Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1974-05-28 PZC MINUTESI' • • • CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION May 28, 1974 STUDY SESSION The Englewood Planning and Zoning Commission met in study session at 7:40 P.M. Members present: Brown; And~rson; Jorgenson; Wade; Martin Members absent: Lentsch; Smith; Weist; Tanguma Also present: Assistant City Attorney Lee; Assistant Director Romans The purpose of the study session was to review the proposed Mobile Home-Travel Trailer Park Planned Development District. Mrs. Romans reviewed the proposed ordinance, pointing out areas of change, addition, etc. Mrs. Romans noted that a minimum area of 8 acres has been proposed for both the Mobile Home Park or Travel Trailer Park. Mr. Lentsch entered and took his place with the Commission. Mrs. Romans noted that the proposed Ordinance would be a separate zone district, requiring a development plan, and would be applied to land only upon the owner's specific application. This zone district would permit only the mobile home park or travel trailerpark. Mrs. Romans pointed out that previously, mobile home parks were a "Conditicnal Use" in the I-1, Light Industrial, Zone District. With the recent amend- ment of the I-1 Zone District, mobile home parks were eliminated as a permitted or Conditional Use in that zone district. Be- cause of this action, there is no prov1s1on for mobile home parks in the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance at this time. Mrs. Romans pointed out that under this proposed ordinance, the distinction between a mobile home and a travel trailer is based primarily on length of occupancyo Mrs. Romans stated that travel trailer occupancy would be limited to 90 consecutive days; anything over 90 consecutive days would be termed permanent occupancy. Mrs. Romans again pointed out that the minimum area for a mobile home or travel trailer park would be 8 acres, with a maximum of 8 units per acre in a mobile home park, and a maximum of 16 units per acre in a travel trailer park. A mobile home must be parked in a mobile home park before it may be occupied. A minimum of 8% of the gross land area must be devoted to recreational purposes • • • • Mrs. Romans pointed out that the present mobile home ordinance requires a monthly inspection of each unit, at a fee of $1 per unit. The proposed ordinance suggests an annual inspection rather than the monthly inspection. Mr. Tanguma entered and took his place with the Commission. Mrs. Romans stated that a "development plan" would be required under the proposed ordinance for each new mobile home or travel trailer park development. Mrs. Romans cited several publications which were used as the basis for the proposed Mobile Home -Travel Trailer Park Planned Development District, which are: 1. Local Regulation of Mobile Home Parks, Travel Trailer Parks and Related Facilities; Mobile Home Manufacturers Association. 2. Mobile Home Park Development Standards; A HUD Guide, November, 1970. 3. Regulation of Modular Housing, with Special Emphasis on Mobile Homes; Report No. 271, Planning Advisory Service, American Society of Planning Officials. - 4. Against the Wind; State Farm Fire and Casualty Insurance Company . Mrs. Romans suggested that §j(3) be changed; this section refers to the minimum distance between mobile homes. Discussion followed. Mr. Lentsch asked if there were to be requirements on the type of skirting that would be ·permitted? Mrs. Romans stated that the skirting would have to be of a type that would not be a fire hazard, and would have to be vented for air circulation. Mr. Lentsch asked what type of material? Mrs. Romans stated the staff would check into more detailed standards for skirting. Mrs. Romans reviewed the "Mobile Home Wind Security" section, which section requires overhead and frame ties to be installed. Discussion followed. Mr. Anderson asked if it was necessary to have both overhead and frame ties? Mrs. Romans stated it would depend on the length of the unit . • • • Mr. Tanguma questioned whether the cost of the tie-downs was justified inasmuch as "there hasn't been any units in the metro area damaged by wind". Mrs. Romans pointed out that it is the intent of this provision to "preclude damage by wind." Mr. Tanguma stated that he didn't know of any units in the metro area that had been damaged since he had lived here. Mrs. Romans stated that off-street parking will be required: 2-1/2 spaces per unit for a mobile home park; 1-1/2 spaces per unit for a travel trailer park. Mrs. Romans reviewed other aspects of the proposed ordinance including lighting, water facilities, refuse disposal, etc. She pointed out that the proposed ordinance requires that all power and service lines to the individual be underground. Mrs. Romans noted that the storage space provisions of 100 cubic feet exceeds the HUD requirement of 90 cubic feet. Mrs. Romans displayed a mobile home park and a travel trailer park layout which was drawn by Mrs. Young of the Planning staff. Mrs. Romans stated that as the plan is drawn, it depicts the "minimum" or "maximum" requirements as set forth in the ordinance. In developing the plans, Mrs. Young determined that the re- quirements of