Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1976-07-07 PZC MINUTESCITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION July 7, 1976 I. CALL TO ORDER. The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:05 p.m. by Chairman Tanguma. Members present: Jones, Jorgenson, Parker, D. Smith, Tanguma, Wade, Williams Romans, Ex-officio Members absent: Pierson, E. Smith Also present: Intern Alice Fessenden Assistant City Attorney DeWitt II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. Chairman Tanguma stated that Minutes of June 22, 197 6, were to be considered for approval. Wade moved: Jorgenson seconded: The Minutes of June 22, 1976, be approved as written. AYES: Wade, Williams, Jorgenson, Parker, D. Smith, Tanguma NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Jones ABSENT: Pierson, E. Smith The motion carried . III. MOBILE HOME PARK PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT Proposed Ordinance -Third Draft Mrs. Romans cited documents that she has used in the preparation of the proposed ordinance; among these documents are: 1. MINIMUM PROPERTY REQUIREMENTS FOR MOBILE HOME COURTS; FHA, December 1961. 2. REGULATION OF MODULAR HOUSING, WITH SPECIAL EMPHASIS ON MOBILE HOMES; ASPO-PAS, 1971. 3. LOCAL REGULATION OF MOBILE HOME PARKS, TRA VEL TRAILER PARKS AND RELATED FACILITIES; Mobile Homes Manufacturers Association. 4. MOBILE HOME PARKS, PART 2; ULI. 5. MOBILE HOME PARKS, PART 1; ULI. 6. AGAINST THE WIND; State Farm Insurance. -2- 7. FLASH FACTS ON MOBILE, SECTIONAL AND MODULAR HOMES; Mobile Homes Manufacturers Association. 8. MOBILE HOMES, MARKETING CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR MOBILE HOME PARKS; Market Profiles. 9. STANDARD FOR MOBILE HOMES; Mobile Homes Manufacturers Association. 10. MOBILE HOME PARKS REGULATIONS; City of Englewood, 1958. Mrs. Romans stated that the Commission is now considering the third draft of the proposed ordinance. Mr. Tanguma questioned Page 3, (3). Mrs. Romans stated that in previous discussions, the Commission seemed to want to permit the sale of the unit by the owner, but not require that the unit stay on that particular lot, as is implied by the wording: " ..... but this limitation is not intended to prohibit the sale of a mobile home on the lot it is intended to occupy." Discussion ensued. Don Williams asked if the intent is not to get away from sales by professional salesmen rather than sales by the individual? Mr. DeWitt stated that he understood that to be the intent. Mr. Tanguma asked about the owner who had an agent sell the unit for him? Don Smith stated that he felt that would be permissible; the intent is not to restrict the owner from selling the mobile home, nor to place restrictions on who sells it for him. Ed Smith entered and took his place with the Commission. Dis- cussion ensued. Don Smith suggested that the last phrase of Y(3) Page 3, be amended to read: " ... but this limitation is not intended to prohibit the sale of a mobile home by the owner on the lot it currently occupies." Mr. Williams asked if a mobile home park owner would have to have a license to buy and sell more than two mobile homes? Discussion ensued. Mr. Jones stated that he felt a mobile home was more like a registered vehicle than a single-family home. If the mobile home park owner wanted to move it to another site, within the park, this should not be restricted. Ed Smith noted that some businesses make a practice of fore- closing on mobile homes, and reselling them on the site. The sale could not be stopped if there is a qualified buyer and a qualified seller. Mr. DeWitt asked what is wrong with the development where the owner is selling the units on a turn-over basis; if the owner has an agreement with the park manager for sale of the unit, the manager can act as the broker. Mrs. Romans pointed out that the purpose of this proposed ordinance is to provide for residential use, not a sales lot. Ed Smith stated he felt that, economically, no one would use an eight-acre mobile home park for a mobile home sales lot. J -3- Mrs. Wade pointed out that in a way, the mobile home sales/park developers have been put into business; back a number of years ago, if someone purchased a mobile home, they could not find any place to park the unit; the dealers have since set up their own mobile home parks, and it is to their advantage to keep it a good business. Further discussion ensued. Mr. DeWitt discussed the wordi~g proposed by Don Smith and by Ed Smith, and suggested: " ..••. but this limitation does not prohibit the sale of a mobile home from the lot it occupies." Ed Smith moved: Wade seconded: Page 3, Y(3) be amended to read: Restriction on Sales Lot. No sales lot for mobile homes or other movable dwellings or component modulars shall be permitted in this District; BUT THIS LIMITATION DOES NOT PROHIBIT THE SALE OF A MOBILE HOME FROM THE LOT IT OCCUP IES. AYES: Tanguma, Wade, Williams, Jones, Jorgenson, Parker, Don Smith, Ed Smith NAYS: None ABSENT: Pierson The motion carried. Page 6a, Maximum Lot Coverage, was then discussed at length. Mrs. Romans noted there is no minimum lot size given; a large mobile home may be placed on a lot provided the maximum per- centage of lot coverage, livability space, and dwelling unit exposure requirements are met. Mrs. Romans stated if the lot coverage is increased above the 35% maximum, the patio cover and