Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-07-22 PZC MINUTES• • • Pl an ni ng and Zon ing Commission Public Hearing Case# USE2008-009, 2008-06, 2007 -1 0 Jul y 22 , 2008 Page I of21 CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Jul y 22, 200 8 I. CALL TO ORDER Th e regular m ee ting of the City Pl anning and Zoning Commis sion was called to o rd er at 7:05 p .m . in t he Council Chambers of the Englewood Civic Cente r, Chair Bleil e presiding. Present: Absent: Staff: Blei l e, Roth , King, We l ker, Ca l onder, Krieger, Knoth, Brick Fish (Excused ) Tric i a Langon, Senior Planner Audra Kirk, Planning Technician Nancy Reid, Assistant City Attorney 11. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Jul y 8, 2008 Chair Bl ei le asked if there were any modifications or corrections to the Jul y 8, 2008 Minutes. Mr. Welker -Page 2 -Under Zone District: In the first sente nce the word "in " wi ll be added after the word that. Ms. Krieger moved: Mr. Knoth seconded : TO APPROVE THE Jul y 81 2008 MINUTES AS AMENDED . AY ES : NAYS: Roth, We l ker, Krieger, Ca londer, Knoth, King, Brick None ABSTAIN: Bleile ABSENT: Fish Motion carried. Ill. PUBLIC HEARING CASE #USE2008-009 Conditional Use Permit for 3598 South Pearl Street • • • Planning and Zoning Commiss ion Publi c Hearing Case# USE2008-009 , 2008-06 , 2007 -10 Jul y 22 , 2008 Page 2 of2l Mr. Knoth moved: Ms. Krieger seconded: THE PUBLIC HEARING ON CASE #USE2008-009 BE OPENED AYES : NAYS : Bleile, Brick, Knoth, Roth , Welker, King, Krieger, Calonder Non e ABSTAIN : None ABSENT: Fish Motion carried. A udra Kirk, Planning Technician, was sworn in . Ms. Kirk stated the case is for Conditional Use approval to allow a surface parking area at 3598 South Pearl Street. Sh e n o t ed for th e record a public notice was published in the Englewood Herald on Jul y 11 , 2008 and th e property was continuously posted from Jul y 6, 2008. The subject property is located at 3598 South Pearl Street. It is at the north east co rn er of East Jefferson Avenue and US 285 and South Pearl Street. It is appro x imately 9,3 75 sq u are f ee t in area and has a street frontage of 7 5 feet. The property is zoned MU-R-3-B, w hich i s a mi xe d use residential and limited office retail zone district. Zoning of adjace nt prope rti es i s also MU-R-3-B. Parking for operable vehicles is an allowed use if approved as a Conditional Use . The residential uses surrounding the subject property are a mi xtur e of single and duplex units . The subject property contains a single unit dwellin g that wi ll be demo li shed. The parking will be additional parking for the Presidential Arms Apartments loca t ed to th e East of the alley. The subject property do es contain a paved parking area that was us ed as an accessory for an office locate d on the site in the mid to late 1990's. Th e cars park in g there now are from the adjacent Presidential Arms Apartments. The proposed parking i s a n allowed use in and by itself per Table 16-6-1-1 , Table of Allowed Uses in t he Unified Development Code. The owner proposes 23 spaces to enhance the parking already available at the Presid en tial Arms Apartments, although this is not a requirement of the City. The plan does pro v ide landscaping and screening to mitigate noise and light and meets all applicable Engle wood Municipal Code regulations. The Planning and Zoning Commission must determine that th e request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and meets the fi ve crit e ri o n of Titl e found in 16-2-12, Conditional Use Permits . The landscape design directl y supports th e Comprehensive Plan b y improving community cleanliness and visual beauty . It also red u ces on-street parking. Ms. Kirk re v ie w ed the fi ve crite rions that must be m et. Th ey ar e as follows: • • • Plannin g and Zoning Commission Public Hearing Case# USE2008-009 , 2008-06 , 2007-10 Jul y 22, 2008 P ag e3of21 7. The use must be permitted as a Conditional Us e in the zone district in which it is propo se d to b e located. Pursuant to Table 16-5-1.1: Table of Allowed Uses, a parking area for operabl e vehicles as a principal use is permitted within the MU-R-3-B m edi um to hi gh density residential and limited office zone di stri ct. 2. Ta ki ng into consideration any proposed mitigation m easu res, Conditional Us e shall n o t create sig nificant adverse impacts on either th e existing d eve lopm e nt in th e surrounding neighborhood or on any future development permitted by this Title. Signi fic ant adver se impacts include but are not limited to : a. Significant increase s in traffi c generation and parking beyond that would be generated by a us e-by right ; The parking area itself will not generate an increase in traffic. As previousl y stated, portions of the site have been used as a parking area for several years. b. Building h ei ghts or bulk are significantly larg er or more mas sive than th ose on nearby properties; Not applicable; no buildings are proposed . c. Lack of screening of parking, loading, traffic circulation, or outdoor activities; garbag e collection facilities and storage ; The applicant is proposing solid fencing and landscaping adjacent to the re siden ti al property to the north to mitigate noise and headlight glare . Additionally, the applicant is providing solid fencing at the Jefferson Avenue property lin e as we ll as shrubs and trees . The plan vastly improves the stark asphalt en v ironment of the existing house and parking area . Outdoor activities will be consistent with other residential parkin g lots . Traffi c will be 2-way and able to enter either from South Pearl Street or from the alle y between South Pearl Street and South Washington Street. Garbage collection and storage is not applicable. d. Si gnificant intrusions of noise, light, dust, or glare onto nearby propertie s; The applicant proposes solid fencing to mitigate headlight glare to t he abutting property to the north. A solid fence will also be installed along East Jeffers on Avenue as well as landscape screening between the fence and vehicles to minimize noise and headlight glare . The parking area will be constructed of a hard surface to minimize dust. • • -Planning and Zoning Commission Public Hearing Case # USE2008-009 , 2008-06 , 2007-10 July 22 , 2008 Page 4 of21 e. Significant increases in burdens on housing, schools, public utilities, or gov ernm e ntal se rvices beyond those that would be generated by a use by-right; or Not applicable to parking area use . f. Hours of operation that begin significantly earlier or end significantly lat er than tho se on nearby properties. Not applicable to parking area use . 3. Th e number of off-street parking spaces shall not be less than the requir em ents of Se ction 16-6-4 EMC There are no specific requirements for the number of spaces a parking area must contain . 