Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-11-15 PZC MINUTESCITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION November 15, 1983 I. CALL TO ORDER. The Special Meeting of the Englewood Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:00 P. M. by Chairman Marjorie Becker. Members present: Tanguma, Venard, Allen, Barbre, Becker, Carson, McBrayer, Stoel Romans, Ex-officio Members absent: None Also present: Senior Planner Susan King Board of Adjustment Members Seymour and Ferguson II. COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS §22.4-2, R-1-A Residence District CASE 1119-83 Mrs. Becker asked that the staff give a general background leading to the amendments to the R-1-A, R-1-B, R-1-C, R-2, and R-2-C Zone Districts which are under consideration at this time. Mrs. Romans stated that since the present Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance was adopted in 1963, there have been several amendments to the Ordinance, and in the last twenty years, much has occurred to warrant further re- visions of the regulations. Mrs. Romans stated that the staff has deter- mined that when working with the ordinance on a day-to-day basis, the "intent" is read into the provisions, which intent may not be clear to someone who does not work that closely with the Ordinance. The last twenty years has seen many changes in life styles, rendering some of the provisions impractical, and the Board of Adjustment and Appeals has had to consider many variances for such things as a zero side yard setback to accommodate the construction of attached single-family housing. It is the opinion of the staff that the ordinance should not be administered through the granting of variances. Mrs. Romans stated that the staff re- viewed the cases of the Board of Adjustment and Appeals for the last three years; where there were a number of "repeat" requests for variances, the staff considered whether the provisions of the ordinance should be amended. The issue of Home Occupations was addressed. Home occupations are not now permitted in the R-1-A District, and the regulations governing home occupations are not clearly defined. Mrs. Romans stated that while there are many home occupations that are acceptable with very minimal guidelines, others need more stringent regulations. Mrs. Romans stated that the Board has been "inundated" with requests from developers who want to build single-family attached housing; this necessitates a variance for a zero sideyard from the Board of Adjust- ment. This is a new housing style that has developed in this area with- in the last twenty years, and the ordinance is being amended to reflect this change. -2- Mrs. Romans discussed a change in philosophy which will be reflected in the ordinance; the change being from "lot coverage" to "usable open space". Mrs. Romans noted that there have been numerous requests for encroachment into the front yard setback for porches and stoops; the front yard setback is proposed as 15 feet rather than the 25 feet that presently exists. Mrs. Romans stated that State law allows group homes for the developmentally disabled and elderly having up to eight persons, in all residential dis- tricts. The City Attorney has stated that the city does have to permit these facilities if they fall within the guidelines set forth by the State. Mrs. Romans discussed present and proposed provisions for vehicles in ex- cess o~ 3/4 ton carrying capacity. Shared housing is a new concept that is proposed to accommodate persons who cannot live entirely independently, but want some privacy in a home environment, as well as homeowners who are in need of financial assistance and can rent out a room to an in-law or other relative. The shared housing provisions would allow a small kitchenette so that there can be "independent" living at less expense for the renter than a typical apartment, and provide additional income for the homeowner. Mrs. Romans stated that in the single-family zone districts, the lot area, frontage and setbacks for religious, educational facilities and public facilities, which are identified as "other permitted principal uses" has been increased to a more realistic figure. Mrs. Romans stated that another problem that has faced the Board is the maximum height of garages; the present maximum height is 15 feet; how- ever, doors high enough to accommodate recreational vehicles cannot be constructed in garages with a 15 foot maximum height. The requests have been for an 18 foot height, and this has been proposed in the ordinance. Storage sheds are not addressed in the present ordinance. The proposed amendments do address the number and size of storage sheds allowed in residential districts. Mrs. Romans stated that this generally covers areas that have been changed in the proposed amendments. Senior Planner King is present, and the staff can give a full presentation relative to the