carport must be counted toward the lot coverage. Mr. Williams asked if these provisions apply to modular homes? Mrs. Romans stated they would in a Mobile Home Park. Don Smith inquired about a 40' x 60' unit; he stated this was a standard double wide unit, and he didn't feel it could be parked on a lot and not exceed the 35% lot coverage. Mr. DeWitt stated that a 28' x 60' is the maximum double wide; 14 ft. is the maximum width you can have on the road; 12 ft. is the standard width. Mr. Williams noted that anything in excess of 11.5 ft. width must have a special permit to travel on the highways. Mrs. Romans again pointed out there is no minimum or maximum lot size. Don Smith acknowledged that a 28' x 60' unit would meet the 35% lot coverage restrictions; he did not feel a 40' x 60' unit should be restricted because of lot coverage. Page 19, Screening provisions, were considered. Mrs. Romans stated that the intent of this provision is to protect the occupa nts of the mobile home park from any adverse surroundings. -4- Screening would be required along street sides in an effort to reduce noise pollution for the residents of the Park. Don Smith asked if the screening provisions would require developers to put in fencing rather than plantings for the screening? Mr s . Romans pointed out that one problem with plantings, is tha t n o one bothers to maintain them, and they then serve no screening purpose and become a visual problem. Continuing, Mrs. Romans noted that not less than 8% of the mobile home park area must be devoted to children's play and adult recreation areas. Mrs. Romans stated that the owner of a mobile home park in Sheridan had reviewed the proposed regulations, and had made some of the suggestions that are contained within this draft, such as the minimum eight acre mobile home park size. Dis- cussion ensued. Page 26, Ybb(l) was discussed. Don Smith asked if these pro- visions were realistic --requiring a "fly-tight, water-tight , rodent-proof container". Mrs. Romans stated that she felt the requirements were realistic. Mr. DeWitt questioned that there is a "fly-tight" container? Discussion ensued. Ed Smith pointed out that there must be lids on trash containers. Parking of mobile homes was then discussed. Ed Smith asked how this provision applied to motor homes such as Winnebagos? Mrs. Romans stated that they are classified as recreational vehicles rather than mobile homes. Building permits are required for development of mobile home parks, or any alterations, improvements, etc. Certificates of Occupancy are required prior to occupanc y, maintenance, or operation of a Mobile Home Park; page 3la, §hh, Y(3), notes that "it shall be unlawful to permit any person to occupy any mobile home in any mobile home park within the corporate limits of the City of Englewood until such mobile home and all facilities therefore have been inspected and approved by the Code Enforcement Division and a Permit to occupy the unit has been issued." This provision was discussed at length. Commission members were concerned that a family might be in violation of the provision or would be denied liv ing quarters if a unit was moved in late on a Friday, and could not be inspected until the following Monday. Ed S mith questio n e d who would be liable in the event a unit was occupied prio r to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy? Mrs. Romans point ed out that a mobile home park owner will know in advance o f any units that are to be moved in, and would have time to n o tify the Code Enforcement Division of the expected date and time of arrival. Ed Smith suggested that possibly the provision s hould be worded that the Certificate of Occupancy must be i ssue d within three to five d a ys after the unit is moved in a n d hooked up. Mrs. Romans stated that she did not feel this provision as presently worded would be a problem; if the mobil e home park -5- owner and/or manager notifies the Code Enforcement Division a unit is to be moved in over the week-end, an inspector would be ~here to inspect the unit. Discussion ensued. Mr. DeWitt sta ted that this indicates an inspection and Certificate of Occu p a ncy must be issued every time a unit is moved. Mrs. Roma R3 pointed out that every time a single family house is built or moved, it must be inspected and a Certificate of Occupancy must be issued. Discussion followed. Don Smith stated that he was concerned that a family would be denied o ccupancy for a couple of days until a Certificate was issued. Ed Smith agreed that the time element is of concern. Mr. Tanguma pointed out that there is a lot of pre-planning that goes into the moving and location of a mobile home; it canno t be done in just one day. He stated that he felt the mobile home park owner will be responsible for notifying the Code Enforcement Division of expected move-ins. Mrs. Romans pointed out that the Inspectors had asked for this provision, and that she feels it should apply to all units. Mrs. Romans noted that the Code Enforcement Inspectors are working wi t h the tenants and owners of mobile home parks along South Santa Fe, and these are primarily old units. It was the intent of the provision that the units must meet all Code requirements prior to occupancy. Mr. DeWitt asked if there are standards set forth to determine whether or not a unit meets the Codes? Don Williams noted that the units have been