4. Th e Conditional Use shall meet all other applicable provisions of the Englewood Muni cip al Cod e. The Conditional Use application has been reviewed by the Development Re v i ew Team consisting of the following departments and divisions: Community Development, Building and Safety, Public Works, Engineering, Traffic, and Utilities . Per the Team review, the proposed Conditional Use application meets all applicable requirements of the Englewood Municipal Code. 5. If the application is for a Conditional Use telecommunications tower or antenna, it shall al so conform with any additional standards and requirements for such uses sp e ci fied in Chapter 16-7 EMC 11Telecommunications .11 No applicable; telecommunication use is not part of this application. Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission approve Case #USE2008-009 ; a Conditional Use request to allow a parking area for operable vehicles as a principal use within the MU-R-3-B medium to high density residential and limited office zone district. Ms. Kirk asked if the Commission had any questions. Mr. Brick asked if Staff had reviewed the request with Mr. John Voboril, Planner, w ho is working on the Medical District Small Area Plan. Ms. Kirk said she did not as the subject property is not located in that area . It was determined that the property was located within the Medical District Small Area Plan area. Mr. Welker stated that the Medical District Small Area Plan was not in force yet. • Ms . Kirk stated the applicant was in attendance and was available to answer any questions. • • • Planning and Zoning Commi ss ion Public Hearing Case # US E2008-009 , 2008-06 , 2007-10 July 22 , 2008 Page5of21 Mr. Welker asked about the sheet listing three different properties that was included in the meeting packet. He asked for confirmation that the other two properties listed on the sheet are not part of the application. Ms. Kirk stated they were not, only 3598 South Pearl Street. Mr. Roth stated there was a letter from the Colorado Historical Society includ ed in th e packet that stated the house located on the property was not eligible for listing on th e National Register of Historic Places . He noted in the past the Planning and Zoning Commission has had to vote on that also. He asked if this property is exempt somehow. Ms . Kirk stated the Commission only needs to vote on the historic designation if the owner is receiving Federal funding. Mr. Welker said when there is a parking lot that is being connected to a commercial business there is a requirement for screening in the Code between the parking lot and adjoining residential properties . Since this is connected to a residential property is this considered residential and Staff is not requiring the same degree of screening and landscaping. Ms. Kirk stated Staff is requiring both screening and landscaping. Mr. Welker said it doesn't seem to meet the requirements of the City's Code as it is unclear on the plans. Ms . Kirk stated when the owner submits for the permit Staff will make sure all Code requirements for both are met. Jo Ellen Davidson, 325 Inverness Drive South, was sworn in. She stated she works for the organization that owns both the subject property and the adjacent Presidential Arms Apartments. She stated they appreciate the Commission's consideration of their request for a Conditional Use on the property. It will be an enhancement to the community by adding additional off-street parking. She offered to answer any questions the Commission might have . Mr. King asked if the spaces would be assigned to a specific unit. The y will not be. He asked what would happen to inoperable vehicles parked on the lot. Ms. Davidson said the y have a professional property management company that monitors the parking lots very carefully. Inoperable vehicles are towed . Chair Bleile asked if the property will be posted saying the parking is strictl y for the Presidential Arms Apartments. M . Davidson said yes, it would be. All other cars will be towed. Mr. Welker asked how many units were in the Presidential Arms. Ms. Davidson stated there are 33 units . There will be a total of 41 parking spaces. Chair Bleile asked if there were any other questions . There were not. He thanked Ms . Davidson for her testimony . • • • Planning and Zoning Commission Public Hearing Case# USE2008-009, 2008-06, 2007-10 Jul y 22 , 2008 Page 6 of21 Ms. Krieger moved: Mr. Calonder seconded: THE PUBLIC HEARING ON CASE #USE2008-009 BE CLOSED AYES: NAYS: Bleile, Brick, Knoth, Roth, Welker, King, Krieger, Calonder None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Fish Motion carried. Mr. Knoth moved: Mr. Brick seconded: CASE #USE2008-0091 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PARKING LOT AS A PRINCIPAL USE AT 3598 SOUTH PEARL STREET, BE RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL TO CITY COUNCIL WITH A FAVORABLE RECOMME N DATIO N FOR ADOPTION. Ms. Krieger stated she believes it can only benefit the community. In addition to th e sections of the Comprehensive Plan stated earlier it also improves the City's housing stock as these apartments, as are most in the City, are grossly under parked . Mr. Welker stated an added benefit is removing the driveway access on Jefferson. Mr. King said it is also consistent with what the Commission has been talking about in Stud y Sessions regarding the height buffer between Hwy. 285 and the area to the north. Mr. Roth stated he felt the Conditional Use will be an improvement. Chair Bleile called for a vote. Mr. Brick stated he feels the project will enhance the general welfare of the area and alleviate some of the parking problems . He also feels it is an upgrade to the area . AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Bleile, Brick, Knoth, Roth, Welker, King, Calonder, Krieger None None Fish Motion carried . • • • Planning and Zoning Commissio n Publi c Hea1ing Case# USE2008-009 , 2008-06 , 200 7-10 Jul y 22, 2008 Page 7 of2 l CASE #2008-06 Boarding and Rooming House Amendments to Title 16 Mr. Knoth moved : Ms. Krieger seconded : THE PUBLIC HEARING ON CASE #2008-06 BE OPE NE D AYES: NAYS: Bleile, Brick, Knoth , Roth , Welker, King, Krieger, Calond er None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT : Fish Mr. King read a disclosure . There is a known boarding house in th e 3000 block of South Pearl Street and stated he is building a house on that block and also owns a rental ho u se 0 11 that block. He stated that particular boarding house has no impact on him c urr en tl y and w ill not impair his decision making process one way or the other. Motion carried. Tricia Langon , Senior Planner, was sworn in . She stated for the Commission 's cons ide rati on t on ight is case #2008-06, Amendments to the Unified Development Cod e (UDC ) of the Englewood Municipal Code relating to boarding or rooming houses. She stated she had already submitted for the record proof of publication of which th e notice was published