Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-12-14 PZC MINUTESf .. • CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION DECEMBER 14, 1982 I. CALL TO ORDER. The special meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:00 P. M. by Chairman McBrayer. Members present: Becker, Gilchrist, McBrayer, Stoel, Tanguma, Allen Romans, Ex-officio Members absent: Barbre, Carson, Senti Also present: Assistant City Attorney Thomas V. Holland Susan King, Senior Planner Harold Stitt, Planner I Larry Yenglin, Planner I II. COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS R-1-A, Single-family Residence R-1-B, Single-family Residence R-1-C, Single-family Residence CASE /122-82 Mr. McBrayer asked if the staff wished to make a presentation? Mrs. Romans stated that there would be a presentation followed by discussion of the in- dividual districts. Mr ,s. Romans noted that one of the goals of the Planning Commission has been the amendment of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, and that the staff has been spending several mornings each month in a "retreat" to work on the amendments. Mrs. Romans stated that the staff has gone through each of the zone district classifications, and is now concentrating on revision of the Supplementary Regulations. Mrs. Romans noted that in- dividuals who work with the Ordinance have been asked to identify areas where there is difficulty in interpreatation, conflict in regualtions, unclear regulations, and other problems. Mrs. Romans noted that 48% of the City is zoned for single-family develop- ment, these zone classifications being the R-1-A, R-1-B, and R-1-C Zone Districts. Mrs. Romans reviewed restrictions of the zone districts, and noted areas that were zoned for single-family development on the map. Mrs. Romans also pointed out one of the Target Areas in the 4700 Block extends into an area that is zoned R-1-A; this Target Area has a concentra- tion of substandard units. Mrs . Romans cited several sections that have been particularly addressed, these being: 1. Building Height -stories vs. feet. 2. Confusion on Home Occupations. 3. Substandard lots in the R-1-C District . 4. Demolitions on substandard lot. 5. Shared housing. 6. Parking in the required front setback. / -2- 7. Conditional Uses. 8. Day Care. 9. Public Facilities --parks and playgrounds. Why do parks and playgrounds have to be a Conditional Use when they are considered Public Facilities? Mrs. Romans stated that one of the proposed changes would be to allow specific home occupations in the R-1-A District, which district does not now permit home occupations. Construction on a lot of 37 foot frontage would be per- mitted in the R-1-C District without having to request a variance from the Board of Adjustment and Appeals. If a structure on a substandard lot were demolished, replacement of that unit would be allowed. The matter of "shared housing" --elderly people renting a room to help them in their expenses and enable them to maintain their own homes --is addressed. The issue of parking in the front setback is also addressed; this is not allowed at the present time, but it is being done. Mrs. Romans stated that some uses are classified as Conditional Uses in the present ordinance which the staff feels should not be classifi~d as Conditional Uses. Day care homes are addressed; day care homes are not permitted in the R-1-A District. It is the opinion of the staff that day care homes should be in neighborhoods where there is a need for such a facility. Mrs. Romans stated that the present ordinance designates parks and playgrounds as "Conditional Uses", and not as public facilities; it is the opinion of the staff that this should be changed. Slides were presented of residential development in the R-1-A, R-1-B, and R-1-C Districts. Following the slide presentation, Mrs. Romans stated that Mr. Stitt would lead discussion on the R-1-A District, Ms. King would lead discussion on the R-1-B District, and Mr. Yenglin would lead discussion on the R-1-C District. Mr. Stitt stated that throughout the draft of the residential districts which are before the Commission, anything in capital letters is being added, and items that are being deleted are being crossed out. Mr. Stitt noted that lot coverage in the R-1-A District is being changed from a maximum of 25% lot coverage to requiring 30% usable open space. Mr. Stitt demonstrated development of a typical lot contrasting the 25% maximum lot coverage vs. the 30% required usable open space. Mrs. Romans noted that records of the Board of Adjustment and Appeals were reviewed, and recurring requests for variances were noted; this information has been compiled and submitted to the Commission as supplemental informa- tion this evening. Mr. Stitt also noted that in going through Zoning Ordinances of other municipalities, a maximum lot coverage is not noted. Mr. Stitt discussed the confusion from the height restrictions in the current ordinance, which reads two stories or 25 feet; it was determined that it would be better to convert this to read "25 feet". Mr. McBrayer asked how the 25 feet would be measured. Mr. Stitt stated that it would be from finished grade to the peak of the house. If a lot is in need of leveling and filling before a finished grade is established, Mr. Stitt stated that an average of the elevations is used to determine the finished grade. Mr. Stitt noted that storage sheds have been added as accessory uses. • .. -3- Mr. McBrayer noted that in reference to minimum off-street parking, it refers to §22.5-5; he asked if there are screening or landscaping require- ments for parking lots for religious and educational uses in the R-1-A Zone District? Ms. Romans stated that this would be addressed