) of its gross income from the sale of such material shall be exempt"... The proposed amendment would change the determination from the ten percent of gross sales to a percentage of gross floor area. This change in the provision will make it easier for staff to determine compliance with the Ordinance and allow establishments such as Newsland, to locate in Englewood. The City's Economic Development staff has pursued such retailers to no avail because they were concerned over the "gross income" provision inasmuch as a good portion of their merchandise is adult-oriented. Mr. Merkel stated that in the early 1980's, the City enacted an ordinance placing restrictions on adult oriented businesses as to location, etc. This proposal is not intended to change any restrictions other than determining how much of a bookstore can be devoted to "adult materials" before the classification of an "adult bookstore" is applied. Members of the Commission discussed the "gross floor area" provision, and Mr. Gerlick offered the wording of "gross retail floor area". Mr. Covens agreed with this suggestion. Mr. Stitt pointed out that the adult merchandise would have to be in a controlled area, and could not be publicly displayed. He further pointed out that both Denver and Aurora use 10% gross floor area, but that if the Commission wanted a lesser or greater percentage this would be their choice. The timing of considering this amendment in light of a recent Conditional Use application for approval of an adult establishment was considered. Mr. Merkel suggested that the amend- ments to the Zoning Ordinance be delayed for a period of time so that the issues will not be- come intertwined. This amendment would have no impact on the proposed Conditional Use, which may be difficult to get across to both opponents and proponents of the Conditional Use and/or amendment. Staff needs feedback from the Commission so that the amendments can be refined and brought back for further discussion at another date. Mr. Draper excused himself from the meeting at 8:50 P.M. 5 Mr. Covens asked for an explanation of the difference between "advisory" and "quasi-judicial" A actions of the Commission. Mr. Brotzman stated that "advisory" issues are those on which the • Commission makes a recommendation to City Council , and that body has the final determination. "Quasi-judicial" are those instances, such as on Conditional Uses, wherein the Planning Commission holds the public hearing and makes the final determination. Mr. Stitt cited several uses which are "conditional uses", such as auto wrecking yards, adult-oriented uses, entertainment uses, amusement arcades, etc. Mr. Stitt cited §16-5-21 of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance which pertains to Conditional Uses, and suggested the Commission members might want to familiarize themselves with this section prior to March 16. VI. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE Mr. Merkel distributed the latest "South Santa Fe Drive Corridor Improvements Study" from EDAW, dated February 12, 1993 to members of the Commission. Mr. Merkel stated that this is an effort of the cities of Englewood, Sheridan , and Littleton to work with the State Highway Department to assure an aesthetically pleasing improvement in the Santa Fe corridor. The timing of the improvements on Santa Fe were discussed , and Mr. Covens directed the attei:ition of members to pages 27, 28, and 29 of the report for special attention on the signage, lighting, etc. that has been proposed along the corridor. VII. PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S CHOICE. The agenda for the March 2 meeting was discussed. Mr. Covens suggested that the Com- mission not meet at 6:00 P.M., but begin the regular meeting at 7:00 P.M. with the update on Economic Development , and Mr. Brotzman to be available for the study/training session at approximately 8:00 P.M.. If there is time following this discussion, he suggested further discussion on the proposed Ordinance amendments. The meeting will be in Conference Room A. The meeting was declared adjourned at 9: 10 P.M. Recording Secretary 6