in th e En gl ewood H erald on Jul y 4, 2 008 as well as the Staff report. Th e Planning and Zoning Commission is authorized by th e UDC t o re v iew and mak e re c ommendations to City Council regarding updates to the UDC. Th e amendments t o the Code are necessary so that the Code remains "relevant to the Compr ehens ive Plan an d current development trends and planning and community concerns ". Th e request t on i gh t is that the Commission review, take public testimony and for wa rd to City Council a recommendation for approval of the proposed amendments. Ms . Langon stated to make it easier for tonight's hearing when she uses the term boarding house that will mean boarding or rooming house . Prior to the Unified Development C ode adoption in 2004 boarding houses were permitted only in the R-4 district. R-4 was then th e residential professional district and w as a medium to high density district. Boarding ho use was defined as: A building containing a single building unit and two (2) or more guest roo ms w h ere lodging is provided, with or without meals, for compensation. "Compens ati on" ma y include money, services, or other things of value, including bed and br eakfas t operations . With the adoption of the UDC in 2004, the above definition was inadvertentl y omitted from the Code, but the use remained in the Code and was placed under the re sidenti al • • • Planning and Zoning Commission Public Hearing Case# USE2008-009, 2008-06 , 2007-10 July 22, 2008 Page 8 of21 "g roup living" use category . That gap in the Code of no definition and it being within the "gro up living" type living situation was identified recently. The proposed amendments are designed to reestablish a definition and to review the use category . Th e recent lot w idth for multi-unit dwelling amendments and the housekeeping amendments that are to be considered this evening are not included with in the text as they have not been approved so Staff is using the existing languag e. The proposed amendments address us e, definition, zone location, procedure, use specific standards and existing boarding hous es. Use Classification: It was determined a boarding house is not a group li ving facilit y. Group living facilities are t ypica ll y staffed and residents receive care, training or treatment of some sort. Despite having a commercial aspect (co mpensation for room and board ), activity wi thin the dwelling is typical of other residential uses . Staff recommends it be moved in Table 16-5.1.1: Table of Allowed Uses from the Group Living category to the Hou sehold Living category. Definition: Staff determined that the definition should address the number of guest rooms (Staff is proposing 2 to 4 rooms since households by definition of the Code allow up to two unrelated adults, therefore you need more than one room to have at least two additional borders in the house), the term of tenancy (S taff is proposing a minimum 30 day stay), and that the dwelling is owner-occupied, which would prohibit rental property from being used as a boarding or rooming house. Also, th e use would be requir ed to be in a one unit dwelling, which would prevent any part of a multi-unit dwelling from claiming to be a boarding house. Staff recommends an amendment to 16-11-2 to include the upd at ed definition: Boarding or Rooming House: An owner occupied, one unit dwelling containing two (2) but not more than four ( 4) guest rooms where lodging is provided to boarders, with or without meals, for compensation. The lodging shall be long-t erm lodging with stays greater than 30 days per boarder. This use is not a visitor accommodation nor home occupation as defined herein. "Compensation" may include money, services, or other things of value. Zone Districts: Boarding houses have the potential for higher density, more vehicles and traffic coming and going, therefore they are not a low density use . Since a boarding house is a residential use it would not be compatible with commercial uses or industrial uses . Being consistent with the pre-UDC definitions and uses it should be permitted in the high density areas rather than the single unit areas. Staff recommends amending Table 16-5.1.1, Table of Allowed Uses to prohibit boarding houses in the R-1-A , R-1-B and R-1-C districts and allow them in R-2-A, R-2-B, MU-R-3-A and MU-R-3-B zone districts . Approval Process: There are three types of "a llowed uses". A "Pe rmitted Use " is allowed as a use-by-right provided all Code requirements are met. A "Limited Use " requ ir es a • • • Plan~in g and Zoning Commission Public Hearing Case # US E2008-009 , 2008-06, 2007-10 July 22, 2008 Page 9 o f21 Limited Use Permit with review by the Development Review Team (ORT ) for Code compliance and mitigation of potential impacts . The third type is a "Conditional Use " which requires a Conditional Use Permi t with review by the ORT and approval b y the Plannin g and Zoning Commission. A Conditional Use requires a public hearing which includes public notice by posting of the property, it allows community input in a public re v ie w setting, requires an annual review and publication in the City designated official newspaper and /or the City's website. Staff's recommendation is that all new boarding houses be re v ie w ed under the Conditional Use Permit process as outlined in 16-2-12 of the EMC. Use Specific Standards: Use-specific standards are the zoning compliance requirements that form the basis of review criteria for a particular use. Staff's recommendations are as follows: 1 . 2 . 3. 4. 5. 6. 7 . The use shall apply for and receive a Conditional Use Permit. The use shall be limited to an owner occupied, one-unit dwelling. The use shall submit a Zoning Site Plan for review by the City for complianc e with all zoning and housing regulations . The use shall be non-transferable . The use shall have a City Sales Tax li cense if required . The use sha ll comply with all applicable City codes. No signs shall be permitted except as specified in Section 16-6-13 .E EMC. Ms. Langon further explained each recommendation as follows : 1. This allows for community input in a public hearing and requires an annual review for compliance . 2 . This prohibits rentals and multi-unit dwellings from being used for a boarding or rooming house. 3. This allows for site plan review of parking, lot coverage, and minimum room size requirements. 4. This requires a new Conditional Use Permit with change in ownership. 5. At this time no license is required. 6 . This allows for review for compliance with all applicable City codes. 