in the Supplementary Regulations. Ms. Romans noted that screening is required where a parking lot abuts a residential use. Discussion on the required landscaping ensued. Mr. Stitt stated that the landscaping is required to be 50% of the required 30% usable open space. Mrs. Romans stated that this provision was included in the R-1 Districts following the meeting on the landscaping ordinance with members of the City Council and the public, and following discussion with City Attorney DeWitt. It was the opinion of City Attorney DeWitt that it would be practical to apply such regulations to all zone districts, even though it may not be legally necessary. Discussion ensued. Mr. McBrayer noted that the staff "is, in effect, establishing landscaping in residential areas before we get through with the landscaping ordinance." Mrs. Romans again made ref- erence to the public meeting and discussions with Mr.-DeWitt regarding the issue of landscaping. Mr. Holland inquired if the open space provided on a lot was more than the required 30%, would the landscaping have to be 50% of whatever open space was provided? Mr. Stitt stated that the figures set forth are intended as "minimum" standards; the intent was to require 50% of the "required" open space to be landscaped. Discussion ensued. Mr. Allen expressed confusion on requiring 50% of the 30% open space to be landscaped. Mr. Tanguma sug- gested that the required landscaping be set forth as 15% of the lot area. Ms. King stated that the staff had hoped to preclude any confusion the public may experience by thinking that 30% open space is required plus 15% land- scaping; this is not the intent of the ordinance. Mr. McBrayer discussed his concern with the setback requirements on garages depending whether the garage is attached to the house, or detached and on the rear of the lot. Mr. McBrayer stated that he felt the restrictions as written don't really make sense. Mr. Stoel inquired regarding the height limitation on a garage. Mr. Stitt noted that if the garage was attached to the house, a room could be con- structed over the garage, and the 25 foot height would be permitted; if the garage is detached, the limitation is 15 feet in height. Discussion ensued. Mr. McBrayer asked if developments should be encouraged with strict adherence to a 25 foot front setback. Discussion ensued. An area in northeastern Englewood was cited where setbacks vary; it is generally felt that this is one of the most attractive areas in the City. Discussion ensued. Ms. King discussed the change in life styles; at the present time people make greater use of the back yard than of the front yard. Home Occupations in the R-1-A District were discussed. Mr. Stitt stated that many people sell such products as Avon, Amway, Etc., which does not result in people coming to the home to make the purchase. The proposal would allow sales off the premises of such products, with storage of the products allowed on the premises. Mr. Tanguma asked if consideration had been given to permitting the "Mom and Pop" neighborhood stores? Mr. Stitt stated that there would have to be very -4- strict control, and cited the possibility of a "commercial strip" developing if such uses were allowed and not closely monitored. Mrs. Romans stated that there have been some of the existing small neighborhood stores that have ap- plied for beer licenses, and have been involved in gold and silver exchange operations, etc. At this point, the use becomes of concern to the neighbor- hood. Mr. McBrayer asked for an explanation of the home occupation which would al- low sale on premises of items which have been made, grown, or prepared on the premises? Mr. Stitt stated that the intent is not to allow display of such items on the lawn; there would be limited advertising, no employees would be permitted, and other restrictions are also placed on Home Occupations. Mrs. Romans emphasized that the home occupation would have to be operated within the dwelling unit entirely. Mr. Tanguma asked about food preparation as a home occupation. Mr. Stitt stated that food preparation for sale in homes would not be permitted; this would be getting into the province of health and building codes, and would not be allowed. Mr. Gilchrist asked about the possibility of a gift shop selling items that are homemade being allowed in a home. Mr. Stitt stated that there are floor area limitations on home occupations, also, and while items may be made within the home, and some sale on the premises is allowed, it would not be encouraged. Mr. Stoel noted that home occupations are required to be registered with the Department of Community Development; he asked what the registration would entail, and would the staff have the right to determine whether a proposed use would be allowed as a home occupation? Mr. Stitt pointed out several aspects that could be used in determining whether an operation is a home occupation; use of electric motors is limited, painting of products made on the premises would be restricted, and there would be other restrictions which could be used in determining whethertheuse would be allowed as a home occupation. Mr. Stoel asked what procedure would be followed if some- one were operating a home occupation in their home, but had not regi·stered with the Department as required? Mr. Stitt stated that this would be turned over to the Code Enforcement Officers to handle as a violation of the Com- prehensive Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Tanguma asked about such businesses as repair of small machinery -- lawn mowers, etc. Ms. King pointed out that the use must be operated within the principal structure. Discussion ensued. Assistant City Attorney Holland pointed out that a home