proposed amendments with the slides, etc. if members of the audience or the Commission want to hear the complete presentation. Mrs. Becker asked to what Boards, Commissions, or other groups the pre- sentation on the proposed amendment has been made. Mrs. Romans stated that the presentation has been made to the Board of Adjustment and Appeals. Carson moved: Tanguma seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #19-83 be opened. AYES: NAYS: Allen, Barbre, Becker, Carson, McBrayer, Stoel, Tanguma, Venard None The motion carried. -3- Mrs. Becker stated that she would ask the staff to testify to publication of notification; inasmuch as the Commission and Board have both received the presentation of the amendments by the staff, the full presentation would not be required. Questions would be heard from Commission members, and from the audience regarding the proposed amendments. Mrs. Romans was sworn in, and testified that she is the Assistant Director of Community Development, and resides at 3600 South Bannock Street. Mrs. Romans stated that notice of the public hearing was published in the of- ficial City newspaper, the Englewood Sentinel, on October 26, 1983. Mrs. Romans clarified that Mr. Seymour, a member of the Board of Adjustment, received a copy of the proposed zone district amendments, but did not re- main for the staff presentation at the Board meeting. Mrs. Becker asked if members of the Commission had any questions on the R-1-A provisions as revised on 10/25/83, which is before the Commission at this Hearing. There were no questions from the Commission. Mrs. Becker then asked if members of the audience would like to address the Commission. Mr. Ken Ferguson was sworn in, and testified that he is a member of the Englewood Board of Adjustment and Appeals. He asked if he understood correctly that the regulations proposed in R-1-A District would continue throughout the remaining single-family districts; is it a "progressive" ordinance. Mr. Ferguson discussed his concern with the limitation of horsepower on electric motors used in home occupations. He noted that he has several electric motors that he uses for hobby purposes, and there are one or two more that he wants to get; he already has in excess of the horse- power total which is listed for home occupations. He estimated that the horsepower of the tools he has is 10 horsepower. Discussion ensued. Mr. Allen asked if Mr. Ferguson was asking for clarification of this provision, or an increase in the total amount of horsepower permitted. Mr. Ferguson stated that it was really up to the Commission, but sug- gested that it might be listed as one horsepower per unit, with no maximum total. He felt this might provide more control. Mr. Venard emphasized that this provision of the proposed amendments addresses a "home occupation", and not a hobby. He stated that he felt the intent is to limit the horsepower of large machinery, which create a lot of noise, and are used in home occupations. Mr. Ferguson stated that this provision will allow an individual with a hobby to have more total horsepower than someone with a home occupation could have. Mr. McBrayer asked if Mr. Ferguson is in favor of giving home occupations increased horsepower. Mr. Ferguson stated that he is in favor of more horsepower for home occupations. Mr. McBrayer stated that he would dis- agree with this suggestion. Mr. Ferguson stated that he felt people will be appealing to the Board for a variance to allow increased horse- power for home occupations. He stated that he felt they would acquire the tools and say they were only for hobby purposes, and then start a home occupation and use the tools in that way. Mr. Tanguma stated that the size of the tools and the total horsepower of those tools -4- would still apply in the home occupation. Mr. Ferguson stated that he felt it would be difficult to enforce the rules. Mr. Ferguson stated that his second concern is related to the shared dwelling units. He asked if this would be the same as a two-family dwelling unit; he also posed hypothetical situations wherein the "in- law" or relative may or may not want to continue living in the unit with the small kitchenette, or the homeowner may want to move but the relative doesn't, and one or the other of the units is rented to some- one not related to the homeowner. He stated that he felt this becomes a two-family dwelling unit. He asked if this was taken into considera- tion when the concept of "shared housing" was proposed. Mr. Ferguson urged that the regulations on the shared housing be very clear, because it will go back to the Board on variance requests if the intent is not clear. Mr. McBrayer asked what Mr. Ferguson was suggesting. Mr. Ferguson stated that he would not include shared housing in the single-family zone districts; he pointed out that if two separate type apartments are allowed, this is two-family housing, and