7. This Prohibits all advertising signage; allows signs that do not require permits including private parking signs, holiday decorations, election signs and others included in Section 16-6-13.E EMC. Existing Boarding or Rooming Houses: The "grandfathering" clause is provided in the Ordinance but is not included in the text of the UDC. "Grandfathering" gives legal status to existing uses that are affected by a code change . The City is not aware of how man y existing boarding houses there are in the City, but per this "grandfathering" clause the burden falls to the operator to register with the City. Staff's recommendation is: • • • Planning and Zoning Commission Public Hearing Case# US E2008-009 , 2008-06 , 2007-10 July 22 , 2008 P age 10 of2 1 Require an existing boarding or rooming house to register with the City for "grandfathered " status within 60 days from the date of final passage of th ese proposed amendments . Registration requires compliance with the proposed use- specific standards and proof that the boarding or roomin g hous e operated prior t o th e final passag e of the temporary moratorium ordinance (May 5, 2008 ). Exis ting boarding or rooming houses meetin g th ese two conditions will be granted "g randfathered " Conditional Use status and an initial Con dition al Use Permit hearing w ill not be required but the use wo uld be subject to the annual review requir ements in order to maintain the Conditional Use Permit. Any existing boarding or rooming house that does not register with the City and meet all the req uirem ents w ithin th e 60 day timeframe will be required to go through the full Conditional Use process . Ms. Langon offered to answer any questions. Mr. Welker asked if an existing boardin g comes forth and m eets all the requirements except the z one district, would they be allowed to continue. Ms. Langon stated the y would. The change in the Code is a change to the zone districts where it is allowed . Chair Bleile asked if there were any further qu es tions or comments. Ther e we re none. Testimony was taken from : Miguel Drake, 3009 S. Pearl Street, was sworn in . He thanked the Commi ssion for their great effort in the process of cleaning up this zoning issue . He re ad a letter as follows: Thank yo u for letting me speak this evening. I am gra teful that th e proposed amendments prevent future boarding houses in the R-1 zones . I wou ld also suppo rt an amendment that would not allow boarding houses in R-1 zones whether or not the boarding house exists or not. Along those lines I ask that yo u insert a clau se requiring all ex isting boarding hous es in R-1 undergo a full Conditi ona l Use hearing in order to continue to operate . I believe businesses bas ed on rapid turn over transient clients should be subject to the full review, especiall y when that business is operating in a residential area. I ask that boarding houses be required to have hard surface parking spaces as per code, whether or not th e boarding hous e is grandfathered. I ask this in particular because the boarding hous e next door to me seems to be rushing to comply with the off-street parking ordinance and the owner is doing so by disregarding and building fences and retaining walls w ith no sit e plan or any other permitting. I ask that no signage be allowed and ten ancy is limited to a minimum of 30 days. I ask the boarding houses in Engle w ood not be allowed to advertise to the public. Lastl y, I suggest that taxes and licensin g fees be collected and that rooming and boarding houses ha ve a business licens e. Thank yo u for yo ur on-going efforts to help protect the characteristics of m y neighborhood . • • • Pl anning and Zoning Commi ssion Publi c Heari ng Case# US E2008-009 , 2008-06 , 2007-10 Jul y 22 , 2008 P agel l of2 l Robin Noffsinger, 3031 S. Pearl Street, was sworn in. Earlier this year the City recog niz ed that there was a code deficiency pertaining to the missing definition in regar ds to roomin g and boarding houses . We feel R-1 districts should remain free of boardin g and room in g hous es because of the smaller lot sizes and the population d e nsity as the y were prior t o th e UDC Codes of 2004. Rooming and boarding houses back then were onl y allowed in R-4 districts and with the new approv al they would be allowed in the R-2-A, R-2-B , MU-R-3-A and MU-R-3-B districts, which are much better suited than R-1 districts . Man y in our neighborhood have been following this topic rather closel y as we kno w of a situation that not onl y affects the 3000 block of South Pea rl Street but the City as a whole . I wo uld li ke t o bring up this situation because it ultimatel y led to the City recognizing the omission of th e boarding and rooming houses definition and the emergency ordinance of establishing a moratorium . The homeowners at 3029 South Pearl took on a major remodel of a HUD hom e through d ece ptive practices . It became abundantly clear t hat the y were constructing in th e R-1-C district not for the use of a single family residence, but as a money making venture advertising rooms for $600 a month on a month-to-month basis . Up until it came t o li gh t that a definition did not exist for rooming and boarding house the y we re pushing th e City to allow them a variance to let them house more people than the definition of hou seho ld would allow since they already had three boarders at that tim e. As the neighborhood joined together to follow this issue it was observed that the hom eowners we re doing things underhandedl y with no regards to permits or li ce nsing saying and I quote "that they thought they could just fl y under the radar ". In a letter sent to our n ei ghbo rh ood by th ese same homeow ners the y stated emphatically and I quote again "codes are not laws and they were not running an apartment building and they were not running a boarding and rooming house ". Then, through a loop hole of this missing code definition, no w the y claim they are running a rooming and boarding house still constructing and ex isting w ithout regard to following codes and uses that presentl y exist, such as annual licensin g, licens es to sell goo ds out of their residence, parking requirements under group living, proper p ermits for continued building, registering with the City, or even the mortgage on the property was set u p under the pretenses of a single-famil y residence. We applaud the work of th e Plann ing and Zoning Committee and the City Council in their efforts to recti fy the o v ersight of the code deficiency, but we are not comfortable with the idea that th e re could be a grandfathering clause . In our research prior to the morat9 rium on roomin g and boardin g houses the situation on our block is th e only known residence in the City now claimin g to be a rooming and boarding house. To think this deceptive situation could exist in an R-1 district is appalling to us . To allow this grandfathering seems to be prote c ting persons w ho we re deceiving their neighbors and their City in order to protect rights that the y didn 't even ha ve in the first place . What about the rights of the loyal long-term residents and young families of R-1 districts who face unwanted property tax increases, property va lu e decreases, and