occupation must be an occupation "customarily incident to the principal use as a dwelling"; he stated that this wording would limit activities that could be conducted as home occupations. Mr. Allen stated that he felt permitting home occupations in an R-1-A District should not be turned down just because some cases are being cited which ma y be objectionable; he urged that the home occupations in the R-1-A District be permitted. Mr. McBrayer stated that he felt if the home occupations had enough restrictions and limitations that allowing them in the R-1-A District could be a good thing. Mrs. Becker noted that she is acquainted with an individual in Denver who sells books from her home in a residential area; she didn't feel that Mr. Gilchrist's suggestion of a gift shop was improbable. l -5- Mr. Holland stated that in his opinion, a gift shop and book store would not be customarily incide nt to the primary use as a residence; he stated that uses such as an insurance office has been considered as a home occupa- tion. Discussion ensued. Mr. McBrayer stated that he felt "customarily incident" could mean different things to individuals, and suggested that perhaps further definition was needed. Mrs. Romans pointed out that the definition of "customarily incident" is quite common and has, apparently, been upheld in Court. Discussion ensued. Mr. Gilchrist asked if the law is to be liberalized because we cannot en- force it? Mrs. Romans stated that home occupations in the R-1-A District do exist, and the staff is aware of them; she stated that there is obviously a need for the home occupations in this district, and the staff is trying to address this issue in the revisions to the ordinance. Mrs. Romans emphasized that there would be restrictions placed on any home occupations that are allowed. The matter of shared housing in the R-1-A District was considered. Mr. Stitt stated that is another instance where this use is not now allowed, but is being done. Mrs. Becker stated that she felt this would be a good idea. She noted that the proposed regulations state no more than one person. Mrs. Romans cited an instance where quarters were rented to a young couple with one small child, and suggested that perhaps the regulations should be broadened to permit more than one roomer. Mr. Stitt then discussed conditional uses, noting that parks and playgrounds, which are currently listed as conditional uses, have been eliminated from this section and placed under public facilities. Mr. Stitt also mentioned electric substations and gas regulator stations, and questioned that these public facilities should be required to have Conditional Use approval. Discussion ensued. Mr. McBrayer expressed concern because some of the Public Service Company facilities are on lots that h~ve been totally asphalted, with no landscaping or screening whatsoever. Mr. Stitt suggested that land- scaping regulations for such public facilities could be established. Dis- cussion ensued. Mr. McBrayer expressed the opinion that a gas regulator station and electric sub-station should remain as Conditional Uses. Mr. Allen stated that if such a use were to comply with the regulations in the particular zone district, he could see no problem in allowing them as a public facility. Mr. Stitt stated that he has talked to Public Service Company representatives, and they have indicated they do not anticipate any additional facilities in Englewood. Discussion ensued. Mr. Tanguma brought the discussion back to Home Occupations, and asked wh y products such as Avon and ArrMay could be sold, but that books could not be sold from the premises. Mr. Stitt stated that Avon and Amway products would be sold off the premises by the occupant of the resident; clients would not be coming to the house to buy the product as they would be with books. Dis- cussion ensued. Mr. Tanguma asked if a real estate office in a home would be permissible. Mr. Stitt stated that a problem might be created if clients came to the house to do business. Mr. Allen stated that he felt the intent is to avoid having people coming to a place of business in the neighborhood. Brief discussion ensued. Mr. McBrayer asked Ms. King to discuss the R-1-B Zone District, and attempt to summarize the changes which are different from the changes proposed in the R-1-A District. -6- Ms. King stated that primarily the changes are the same as those proposed for the R-1-A District; one difference is the inclusion of a child care center which would accommodate between five (5) and twelve (12) children as a Conditional Use; this is not allowed at the present time. Day care for one (1) to four (4) children may be done as a home occupation, but care for more than four (4) children would be classified as a child care center, and would require specific consideration by the Commission. Mr. McBrayer asked if there was any way that a use such as this could be sub- ject to yearly review? Mrs. Romans stated that she felt it could be done. Mr. Tanguma again expressed his concern regarding home occupations; he stated that if he could not have clients come to his home, it would do no good to have a real estate office in his home. Mrs. Romans stated that there will not be a monitor on traffic to and from residents with home occupations; there cannot be separate entrances to offices, and no em- ployees may be engaged in home occupations. Mr. Tanguma asked about permitting hairdressers and beauticians as a Home Occupation? Mrs. Romans stated that this would get involved with State law governing barbers, hairdressers and beauticians. She noted that the re- striction against barbers, hairdressers and beauticians as Home Occupations has been in existence in Englewood since 1955, but that if