it would be very difficult to ensure the relation of the occupants of the units. Mrs. Romans stated that the shared housing came about as a result of meetings with residents in Northwest Englewood. She suggested that perhaps the shared housing should not be allowed in the R-1-A Zone District. Mrs. Romans stated that the R-1-C Zone District does allow for one roomer or boarder, and felt that shared housing could be ad- dressed in that district. Another way to handle the problem would be to eliminate the allowance of a separate kitchenette, thus not actually creating a separate "apartment." Mr. McBrayer stated that in his work with construction throughout the area, and in consideration of "mother-in-law apartments", it is the provision of kitchen facilities that makes it a dwelling unit. He stated that he felt if the Commission wants to maintain the single~family zone districts, that the provision of separate kitchen facilit~as for the "in-law" units should be omitted. Mr. Ferguson stated that a third concern he has has not been addressed; this is the conversion of a single-family home into a two-family home or duplex with common heating facilities, water and sewer lines, etc. Mr. Ferguson stated that while this would not apply to the R-1-A Zone District, it would apply in zone districts allowing the Zero lot line; he feels the Board of Adjustment will get requests to divide single- family homes. Discussion ensued. Mr. Allen stated that he felt Mr. Ferguson's point regarding th_e inclusion of kitchenette facilities in shared housing is well taken, and would prefer to see the kitchenette omitted. Mrs. Becker asked Mr. Seymour if he had any comments he wanted to make. Mr. Don Seymour was sworn in. He stated that one of the first things he noticed was that while the front setback for the primary residential structure has been decreased from 25 feet to 15 feet, the setback for an attached garage is still listed as 25 feet; he felt this should be the setback as for the residence. -5- Members of the Commission agreed that this setback for an attached garage should be 15 feet to coincide with the front yard setback of the residence. Mr. Seymour stated that the Board has had requests for beauty shops and hairdressers as home occupations; he noted that they are specifically excluded, and asked what the objection is to including these occupations in the pennitted home occupations. Mrs. Romans stated that these oc- cupations have controls placed on them by the State, and some of the controls do not coincide with the regulations placed on home occupations through the Englewood Ordinance; for instance, the State requires a separate outside entrance, which is prohibited for home occupations in Englewood. Mr. Seymour stated that he had also questioned the matter of electrical motors and the size horsepower of those motors. Mr. Seymour stated that he felt on the whole, the proposed amendments would take care of a lot of the problems that come before the Board of Adjustment. Mrs. Becker asked if there were any persons present who wished to speak in opposition to the proposed amendments. No one spoke in opposition. Carson moved: Stoel seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #19-83 be closed. AYES: NAYS: Barbre, Becker, Carson, McBrayer, Stoel, Tanguma, Venard, Allen None The motion carried. Mrs. Becker suggested that the Commission consider Item K on Page 7 of the proposed R-1-A regulations; this section pertains to the horse- power of motors allowed under home occupations. Mrs. Becker stated that in her opinion, a home occupation could use the power tools from 8:00 A. M. until 6:00 P.M. or even longer hours, and that this should be somewhere other than in a residential zone district. Mr. McBrayer stated that in the R-1-A District he believed that it is the intent to restrict the use of loud and polluting equipment; in reference to home occupations, Mr. McBrayer pointed out that this is relating to the use of tools for profit and he strongly felt that the amount of horsepower should be limited. Mr. Allen stated that he would agree with Mr. McBrayer's opinion; he felt the restriction on the horsepower of the electrical motors would limit the use to that for hobby purposes. Mrs. Becker stated that it seemed to be the consensus of the Commission that there would be no changes in Section K, Page 7, and that the horse- power limitations would remain as suggested. Mrs. Becker stated that the Commission would next consider the matter of a kitchenette with the shared housing unit. Mr. McBrayer stated that he is in favor of eliminating the kitchenette, but allowing the shared housing otherwise. This was the consensus of the Commission: Page 8, §(D) would be eliminated. ,-6- Mrs. Becker asked if the Commission is in agreement that the setback on the attached garage should also be 15 feet. This meet with the agree- ment of the