ev en unsafe and congested conditions that could result from the roomin g and boarding house. I know that if I were thinking of running a rooming and boardin g house I would have researched where it was allowed and followed the codes and the lette r of the law from the beginning and not try to comply afterwards . I hope that eve ryo ne involved in Englewood City government has the opportunity to exam all the information • • • Planning and Zoning Commission Public Hearing Case# USE2008-009 , 2008 -06, 2007-10 July 22 , 2008 Page 12 of21 and facts as they pertain to rooming and boarding houses and in particular the situation at 3029 South Pearl. Thank you so much for your time. I really appreciate it Greg Allen-Pickett, 3001 S. Pearl Street, was sworn in. I'd like to begin as I did a couple weeks ago thanking you guys, the Planning and Zoning Commission, for the work you do to protect the community and continuing to regulate zoning to preserve this community. My wife and I have been proud residents of Englewood for 4 1/2 years. We bought our ve ry first home here in Englewood. When we were considering where to buy a home a number of important issues came up for us . Price was obviously an important factor, but ther e we re other equally important factors that we considered including the look and feel of the neighborhood, the perceived safety of the neighborhood and our potential for happin ess in that neighborhood. We ruled out homes that were in neighborhoods of R-2 and hi gher density despite the lower cost of these homes. Multi-unit dwellings and apartment complexes intermixed with single family homes change the whole look and feel of th e neighborhood . The availability of less permanent more transient population, people don 't always get a chance to know their neighbors and with higher density housing there is more foot traffic, automobile traffic and other traffic throughout the day and night. We spent a great deal of time, my wife and I, evaluating these things as we looked for houses. Once we found a neighborhood we thought we would like with homes in our price range we would walk through the neighborhood at different times of the day and night to see who was out and how we were greeted by the residents. Fortunately, through this process we found a home that we live in now on Pearl Street. All of this work we did 4 1/2 years ago is not in vain . I like to say that when we moved into Englewood we moved into a Norman Rockwell painting. Our block has developed a strong sense of community; we regularl y share meals together, play in the park together and look out for one another. To a large extent this sense of community has been fostered by the existence and enforcement of zoning regulations in our neighborhood, zoned R-1. Allow me a minute to talk about zonin g. A s you guys know, zoning has a very important purpose in the City. According to Title 16 of the Englewood Municipal Code Chapter 3 Section 2 I quote "One of the goals of the City is to encourage a variety of housing types to meet the needs of different income le ve ls and varying famil y structures. The regulations for these districts are designed to stabilize and protect the essential characteristics of the districts and to promote a compatible neighborhood environment". Chapter 3 Section 2 goes on to speak specificall y to R-1 zoning. An R-1 zone is zoned to be I quote "Single dwelling unit residential districts. Multi- unit dwellings are not allowed in these districts ". The spirit and intent of zoning laws and regulations are clearly laid out in these sections of the Englewood Unified Development Code . Zoning is I quote "Designed to stabilize and protect the essential characteristics and to provide a compatible neighborhood and environment." The essential characteristics of our neighborhood, zoned R-1-C , are being undermined and violated by this idea of a boarding house which has invaded our community. As I mentioned earlier, my wife and I were very intentional about where we bought our first home 4 1/2 years ago . Like I said , we spent months of research in these neighborhoods and were very deliberate about bu y ing in areas zoned R-1. The biggest and most important reason is that a neighborhood zoned R-1 is mainly for families, a sense of permanence and a true community. We knew that we • • • Plannin g and Zoning Commi ss ion Publ ic Hearing Cas e# USE2008-009 , 200 8-06 , 2007 -10 Jul y 22 , 200 8 Page 13 o f 21 would actually get to know the neighbors and form a community with them if w e w er e to buy a house in an established neighborhood and in areas zoned R-1. We could have paid less for a house or gotten a bigger house if we had bought four blocks to th e w est on Sherman , which is zoned R-2 or five blocks to the south on Girard, zoned mixed-us e residential 3 . But instead, we wanted to live in a family neighborhood that had a real sens e of community so we bought our first house on Pearl Street in an area zone d R-1 an d assumed that meant that we wouldn 't have to live next to an apartm e nt buildin g o r boarding house with increased foot traffic, automobile traffic and a transient population . A boarding house trul y violates the intended spirit of the zoning laws for R-1 zoning. It has a multitude of negative impacts on the community on 3000 South Pearl Street. There 's be e n increased traffic, on street parking, people coming and going at all hours of the ni ght and a general change in the look and feel of the neighborhood und e rmining the esse ntial characteristics which are suppose to be protected by zoning laws. In disregardin g th e purposes of creating a compatible neighborhood environment as defined b y the UDC, borders make no effort to get to know their community and don 't tr y t o in g rati at e themselves into their neighborhood. The current boarding house that I sp eak of i s advertised in multiple publications such as the Denver Seminary website, Teiky o Lorr etto Heights and also on a website set up just to advertise the boarding house wh e re it sa y s specifically no lease agreement required, month to month. This has implications for th e nature of our community and our neighborhood. It invites a non permanent transi e nt population into our neighborhood and boarding houses, like this one, do not requir e a l ease agreement, background check, or anything of their tenants . Yet the people runnin g the boarding house really have no control over those tenants and it undermines the natur e of R-1 zoning. I would like to ask you, the members of Planning and Zoning and others gathered here tonight if you would like to live next door to a house w ith a tran si e nt population . If you had bought your house in a neighborhood that y ou knew was zoned R-1 would you feel safe knowing that the house next door had people with no ties to the community and no interest in getting to know their neighbors . I stand here tonight in