the Commission wants to allow such uses she saw nothing wrong with proposing it. Discussion ensued. Mrs. Becker noted that there would be limited traffic from such a use if no employees could be hired, and pointed out that music teachers who have studios in their homes have traffic --at least two per hour for the students who must be transported to the studio. Mrs. Becker stated that e she is aware of a beautician in her neighborhood, but is not aware of customers coming to this person. Mr. Gilchrist stated that he felt restrictions against beauticians and barbers in homes should remain in the ordinance. Discussion ensued. A poll was taken of Commission members on whether the restrictions against barbers, hairdressers, and beauticians as a home occupation should be re- moved from the ordinance: two members voted to leave the restriction in the ordinance; two members voted to eliminate the restriction; two members abstained from voting; three members were absent. Mr. McBrayer ruled that the "motion" failed, and the restrictions against hairdressers, barbers, and beauticians as Home Occupations would remain in the ordinance. The R-1-C District was then considered. Mr. Yenglin stated that the R-1-C contains basically the same modifications as previously recited in the R-1-A and R-1-B Districts; the R-1-C modifications do address development of a substandard lot, and would allow development on 37 foot frontage without going to the Board of Adjustment. Mr. Allen asked if development could not be done on a 37 foot lot now? Mrs. Romans stated that an appeal must be made to the Board of Adjustment and Appeals. Mr. McBrayer asked about the setbacks required for a larger lot? Mr. Yenglin stated that the setbacks would have to be modified. Discussion ensued. Mrs. Romans asked if the Commission did agree with the inclusion of Home Occupations in the R-1-A District? It was the consensus that the Commission ~ does agree that Home Occupations should be permitted in R-1-A. ,., Mr. McBrayer stated that he is opposed to the fact that the staff is "sneaking landscaping requirements into the R-1 Districts over the protests of the 1 -7- Commission". He stated that he is opposed to telling people what they can do with their yard; if it applied to business or industrial properties it was a different matter. Mrs. Romans reiterated that this was left in the R-1 District provisions following the meeting on landscaping provisions with members of the City Council and public and following discussion with City Attorney DeWitt. Discussion ensued. Mr. Stoel stated that he is not in favor of requiring landscaping in the R-1 Districts, but if it is felt the regulations should be applied consistently, he suggested possibly giving a longer period of time to comply with the landscaping requirements. Ms. Becker discussed the recent paving of South Logan Street and the removal of parking along one side of the street; one of the single-family residences is now providing their off-street parking in their front yard. She stated that she didn't know whether the landscaping ordinance would have any bearing on such a situation, but would hope that it could address it. Mr. McBrayer expressed doubt that the landscaping ordinance would have any bearing on such a situation. Mr. Allen discussed the problems he has experienced at his office; he maintains a dumpster for collection of his trash which is emptied on a regular basis by the trash collection company. He noted that residents of the area have been putting their trash and garbage in his dumpster, and if the dumpster is too full to hold any more, they st~ck it around the dumpster. It becomes scattered over the neighborhood by wind and other forces. Mr. Allen expressed his an- noyance at not being able to use his own dumpster, and asked what could be done to alleviate this situation. He asked what the City had in the way of ordinances to enforce something like this. Mrs. Romans stated that she did not think the City could monitor who puts trash in any container on private property. Mr. Gilchrist stated that he felt it was a matter of trespass. Mr. Allen stated that he had finally purchased a dumpster with a lock, but now they just stack the trash around the dumpster. Brief dis- cussion followed. III. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE. Mrs. Romans wished members of the Commission a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year. She also indicated that several meetings are being planned for January. Mr. McBrayer asked the status of the Landscaping Ordinance? Mr. Holland stated that he was not sure whether he was to work on the Landscaping Ordinance or whether Mr. DeWitt was going to do it. He stated that in any event, he has not seen the landscaping ordinance recently. Mr. Holland asked the Commission to set a date when they wanted to go through his memorandum given them this evening on the Downtown Development District. Mr. McBrayer suggested that this be put on the agenda for January 4th. IV. COMMISSION'S CHOICE. Ms. Becker stated that she was unable to attend the last meeting of the Commission because of a conference she had to attend in Kansas City, Mo. Mrs. Becker discussed the Crown Center in Kansas City, and how impressed -8- she was with this development. Mr. Holland stated that Crown Center is a "mixed use" development, which is what he felt the Downtown Development District zone will be. Mr. McBrayer discussed his attendance at the Board of Adjustment meeting on December 8th, at which time a request for a variance to the Sign Code was considered. The request for variance was denied with one individual voting for the variance. The meeting adjourned at 8:55 P. M. G'ertrUde G. Welty 7 Recording Secretary . . I