Commission. Mr. Tanguma questioned whether there was a need for the requirement that the accessory unit be subject to yearly registration if the allowed kitchenette is omitted from the shared housing provision. Mrs. Becker and Mr. McBrayer both indicated they felt there was a need for this provision, and that it could, in fact, be a help to the homeowner. McBrayer moved: Carson seconded: The Planning Commission recommend that the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance be amended by repealing the existing §22.4-2, and re-enacting a new §22.4-2 as amended on Page 5, (l)(B), and Page 8 (D). AYES: NAYS: Becker, Carson, McBrayer, Stoel, Tanguma, Venard, Allen, Barbre None The motion carried. IV. COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE §22.4-3 R-1-B Zone District Tanguma moved: CASE 1120-83 Stoel seconded: The Public Hearing on Case 1120-83 be opened. AYES: Carson, McBrayer, Stoel, Tanguma, Venard, Allen, Barbre, Becker NAYS: None The motion carried. Mrs. Romans appeared before the Commission, and testified that the notice of the Public Hearing appeared in the Englewood Sentinel on Octob.er 26, 1983. Mrs. Romans stated that the proposed revision of this zone district has been reviewed with the Planning Commission and with the Board of Adjustment and Appeals. Mrs. Romans stated that she would try to answer any questions the Commission may have; she suggested that those amendments which were considered in the R-1-A Zone District, namely the deletion of the kitchenette from the shared living regula- tions, and the change in setback for attached garages, be incorporated in the R-1-B District. Mrs. Romans pointed out that the R-1-B Zone District is also a very restrictive single-family district. Mr. Tanguma questioned whether the maximum height on garages and carports should not be changed to the 18 feet as it was in the R-1-A Zone District. Mrs. Romans stated that this was correct; the 15 foot height limitation is in error. Mr. Seymour questioned the matter of storage sheds, and the 100 sq. ft. maximum size; he pointed out that his storage shed is 15' x 20', and he doesn't feel that this is any too large. Mr. Venard asked if Mr. Seymour got a variance to put up this storage shed. Mr. Seymour stated that he did not; he got the permits with no -7- problem. Mrs. Romans pointed out that under the current regulations there is no maximum on the size or number of storage sheds that are permitted. The staff is suggesting the maximum size of 100 sq. ft. and one per residential lot because of complaints that have been re- ceived from neighbors of persons who have more than one storage shed or large sheds. Mr. McBrayer stated that he believed a 10' x 10' storage shed was of ample size. Mr. Allen stated that he would like to stay with the 100 sq. ft. maximum size; he pointed out that the standard size of sheds from Sears or Wards is 8' x 12', and that anything larger than this size becomes very noticeable. Mr. Seymour referred to the required usable open space of 30%; does this mean that a resident could cover 70% of the lot with structure. Mrs. Romans stated that the proposed regulations would eliminate the maximum lot coverage, and institute the minimum usable open space re- quirement of 30 %. Mr. Ferguson stated that he had also wondered about the 100 sq. ft. storage shed; he felt that the Commission is leaving the Board open for appeals because a storage shed is not described. Mr. Ferguson presented another hypothetical situation wherein a property owner might construct a storage shed right next to the garage, and have the storage shed on the property line; then, after the construction was completed and the inspections were done, the property owner could remove the common wall and have one large · garage on the property line. Mr. McBrayer pointed out that it would not be legal to tear out a structural-bearing wall. Mr. Ferguson asked for an explanation on the difference between a garage and a storage shed. He stated that he is of the opinion the only reason a garage is so termed is that a vehicle is parked in it; he noted that vehicles could also be parked in some storage sheds. Mr. Stoel stated that the Commission studied the matter of storage sheds very seriously, and that his concern was the location of the storage sheds. He stated that information from the Fire Department brought up the fire wall requirement if the shed were to be placed on the property line. Mr. Stoel stated that if a garage were to be constructed on the prop- erty line, he felt the Fire Department would require a fire wall on that structure, also. Mr. McBrayer stated that he thinks the intent of the Commission and the proposed ordinance revision is very clear; he noted that we are in the "real world" trying to address the matter of a 10 .' x 10' storage shed. He did not see any problem with the maximum size of such a storage shed, and that a storage