solidarity with all of my neighbors. We're all here for the same reason asking y ou gu y s, imploring you guys, the Planning and Zoning Commission to do something to stop thi s v iolation of the spirit and intent of the zoning laws and to help work to maintain our se ns e of community and security. I would really like y ou to reconsider the grandfathering claus e. I guess that's the biggest push . In general, we are very, very pleased that y ou are considerin g rewriting the code to address boarding houses . It is just a little bit too late at this point an d a grandfathering clause would potentially undermine the very characteristic of our neighborhood and the large house that has been built in our neighborhood as a boardin g house has the potential to increase our assessed property values by the county, yet it actually decreases our real property values because now we live next door to an apartment complex. It has real negative impact on us financially as well . Mr. Roth had a question for Staff. On this property, what would happen on the annu al review? What is the process? Ms. Langon said they would review an y condition that the Commission put on Conditional Use and review that they are still maintaining parking requirements ... whatever the use specific standards are or any conditions if there was a • • • Planning and Zoning Commission Public Hearing Case# USE2008-009 , 2008-06 , 2007-10 July 22 , 2008 Page 14 of21 Conditional Use hearing that the Commission held and if you applied any conditions to that. As long as they are meeting those conditions and the use specific standards it would be reinstated for another year . Mr. Welker asked for the record to discuss who makes that determination and what form that provides. Ms . Langon stated it is handled administrativel y through Community Development Staff. Mr. Welker said there is no public hearing. Ms. Langon said that wa s correct. Mr. Welker said if people in the neighborhood have issues they have to bring them to Community Development Staff. Ms. Langon said that was correct, to the Community Development Department. Ms. Krieger asked Staff if they had spoken to the City Attorney, since there wasn't a definition and rooming houses don 't fit the group that they were put in, if that makes an y rooming houses legal that were put into effect before the moratorium . Ms. Langon stated that was based on this process that it was determined that this amendment should change the category they were in , but under the category that they were in they would ha v e been allowed in that zone district. Mr. Welker asked what zone district. Ms . Langon said all districts. Mr. Welker said b ecause boarding houses were under group home and that was allowed in any residential district. Ms. Langon stated that was correct. He said they would be legal in an R-1 district. Ms . Langon said that was correct, in all the R-1 's as long as it was a small group living facility . Chair Bleile asked if there were any more questions. There were none . Mr. Welker moved: Ms. Krieger seconded: THE PUBLIC HEARING ON CASE #2008-06 BE CLOSED AYES: NAYS : Bleile, Brick, Knoth , Roth, Welker, King, Krieger, Calonder None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Fish Motion carried . Mr. Welker moved : Mr. Knoth seconded: CASE #2008 -06, BOARDING AND ROOMI N G HOUSE AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 16: UNIFIED DEVELOPMEN T CODE OF THE ENGLEWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE, BE RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL TO CITY COUNCIL WITH A FAVORABLE RE COMMENDATION FOR ADOPTION . • • • Planning and Zoning Commission Public Hearing Case# USE2008-009 , 2008-06, 2007-10 July 22, 2008 Page 15 of21 Mr. Brick moved: Mr. Welker seconded: Amended motion to exclude all R-1 Zone Districts from grandfathering provisions of the boarding and roomin g house amendments to the UDC. Mr. Knoth asked if this opens up the City to be sued for this situation. Mr. Brick said if you are asking me, let them sue us and let the judge make the decision. Ms. Krieger said she agreed that they should not be in R-1 districts and regrets she was on the Commission that voted to approve that. It's a taking, they had a right and you are taking it awa y from th em and any judge would rule in their favor in my opinion because they had that right and yo u took it away from them and they have a right to be compensated for that. She said as she sees it, unfortunately, those are the facts whether we like it or not. Mr. Welker said he agreed with that but also thinks that since the Planning Commission is primarily looking at land use and the kinds of things that should be in the Code he believes they should not b e in R-1 , that they were never intended to be in R-1 and it was an oversight. He would let City Council and the attorneys work out the issues of taking rather than ha v ing the Commis sion try to deal with it. From his point of view he does not want boarding houses in R-1 . Mr. Calonder asked what would happen to the existing homes if the Commission amended it to say that they could no longer be a boarding house . Does it just become a condemned home or is there value to reselling it. Ms. Krieger said it could still be a single famil y home, that's what it is supposed to be. Mr. Bleile asked if this particular boarding house a primary residence for the owners. Ms. Krieger said it is, but that is immaterial. Motion on amendment. Passed 6-2 Knoth, Bleile -Nay Ms . Krieger moved; Mr. Brick seconded: Amend motion to a maximum of 5 bedrooms 111 a boarding and rooming house. The Commission questioned how this issue could be addressed. Ms. Langon suggested that could be one of the use specific standards rather than within the definition . Mr. Calonder asked if a bedroom and guest room are one and the same. Ms. Reid said th e re is no definition for bedroom in Title 16, but there are restrictions on bedrooms in the Building Code and the Uniform Property Maintenance Code . There are provisions that state a bedroom must have a certain number of square feet per person . The Commission discussed limiting total household occupancy. Chair Bleile said he didn 't f ee l the Commission should be limiting the number of people that can live in a house. Ms. Krieger said this would only be in a rooming house situation. Mr. Brick asked Staff and legal if there is currently a maximum number allowed in a home. Ms. Reid stated there is a maximum occupancy per square footage under the building and housing codes . Ms. Reid said under the International Property Maintenance Code it states 70 square feet for the first occupant and 50 square feet for each additional occupant in a bedroom. She suggested th e Commission limit the number of boarders instead of guestrooms. • • • Planning and Zoning Commission Public Hearing Case# USE2008-009 , 2008-06 , 2007-10 Jul y 22 , 2008 Page 16 of21 Ms. Krieger withdrew motion. Mr. Brick moved; Mr. King seconded: Vote on second amendment. Amend motion to a maximum of 4 boarders per boarding and rooming house as a use specific standard . Motion passes. 