the proposed ordinance are not excessive. Mr. Martin commended Mrs. Romans for the work she has put in on the proposed ordinance; he stated that it was clear a lot of study and research went into the drafting of the proposal. Mr.Brown asked if there were any way owners could restrict the number of children who live in a mobile home park? Mr. Lee referred to requirements in the housing code of square footage per person; he stated the same requirements would apply to a mobile home unit as to a single-family dwelling. Mr. Lee stated that the owner could say he doesn't want to rent to families with children. Mr. Lentsch asked if more than 8% open space could be required? Mr. Lentsch then asked if there were restrictions on swimming pools, in the event some park owner might want a swimming pool? Mrs. Romans stated that swimming pool restrictions are contained in the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Anderson asked if this zone district could be applied to property in the middle of an industrial area? Mrs. Romans stated that the intent of the ordinance is that a mobile home park would be in a residential atmosphere; the travel trailer park would have access to major highway • • • • Mr. Lee stated that the idea was to create a separate zone district with the mobile home park and travel trailer park as the sole uses. They must be brought in as a planned development, and it must be on the application of the property owner. Discussion followed. Page 2, b, was amended to read ••.•• altered, enlarged or maintained within this District unless othe rwise .•••. The screening provisions were discussed. Mr. Lentsch pointed out that shrubbery isn't always maintained in a growing con- dition, and can be very unsightly. He suggested that a wall or fencing be permitted rather than requiring the shrubbery. Discussion followed. Page 11, p(l), was considered. This section was reworded to read ••••. "travel trailer spaces to streets; all other con- crete walkways shall be at least 30" wide." The matter of wind security was again discussed. Mr. Tanguma stated he wanted to know more information on any damage that might have been done to mobile homes in the metro area by wind storms; he wanted information on insurance rates if tie- downs were used, etc. Discussion followed. Page 10 (3), was amended to read ••..• "of 28 feet for one-way streets, 38 feet for two-way streets, •..•• " . The matter of fire extinguishers was discussed. Mr. Anderson questioned whether it was practical to have fire extinguishers located throughout the park due to theft and vandalism. Dis- cussion followed. Mr. Anderson discussed the provision that all metal trailer bodies shall be grounded. Discussion followed. Mrs. Romans stated that the staff would check this provision further. Mr. Tanguma referred to page 17(b), which refers to develop- ment of an independent water supply. Discussion followed. The staff is to check this provision further. Mr. Tanguma asked if Page 27, jj(l), was legal? Mr. Lee stated that this provision was not illegal; the City has the power to make inspections of private or public property now; he stated that it makes no difference if it's a single-family residence or a mobile home. This provision is based on the health, safety and police power of a jurisdiction. If the property owner refuses access to the inspector, a court order can be obtained allowing the inspection. Further discussion followed. Mr. Brown asked what the timing on the ordinance approval was? Mrs. Romans stated that it would probably be another 90 -120 days before approval could be finalized. • • • Further discussion on the proposed ordinance ensued. Mr. Lentsch asked how much rental per space most of the courts were charging? Mrs. Romans stated that it varied, but that a mobile home park such as the Wolhurst Park would charge as much as $190 -$200 per space. Mr. Lentsch stated that in LaHabra, California, mobile home parks were mixed in with the residential uses, and they have some very nice mobile home parks. Mr. Lentsch stated that he had several persons call him in reference to the development on the KLZ Site. He asked if it would be possible to have a representative from Larwin present at the next meeting to discuss the development. Mr. Martin agreed that it was a good suggestion, and asked the staff to make the contact with Larwin. Mr. Martin referred to action of the Commission on May 7, 1974, at which time a request by Mrs. Margaret A. Bussard for a use not mentioned was granted. The use in question is a damage- appraisal type business. Mr. Martin stated he was interested in what the Code Enforcement department was doing to control the business in relation to the length of time automobiles are on the lot. Discussion followed. Mr. Martin stated that he felt the keeping of a log or record of the cars should be a requirement of the Commission. Further discussion followed. Mr. Martin asked for a report from the Code Enforcement Office on the type of records Mr. Dendorfer keeps for his damage-appraisal business. Mr. Martin reminded members of the meeting with other Planning Cbmmission members from Arapahoe County jurisdictions on May 30th. The study session adjourned at 9:50 P.M .