shed of that size should not be offensive to neighbors. He is of the opinion that the setback requirements for storage sheds are suitable. Mr. Venard pointed out that normally storage sheds are detached structures, and that possibly this distinction should be made. Discussion ensued. Mrs. Becker stated that she interprets the opinion of the Commission to be that the ordinance as proposed is specific enough and says what the -8- Commission wants it to say regarding storage sheds: a maximum of one, and a maximum of 100 sq. ft. in size. Mr. McBrayer stated that if a storage shed is attached to another building, he would say that it becomes part of the building proper, and is no longer a storage shed. Mr. Ferguson asked if this was correct. Mrs. Romans stated that she felt the Commission interpretation was correct. Mr. Venard noted that as long as the storage shed is under 100 sq. ft., there is no need for a building permit; anything larger requires permits and specific guidelines on the flooring and construction of the shed. He stated that he feels the Commission is correct in the requirements on the storage sheds. Mr. Seymour stated that the difference between a storage shed and a garage has not been answered. Mr. Seymour reiterated that he had gotten a building permit for his storage shed. Mr. Stoel stated that the storage sheds are being addressed because there are no standards governing placement or size of such sheds in the present ordinance. Mr. McBrayer stated that a property owner could build a structure of 1,000 square feet and call it a garage; any other structure would have to be designated something else or called an accessory building; prop- erty owners would be allowed one garage per residential unit. Further discussion ensued. Mrs. Becker asked if there were any persons present who wished to speak in opposit ion to the proposed amendments. No one spoke in opposition. Carson moved: Tanguma seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #20-83 be closed. AYES: McBrayer, Stoel, Tanguma, Venard, Allen, Barbre, Becker, Carson NAYS: None The motion carried. Tanguma moved: McBrayer seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council that the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance be amended by repealing the existing §22.4-3, R-1-B Zone Dis- trict, and enacting a new §22.4-3, R-1-B Zone Dis- trict, with the amendments suggested on Page 6, (l)(A) and (B), and on Page 9, (4)(D) incorporated. AYES: NAYS: Stoel, Tanguma, Venard, Allen, Barbre, Becker, Carson, McBrayer None The motion carried. IV. COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE §22 .4-4 R-1-C Zone District CASE #21-83 -9- Carson moved: McBrayer seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #21-83 be opened. AYES: NAYS: Tanguma, Venard, Allen, Barbre, Becker, Carson, McBrayer, Stoel None The motion carried. Mrs. Romans testified that notice of the Public Hearing was published in the Englewood Sentinel on October 26, 1983, Again, the revisions to this zone district have been reviewed previously with the Planning Commission and the Board of Adjustment, but the staff would answer any questions the Commission may have. Mrs. Becker asked if the Commission wanted to eliminate §(S)(D) in the R-1-C District; this provision pertains to the kitchenette in shared housing. Mr. McBrayer suggested that it be left in. He stated that it might be well to leave the provision in the R-1-C District, pointing out that this is an area of older, smaller homes that may be occupied by older people who may be in need of the additional income they could realize by having shared housing. He noted that there are a lot of units in the R-1-C District that already have "basement apartments". Mr. McBrayer pointed out that it is a different "environment" in the R-1-C District from that in the R-1-A and R-1-B Districts, and felt that there may be a strong need for the "in-law apartment" in the R-1-C. Mr. Barbre pointed out that there is a provision stipulating the number of people that may live in the accessory unit. Discussion ensued. Mr. Tanguma pointed out that a number of families have married children living with them. Mr. Allen stated that he did not see anything wrong with permitting shared housing in the R-1-C, and pointed out that housing is very expensive. The number of persons living in the shared housing accessory unit was discussed. The requirement of residents of the accessory unit to be related by blood, marriage or adoption to the residents of the primary dwelling was also considered. Mr. Allen asked the present enforcement means on illegal apartments in the R-1-C District; how is it determined whether there is an apartment or not. Mrs. Romans stated that the staff uses the existence of a second kitchen to determine whether an apartment is in existence. The R-1-C does allow one non-transient roomer or boarder at the present time, but