5-3 Calonder, Knoth, Bleile -Nay Chair Bleile had one other discussion point for clarification . Under approval procedures on page 4 it says there is Permitted Use, Limited Use and Conditional Use. The question was posed earlier does a Conditional Use process come before Planning and Zoning. He said he believed the answer earlier was no. The Commissioners stated it does . Ms. Krieger said the yearly review does not come before the Commission; it is just an administrative review . Ms. Krieger said she would like to address the issue of advertising that was brought up in testimony. Obviously, no business can run without advertising. If you can 't have a sign and you can't advertise anywhere how in the world would anyone ever know, except by word of mouth, that you have a boarding house. She said she believes that is an unreasonable request. Chair Bleile agreed. Mr. Welker said he thought it would be unenforceable. Ms. Reid noted the zoning code applies only to what you can do on the property. Chair Bleile said one more issue brought up by the public was the variance process. If this is approved can somebody ask for a variance to xyz criteria or does it have to be a variance for the whole ordinance. Ms. Reid said you cannot get a use variance under Title 16. Discussion on original amended motion . Chair Bleile said he can see both sides of the situation . The question asked is what would I do in their shoes. I think it's a tough situation and don't feel it is appropriate for the Commission to revoke the grandfathering clause for the simple fact that at some point in 2004 there was an oversight and now we're sa y ing somebody has invested time and a substantial amount of money, and granted it's against a lot of folk's wishes, but now we're saying too bad. I think that is a taking no matter what. At the end of the day it comes down to we are going to recommend removing the owner's current rights. He stated he believes that is wrong. He said he feels that puts the entire Ordinance in jeopardy. Mr. Calonder said that by adding the second amendment it puts my vote on the fence as well. Mr. Knoth said he agreed with Chair Bleile in regards to removing the grandfathering clause. He said he doesn't believe the Commission is looking out for the best rights for the City as a whole. Mr. Roth disagreed. He said it should be fairly well known that R-1 districts are intended for single family dwellings. The Commission's consideration is should the use be in that district and no it should not, regardless of what is going on in the field right now. We should consider what is right for the district and for the City, whether we are stepping on one individual's toes at this point. Chair Bleile said he • • • Planning and Zoning Commission Public Hearing Case# USE2008-009 , 2008-06, 2007-10 Jul y 22 , 2008 Page 17 of21 would challenge that the only reason this is before the Commission is stepping on one person's toes. Mr. Welker said he recognized that too, but said he fully expects for City Council to reverse the taking amendment. Mr. Bleile said we can 't assume what City Council will do. Ms . Krieger said the Commission's role in government is to weigh th e good of the man y against the good of the few. If you have boarding houses in R-1 neighborhoods you are impacting a lot of people. Vote on original amended motion . Mr. Brick said he believes this amendment doesn 't promote the general welfare of not onl y R-1 but R-2 and MU-R-3 districts. He said he doesn't think anyone wants a boarding house near them. It invites poverty and illegal immigration. The taking issue is open to question in both the UDC and Roadmap 2003. It harms the cleanliness and orderliness of those neighborhoods. Having said that, I think Staff has done a great job looking at what the requirements are going to be. He said he is very reluctant to vote yes, but feels there has been good work done here to limit those areas where we don't want them and to make sure that the boarding houses that come in are legitimate businesses and not flop houses . He said he would remind everyone in the audience that this will go to City Council and you need to be sure you show up there if you have issues. Ms . Krieger said she disagreed with Mr. Brick . She believes this does feed into the Comprehensive Plan in that we do need a variety of housing and this is just one option . AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Brick, Roth, Welker, King, Krieger Bleile, Knoth, Calonder None Fish Motion carried. 5-3 A five minute recess was called . Chair Bleile called the meeting to order stating all Commissioners present prior to the recess were still in attendance. CASE #2007-10 Housekeeping Amendments to Title 16 Ms. Krieger moved: Mr. Calonder seconded: THE PUBLIC HEARING ON CASE #2007-10 BE OPENED AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Bleile, Brick, Knoth, Roth , Welker, King, Krieger, Calonder None None Fish • • • Plannin g and Zoning Commission Public Hearing Case # USE200 8-009 , 2008-06, 2007-10 Jul y 22, 2008 Page 18 of21 Motion carried. Tricia Langon, Senior Planner, was sworn in. She stated she had alread y submitted for th e record proof of publication that this public hearing has been published in the Englewood Herald on Jul y 4 , 2008 and the Staff Report. The Department is requestin g that th e Commission review, take public testimon y and forward to City Council a recommendation for approval of the proposed housekeeping amendments. The UDC was adopted in 2004 and it was the first comprehensive update of th e zo nin g reg ulations since 1985 . It reformatted the code and there were numerous ne w zoning reg ulation s added at that time. The document was som e 300 pages. We kn ew that it wo uld not be exac t and that there would be errors and oversights with such a larg e document. In 2006 the first housekeeping amendments were proposed and approved. Because th e zoning regulations are not static regulations, they change to keep current wi th planning and community needs, there needs to be occasional amendments and th at is what th is proposed housekeeping amendment will do. It does focus on r elativel y small is su es that would not typically require a full hearing based on each individual issu e. She referenced Ex hibit A in the meeting packet that summarizes the total 91 am e ndments. The y have been grouped into fi ve categories : 1. Consistent language (18 ). This 1s so the document uses th e same t e rm s throu g hout the code. 2. Clarification (29 ). This is generally additional language to mak e th e te xt clearer or to reduce confusion . 3. Simplification (34). This makes the code ea sier to use or understa nd . 