inspected when manufactured, and will meet the codes. Discussion ensued. Mr. Tanguma stated that he felt the only problem with the provisions in §hhf (3) is that it does not cover new parks. Mrs. Romans agreed that this provision should be contained in §gg, also. Ed S~ith stated that the Inspectors should have standards to follow in the inspection o i the units, and that these standards should be set forth in the ordinance. Discussion on what these standards should cover ensued. Mrs. Romans stated she would ask the Code Enforcement Division for their suggestions on these standards. Don Smith suggested that on new parks, possibly the Certificate of Occupancy could be issued within 72 hours after installation of the unit. Mrs. Romans reiterated that she did not feel this provision is that much of a problem; the mobile home park owner will know in advance of any units that are coming in, and will have time to notify the Code Enforcement Division for an in- spection. The fact that existing mobile home parks do not meet the standards of the proposed mobile home park ordinance was dis- cussed. Mr. DeWitt stated that these mobile home parks could continue in operation even though they do not meet the proposed standards, in respect to minimum acreage, etc. They would, however, have to meet the health and safety standards. Page 32 was considered. Mrs. Romans stated that at the present time, monthly inspections are required, and a charge of $1/month per un it is levied. The proposal is to have an annual inspection ~equ ir ed, with the option of additional inspections as required. -6- Don Smith questioned whether the statement "The Inspector shall have the power to enter at a reasonable time, upon reasonable notice, any private or public property for the purpose of in- spection and investigating conditions relating to the enforce- ment of this section or any regulation which may be promulgated hereunder" was legally correct? Could the Inspectors enter upon private property? He noted that Inspectors have to get a warrant to get into a house if the owner does not allow the inspection. Mr. DeWitt stated that the same procedure would apply in this case. Mrs. Romans reviewed the definitions of words and phrases used in the text of the proposed ordinance. Don Smith suggested a definition of a Mobile Home Park Certificate of Occupancy and a Mobile Home Certificate of Occupancy should be included. Mr. Williams stated that he felt that was self-explanatory. He stated he felt the proposed ordinance is good, and is some- thing to work with. Mr. Jones stated that he did not feel there will be many new mobile home parks in Englewood. IV. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. Mrs. Romans noted that it has been suggested for some time that the Comprehensive Plan needs revision. This is a recorded document, and was approved in 1969. Mrs. Romans briefly re- viewed the sections of the Comprehensive Plan, which are the HISTORY AND CHARACTER, DRAINAGE PLAN, MASTER STREET PLAN, RECREATION PLAN, POPULATION AND LAND USE, CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT, PUBLIC FACILITIES, and A PLACE TO LIVE. Discussion followed. V. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE Mrs. Romans discussed the wrecking yards in Northwest Englewood, and the attempts to improve these yards. The Auto Wrecking and Junk Yard Ordinance was adopted in 1961 in an attempt to regulate this business. New Auto Wrecking Yards or Junk Yards were not permitted after 1963; the yards must be fenced and there can be no stacking above the height of the fence. Sanitary facilities must be provided; fire lanes must be open through the yards. Mrs. Romans noted that the auto wrecking yards that existed in Northwest Englewood have cleaned up a great deal. In the past, there has been a prohibition on extending the size of the auto wrecking/junk yards that applies to area, not to the number of cars contained within that yard. Some of the businesses are now under new ownership, and the owners now want to build offices and structures from which to make sales of the automotive parts stripped from the cars. Until now, it has been interpreted that this would be an expansion of the non-conforming use, and inquirers have been informed this is not permitted. The question is, do we want to keep the auto wrecking/junk yards as they are, or do we want to give them a chance to clean up and improve the operation? • • -7- Ed Smith stated that he felt any construction must increase compliance with the Ordinance. Mrs. Wade felt it might make it look like a more desirable business rather than a junk yard. Mrs. Romans noted that she has talked to at least four operators who want to up-grade their businesses. Mrs. Wade noted there are facilities available now to crush the cars, and if they stored the useable parts inside a building, this would clean up the operation. Ed Smith noted that a commercial enterprise is an accepted use in the industrial area. Mr. Tanguma stated he felt there is more benefit in letting the owners improve and upgrade the business than in letting it remain as it is. Brief discussion ensued. Mrs. Romans read a letter from Mayor Taylor inviting members of the Commission to the public hearing July 12th on the five - year Capital Improvement Program. The meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. Gertrude G. Welty Recording Secretary