there can be no separate kitchen facilities. Mr. Venard asked what the provision in (S)(A) meant: that there shall be at least one party wall and a common roof. Mrs. Romans stated that this was to prevent the conversion of a garage with a "breezeway" at- taching the two units, and that the intent is that the shared unit be part of the principal dwelling. Mr. Venard stated that it seemed discriminatory to allow the shared housing with a kitchenette in the R-1-C and not in the R-1-A and R-1-B. Mr. McBrayer discussed the progression of the zone districts, and stated -10- that this is the reason for zone boundaries. The R-1-A is most restrictive of the single-family districts, and the R-1-C is the least restrictive of the single-family districts. Mr. Stoel asked if the staff had a lot of complaints on apartments in the R-1-C. Mrs. Romans stated that there are complaints. She pointed out that the allowance of a shared housing unit may make the difference to an elderly person being able to stay in their own home, or having to make other living arrangements. Mr. Stoel asked if someone wanted to add a second summer kitchen would they be in violation. Mrs. Romans stated under the present ordinance they would be in violation. Mrs. Becker stated that she felt from the discussion that the concern in the R-1-C Zone District is not so much the matter of the second kitchen, but the number of persons that might be allowed to live in the accessory unit. Mrs. Romans suggested that (5)(B) be reworded to state: UNLESS RELATED BY BLOOD, MARRIAGE, OR ADOPTION TO THE OCCUPANTS OF THE PRIMARY RESIDENCE, THERE SHALL BE NO MORE THAN ONE PERSON OCCUPYING THE ACCESSORY UNIT. Mr. Stoel stated that Englewood has the most "in-law" apartments of any small city in the area. Mrs. Romans stated that many of these apart- ments were started during World War II, when sharing housing with military families was encouraged. Mrs. Romans discussed the provision for construction on an undersized lot. Mr. McBrayer stated that people wanting to build on lots smaller than 37 foot frontage could still appeal to the Board of Adjustment. Mr. Tanguma asked why the same terminology on the number of persons living in the accessory unit should not be added to the provision in the R-1-A and R-1-B Zone Districts. Mrs. Becker stated that this pro- vision wo1,1ld .. not preclude more than one resident of the accessory unit, but would make those property owners apply to the Board of Ad- justment for a variance. Mr. McBrayer stated that he felt people who buy land in the R-1-A or R-1-B Zone District are looking for a lower density than found in the R-1-C, and that this provision is proper in the R-1-C Zone District. Mr. Ferguson noted that the provision requiring a connnon wall for the accessory unit would allow the conversion of an attached garage to the accessory unit. Why the restriction against conversion of a detached garage to a living unit. Mrs. Romans stated that the Ordinance does state and is proposed to state that two units must be under one roof; this has been a provision of the Zoning Ordinance in the R-2 Districts since 1955, and she didn't recall that many requests to convert detached garages to living units, although it is done illegally on occasion. In the case of the shared housing, it is the intent that the unit be integrated with the principal unit. Mr. Ferguson stated that he felt the term "relative" must be defined in the shared housing; does this mean that two individuals living in the accessory unit must be related by blood, marriage, or adoption to each other, or must they be related by blood, marriage or adoption to the residents of the primary unit. He stated that he felt the wording must be very clear on this. I ' -11- Mrs. Romans read the proposed wording: UNLESS RELATED BY BLOOD, MARRIAGE OR ADOPTION TO THE OCCUPANTS OF THE PRIMARY DWELLING UNIT, THERE SHALL BE NO MORE THAN ONE PERSON OCCUPYING THE ACCESSORY UNIT. Mr. Ferguson stated that by allowing the shared housing in the R-1-C, the units would be smaller because of the smaller building area. Carson moved: Stoel seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #21-83 be closed. AYES: NAYS: Venard, Allen, Barbre, Becker, Carson, McBrayer, Stoel, Tanguma None The motion carried. Carson moved: Stoel seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council that AYES: NAYS: the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance be amended by repealing the existing §22.4-4, R-1-C Zone District, and enacting a new §22.4-4, R-1-C Zone District, with the amendment on Page 6, (l)(B), and on Page 9, (5)(B) incorporated. Allen, Barbre, Becker, Carson, McBrayer, Stoel, Tanguma, Venard None The motion carried. V. COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE §22.4-5, R-2 Medium Density District Carson moved: CASE #22-83 Stoel seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #22-83 