4. Ty pe/Correction (8). This is to correct mistak es and t o add omitted references to the charts . 5. Other (2). This adds t ex t to the document. Ms. Langon said she had one additional proposed amendment that was not included in th e Study Session . She distributed a copy to each Commissioner. The additional proposed amendment to the housekeeping amendments is to 16-10-1 : Enforcement. It wo uld add subsection C. that reads : Enforcem ent: Unless specifically called out in Title 16, en fo rcem ent of zon in g violations shall follo w th e abatement procedure specified in Sectio n 15-3-2 Englewood Municipal Code . The reason this is being added is within the zoning ordinance there is no place th at actuall y sa ys what the procedure is for abating violations . Title 15 is a nuisance ordinance that Code • • • Planning and Zoning Commi ssion Publi c Hearing Case# USE2008-009, 2008-06, 2007-10 Jul y 22 , 2008 Page 19 of21 Enforcement officers use to handle weeds, abandoned vehicles and all t y pe of nui sa nces . The y have a procedure and we are mimicking that procedure rather than comin g up wi th a separate procedure just for zoning . She offered to answer an y questions. Mr. Brick asked wh y the hookah bar was included in the houseke epin g am e ndm e nt s. Ms. Langon said the hookah issue was considered a use not mentioned an d th e UD C all ow s p e riodic amendments . Rather than going through a public hearing for on e use it was included to expedite and also use time efficiently. Mr. Welker had a question in Table 16-5-1 .1 under Other Accessor y Use s. H e wa nt ed t o know why we are not including Wholesale sales and distribution as an accessory u se in 1-1 and 1-2 as well. Ms. Langon said because wholesale is already a principal use in 1-1 an d 1-2 under the "Commercial Use " category . Chair Bleile asked if there were any other questions or comments. There w ere none . Ms . Krieger moved : Mr. Calonder seconded: THE PUBLIC HEARING ON CASE #2 00 7-10 BE CLOSED AYES : NAYS : Bleile, Brick, Knoth, Roth, Welker, King, Krieger, Calond e r None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Fish Motion carried. Mr. Knoth moved: Mr. Calonder seconded: CASE #2007-7 0, HOUSEKEEPING AME N DME N TS TO TITLE 7 6 : UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE OF THE EN GLE W OOD MUN ICIPAL CODE WITH THE ADDITIO N OF 76-70-7 : ENFORCEME N T SECTION C., BE RECOM M EN DED FOR APPROVAL TO CITY COUNCIL WITH A FAVO RA BLE RECOMMENDATION FOR ADOPTIO N. Mr. Roth said he was still having a problem with the 24 inch encroachment into th e bul k plane . The solar angle rises above that bulk plane during the mid-day hours for almost si x months of the year which means during those hours that eave is going to b e th e predominant shading device . Mr. Welker said the shadow cast by that lo w of line is ve ry low on the property and seldom would restrict where someone would put a solar panel on their roof. Mr. Roth said it does affect other things such as gardening. He said he is opposed to adding that 24 inch encroachment. Mr. Brick asked Mr. Roth if he would lik e to • • • Pl anning and Z oning Commission Publi c Hearing C ase# USE2008-009 , 2008-06 , 2007 -10 J uly 22, 2008 P age 20 of2 1 have this issued dropped from the housekeeping and maybe ask for an agenda item t o discuss. Mr. Roth said no, he just felt it was an item that needed to be discuss ed. Discu ss io n ensued. Mr. King explained that on a two-story house you would not be able to have a fi ve foot setback as y ou would not be able to put the house within the bulk plan e. He said t o give you some perspective, with nine foot ceilings on the first floor and eight foot ce ilings on th e sec ond floor you are eight and a half feet off the property line to sta y w ithin t he bulk plane . Mr. Welker said that is pretty much th e standard condition in most cities and f ee ls it is a reasonable request. Ms. Krieger said she would like to have it on record the reason the Commiss io n is not di sc ussing these amendments in more depth individually is that we have discussed th em so much in Stud y Sessions individually and examined them fully and feel like we all have a good understanding of what is involved in these. Eve n though there are 91 amendments we are all familiar with every single one of them and have gone through them indi v iduall y more than once. AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN : ABSENT: Bleile, Brick, Knoth, Roth , Welker, King, Calonder, Krieger None None Fish Motion carried . IV. PUBLIC FORUM There was no public present. V. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE Director was not present. VI. STAFF'S CHOICE Ms. Langon passed out the mid-y ear attendance record for the Commissioners t o re v ie w. It is sent to Council twice a year. A letter was received from Mr. Lester M y ers stating he has resign ed from th e Commi ssio n. It went to Council last evening and his resignation was accepted. The August 51h Stud y Session discussion will be on the Medical District Small Area Plan . On August 19 1 " we will start the landscape ordinance discussions . • • • . ~ Planning and Zoning Commission Public Hearing Case # USE2008-009 , 2008-06 , 2007-10 Jul y 22, 2008 Page 21 of21 Last night Council approved the lot width for the multi-unit districts. It will go into effect on August 25th. Today was the topping out celebration of the Terraces on Pennsylvania, the Housing Authority's senior housing project. They expect to be completed in December. VII. A ITORNEY'S CHOICE Ms . Reid said she is amazed at the effort and articulation everyone brings to this board and these discussions. She said she does know that Council reads the Minutes and Findings carefully and it does give a good basis upon which to make their decisions . VIII. COMMISSIONER'S CHOICE Mr. Bleile apologized for his lack of attendance this year and it will not be indicati v e of future performance. He said he enjoyed the discussion tonight. Mr. Brick said he would like to say he really respects everyone on the Commission. Ms. Krieger said she wanted to go on record saying that even though we have no public here, that it was an oversight on our part allowing the boarding house to get through and obviously, there are people in this community that feel really strongly that boarding houses should not have been in the R-1 district. We need public input and more people pa y ing attention to what is going on and watching what we are doing. We need more than just us looking at these things trying to go through a 300 page document. It's a lot of work, we did it. It would be really wonderful if more members of the community did that also . It would certainly help us with some things that sometimes we don't think through as carefull y as we might have or details that we overlook. We need more public involvement. The meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m . Barbara Krecklow Recording Secretary