be opened. AYES: NAYS: Barbre, Becker, Carson, McBrayer, Stoel, Tanguma, Venard, Allen None The motion carried. Mrs. Romans stated that the notice for the Public Hearing appeared on October 26, 1983 in the Englewood Sentinel. Mrs. Romans stated that the staff would answer any questions the Commission might have, pointing out that this proposed revision had also been reviewed previously with members of the Commission and the Board of Adjustment. Mrs. Becker asked if there questions from the Commission. Upon hearing no questions from the Commission, Mrs. Becker asked Mr. Seymour and Mr. Ferguson if they had comments they wished to make on this zone district. Both gentlemen stated that they had no comments to make on the R-2 amendments. Mrs. Becker asked if there were any persons present who wished to speak in opposition to the proposed amendments. No one spoke in opposition. -12- Carson moved: Venard seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #22-83 be closed. AYES: NAYS: Becker, Carson, McBrayer, Stoel, Tanguma, Venard, Allen, Barbre None The motion carried. Stoel moved: Barbre seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council that the Zoning Ordinance be amended by repealing the existing §22.4-5, R-2, Medium Density Residence District, and enacting a new §22.4-5, R-2 Medium Density Residence District, incorporating the amend- ment on Page 5(l)(B). AYES: NAYS: Carson, McBrayer, Stoel, Tanguma, Venard, Allen, Barbre, Becker None The motion carried. VI. COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE CASE ff23-83 §22.4-6 R-2-C Medium Density Residence Carson moved: Allen seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #23-83 be opened. AYES: McBrayer, Stoel, Tanguma, Venard, Allen, Barbre, Becker, Carson NAYS: None The motion carried. Mrs. Romans stated that the notice of the Public Hearing was published in the Englewood Sentinel on October 26, 1983. The revisions to this Zone District have been reviewed with members of the Commission and Board of Adjustment and Appeals previously; the staff will answer questions of the Commission. Mrs. Becker asked if there were any questions from members of the Com- mission or from the members of the Board of Adjustment in the audience. No questions were asked by the Commission members or the persons in the audience. Mrs. Becker asked if there were any persons present who wished to speak in opposition to the proposed amendments. No one spoke in opposition. McBrayer moved: Stoel seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #23-83 be closed. AYES: NAYS: Stoel, Tanguma, Venard, Allen, Barbre, Becker, Carson, McBrayer None The motion carried. ' I .. • Tanguma moved: Stoel seconded: -13- The Planning Colill!lission recolill!lend to City Council that the Zoning Ordinance be amended by redesignating §22.4-6, R-3 High Density Residence District as §22.4-8; by repealing §22.4-7 R-2-C Medium Density Residence District and enacting a new §22.4-6 R-2-C Medium Density District with the amendments on Page S(l)(B) incorporated. AYES: NAYS: Tanguma, Venard, Allen, Barbre, Becker, Carson, McBrayer, Stoel None The motion carried. VII. PUBLIC FORUM. Mrs. Becker asked members of the audience if there was anything else they wished to discuss with the Commission. Mr. Seymour stated that he had nothing further to discuss. VIII. ATTORNEY'S CHOICE. No one was present representing the City Attorney's Office. IX. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE. Mrs. Romans stated that the next regular meeting of the Commission is November 22nd; there is nothing on the agenda for that meeting at this time, and Mrs. Romans noted the closeness of this date to the Thanksgiving Holiday. She asked the pleasure of the Colillllission whether they wanted to meet on that date. Mrs. Becker stated that she saw no reason to meet on November 22nd; the next regular meeting following November 22nd would be December 6th. Mrs. Romans stated that there is nothing formal on the agenda for the meeting on December 6th at this time. She stated that if the Commission so desired, they could go through the R-3, R-4, R-2 SPS, B-1 and B-2 Zone District revisions at that meeting, and these revisions could hopefully be considered at a public hearing in January. Mrs. Romans noted that the second meeting in December will have to be moved to Wednesday, December 21st. Again, there is nothing on the agenda for this meeting, and it is very close to the Holiday season. Mrs. Becker suggested that if it is necessary to have a second meeting of the Commission in December that it be scheduled for December 13th. X. COMMISSION'S CHOICE. Mr. Allen discussed his experiences as a soldier in World War II trying to find housing for himself, his wife and one small child, which make him aware of the necessities for the type of units that were considered in the single-family zone districts. The meeting adjourned at ~